To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Pragmatics. Linguistics.
Journal articles on the topic 'Pragmatics. Linguistics'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Pragmatics. Linguistics.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Mansur, Angga Aminullah. "Kontribusi Pragmatik dalam Penerjemahan: Peranan dan Fungsi Praktis." Diglossia: Jurnal Kajian Ilmiah Kebahasaan dan Kesusastraan 9, no. 2 (April 18, 2018): 97. http://dx.doi.org/10.26594/diglossia.v9i2.1140.
Full textAbstract:
Angga Aminullah MansurSTIBA Invada Cirebonqazkila246@gmail.com AbstrakMakalah ini memaparkan kontribusi pragmatik secara umum yang meliputi peranan dan fungsi praktis pragmatik dalam penerjemahan. Dari segi peranan, sebagai cabang ilmu linguistik, pragmatik berkontribusi besar sebagai sumber obyek kajian penerjemahan—yang salah satunya adalah tindak tutur. Dalam hal fungsi, pragmatik merupakan alat atau media yang dapat dipergunakan untuk menyelesaikan kendala-kendala pragmatis dalam penerjemahan serta sarana untuk mengasah kompetensi seorang penerjemah dalam menerjemahkan. Dalam makalah ini, dijelaskan pula mengenai kaitan antara pragmatik dan penerjemahan yang dijembatani oleh makna.Kata kunci: pragmatik, makna, kontribusi, penerjemahan AbstractThis paper presents pragmatics’s contribution to translation: its role and practical function. Based on its role, as one of linguistics branches, pragmatics has immensely contributed to the provision of the abundant objects of translation studies. From its practical function, pragmatics can be employed as an artifact to solve pragmatic constraints found in translation and as a medium for improving translator’s competence in translating. This paper also explains the co-relation between pragmatics and translation that is associated by meaning as their linking-bridge.Key words: pragmatics, meaning, contribution, translation
2
Hayashi, Takuo. "Cognitive pragmatics as an account of derivational machinery." East Asian Pragmatics 1, no. 2 (November 11, 2016): 231–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/eap.v1i2.31126.
Full textAbstract:
The aim of this article is to advocate ‘cognitive pragmatics’, an approach which incorporates the insights of cognitive linguistics. It comes under the school of the ‘perspective view’ of pragmatics, which seeks to reveal (for all functional aspects of linguistic phenomena) the reason why the speaker chooses particular expressions (at any linguistic level or unit) to ‘adapt to’ the communicative needs of the situation. The author discusses several of such studies in Japan to demonstrate how the pragmatic choice of various constructions reflects the general cognitive abilities and principles of human beings. The topics of the research discussed in this article concern inferential meaning, information flow, parallel construction, and politeness, which represent four main facets of pragmatics. It contends that cognitive pragmatics provides us with a systematic account of how the selection of particular structures are related to their pragmatic effects.
3
Ruthrof, Horst. "Principles of Corporeal Pragmatics." Public Journal of Semiotics 1, no. 2 (July 1, 2007): 12–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.37693/pjos.2007.1.8818.
Full textAbstract:
In response to recent findings in cognitive linguistics, the paper sums up the principles of ‘corporeal pragmatics’ as they have been developed so far. At the centre of the author’s perceptually oriented investigation of natural language stands the relation between natural language and perception. The paper charges the philosophy of language and linguistics with having for too long committed the sin of Wahrnehmungsvergessenheit, the forgetting of taking for ‘true’ what our senses tell us. The author proposes to redress this imbalance by an argument that linguistic meaning events rely essentially on the activation of empty linguistic schemata by conceptually regulated, iconic sign materials. Such a claim requires a redefinition of the Saussurean signified, the concept, reference and deixis and other terms in the vocabulary of the study of language. The paper concludes by suggesting that corporeal pragmatics has serious implications for disciplines well beyond philosophy, semiotics, and linguistics.
4
Kecskes, Istvan. "Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics-pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective." Intercultural Pragmatics 16, no. 5 (November 26, 2019): 489–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0026.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe semantic-pragmatic interface debate is about how much actual situational context the linguistic signs need in order for them to be meaningful in the communicative process. There is evidence that interlocutors in intercultural interactions rely more Some of the ideas in the paper are based on chapter six in Kecskes (2019). on the compositional meaning of linguistic signs (semantics) than contextually supported meaning (pragmatics) because actual situational context cannot help pragmatic implication and interpretation the way it does in L1 communication. At the same time in pragmatic theory there seems to be an agreement between the neo-Gricean account and the post-Gricean account on the fact that the process of implicature retrieval is context-dependent. But will this L1-based contextualism work in intercultural interactions? Is pragmatics impoverished if interlocutors can only partly rely on pragmatic enrichment coming from context and the target language? The paper argues that in fact pragmatics is invigorated rather than impoverished in intercultural communication. A new type of synchronic events-based pragmatics is co-constructed by interlocutors. Instead of relying on the existing conventions, norms and frames of the target language interlocutors create their own temporary frames, formulas and norms. There is pragmaticization of semantics which is a synchronic, (usually) one-off phenomenon in which coded meaning, sometimes without any specific pragmatic enrichment coming from the target language, obtains temporary pragmatic status. This pragmatic enrichment happens as a result of interlocutors’ blending their dictionary knowledge of the linguistic code (semantics) with their basic interpersonal communicative skills and sometimes unusual, not necessarily target language-based pragmatic strategies that suit them very well in their attempt to achieve their communicative goals.
5
Taavitsainen, Irma, and Andreas H. Jucker. "Twenty years of historical pragmatics." Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16, no. 1 (April 3, 2015): 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.01taa.
Full textAbstract:
This paper provides an outline of the changes in linguistics that gave rise to historical pragmatics in the 1990s and that have shaped its development over the twenty years of its existence. These changes have affected virtually all aspects of linguistic analyses: the nature of the data, the research questions, the methods and tools that are being used for the analysis, as well as the nature of the generalizations and findings that result from these investigations. We deal with the changes in terms of shifts in thought styles and discuss seven different turns: the pragmatic turn, the socio-cultural turn, the dispersive turn, the empirical turn, the digital turn, the discursive turn and the diachronic turn. We also deal with some long-standing, recent or emerging interfaces where historical pragmatics interacts with other disciplines and we discuss some future challenges, such as the multimodality and fluidity of communication and the problem of combining big data with pragmatic micro analyses.
