19916mehmet demİrezen

8/3/2019 19916MEHMET DEMREZEN

1/7

Hacettepe ni ver si tesi Ej t l t lm Fak l tesi Der gisi19911 Sa i: 61 181-187

PRAGMATICS AND LANGUAGE TEACHINGPr of. Dr . M ehm et DEM REZEN (* )

Introduct ion:Since Pragmat ics is a theory of language per formance and language understan-d ing, i t i nescapab l y. over l aps wi th many neighbor ing areas o f l i ngu i st i cs. Amongthese related areas. there are pedagogica1l inguist ics and educat ionall inguist ics thataredir ect ly related with languagelearning and teaching. In language teaehing, sociali n teract i on i s very impor tan t because i t i s most l y cu l tu ra y based , govern ing oorchoice of language. In th is ar t i cle, thec lpse relat ionship between pragmat ics, whichis another re1atedarea of l inguist i cs, and language teaching, wi l l be taken up.and theresul ts of such a benefic ial conneetion wi l l be analysed.THE ESSEN CE OF PRAGMATI CS

Pragmat i cs i s dermed as the study o f the mean ing o f l anguage u t terances wi threspect to thei r contex ts. in them nke-upof meaningthereare many bundtesof featu-r es because we fo ow a gr eat number o f soci al r u les whi ch const r ai n t t he way wespeak sincecertain pragmatic factors always inf luenceoor select ioo of sounds, voca-bulary i tems. and other grammat ical const ruct ions. Pragmat ics p laces emphasis onreal language use. which necessi tates the codi fi cat ion of the fu range of funct ionso f l anguage in social con tex ts. That 's why i t over l aps wi th many o ther neighbor i ngar eas of l in gu ist ies. T hu s, t hi s case boi ls d own t o t he r eal isat ion of t he f act t hatPragmaties unearthshow far the soica1and si tuat ional eontexts affect understandingo f l anguage and i t s use. I n addi t ion, i t expounds t he p r agmat i c mean i ng, whi eh i sthe grasp o f mean ing f rom thear ray o f sen tenees in theeon tex t. j ust l i ke theNat i o-nal -funet i onal approach t r i es to do, bu t wh ich can be unear thed onl y by pragmat i csand its techniques.

THE COMPONENTS OF PRAGMA TIC S IN LANGUAGETEACHINGI n the f i el d o f l anguage waeh ing, p ragmat i cs most no t be confosed wi th seman-t ies. Seman ti cs i s a st ud y of mean in g whi eh d ir ect ly d epends on t he mean in g ofwords and l i ngu i st i c const ruct i ons themsel ves, wheteas pragmat i cs hand les the

( * ) Hacct lep c ni ver ai leSi Hak im Fakl leSi , Ot r et im yesi .

281

----


2/7

meaning of ut terancesthat come from thecontexL themselves. So pragmat ics is onestep ahead of semant ics. Theyare complementary to each other , the job of pragma-t i cs st ar t sout at t hepo in t wher e seman t ics ends up. I n t he f i el d o f l anguage teac-h ing, p ragmat i cs has impor tan t componen ts, p ragmal i ngu i st i cs, psycboprag-m atics, and sociopr agm atics. The analysis of these three ar eas yield tovaluable insight to language teaching.TH E FUNCTI ON OF PRAGRMALI NGUI STICS

. The combi nationof grammarwit bpr agmati cshasproducedanareaof studycal-100 pragmal inguist ics. Pragmal inguist ies produces pract ical explanat ions on gram-mar , and t r i es to f i nd tbe most su i tab le and pract i cal st r uctu res for u t teranees in alanguage for teaching purposes. I t is also a sub-branehof appl ied l inguist ics becausei t t r i es to develop and recommend tbebest metbod o f use in a language. So , p ragra-l i ngu i st i es p resen ts metbods and tbeor i es to be app li ed in l anguage teach ing, anddeser i bes how we must use t bem i n a l anguage i n a co rr ect way . I t has al so shown agood explanat ionof deix is.

