Linguistics for ELT

Pre-Class assignments (Individual Task)

Answer the following questions:
1. Finds three definitions/concepts of Pragmatics from three different experts (at least from three
different books)

N Experts Definition of Indicators (key Conclusion

o Pragmatics concept)
1 (Bagha, 2009) The linguists who Kuno (1972) and while linguists like
define the topic to Dik (1978) are Kuno and Dik
be what the mentioned as primarily focus on
sentence is linguists who defining sentence
about, e.g. Kuno consider the notion topics as what the
(1972) and Dik of aboutness as sentence is about,
(1978), take this primitive.Philosoph philosophical studies,
notion of aboutness ical studies by exemplified by
as a primitive, Putnam (1958) and Putnam and
without attempting Goodman (1972) Goodman, delve more
to explain what it are referenced for deeply into the
means for a their focus on concept of aboutness,
sentence to be aboutness, defining albeit with a semantic
about (the referent it semantically. The emphasis. However,
of) one of its distinction is made these semantic
expressions. Much between linguistic definitions are deemed
more attention to and philosophical of limited relevance to
the question of approaches to the specific issue of
aboutness has been aboutness. sentence topics. On
paid in philo- the other hand,
sophical studies pragmatics, which
(e.g. Putnam studies the
(1958), Goodman relationship between
(1972)). However, language structure and
these studeis, its contextual usage,
which define offers insights into
aboutness implicit meaning,
semantically, are of inference, and the
little relevance to unsaid aspects of
the problem posed communication.
by sentence topics. Pragmatics has
2 (Geoffrey N. Leech, Pragmatics is the Definition of become integral to
1983) study of the pragmatics as the linguistic theory due
relation between study of the to its ability to explain
the structure of a relationship various linguistic
 semiotic system between the phenomena and
(notably structure of a address over-
language) and its semiotic system, idealization in
usage in context, particularly grammatical theories.
and, along with language, and its This definition of
semantics (see usage in context. pragmatics
Semantics), forms Mention of emphasizes the user of
part of the pragmatics as part language rather than
general theory of of the general the effects on the
the meaning. theory of meaning, audience or broader
Within the theory alongside social and cultural
of meaning, semantics. contexts, highlighting
pragmatics is Identification of the need for a
especially key concerns comprehensive
concerned with within pragmatics: understanding of
implicit meaning, implicit meaning, language use.
with inference and inference,
the unsaid, and the implicature, and
way in which the role of the
language unsaid.
structure trades on Recognition of
this background of pragmatics'
the presumed and significance within
the inferred. linguistic theory
Pragmatics has due to its intrinsic
come to play an subject matter,
important part in explanatory
general linguistic potential for
theory in part linguistic
because it has phenomena, and as
substantial intrinsic a response to over-
subject matter, idealization in
partly because it generative
promises grammar.
explanations for
other linguistic
phenomena, and
partly as a response
to over-idealization
in contemporary
grammatical theory
(see Generative
Grammar).
3 (Jucker, 2012) This definition of Critique of the
pragmatics focuses definition of
on the user of the pragmatics
 language. It provided in the
doesIlQ initial statement,
invoke the effects highlighting its
on the audience or focus on the user of
the larger social language but
and cultural conte* overlooking the
in which language effects on the
is used. Levinson audience and
(1983: 3) points out broader social and
that Carnap's cultural
definition of contexts.Reference
pragmatics le some to Levinson (1983:
scholars to adopt a 3) and his
very restricted observation
scope of regarding Carnap's
pragmatics, which \ definition of
Va basically pragmatics leading
reduced to to a narrow
considerations of interpretation.
deictic elelnents. Mention of
Elements, such as Carnap's view
I; wherein deictic
you, this, here, and elements (e.g., I,
so on, require for you, this, here) are
their interpretation central to
reference to the pragmatics due to
tise:t of these their contextual
expressions and, dependence.Introdu
therefore, fall ction of the concept
squarely under of contextualism,
Carnap's definition; contrasting it with
for whom the Carnap's
domain of perspective on
semantics is a pragmatics.
proper part of that
of pragmaticsiJ
opposite to current
contextualism.