6
Gibbs, Raymond W. "Stability and variability in linguistic pragmatics." Pragmatics and Society 1, no. 1 (August 13, 2010): 32–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.03gib.
Full textAbstract:
The study of linguistic pragmatics is always caught in the wonderful tension between seeking broad human pragmatic abilities and showing the subtle ways that communication is dependent on specific people and social situations. These different foci on areas of stability and variability in linguistic and nonlinguistic behavior are often accompanied by very different theoretical accounts of how and why people act, speak, and understand in the ways they do. Within contemporary research in experimental pragmatics, there are always instances of some people behaving in regular patterns and other people failing to adhere to putative pragmatic principles. My aim in this article is to broadly describe a way of thinking about stability and instability in linguistic pragmatics as emerging from people’s self-organizing tendencies. This view claims that both broad regularities and specific variations in human behavior, like all natural systems, can be accounted for by self-organizational processes that operate without explicit internal rules, blueprints, or mental representations. A major implication of this perspective is that pragmatics and society are seen as dynamically interacting constraints operating on multiple time-scales of experience.
7
Gretsch, Cécile. "Pragmatics and integrational linguistics." Language & Communication 29, no. 4 (October 2009): 328–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2009.02.010.
Full text
8
Butler, Christopher S. "Pragmatics and systematic linguistics." Journal of Pragmatics 12, no. 1 (February 1988): 83–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90021-5.
Full text
9
Mahmud, Avesta Kamal. "Pragmatics Impairment and complexity of Linguistic Domain: Psycho-linguistic Analysis for pragmatic Disorders." Journal of University of Human Development 3, no. 3 (August 31, 2017): 424. http://dx.doi.org/10.21928/juhd.v3n3y2017.pp424-452.
Full textAbstract:
This research under name of (Pragmatics Impairment and complexity of Linguistic Domain: Psycho-linguistic Analysis for pragmatic Disorders) In one hand Pragmatics is the ability to appropriately interact with another by Using language in the social situation and Connecting with others, on the other hand pragmatics disorders are Inability to take turns during conversation, Inability to engage in the give and take of a conversation. this research analysis the main ideas about this type of disorders therefore it discusses the main causes that affect language comprehension and fluency, for this matter we used clinical linguistics, neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics to show how people who had this disorders struggling and how we can treat them especially how Kurdish language speakers will be affect in this level of language.
10
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. "Pedagogical linguistics." Pedagogical Linguistics 1, no. 1 (February 17, 2020): 44–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pl.19013.bar.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The positive effects of instruction on the acquisition of second-language pragmatics has been well documented by numerous recent published studies (81 in the 10 years between Rose, 2005, and Bardovi-Harlig, 2015), but we have yet to see a corresponding increase in the teaching of pragmatics in second and foreign language classrooms or language textbooks. This article explores some of the potential causes for the lack of implementation of pragmatics instruction in second and foreign language classrooms (Skyes, 2013) and suggests means of overcoming such challenges. Pedagogical linguistics, in the form of pedagogical pragmatics, offers insight into meeting the challenges of limited theoretical support for curricular development, lack of authentic input in teaching materials, lack of instructor knowledge, and lack of reference books and pedagogical resources for teachers. The final challenge for pedagogical linguistics and pragmatics researchers is conveying relevant research findings to teachers; means for accomplishing this are discussed in the final section of the article.
11
Andrés-Roqueta, Clara, and Napoleon Katsos. "A Distinction Between Linguistic and Social Pragmatics Helps the Precise Characterization of Pragmatic Challenges in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders and Developmental Language Disorder." Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 63, no. 5 (May 22, 2020): 1494–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2020_jslhr-19-00263.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and children with developmental language disorder (DLD) face challenges with pragmatics, but the nature and sources of these difficulties are not fully understood yet. The purpose of this study was to compare the competence of children with ASD and children with DLD in two pragmatics tasks that place different demands on theory of mind (ToM) and structural language. Method Twenty Spanish-speaking children with ASD, 20 with DLD, and 40 age- and language-matched children with neurotypical development were assessed using two pragmatics tasks: a linguistic pragmatics task, which requires competence with structural language, and a social pragmatics task, which requires competence with ToM as well. Results For linguistic pragmatics, the ASD group performed similarly to the DLD and language-matched groups, and performance was predicted by structural language. For social pragmatics, the ASD group performed lower than the DLD and language-matched groups, and performance was predicted both by structural language and ToM. Conclusions Children with ASD and children with DLD face difficulties in linguistic pragmatics tasks, in keeping with their structural language. Children with ASD face exceptional difficulties with social pragmatics tasks, due to their difficulties with ToM. The distinction between linguistic and social pragmatic competences can inform assessment and intervention for pragmatic difficulties in different populations.
12
McConachy, Troy. "L2 pragmatics as ‘intercultural pragmatics’: Probing sociopragmatic aspects of pragmatic awareness." Journal of Pragmatics 151 (October 2019): 167–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.014.
Full text
13
González-Lloret, Marta. "Technology and L2 Pragmatics Learning." Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 39 (March 2019): 113–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0267190519000047.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe field of technology and language learning, also known as CALL (computer-assisted language learning), is now a robust area of study informed by research and practice in the fields of language education, computer science, psychology, sociology, cognitive science, cultural studies, and, most of all, applied linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA). As with any other large field of study, some subareas have become the focus of study, often influenced by advances and research in applied linguistics, while others remain to be explored further; among these is the area of technology-mediated second/foreign language (L2) pragmatics, also known as interlanguage pragmatics. The lack of research in this area is puzzling if one considers that pragmatic competence is one of the essential components of communicative competence and that most of the technologies today exist in the service of communication. This article reviews the efforts so far to explore the connections between interlanguage pragmatics and a variety of technologies and innovations, as well as existing resources to bring L2 pragmatic teaching into the language classroom. It then suggests unexplored areas where technology could be used to aid the development of pragmatic competence and where pragmatic theory can inform SLA research.
14
Mahmood, Rauf Kareem. "The Dissolution of Linguistics and the Rise of Language with Reference to Pragmatics: A Deconstructive Approach." Journal of University of Human Development 5, no. 3 (July 4, 2019): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.21928/juhd.v5n3y2019.pp1-5.