TH E FUNCTI ON OF SOCI OPRAGMATI CSSociopragmaticsis concernedwitb the languageleaming and acquisi t ion of chi ld-

ren and non-nat ive leamers of foreign languages. I t works wi tb in format ional sourceand shows how tbi s i n fo rmat i on can be p r aet i eal ly and ef fect i vel y u i il ized . I t al sobr ings tbeor ies, approaches, and pr inciples to tbe language teaching area. I t searcheshow to p r epar e, o rgan i se o r set a l esson p lan . A lso , i t p r ov ides t be ways o f mak i nga lesson or a course design to be memorable, product iveeasi l y learnable, understan-dab le. Then , i t cont r i bu tes to metbolodogy . In add it i on , i t p rov ides imp l i cat i ons,testable background, and ver i f icat ion to mater ial development in language teachingeourses.TH E FUNCTI ON OF SOCI OPRAGMATI CSTh is i s a recombinat i on o f socio li ngu i st i cs w i th p ragmat i cs. I t studies the localcondi tionson language use, being a socio lg ical in ter face of pragmat ies. I t unear tbsthe cul ture-speci f i c baekground of language leaming. I t emphasises how physicalset t ing is impor tant in a teaching process of foreign languages. We must rememberh er e t be wor ds of B. Mal in owsk y: mean in g i s n ot a p assi ye con templ at ion ofthougbt but a clear -cut reference to a given cul ture, because each word is created bythat society to meet i t s societal needs in a speci f i c con ten l . W ords come in to beingthroughtbe need-fl l ing motive of each language.Sociopragmatics also entai ls the assignment of var ied values to tbepr i nciples andmax ims used i n a l anguage. Mo reover , i t deal s w it b t be gr oup acqui si t ion o f a l an -guage (sometb ing l i ke Communi ty Language Learn ing, Total Physical Response,ete) . I t i s alsa concerned wi tb thecommurucat iveuse of language in d i f ferent social

282

--


3/7

si tuat ions.I n addi t ion, i t c lar i f ies thebasic featuresand di f f icult ies of the Speech ActTheory of pragmat ics and expounds the social d i f fuci l t ies encountered in the act ofsp eech . I n a way, i t sh ows t he ways of b est ow in g t he wor ds i n~ t hei r mean in gf ulset t ings so that words and thei r related associat ions f i t in to each other . Then, i t f i lsin the gap where thegrammat ical ru les fai t to explain thespeech acts.

Cont rast i ve Pragmat i cs, on the o ther hand , i s o f great use to unso lve the cross~cul tural problems that give hard t imesto languageleamers and teachers. Contrast ivepragmat i cs i s h igh l y, poten t i al to p rov ide benef i ci al i n fo rmat i on at the junct i onswhere in the grammat ical ru les fal l shor t to clear thes i tuat ions. Cul tural values, set -t i ng, and manner i sms.come in to remove th i s type o f dead-ends in l anguage teac-h ing. Thus, sociopragmat ics, by nature, explains how, through our communicat ivecompetence, we use l inguist i c features to make successfu l pragmat ic matches bet-weentheutterancesndverbalbehavior. .

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRAGMATICS TO LANGUAGETEACHING AREAIn th i s respect , one o f the major con tr i bu t i onso f p ragmat i cs has been to d i r eetat ten t i on once again to actual l anguage use, wh ich was negleeted by Chomsky 's

Transformat ional Generat ive Grammar (TGG hencefor tb) . That is why pragmat icswas set up t o answer t he shor t -com ings o f TGG in whi ch t he commun i cat i ve com-petence of a speaker is not very impor tant than thecomunicat ive per formance. Be-cause in TGG thenat ive speaker knows thegrammat ical i ty of the sentences, can de-teet amb igu i r , anomaly, synonymy of sen tences,u he can u t ter an in f n i te numberof sentences: i t i s very elear that TGG deals much morewi th communicat ivecompe-tence.I n a detai led and syst emat i c at tack on TGG, John W. Ol ler has quest i oned " the