2. Describe the history of Pragmatics!

The use of the term ‘pragmatics’ in modern semiotics derives from the philosophical work of
C.S. Peirce and R. Carnap, reflected in C. Morris’s (1938) three divisions of semiotics, the
study of sign systems: syntax, which investigates the relation of signs to signs, semantics,
which investigates the relation of signs to the things referred to, and pragmatics, which studies
the relation of signs to users of them. Since then, the usage of the term has bifurcated into a
broad use, which subsumes sociolinguistics (see Sociolinguistics) and discourse analysis (see
 conversation analysis, sociological, and discourse, anthropology of), and a narrower use
(associated especially with philosophy of language and approaches to the study of meaning
which derive from it) in which pragmatics deals with those aspects of meaning that are
systematically context-dependent. (Jucker, 2012)
3. Complete the following table with the definition, parameter (indicator), examples, analysis of
example, and conclusion of each term

N Concepts Definition indicators Examples Analysis Conclusi

o (taken from at of on (use
least2 sources) examples your
own
words)
1 Communicat communicative - Communicati - The analysis So
ive competence are ve improveme shows that communi
Competence intertwined, competence is nt of the cative
with pragmatic a social trait communicat learners’ compete
competence that exists ive pragmatic nce is in
focusing on the amongst competence competenc the
learner's ability people rather is a slow e nature of
to express his or than a process. is one of the social
her true personal trait - learners also the factors and
intentions, but (Savignon, cannot have that affect communi
communicative 1983)[14]. good the cation
competence - process of pragmatic communic process
focusing on communicati competence ative accordin
linguistic on, if it is out , thus competenc g to the
competence and of step with making e of cultural
strategic the cultural communicat second backgrou
competence background ive language nd, so
(Yang, of the competence learners this
2002)[6]. How speaker, the lower factor
to enable second affects
second language second
language language
learners to communi
better integrate cation.
their pragmatic
competence into
communication
is the focus of
our attention.
Communicative - grammatical - Socio Grammati
competence competence, cultural -
refers to a - sociolinguistc rules of cal
knowledge of competence use and competenc
the rules and the rules e refers to
for - strategic of speaker’s
understanding competence discourse knowledg
and producing - verbal and e of
both the nonverba morpholo
referential and - phonologi gical
the social cal rules and
meaning of as well as phonologi
language. syntactic cal rules
Canale & Swain lexical as well as
(1980) classifies knowledge syntactic
commu- . lexical
nicative knowledg
competence into e. So-
three types— ciolinguist
grammatical ic
competence, competenc
sociolinguistic e can be
competence and divided
strategic into two
competence. forms—
socio-
cultural
rules of
use and
the rules
of
discourse.
The
former
refers to
the rules
that
govern
how an
utterance
is
produced
and
interpreted
within a
certain
speech
communit
y; whereas
the latter
 deals with
the rules
of
cohesion
and
coherence.
Strategic
competenc
e can
be defined
as verbal
and
nonverbal
communic
ation
strategies.
2 Pragmatic Through - apologizing different These In
awareness awareness- in their first situations in activities awarenes
raising language the two are s-raising
activities, - second languages, designed activities,
students acquire language and how the to make students
information nature of the learners learn
about pragmatic relationship consciousl about the
aspects of between the y aware of pragmatic
language—for participants difference aspects of
instance, what affects the s between language,
strategies are use of the such as
used for apologies. native and apology
apologizing in target strategies
their first language in their
language (L1) speech first
language
and second acts. The
(L1) and
language rationale
second
(L2), what is for this
language
considered an approach
(L2), as
offence in their is
well as