Full textAbstract:
This paper presents a deconstructive approach to the current status of linguistics as the primary science that studies levels of linguistic analysis. The research hypothesizes that the term ‘linguistics’ cannot be expected to remain as an independent and robust concept. It is subject to dissolution under the main interdisciplinary outreach of the essential branches of linguistics: phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The current paper, however, focuses on Pragmatics as a branch of linguistics. The research also hypothesizes that the relation of pragmatics to sociology and culture is stronger than the relationship between pragmatics and semantics. The main aim of the paper is to update the study of language in a way that goes beyond the closed domain of linguistics. Throughout the discussions and analyses of pragmatics between language and linguistics, it has been concluded that the study of language is in a persistent rise, whereas the domains of linguistics proper has condensed to limited fields.
15
Джарбо Сaмер Омар. "The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: The Case of the Singular Feminine Demonstrative in Jordanian Arabic." East European Journal of Psycholinguistics 4, no. 1 (June 27, 2017): 63–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2017.4.1.jar.
Full textAbstract:
The aim in this study is to investigate the interface between semantics and pragmatics in relation to the use of the indexical demonstrative ‘haay’ ‘this-S.F.’ in Jordanian Arabic (JA). It is argued here that an analysis of meaning in relation to context-sensitivity inherent in the use of ‘haay’ can give evidence to the view that semantic and pragmatic processes can be distinguished from each other. I have found that the meaning of ‘haay’ consists of three distinct levels: linguistic, semantic, and pragmatic meaning. The denotational and conventional senses of ‘haay’ comprise its linguistic meaning, its semantic meaning is generated when any of the variables in the linguistic meaning is selected in relation to 'narrow context', the pragmatic meaning depends on relating the semantic meaning to an entity in the physical context of interaction. The results of this study support the view that the boundary between semantics and pragmatics can be distinctively demarcated.
References
Agha, A. (1996). Schema and superposition in spatial deixis. Anthropological Linguistics,38(4), 643–682.
Ariel, M. (2002). The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal ofPragmatics, 34(4), 361–402.
Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9(2), 124–162.
Bach, K. (1997). The semantics-pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters,Linguistiche Berichte, 8, 33–50.
Bach, K. (2001). You don’t say? Synthese, 128(1), 15–44.
Bach, K. (2012). Context dependence. In: The Continuum Companion to the Philosophy ofLanguage, (pp. 153–184). M. García-Carpintero & M. Kölbel (eds.). New York:Continuum International.
Bartsch, R. (1996). The myth of literal meaning. In: Language Structure and LanguageUse: Proceedings of the International Conference on Lexicology and Lexical Semantics.Munster, 1994, (pp. 3–16). E. Weigand and F. Hundsnurscher (eds.). Tubingen: Niemeyer:.
Berg, J. (2002). Is semantics still possible? Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 349–59.
Braun, D. (2008). Complex demonstratives and their singular contents. Linguisticsand Philosophy, 31(1), 57–99.
Cappelen, H. & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of SemanticMinimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell
Carston, R. (2008). Linguistic communication and the semantics-pragmatics distinction.Synthese, 165(3), 321–345.
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dascal, M. (1987). Defending Literal Meaning. Cognitive Science, 11(3), 259–281.
Doerge, C. F. (2010). The collapse of insensitive semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy,33(2), 117–140.
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. NewYork: Academic Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8(3),275–304.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W. (1999). Speakers’ intuitions and pragmatic theory. Cognition, 69(3), 355–359.
Gibbs, R. W. & Moise, J. F. (1997). Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition,62(1), 51–74.
Giora, R., (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded saliencehypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: studies of literal and figurativelanguage. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 919–929.
Giora, R. (2002). Literal vs. figurative language: different or equal? Journal ofPragmatics, 34(4), 487–506.
Grice, H.P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In: Syntax and Semantics, 9,P. Cole (ed.). (pp.113–127). New York: Academic Press; reprinted in H.P. Grice (1989).Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hanks, W. (1990). Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jarbou, S. O. (2012). Medial deictic demonstratives in Arabic: Fact or fallacy.Pragmatics, 22(1), 103–118.
Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives. In: Themes from Kaplan, J. Almog, J. Perry, andH. Wettstein (eds.). (pp. 481–563). New York: Oxford University Press.
Katz, J. J. (1977). Propositional structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: ThomasY. Crowell.
Kempson, R. (1988). Grammar and conversational principles. In: Linguistics,F. Newmeyer (ed.). The Cambridge Survey, Vol. II (pp. 139–163). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal aboutthe Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, C. J. (1990). Some hypotheses concerning the evolution of polysemous words.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 211–219.
Lepore, E., & Ludwig, K. (2000). The semantics and pragmatics of complexdemonstratives. Mind, 109(434), 199–240.
Levinson, S.C. (1995). Three levels of Meaning. In: Grammar and meaning. Essays inHonour of Sir John Lyons, (pp. 90–115). F.R. Palmer (ed.). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Levinson, S. C. (2006). Deixis and pragmatics. In: The Handbook of Pragmatics. (pp.97–121), L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
MacCormac, E. R. (1985). A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Manning, P. (2001). On social deixis. Anthropological Linguistics, 43(1), 54–100.
Nicolle, S. & Clark, B. (1999). Experimental pragmatics and what is said: a response toGibbs and Moise. Cognition, 69(3), 337–354.
Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4(4), 295–329.
Recanati, F. (1993). Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Blackwell, Oxford.
Recanati, F. (1995). The alleged priority of literal interpretation’. Cognitive Science, 19,207–232.
Recanati, R. (2002). Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(3), 299–345.
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Mmeaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rumelhart, D., E. (1979). Some problems with the notion of literal meaning. In:Metaphor and Thought. (pp. 78-90), A. Ortony (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Searle, J. R., (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13(1), 207–224.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In:Meaning in Anthropology. (pp. 11–56), K. Basso, & H.A. Selby (eds.). Albuquerque:School of American Research, University of New Mexico Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson D. (1986). Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,86(1985-6), 153–171.
Stalnaker, R. (1972). Pragmatics. In: Semantics for Natural Language. (pp. 380–97), D.Davidson and G. Harman (eds.). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Stokke, A. (2010). Intention-sensitive semantics. Synthese 175, 383–404.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Vicente, B. (2002). What pragmatics can tell us about (literal) meaning: A critical note onKent Bach’s theory of impliciture. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 403–421.