val idi ty and usefulness of such concepts as competence, deep structuresand surfacestructures,and offered pragmaticsas an al ternat iyeto TGG because i t plaeed empha-sis on real language use. He wanted to see thenot ion of deep st ructurere- in terpretedas meanings,r elation between situational settin gs (referents,actions, events, abstractconcepts, ete.) and l inguist ic forms rather than relat ions between sentences and un-der l yi ng sen tences" (H.H. Stern , 1984: 177) . Chomsky's basi c assumpt ion i s thatl anguage i s a sel f contai ned system. 'Inborn ideas' const i t ute the basi c ground forlanguage leaming. "But thereis no discoverable relat ion between deep structuresandsi tuat ional set t ing. On th isbasis that I have proposed a pragmat ic theory of langua-ge as an al ternat iyeto Chomsky's TransformationalGenerat ive Grammar Approach"John W. Ol l er , 1973: 47) . Here the innate i deas look l i ke thepr i nci p les o f associa-t ion and general i sat ion const ructed into a complex sensory mechanism and an abs-t ract memory space." I t i s because of there lat ion which l inguist i c forms to ext ral in-gu i st i c set t i ngs that Wi l l iam Jan ies spoke o f the' cash value o f words'. Th is value i s

283

n_____


4/7

set by theru les o f usage wh ich govem what people say in o rder to convey mean ing"( John W . OI ler , 1973: '47) . T hen , t hi s t yp e of p ragmat ic at ti tu de r eact s agai nstChomsk ian generat i ye grammar where in the ideal nat i ve speaker -hearer i s no t aspeak i ng subj ect but a m i nd ( bom w it h a compu ter i n t hehead ) t hat i den t if ies w it hthe neurobiological structureof the brain.PRAGMA TlS AND SOME OTHER RELA TED AREASI t i s impor t an t t o use t he l anguage cr eat i vel y and co rr ect ly, t o use wor ds sen -tences in both mean ingfu l and st ructu ral set t i ngs. To ach ieve th i sa im, p ragmat i cswor k s w it h App li ed L ingu i st i cs i n i n l anguage teach ing ar ea. I t supp li es cer t ai ntheor ies, suggests the ways o f p ract i cal usage in thec lassroom: so i t i s both a gu ide

and a safequard to languageteaching sincei t helpsi n reforming and impr ovingclass-room practices of language teachers.Since pragmat i cs i s a study o f l anguage use and con tex t , thewr i t i ng o f p ract i calgr ammar s i s v iv if ied t hr ough r eal l anguage use. I t answer s such quest i ons l ik e,wh ich type o f exerci ses wou ld be appropr i ate to grammati cal d r i ll s, at wh ich level sshou ld t hey be p r epar ed? Then i t i s v er y obv ious.t hat p r agmat i cs by natur e i s t hereal background for thep edagogical gramm ars.Pragmat ics also st resses the impor tance of courses on speak ing foreign langua-ges. Then the studentsshould lake par t in class to develop his communicat ive com-petence. So, "pragmat ics def ines thegoal of teaching a languageas inducing the stu-den t not merel y to man ipu late the maingn less sound sequenhces, bu t to send and .receive messages in the larget language. The necessary and suff icient means for ac-h iev ing th i sob ject i ve i s the invo lvement o f the studen t i n creat i ve commun icat i onin the larget language (John W. OI ler , 1973: 47-48) . This way pargmat ics can provi -de so lu t i ons to commun icat i on prob lems by search ing methodspr i nci p les for l an -

guage teaching to how do we teach to a leamer a language to communicate.We can see the pract ical resul tsof pragmaticson textbooksproduced on notional-funct ionall ines. The concept, known aspr esupposi t ion or conversat ional impl icatu-re, der ived f rom Phi losophy, has entered the EFI .. tex tbook. In such dialogues, con-versat ions foI low a predictab le format ; by f iHing in theblanks type of at t i tudespea-ker / hear er s' t ums ar e sel ect ed f r om a number o f commin l y used . t pes. By way o fpragmatic impl icatures, better control led dialogues can be deviced for conversat ionclasses. This is obviously a pragmatic analysis of dai ly , normal predictable languageusage.Accord ing to John W. OI ler , "Pragmat ics has def in i te impl icat ions for theor ies oflanguage leaming and methodsof Janguageteaching. With respeet to mater ial cons-truct ion,for instance, i t indicates the structuresselected should be presented in mea-n ingfu l cOntex tswhere oral sequences of events are observed. I t also ind icates that

284

-_. ~ --


5/7

pat tem dr i l l s should be designed so that instead of manipulat ingpurely abst ract ele-ments of a verbal ealcalus-usual ly apoint in syntax- .thestudent sho ld be using lan- 'guage in response to a paradigm of si tuat ions instead of concentrat ing on the wordscom ing out o f h is mouth, he shou ld be thi nki ngabou t h i s i deas i n h i s head he w is-hes to eommunicate" (John W. Ol ler , 1973: 47-48) .