culture that such difference
compared to the difference s in their
target s are often culture
culture, ignored by and the
learners target
and go culture.
unnoticed The aim
unless of these
they are activities
directly
 addressed is to
(Schmidt make
1993). students
aware of
the
difference
s
between
expressio
ns in their
native
language
and the
target
language.
This
approach
is
important
because
such
difference
s are
often
overlooke
d by
students
and go
unnoticed
unless
directly
addresse
d.
3 Pragmatic pragmatic - influence his When the L2 possess pragmatic
Transfer transfer is the or her learners can positive transfer
influence of the communicati successfully pragmatic refers to
learners’ on transfer the transfer how a
pragmatic - fact that rules and the that learner's
knowledge of pragmatic knowledge indicates knowledg
languages and competence from their their e of
cultures other in L1 and L2 mother understan languages
than L2 on their is tongue to be ding of the and
comprehension, characterized applied to intended cultures
production, and by some their target meaning other
acquisition of common rules language, of the than their
L2 pragmatic and they possess utterances second
information. knowledge positive within a language
 pragmatic given (L2)
transfer that context influences
indicates their
their understa
understandin nding and
g of the use of L2
intended pragmatic
meaning of informati
the on. This
utterances can
within a greatly
given impact
context. their
communi
Definitions of - pragma Sociopragma
cation.
generic transfer linguistic tic transfer
When
are transfer refers to
learners
characteristicall - sociopragmati transfer of
can
y vague because c transfer. knowledge
successful
they about the
ly apply
seek to social and rules and
encompass any cultural knowledg
kind of transfer norms that e from
(strategic, govern la- their
automatic) at nguage use native
any kind of in a given language
linguistic level. speech to the
Odlin, for community. target
instance, language,
acknowledges it shows
this in positive
commenting on pragmatic
his own transfer
proposal, viz. and
'Transfer is the indicates
influence their
resulting from understa
similarities and nding of
differences the
between the intended
target language meaning
and any other in a given
language that context.
has been
previously (and
perhaps
imperfectly)
 acquired' (1989,
p. 27)
4 Pragmatic Regarding the ragmatic - inappropriate Pragmalin a lack of
Failure lack of failures ly guistic complete
complete and proposed by transferred failures understa
appropriate Thomas (1983), from the occur nding of
knowledge of namely speaker’s when the social
the social rules pragmalinguisti mother pragmatic rules,
(pragmatic c failure and tongue. strategies known as
knowledge), the sociopragmatic - different are pragmatic
inability to failure cultural inappropri knowledg
understand what background ately e, can
is meant by transferred lead to
what is said from the pragmatic
which has speaker’s failure, as
grammatically mother highlighte
correct tongue to d by
Thomas
utterances may the
(1983).
lead to a target
This
pragmatic language
failure
failure socioprag
occurs
(Thomas, matic
when
1983). failure grammati
Pragmatic occurs cally
failure may when the correct
cause L2 learner utterance
great violates s are
misunderstandi pragmatic misunder
ng and set up norms stood due
barriers to a because to a
successful the mismatch
cross-cultural learners in
communication. do not pragmatic
know understa
what can nding.
be said to Such
whom in misunder
particular standings
situations can
because of create
the barriers
different to
cultural successful
backgroun cross-
d. cultural
learners often communi
cation.
fail to follow Thomas
the socio- categoriz
cultural rules es
that pragmatic
govern failures
language into two
behavior in the types:
English pragmalin
language. guistic
failure,
when
strategies
are
inappropr
iately
transferre
d from
the
speaker's
native
language,
and
socioprag
matic
failure,
when
learners
violate
pragmatic
norms
due to
differing
cultural
backgrou
nds. Both
types of
failure
underscor
e the
importan
ce of
acquiring
adequate
pragmatic
competen
ce for
effective
communi
 cation
across
cultures.