16
Nerlich, Brigitte. "The 1930s – at the birth of a Pragmatic Conception of Language." Historiographia Linguistica 22, no. 3 (January 1, 1995): 311–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.22.3.03ner.
Full textAbstract:
Summary The 1930s were a time of immense cultural and scientific activity. It is well known that this was the time when structuralism made its appearance on the linguistic scene. It is generally less well known that this was also a time when a great number of books and articles dealing with ‘pragmatic’ issues appeared in linguistics and its adjacent disciplines. This article describes the birth of a ‘pragmatic Weltanschauung’ through the analysis of a selection of texts. It leaves open the question as to why the pragmatic insights made in the 1930s were forgotten when ‘pragmatics’ became a branch of linguistics in the 1970s.
17
Timofeeva, Mariya K. "Linguistic scales: current state-of-the-art." NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication 17, no. 3 (2019): 5–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2019-17-3-5-17.
Full textAbstract:
The aim of this article consists in reviewing the basic areas of studying language scales in pragmatics; several prospects of their investigation are discussed. Presently, language scales are the object of intensive research in semantics and pragmatics, from linguistic, logical, psycholinguistic, and neuro-linguistic perspectives. We are interested mainly in pragmatics (although the area of semantics is also considered) and concentrate on linguistic rather than logical, psycholinguistic, or neuro-linguistic aspects. The article continues the series of publications intending to review and systematize pragmatic investigation in basic topical areas. An interest in studying linguistic scales in pragmatics has increased primarily due to the works of H. P. Grice, L. Horn, G. Gazdar, and S. Levinson. An important class of general pragmatic principles of communication was introduced by H. P. Grice and then was elaborated on greater detail in neo-gricean pragmatics. This class of principles specifies quantity characteristics of communication, and can be defined in terms of scales. Language scales give rise to a special class of implicatures called “scalar implicatures”. In many cases, it is necessary for a speaker to choose some position on a scale. Scalar implicature appears as a result of this choice. Each position potentially generates a certain set of implications. This pragmatic phenomenon is intensively studied in linguistics, logic, and experimental investigations. The literature in the area is ample; the article draws only a general picture of the area. The article proposes: 1) to elicit a system of potential language scales for a concrete language; 2) to consider individual / situational scales; 3) to consider dynamics of scales in speech (in accordance with basic ideas of dynamic semantics). The proposed areas of practical application are the following: stylistic analysis and studying an author’s style, modelling of reasoning and communication (particularly in dialogue systems), constructing formal ontologies of different subject areas.
18
Fathurrosyid, Fathurrosyid. "MEMAHAMI BAHASA ALQURAN BERBASIS GRAMATIKAL (Kajian tehadap Kontribusi Pragmatik dalam Kajian Tafsir)." JURNAL At-Tibyan: Jurnal Ilmu Alquran dan Tafsir 3, no. 1 (August 13, 2018): 114. http://dx.doi.org/10.32505/tibyan.v3i1.487.
Full textAbstract:
Interacting with the verses of the Qur'an by conducting analytical activities that stop at the linguistic context and its grammatical structure will not be sufficient to pursue the ultimate truth (maqasid asasiyah). Under such conditions, a secondary device is required to open layers of messages that are settled in text that can not be comprehensively understood from the grammatical perspectives of the text. The device in the study of linguistics is called pragmatic. Pragmatic presence in linguistic studies is context-dependent. The context intended in this pragmatic is not only the personalized context of the -particular (asbab al-nuzul khassah), but also the universal self-impersonal context (asbab al-nuzul 'ammah).Based on the above phenomenon, this research is about to reveal three important issues; First, what is the theory of pragmatics and pragmatics of the Qur'an ?.Secondly, how is the basic assumption of the Qur'anic pragmatics and the steps? Third, what are the contributions of pragmatic theory in the study of Qur'anic commentary ?. The goal, in addition to knowing the intent of pragmatic theory and pragmatics of the Qur'an, is also to unravel the basic assumptions of the Qur'anic pragmatics and what are their contributions in the study of tafsir.This research is library research. The primary data source is the Qur'an about the story of Maryam, while the secondary data is in the form of books of tafsir or books relevant to the theme of the story and pragmatic theory. The procedure is linguistic analysis using critical discourse analysis to reveal the ideology tucked behind the language and phenomenological analysis of the discourses that are told to dismantle the contribution of pragmatic theory in the study of the Qur'anic commentary.This study yields the following conclusions: First, the pragmatics of the Qur'an is a discipline that examines the Qur'ân from the standpoint of the relationship between the dyberic linguistic context; and triadic non-linguistic contexts. Secondly, the basic assumption of pragmatics of the Qur'an is because this scripture does not descend in empty space, but has a dialectical connection to Arab socio-cultural reality. In addition, the Qur'an is a holy book that uses the language media that is full of meaning and subjectivity of the mufassir. Thirdly, the contribution of prasetics in the study of Qur'anic interpretation shows that, (a) the presence of the theory of perlokusi as the instrument of determining the meaning of speakers whether in the form of declarative, imperative or other sentences. (b) implicatures as a deadlock solution of textual grammatical understanding and (c) the presence of pragmatics itself as a tool of understanding based on its context oriented to appropriateness in meaning and oriented appropriateness in form.
19
Luján Martínez, Eugenio Ramón. "Pragmatics and Indo-European linguistics." Journal of Pragmatics 28, no. 2 (August 1997): 189–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(96)00075-6.
Full text
20
Schröder, Ulrike, Milene Mendes de Oliveira, and Hans-Georg Wolf. "Intercultural Pragmatics and Cultural Linguistics." Intercultural Pragmatics and Cultural Linguistics 7, no. 1 (July 8, 2020): 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00024.int.
Full text
21
Kasper, Gabriele. "Introduction: Interlanguage Pragmatics in SLA." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, no. 2 (June 1996): 145–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100014856.
Full textAbstract:
Interlanguage pragmatics—the study of nonnative speakers' use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge—has hovered on the fringes of SLA research thus far. In theories of 12 acquisition, pragmatics may figure as a constraint on syntactic knowledge, for instance, but pragmatics is not usually recognized as a knowledge component whose development deserves theoretical consideration in its own right. There is thus a tension between SLA as a theoretical (in the sense of “nonapplied”) discipline and the theory and practice of second or foreign language pedagogy. In theories of communicative competence in L2 teaching and testing, pragmatic competence figures prominently (e.g., Bachman, 1990). Curricula and materials for L2 teaching developed in recent years include strong pragmatic components or even adopt a pragmatic approach as their organizing principle.