The di f ferenciat ion madebetween semantiesand pragmatic factors establ ishes anatur al basi s f or t he expl anat i on o f same o f t he d i ff ieu lt i es i n t r ansl at i ons." Fo rmany o f the d i ff i eu l ti es wh ieh undoub ted i ydo ar i se in t r anslat i ng f r om language tolanguage, part ieular ly when eul turesarein volved are widely divergent, wi l l no neces-sar i l y af feet the universal status of semant ie components, sinee these di f f ieu1t iesmay be explai ned at the level o f p ragmat i es,no t by the fo rmal mechan i sm of seman-t i c t heo ry " (Ruht M . Kempson, 1977: 101)In general , discourse analysis rules in expressing pol i teness; greet ings, and otherverbal behav ior , and al l o f wh ieh i s o f poten t i al i nput for the language leamer to seethe di f ferenees in the target language. For example, when German and Engl ish lan-guages are compared i t has been discovered that German speakersi n making requestsand eomplain ts sign i f ieant ly behave more di rect l y , and are ~ss pol ite than the Eng-

l i sh ones. I n f aet , among the Eu r opean l anguages i L i s t he Engl i sh l anguage thatuses that uses the word p lease, as an expressian o f k i ndness and respeet , the mostfrequently in speech. " textual eonvent ionssimi lar ly vary in di f ferent languages: wr l t-ten Arabie, for instance, makes l l t t le i f any dist inet ion between senLeneesand parag-rahps, and punetutat ion convent ions, therefore, di f fer eonsiderably between Arabicand Engl ish (Micheal Stubbs, 1988: 38) .In terms o f Appl i ed Pragmat i cs, i t i s ver y obv ious that p ragmat i es has praet i ealand potent ial appl ieat ions to al l f ields wi th a stock in how ut terancesare decoded and

then underskoad by language usersand leamers. Being in close eantact wi th diseour-se analysis, such f ields alsa includethe study of rhetor leand l iLerature.I t i s becauseof t hi s i ncl i nat ion of p ragmat ies t hat t hi s f iel d or st ud y i s k nown t he p robl em -solving area of l inguist ies.Pragmaties, by natureand by defniti on, preaches praetieaHty,applieatabil i ty, andusefu1ness to the purpose. For th is reason iLhas a h igh poten t i al i Ly to east l i gh t ona prematureaceeptanceand applieationof untestedeoneeptsand theorlesof sociol in-guist ies, pedagogieal l inguist ies, language planning, nat ionwide eurr ieulum designto edueat ional praet ices. For in tanee, around 1988s, Turk ish Min ist ry of Educat ionhad favored theBasamak l Kur typeo f l anguage teaeh ing design for the secondaryschoals and high schoals of Turkey , yet th ispract iee was not t r ied by the technical i -t i es o f p ragmat i es, nei ther was there a p i lo t- app li eat i on o f i t . The resu l t o f th i sna-t ionwide appl ieat ion of Basamak l Kur was a great f aseo, and sa many studentssuf -fered f rom th is inadequateef f ieieney of theuntested methodology. So, i t i s elear that

285

-- -----


6/7

pragmat ics is an integral par t o f educat ional I inguist i cs as wel l . Here, then, pragma-t i cs has a task to point out the l imi tat ionsof cur rent approaches, language teachingtheor ies, and demonstrateand i l luminate the empir i ca1basis for the working catego-r ies, techniqtes,and methodsut i l ized and pract isedat all levels of teaching.