4. Find classification of communicative competences based on some experts

a. Pragmatic competence refers to knowledge of the socio-cultural rules that gover
language use. In this sense, communication as an interaction between speaker-meaning
and hearer-effect and is accomplished successfully when the speaker conveys his or her
attitude to the hearer. This attitude can be interpreted through pragmatic competence.
Pragmatic competence involves a complex set of inter-related factors both linguistic and
socio-cultural. Thus, pragmatic competence is very difficult for non-native speakers to
acquire. The two areas of pragmatic competence pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic
appear to be particularly difficult for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners.
(Erlinda, 2019)
b. Pragmatic competence consists of illocutionary competence, that is, knowledge of
speech acts and speech functions, and sociolinguistic competence. ‘Sociolinguistic
competence’ entails the ability to use language appropriately according to context. It
thus includes the ability to select communicative acts and appropriate strategies to
implement them depending on the contextual features of the situation. In Bachman’s
model, pragmatic competence is not subordinated to knowledge of grammar and text
organization but is coordinated to formal linguistic and textual knowledge and interacts
with ‘organizational competence’ in complex ways. (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005)
c. pragmatics as “the relationship between linguistic contexts and extralinguistic contexts.
It embraces the traditional subject matter of psycholinguistics and also that of
Sociolinguistics”. Oller goes on to say that “pragmatics is about how people
communicate information about acts and feelings to other people, or how they merely
express themselves and their feelings through the use of language...(p.19). Such a
definition of pragmatics is too wide in the sense that it fails to distinguish pragmatics
from many other disciplines interested in functional approaches to language, including
psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics.(Nouar, 1970)
1. Find research-based articles about Communicative competence, pragmatic awareness,
pragmatic transfer and pragmatic failures, read and review the articles, describe research
purpose/aim, methods, data and results/findings of the articles.
1) Communicative competence : (Nouar, 1970)
Purpose/aim : As a linguist and anthropologist, Hymes was concerned on the one hand
with linguistic theory, and on the other hand with the socio-cultural aspect of language.
Method :
Data and resut : One describes the relationship between the four components of language
proficiency: linguistic competence, communicative competence, linguistic performance,
communicative performance. The top part of the diagram indicates that both linguistic and
communicative competence are part of an overall language proficiency referred to in the
 text, as integration. The botton part of the diagram indicates that only performance
(linguistic and communicative performance) is observable and can be directly measured.
And it is through performance that we may infer levels of competence. view
communicative competence as the more general level which incorporates not only
pragmatic competence but also the areas of “discourse analysis”, “conversational
analysis”, “conversational interaction” and “ethnomethodological" studies. They point out
“any serious study of language use must go beyond the utterance level - what we have
called pragmatic competence - to the more general level of communicative competence
which embodies the areas mentioned above.”
2) Pragmatic awareness : (Saniei et al., 2015)
Purpose/aims : The purpose of the present study was to explore the effectiveness of
raising Iranian learners’ pragmatic awareness of intercultural rhetoric in enhancing their
L2 writing ability, complexity, and accuracy.
Method : They were assigned as one control and one experimental group and took a
validated, researcher-made pretest/posttest (with the reliability of 0.73) at the outset of the
study. The experimental group received the explicit instruction of the teacher on IR
followed by a task related to the content of the instruction while the control group’s
practice in writing was limited to doing the exercises in their course book without
receiving the explicit instruction on IR.
Data and result : The results indicated that pragmatic awareness of IR in writing was
significantly effective in improving the Iranian EFL learners' writing ability as well as the
accuracy of their written output. However, no significant influence of rhetorical awareness
raising on learners’ writing complexity was investigated in this study.
3) Pragmatic transfer : (Syahri & Kadarisman, 2015)
Purpose/aim : This study attempts to present the enactment of language learners speech
acts which specifies one type of the realizations, i.e. the acts of requesting. the study
focused on the acts realized by ILE who had good English proficiency
Method : There were two types of instruments used in collecting data. The first instrument
was the DCT questionnaires which consisted of a number of certain situations and were
followed by blank spaces on which the subjects were asked to provide an appropriate
linguistic form of requesting acts as though they were the speakers in real-life interactions
Data and result : the subjects of the research realized similar patterns of requests in the
sense of the dominant frequency in modifying their requests across the situations in the
DCT and scenarios in the role-plays. They tended to use external modification in their
requests, especially in conventionally indirect strategies. They supported their indirectness
by adding the head acts with supportive moves. They used grounders most frequently in
both the DCT and the role-plays as their supportive moves. They put their supportive
moves more frequently before the request acts than after, and also more frequently than
both before and after the head acts.
4) Pragmatic failure :(Hutauruk & Puspita, 2020)
 Porpuse/aims : This research aimed to investigate the possibilities of pragmatic failure
done by Indonesian EFL students through their translation. This study employed theories
by Thomas (1983) and Muir et al (2011) to answer the research question coming along
with the problem concerned.
Method : This research used a descriptive qualitative method in collecting the data. The
data were coming from students‟ performance in translating short dialogue texts which
contained idioms in them. The instrument given was two-way translation, English-
Indonesian, and vice versa.
Data and result : As the result, this study found that the respondents experienced
pragmatic failure in their performance which happened in several types, namely pragma-
linguistic failure and socio-pragmatic failure, both of which were found in all types of
texts given. It was also found that the failure that happened in English-Indonesian text was
higher in number compared to the other type of text in which in all the data found, the
failure in English –Indonesian text translation is 161 while in Indonesian-English text
translation is 139.