22
Kasper, Gabriele, and Kenneth R. Rose. "PRAGMATICS AND SLA." Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 (January 1999): 81–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0267190599190056.
Full textAbstract:
Pragmatics has two roles in SLA: It acts as a constraint on linguistic forms and their acquisition, and it represents a type of communicative knowledge and object of L2 learning in its own right. The first role of pragmatics is evident in functionalist (Tomlin 1990) and interactionist (Long 1996) views of SLA. The second role puts pragmatics on a par with morphosyntax, lexis, and phonology in that inquiry focuses on learners' knowledge, use, and acquisition of L2 pragmatics. It is the latter sense of “pragmatics and SLA” that is the focus of this paper. In analogy with other areas of specialization within SLA—interlanguage syntax, interlanguage lexis, and so forth—the study of nonnative speakers' use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge is referred to as interlanguage pragmatics.
23
Taguchi, Naoko. "Teaching Pragmatics: Trends and Issues." Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31 (March 2011): 289–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0267190511000018.
Full textAbstract:
Theoretical, empirical, and practical interest in pragmatic competence and development for second language (L2) learners has resulted in a large body of literature on teaching L2 pragmatics. This body of literature has diverged into two major domains: (a) a group of experimental studies directly testing the efficacy of various instructional methods in pragmatics learning and (b) research that explores optimal instructional practice and resources for pragmatic development in formal classroom settings. This article reviews literature in these two domains and aims at providing a collective view of the available options for pragmatics teaching and the ways that pragmatic development can best be promoted in the classroom. In the area of instructional intervention, this article reviews studies under the common theoretical second language acquisition paradigms of explicit versus implicit instruction, input processing instruction, and skill acquisition and practice. In the area of classroom practice and resources, three domains of research and pedagogical practices are reviewed: material development and teacher education, learner strategies and autonomous learning, and incidental pragmatics learning in the classroom. Finally, this article discusses unique challenges and opportunities that have been embraced by pragmatics teaching in the current era of poststructuralism and multiculturalism.
24
Lunde, Ingunn. "Rhetorical enargeia and linguistic pragmatics." Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5, no. 1 (March 8, 2004): 49–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jhp.5.1.04lun.
Full textAbstract:
Taking a combined theoretical and empirical approach, this essay studies the rhetorical implications of speech-reporting strategies in medieval East Slavic hagiography and homiletics. The author argues for a pragmatic approach to the study of a particular rhetorical concept: enargeia ‘the power of language to create a vivid presence of that which is set forth in words’. The first part of the article outlines the constitutive characteristics of enargeia, based on its treatment in rhetorical handbooks of Classical and Late Antiquity and on the rhetorical practice. Part two moves on to discuss reported speech as one possible field of study for an investigation of the “pragmatics of enargeia” at work in medieval texts, with a view to demonstrating the relevance of central pragmatic categories for the study of what one could call “enargetic rhetoric”. Examples are taken from Nestor of the Caves’ Life of Feodosij (eleventh century) and Kirill of Turov’s sermons (late twelfth century).
25
Wyner, Lauren, and Andrew D. Cohen. "Second language pragmatic ability: Individual differences according to environment." Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 5, no. 4 (December 10, 2015): 519–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.4.2.
Full textAbstract:
The aims of this paper are to review research literature on the role that the second language (L2) and foreign language (FL) environments actually play in the development of learners’ target language (TL) pragmatic ability, and also to speculate as to the extent to which individual factors can offset the advantages that learners may have by being in the L2 context while they are learning. The paper starts by defining pragmatics and by problematizing this definition. Then, attention is given to research literature dealing with the learning of pragmatics in an L2 context compared to an FL context. Next, studies on the role of pragmatic transfer are considered, with subsequent attention given to the literature on the incidence of pragmatic transfer in FL as opposed to L2 contexts. Finally, selected studies on the role of motivation in the development of pragmatic ability are examined. In the discussion section, a number of pedagogical suggestions are offered: the inclusion of pragmatics in teacher development, the use of authentic pragmatics materials, motivating learners to be more savvy about pragmatics, and supporting learners in accepting or challenging native-speaker norms. Suggestions as to further research in the field are also offered.
26
Siddiqui, Ali. "“The principle features of English Pragmatics in applied linguistics”." Advances in Language and Literary Studies 9, no. 2 (April 30, 2018): 77. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.2p.77.
Full textAbstract:
Pragmatics is a major study of linguistics that defines the hidden meanings of a writer and speaker towards the conjoining effort of linguistic form. It is stated along with its user. Within pragmatics the importance is usually given to a contextual meaning, where every other meaning of given context is referred to speaker as well as writer that wishes to state something. Therefore, the field of Pragmatics helps to deal with speaker’s intended meaning. It is the scope of pragmatics that shows some of linguistic relating terms. They are often stated as utterances, which are informative contribution through physical or real utterance of the meaning, uses of word, structure and setting of the conversations. The second is a speech act that focuses on what the writer and the speaker wants to say to someone. So in this way, the major purpose of pragmatics is engaged with addressor’s intended words to communicate with the addressee.
27
Meier, Simon, Bettina Bock, Konstanze Marx, Robert Mroczynski, and Sven Staffeldt. "Sprachliche Verfestigung und sprachlich Verfestigtes." Linguistik Online 96, no. 3 (June 12, 2019): 3–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.13092/lo.96.5527.
Full textAbstract:
The present special issue of Linguistik Online is dedicated to theoretical and methodological approaches to formulaic language use from a pragmatic perspective. Following the assumption that language use is thoroughly shaped by routines and prefabricated patterns, formulaic language plays a central role in recent theoretical and empirical approaches to language use like construction grammar or corpus pragmatics. Within the field of phraseology, pragmatic approaches have become prevalent, too, be it by corpus linguistic foundations or by a functional perspective on phrasemes in different communicative domains. Based on case studies from various fields like language acquisition, cultural linguistics or colonial studies, the papers of this special issue discuss the role of formulaicity on the different levels of language use. They demonstrate which concepts and empirical methods are suitable to capture the pragmatic aspects of formulaic language use.