CONSLUSIONThe contr ibut ion of pragmat ics to language teaching is, thus, undeniab le. Prag-mat ics, in essence, is a study of language and language teaching f rom thefunet ionalperspect ive; that is, the performancepr inciples of languageare pract ised. I t is becau-se of thisr eason thatpragmatics becomesa theory of I inguist icper formanceand lan-

guage undersanding. A clear case of su( ; an explanat i on i s seen in theanal ysi s o ft he "cash val ue of wor ds", whi ch i s est ab li sh ed b y t he r ul es of u sage. T he "cashvalue o f words" i s no t onl y dependen t on usage bu t al so on d i fferen t regi ster so f l an -guage such as si tuat ional set ings, co l loquial usage, jargons and others that heav i l ydepend on contex t. I n addi t ion, when the " cash val ue o f wor ds" ar e added up to t hewor ds as an ex tr a bor den , t he r u les o f usage. cannot be easi l y so lv ed by t he hel ptaken f rom pragmat i cs, wh ich invest i gates thecases o f mean ing in the widest pos-si b le sense. i t must be bom in mind that Speech Act Theory o f p ragmat i cs has beenvery f r u it f ul i n explai n i ng thea t ti t udeso f l anguage users to ar r i ve at thedeep st ruc-tu reo f themean ingo f words.Pragmal inguist ics, psychopragmatics, and sociopragmatics produce highly va-luable mater ial for language teachers to promote their langage teaching act ivi t ies bypractical and appIicabletechniques,m ethods,and approaches.They also show benefi-ci al d i r eet i ons in reformingand improv ing the classroom pract i ce. They even helpthe speech pathologists to advance the cases of brain-damaged patients. So, pragma-t i cs has taken down ~e bar r i er sbetween language and language product i on . I t has

al so prepared the co ll apse o f the TGG grammar wh ich abst racted the ideal nat i vespeaker/hearer by receiv ing help from text l inguist ics and discoorse analysis which,too, refused the l imi tat i ton of l inguist i cs to sentence grammar .

Bibliography

A i t chson , Jean . 1987. L ingu i st i cs. Ken t : Hodder and Stough ton L td.Crystal , David. 1987. The Cam br idge Encyclopedia ol Language. NewYork: Cambr idge Universi ty Press.Dascal , M ar celo. 1983. Pr agm ati cs and t he St udy of M in d.. i . Amster dam :John Benjamins Publ ishing Company.

286


7/7

Kempson, Ru th M . 1977. Seman t ic Theo ry. Cambr idge Un iver si t y Pr ess.Leech , Geof fr ey. N . 1983. Pr in ci pl es of Pr agmat ics. New Yor k: Longman .Lev inson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmat ics. Cambr idge: Cambr idge Universi ty Press.Lyon s, John . 1981. Lan gu age an d Li ngu ist ics. Cambr id ge: Cambr id ge Uni -versity Press.May, Jacop. 1985. Wbose Language:' A Study on Linguistk Pragm a-t i cs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ ish ing Company.Mor r ish, Char les. 1970. The Pragmatk Movement in Amer ican Pbi lo-sophy. New York : George Brazi l ler .l ler , John W . and Perk ins, Kyle. 1973. Language in Educat ion: Test ing

, the Texts.: Rowley, Mass.: Nevbury'HousePublishers ll er , John W . 1973. "Some Psychol in gu ist ic Con tr over si es", i n Focu s on t heLearner : Pragm atk Perspect ives for the Language Teaeber , ed.by John l ler W. and Jack Richards, Mass. Newbury House Publ .Palm er , F.R. 1976. Sem antks: A New Outl ine. Cam br idge: Cam br idge

Uni . PressSt er n H .H . 1984. Fundam en tal Con cept s of Lan guage Teachin g. xfor d:xford Universi ty Press.St ubbs, M i cheal . 1988. Educu t ional L ingu ist i cs. New Yo rk : BasH Bl ackwel L.UUm ann, Stephen. 1972. Sem antics: An Intr oduct ion to tbe Science ofMean ing: xford : BasH Blackwel lWest , Fr ed . 1972. Seman ti cs: A n I nd rod uct ion . N ew Yor k: H ar cou rt Br aceJovanovich, Ine.Yu le, Goer ge. 1986. The St ud y of Lan gu age: A n I nt rod uct ion . Cambr idge:Cambr idge University Press.

287

-- -

19916mehmet demİrezen

Documents