REFERENCES (use Mendeley)

Bagha, K. N. (2009). Generative Grammar (GG). Management and Labour Studies, 34(2), 291–304.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X0903400208
Erlinda, R. (2019). Introduction to English Pragmatics Applying Research-Based Learning Model.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(3),
199–208. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci039
Geoffrey N. Leech. (1983). Direct_Speech_Act_on_Lion_King_Movie_Scr.pdf.
Hutauruk, M., & Puspita, D. (2020). a Metapragmatic Analysis: a Study of Pragmatic Failure Found in
Indonesian Efl Students. Linguistics and Literature Journal, 1(2), 62–69.
https://doi.org/10.33365/llj.v1i2.589
Jucker, A. H. (2012). Pragmatics in the history of linguistic thought. The Cambridge Handbook of
Pragmatics, 495–512. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139022453.027
Nouar, Y. (1970). Linguistic competence , communicative competence , pragmatic competence and their
implications for foreign language teaching and testing. No.
Saniei, A., Birjandi, P., Abdollahzadeh, E., & Nemati, M. (2015). Raising EFL Learners’ Pragmatic
Awareness of Intercultural Rhetoric in Writing. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 34(1), 115–
143. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4f60ce4db15e47f1e1f94ef4c91079f350cc28cc
Syahri, I., & Kadarisman, A. E. (2015). Pragmatic Transfer in Request Realizations. TEFLIN Journal - A
Publication on the Teaching and Learning of English, 18(2), 123.
https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v18i2/123-147
Bagha, K. N. (2009). Generative Grammar (GG). Management and Labour Studies, 34(2), 291–304.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X0903400208
Erlinda, R. (2019). Introduction to English Pragmatics Applying Research-Based Learning Model.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(3),
199–208. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci039
Geoffrey N. Leech. (1983). Direct_Speech_Act_on_Lion_King_Movie_Scr.pdf.
Hutauruk, M., & Puspita, D. (2020). a Metapragmatic Analysis: a Study of Pragmatic Failure Found in
Indonesian Efl Students. Linguistics and Literature Journal, 1(2), 62–69.
https://doi.org/10.33365/llj.v1i2.589
Jucker, A. H. (2012). Pragmatics in the history of linguistic thought. The Cambridge Handbook of
Pragmatics, 495–512. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139022453.027
Nouar, Y. (1970). Linguistic competence , communicative competence , pragmatic competence and their
implications for foreign language teaching and testing. No.
Saniei, A., Birjandi, P., Abdollahzadeh, E., & Nemati, M. (2015). Raising EFL Learners’ Pragmatic
Awareness of Intercultural Rhetoric in Writing. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 34(1), 115–
143. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4f60ce4db15e47f1e1f94ef4c91079f350cc28cc
Syahri, I., & Kadarisman, A. E. (2015). Pragmatic Transfer in Request Realizations. TEFLIN Journal - A
Publication on the Teaching and Learning of English, 18(2), 123.
https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v18i2/123-147