28
Tran, Giao Quynh. "Terminology in Interlanguage Pragmatics." ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 143-144 (January 1, 2004): 109–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/itl.143.0.504648.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Inter language pragmatics research has spanned a number of different areas in second language acquisition and pragmatics. In the large corpus of interlanguage pragmatics studies, basic terms such as “interlanguage pragmatics”, “speech acts” and “pragmatic transfer” have been referred to more often than not. But rarely have we stopped to re-evaluate the applicability and appropriateness of these terms. This paper aims to properly interpret or redefine their meanings and to propose more appropriate terms where possible.
29
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. "Pragmatics and philosophy: In search of a paradigm." Intercultural Pragmatics 15, no. 2 (April 25, 2018): 131–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0002.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract There is no doubt that pragmatic theory and philosophy of language are mutually relevant and intrinsically connected. The main question I address in this paper is how exactly they are interconnected in terms of (i) their respective objectives, (ii) explanans – explanandum relation, (iii) methods of enquiry, and (iv) drawing on associated disciplines. In the introductory part I attempt to bring some order into the diversity of use of such labels as philosophical logic, philosophical semantics, philosophical pragmatics, linguistic philosophy, or philosophy of linguistics, among others. In the following sections I focus on philosophical pragmatics as a branch of philosophy of language (pragmaticsPPL) and the trends and theories it gave rise to, discussing them against the background of methodology of science and in particular paradigms and paradigm shifts as identified in natural science. In the main part of the paper I address the following questions: How is pragmaticsPPL to be delimited?How do pragmatic solutions to questions about meaning fare vis-à-vis syntactic solutions? Is there a pattern emerging?and, relatedly,What are the future prospects for pragmaticsPPL in theories of natural language meaning? I conclude with a discussion of the relation between pragmaticsPPL and functionalism, observing that contextualism has to play a central role in functionalist pragmatics at the expense of minimalism and sententialism.
30
Saifudin, Akhmad. "Konteks dalam Studi Linguistik Pragmatik." LITE: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, dan Budaya 14, no. 2 (February 25, 2019): 108–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.33633/lite.v14i2.2323.
Full textAbstract:
This paper tries to provide an understanding of the context in pragmatic linguistic studies. Pragmatic linguistic studies are known as branches of linguistics which discuss the meaning of speech based on context. In this paper the context is understood as a conceptual framework about everything that is used as a reference in speaking or understanding speech. Context is classified into two types, namely linguistic and nonlinguistic. Linguistic contexts are contexts whose references are contained in previous speeches and nonlinguistic contexts are not found in speech or outside of language. The nonlinguistic context can be divided into four types, namely physical, psychological, social, and shared knowledge contexts.Keywords: Pragmatics, Context, Text, Meaning, Shared knowledge
31
Nølke, Henning. "The Logic and Pragmatics of Connectors." HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business 3, no. 5 (July 27, 2015): 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v3i5.21439.
Full textAbstract:
A long tradition has used logic for the description of connectors and other linguistic formators. It is argued in this article that this in fact is not a good idea. After an analysis of the meaning of connectors, as they have been studied in linguistics, their formal function is scrutinized. It is shown that one ought to distinguish their iconic function, which is the only one studied by linguists so far, from their deictic function, which controls the search for their arguments. This result permits us to address the crucial question: Why has logic acquired such a predominant place in the study of natural connectors? What is the basis for this way of viewing their function? It is finally shown how the insights obtained in this analysis can be exploited for the examination of the formal aspects of other linguistic items.
32
K.Sindhu, K. Sindhu, and G. Karthika G. Karthika. "Pragmatics as an Independent Level of Language Analysis in Linguistics." Indian Journal of Applied Research 3, no. 5 (October 1, 2011): 371–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.15373/2249555x/may2013/111.
Full text
33
Hoye, Leo Francis. "Linguistic anthropology and pragmatics." Journal of Pragmatics 38, no. 6 (June 2006): 944–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.001.
Full text
34
Kohn, James, and George Yule. "Pragmatics." Modern Language Journal 82, no. 2 (1998): 290. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/329238.
Full text
35
Gomez-Laich, Maria Pia. "Second language learners’ divergence from target language pragmatic norms." Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 6, no. 2 (June 30, 2016): 249–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.4.
Full textAbstract:
Pragmatic competence is an indispensable aspect of language ability in order for second and foreign language (L2/FL) learners to understand and be understood in their interactions with both native and nonnative speakers of the target language. Without a proper understanding of the pragmatic rules in the target language, learners may run the risk of coming across as insensitive and rude. Several researchers (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Kasper & Rose, 2002) suggest that L2 pragmatics not only can be taught in the L2/FL classroom, but, more importantly, that explicit approaches that involve direct explanation of target pragmatic features are beneficial for learning pragmatics. Just as native speakers of a language acquire a “set of dispositions to act in certain ways, which generates cognitive and bodily practices in the individual” (Watts, 2003, p. 149), instructors can help learners to become aware of the pragmatic features that characterize the target language. Although the importance of explicit teaching of pragmatics is well recognized in the literature, learning norms and rules of pragmatics largely depends on learners’ subjectivity. Learners’ convergence or divergence from the L2 pragmatic norms, both consciously and out of awareness, sometimes depends on whether these norms fit their image of self and their L1 cultural identity. Since identity-related conflict can have significant consequences for the acquisition of second language pragmatics, failing to consider the centrality of learners’ identities will produce an inadequate understanding of SLA. This paper synthesizes studies that document the reasons why learners opt to remain foreign by resisting certain L2 practic-es. The following synthesis question was proposed: Why do language learners resist the pragmatic norms of the target language?
36
Haberland, Hartmut, and Jacob L. Mey. "Linguistics and pragmatics, 25 years after☆." Journal of Pragmatics 34, no. 12 (December 2002): 1671–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00149-2.
Full text
37
Creemers, Ava, and Jeannette C. Schaeffer. "Grammatical and pragmatic properties of the DP in children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) and in children with High Functioning Autism (HFA)." Linguistics in the Netherlands 32 (December 11, 2015): 16–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/avt.32.02cre.
Full textAbstract:
This study investigates whether grammar and pragmatics are separate linguistic components or not, and whether children with SLI and children with HFA have overlapping or distinct linguistic profiles. We examine two DP-related phenomena: the mass-count distinction (grammatical) and the choice for a definite/indefinite article (pragmatic). We tested 27 children with HFA aged 6–14, age and gender matched to 27 children with SLI, and 27 TD controls on a Quantity Judgment Task (mass-count) and an Elicited Production Task (article choice). Our results show that pragmatics can be impaired independently from grammar (in HFA) and vice versa (in SLI), providing evidence for a modular view of grammar and pragmatics, and against an overlap in the profiles of SLI and HFA.
38
Clancy, Brian. "Complementary perspectives on hedging behaviour in family discourse." International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16, no. 3 (October 24, 2011): 371–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.3.05cla.
Full textAbstract:
This paper argues that corpus linguistics offers a methodology which benefits variational pragmatic analysis in a number of ways. Corpus linguistic tools such as word frequency lists allow the researcher to construct a detailed “pragmatic profile” of a word, cluster or act. This, coupled with the fact that most corpora are constructed to be representative of a particular language variety, facilitates an accurate account of language-use differences across various social categories. Pragmatic analysis relies heavily on context for its interpretation. Therefore, an illustrative case study of two corpora representing spoken language recorded in the home environment, one from a middle class Irish family and one from a family from the Irish Traveller Community will be utilised in order to elucidate the benefits of the synergy of corpus linguistics and variational pragmatics. Specifically, the variational distribution of the occurrences of hedges across these two distinct cultural groupings will be examined.
39
Zhu, Liwei. "Teaching of Pragmatics: Issues in a Global Age." Journal of Language Teaching and Research 10, no. 5 (September 1, 2019): 1111. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1005.26.
Full textAbstract:
This article reviews literature on pragmatic teaching in three domains: (1) instructional methods in interpragmatics (2) pragmatic teaching resources (3) test and assessment of pragmatic ability .It aims at providing a comprehensive perspective of the available choices for pragmatics teaching and the ways that second language learners’ pragmatic development can be enhanced in the classroom. In the area of instructional methods, this article reviews researches under the theoretical SLA framework of explicit versus implicit instruction, input processing instruction, and skill acquisition and practice. In the domain of pragmatic teaching resources, two types of pedagogical resources are reviewed: textbooks development and the possibility of the application of CA based research material and electronic corpora to the classroom pragmatics teaching and learning. In the discussion of test and assessment of pragmatic ability, two categories are reviewed. The first is the comparative study of the six types of instruments to test second language learners’ pragmatic ability which is aimed to provide statistical and practical aspects for the test developers and test users. The second reviews the teacher assessment and its related assessment instruments in the application of pragmatic teaching .Finally, this article discusses unique challenges and opportunities pragmatics teaching faces in the current era.
40
Uneke Enyi, Amaechi, and Chiekpezie Edwin Orji. "Interlanguage Pragmatics, Communicative Competence, Nigeria’s L2 Classrooms." International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature 8, no. 4 (July 31, 2019): 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.4p.19.
Full textAbstract:
In Nigeria, much attention has been given to the teaching and learning of grammatical forms and sound sequences with emphasis on their accuracy and correctness (linguistic competence). This has reflected in the selection of course syllabi, curriculum, instructional materials and methods in our classrooms. A lot studies have been carried out by scholars on the non-native speakers’ use and acquisition of linguistic action patterns in a second language. Though such studies, dubbed interlanguage pragmatics, have all been carried out in Europe and America with focus on speakers of English as a Foreign language (EFL). This area of enquiry has not been adequately explored in Africa in general or Nigerian L2 learners of English as the focus. Thus, little or seldom attention has been given to pragmatics and appropriateness in language use (Communicative competence). This study is therefore, a consciousness - raising effort to highlight the relevance and advantages of teaching pragmatics and the development of pragmatics awareness in our classrooms. This is against the backdrop of the fact that the linguistic competence of most learners of English as a second language is not usually at par with their pragmatic competence. This study foregrounds the need for L2 learners of English to develop a concomitant degree of pragmatic awareness in the use of the language. They must learn how to combine form, meaning, force and context. They need, for example, to learn how to say what they want to say with the required formality or politeness, directness or indirectness, e t c, as required by a given situation or sometimes, to even keep quiet and still communicate intention. The study, domesticating the findings of some current researches in instructed pragmatics, discussed and suggested some classroom activities that could be adopted as part of the methods of teaching pragmatics, and by so doing, highlighted the enormous advantages and usefulness of teaching pragmatics and acquiring pragmatic competence in Nigeria’s L2 classrooms.
41
Urgilés, Gerardo E. Heras, and Jean-Paul Jara Villacreces. "English Pragmatics in Ecuador." Theory and Practice in Language Studies 7, no. 9 (September 1, 2017): 723. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0709.03.
Full textAbstract:
Research has revealed that developing the pragmatic ability is a key element for any second or foreign language learner. The present paper aims to shed some light on the issue of pragmatics as part of English teaching and learning in the context of Ecuador. This paper is part of a research project that will involve public high school English teachers of Cuenca, Ecuador. After extensive research, it has been found that even though pragmatics is now part of the new English curriculum in this country, research in this field of linguistics is almost nonexistent.
42
Cook, Misty, and Anthony J. Liddicoat. "The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics." Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 25, no. 1 (January 1, 2002): 19–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/aral.25.1.02coo.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In the past, research in interlanguage pragmatics has primarily explained the differences between native speakers’ (NS) and non-native speakers’ (NNS) pragmatic performance based on cross-cultural and linguistic differences. Very few researchers have considered learners’ pragmatic performance based on second language comprehension. In this study, we will examine learners’ pragmatic performance using request strategies. The results of this study reveal that there is a proficiency effect for interpreting request speech acts at different levels of directness. We propose that learners’ processing strategies and capacities are important factors to consider when examining learners’ pragmatic performance.
43
Huang, Yan. "Research Survey Article: Micro- and Macro-Pragmatics: Remapping Their Terrains." International Review of Pragmatics 5, no. 1 (2013): 129–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18773109-13050106.
Full textAbstract:
The publication of Levinson’s celebrated Pragmatics in 1983 systematized the field of pragmatics and marked the coming of age of pragmatics as a linguistic discipline in its own right. Today pragmatics is one of the most vibrant and rapidly growing fields in linguistics and the philosophy of language. It is also a particularly complex subject with all kinds of disciplinary influence, and few, if any, clear boundaries. The aim of this article is to survey the representative research areas in contemporary pragmatics and present an authoritative and up-to-date description of the contemporary landscape of pragmatics, in the hope that it will help shape the development of the discipline in the next decade or so.
44
Akbar Khansir, Ali, and Farhad Pakdel. "Place of Pragmatics in EFL Classroom." English Literature and Language Review, no. 72 (June 10, 2021): 47–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.32861/ellr.72.47.54.
Full textAbstract:
The main aim of this article is to discuss the place of Pragmatics in EFL classroom. Pragmatics is one of the branches of linguistics which is concerned with the study of meaning as com-municated by a speaker and interpreted by a listener. Pragmatics has fairly recently become the focuses of attention in language studies. On the other hand, it is important to remember that in recent years, pragmatics components have been used in language teaching contexts, syllabus design, by language teachers over the world. Many research works have been done by many language researchers in different aspects of pragmatics competence. Language teacher uses pragmatic as a functional approach in his/her language classroom. However, pragmatic follow the general principles for men when they communicate with others. Prag-matics study sentences not in isolation but with reference to the context of a situation and it is defined as the interaction between a sequence of language and the real-world situation in which it is used.
45
Sykes, Julie M., and Andrew D. Cohen. "Strategies and interlanguage pragmatics: Explicit and comprehensive." Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 8, no. 2 (July 24, 2018): 381–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.9.
Full textAbstract:
Explicit instruction in strategies for interlanguage pragmatic learning is fundamental to the development of a comprehensive set of pragmatic abilities in the target language. In this article, we begin by providing an overview of previous work in the area of language learner strategies directed at the teaching and learning of pragmatics. We then offer an extension of Cohen’s (2005, 2014) framework of strategies for learning, using, and evaluating the use of interlanguage pragmatics in four domains: knowledge, analysis, subjectivity, and awareness (Sykes, Malone, Forrest, & Sadgic, forthcoming). Examples from current projects are provided to exemplify the critical importance of a strategies-based approach to the teaching and learning of interlanguage pragmatics. The article concludes with ideas for future research and implementation.
46
Capone, Alessandro. "Pragmatics." Journal of Pragmatics 39, no. 5 (May 2007): 1036–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.011.
Full text
47
Lumsden, David. "Pragmatics." Journal of Pragmatics 40, no. 6 (June 2008): 1157–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.004.
Full text
48
Benz, Anton, and Reinhard Blutner. "Papers on pragmasemantics." ZAS Papers in Linguistics 51 (January 1, 2009): 216. http://dx.doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.51.2009.371.
Full textAbstract:
Optimality theory as used in linguistics (Prince & Smolensky, 1993/2004; Smolensky & Legendre, 2006) and cognitive psychology (Gigerenzer & Selten, 2001) is a theoretical framework that aims to integrate constraint based knowledge representation systems, generative grammar, cognitive skills, and aspects of neural network processing. In the last years considerable progress was made to overcome the artificial separation between the disciplines of linguistic on the one hand which are mainly concerned with the description of natural language competences and the psychological disciplines on the other hand which are interested in real language performance.
The semantics and pragmatics of natural language is a research topic that is asking for an integration of philosophical, linguistic, psycholinguistic aspects, including its neural underpinning. Especially recent work on experimental pragmatics (e.g. Noveck & Sperber, 2005; Garrett & Harnish, 2007) has shown that real progress in the area of pragmatics isn’t possible without using data from all available domains including data from language acquisition and actual language generation and comprehension performance. It is a conceivable research programme to use the optimality theoretic framework in order to realize the integration.
Game theoretic pragmatics is a relatively young development in pragmatics. The idea to view communication as a strategic interaction between speaker and hearer is not new. It is already present in Grice' (1975) classical paper on conversational implicatures. What game theory offers is a mathematical framework in which strategic interaction can be precisely described. It is a leading paradigm in economics as witnessed by a series of Nobel prizes in the field. It is also of growing importance to other disciplines of the social sciences. In linguistics, its main applications have been so far pragmatics and theoretical typology. For pragmatics, game theory promises a firm foundation, and a rigor which hopefully will allow studying pragmatic phenomena with the same precision as that achieved in formal semantics.
The development of game theoretic pragmatics is closely connected to the development of bidirectional optimality theory (Blutner, 2000). It can be easily seen that the game theoretic notion of a Nash equilibrium and the optimality theoretic notion of a strongly optimal form-meaning pair are closely related to each other. The main impulse that bidirectional optimality theory gave to research on game theoretic pragmatics stemmed from serious empirical problems that resulted from interpreting the principle of weak optimality as a synchronic interpretation principle.
In this volume, we have collected papers that are concerned with several aspects of game and optimality theoretic approaches to pragmatics.
49
Kasper, Gabriele, and Richard Schmidt. "Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, no. 2 (June 1996): 149–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100014868.
Full textAbstract:
Unlike other areas of second language study, which are primarily concerned with acquisitional patterns of interlanguage knowledge over time, most studies in interlanguage pragmatics have focused on second language use rather than second language learning. The aim of this paper is to profile interlanguage pragmatics as an area of inquiry in second language acquisition research, by reviewing existing studies with a focus on learning, examining research findings in interlanguage pragmatics that shed light on some basic questions in SLA, exploring cognitive and social-psychological theories that might offer explanations of different aspects of pragmatic development, and proposing a research agenda for the study of interlanguage pragmatics with a developmental perspective that will tie it more closely to other areas of SLA.
50
Mazzarella, Diana. "Is inference necessary to pragmatics?" New Perspectives on Utterance Interpretation and Implicit Contents 28 (November 28, 2014): 71–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/bjl.28.04maz.
Full textAbstract:
The assumption that pragmatic processes are inferential is standardly held by Gricean and post-Gricean pragmatic theories. Recently, however, it has been challenged by accessibility-based approaches to pragmatics. Recanati (2002, 2004) proposes that primary pragmatic processes (i.e. processes that contribute to the recovery of the explicit content of the utterance) are underpinned by a simple dynamics of activations-and-associations, with no need for any further (specifically inferential) step or ‘confirmatory stage’ to warrant the selected interpretation. Mazzone (2009, 2011) extends this account to secondary pragmatic processes (i.e. processes of implicature derivation): the recovery of the explicit and implicit content of the utterance is the result of a unified associative comprehension process. This paper argues that, on close analysis, the role played by information about the speaker’s mental states (i.e. her beliefs and intentions) indicates that inference is indispensable in an adequate account of pragmatic processing.