A Brief Discussion on Pragmatic Analysis and Classroom Implications

A Brief Discussion on Pragmatic Analysis and Classroom Implications殷月洪. 上海金融学院[Abstract]Pragmatics is the study of language in use; pragmatic analysis is one of the research perspectives in pragmaticstudies. So far, a number of researchers have developed different theories to investigate how language is used in differentcontexts. Among these theories are Speech Act, Cooperative Principle, and Politeness Principle, etc. These theories havehelped the development of pragmatic analysis and its implications are evident in language teaching and learning. This paperis an effort to briefly outline some theories in pragmatic analysis and the classroom implications.[Key words]Pragmatics; principle; implications; context1. Some Elements in Pragmatic Analysis1.1 Speech ActJohn Austin formulated speech act theory. He is “one of the first modern scholars to recognize that 'words' are inthemselves actions." (Peccei, 1999, p.43) The theory was subsequently developed by another philosopher, John Searle, whoclassified speech acts and made them into five categories, including declarative, representative, expressive, directive andcommissive (Richards, J Platt & H Platt, 2002, p.430).There are some occasions when a sentence is uttered, the speaker performs an action by saying it, thus the speech actgives us a way to look deeper into the discourse and find out the underlying force behind the discourse. Austin clarified theways in which speech acts are performed, and accordingly he suggested three kinds of acts by distinguishing the layers ofinterpretation of these acts, i.e. locutionary act, ilocutionary act and perlocutionary act.1.2 Cooperative principleBefore discussing Grice's cooperative principle, an understanding of implicature is necessary for further explication.Jenny Thomas in her book Meaning in interaction: an introduction to pragmatics argued that in interactions competentlanguage-users imply, conveying more than what they speak by virtue of additional conveyed meaning, i.e. implicature, andshe further pointed out that Grice made a distinction between two kinds of implicature: conventional implicature andconversational implicature (Thomas, 1995, pp.56-57).Apart from the same properties these two implicatures share, they are different in their dependence on context.Conventional implicature always have the same implicature delivered while conversational implicature is context dependent,the implicature changes with the change of context. Furthermore, conversational implicatures fall into three types:generalized implicatures when special knowledge is not required to calculate the additional conveyed meaning (Yule, 1996,p.41) scalar implicatures when quantifiers are expressed, and lastly particularized implicatures where“locally recognizedinferences are assumed." (Yule, 1996, p.42)“Implicatures are primary examples of more being communicated than is said." (Yule, 1996, p.36) However, “animplicature is generated intentionally by the speaker and may (or may not) be understood by the hearer." (Thomas, 1995,p.58) This communication gap attracted Grice's attention, so in his pioneering book Logic and Conversation, he stressedthat in order to have a succession of interaction, communication is“characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperativeefforts, and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutuallyaccepted direction." (Grice, 1999, p.78)1.3 Politeness principleAt the same time when cooperative principle flourished, the issue of politeness became an interesting area. BrownLevinson proposed face theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) Lakoff formulated maxims of politeness (Lakoff, 1973) andLeech Politeness Principle (L eech, 1983). Their researches are both thought provoking and significant for the developmentof discourse analysis.Of Brown and Levinson's face theory, it concerns with face, face-threatening acts (FATs) and politeness strategies.According to the theory, the external factors like social distance and power determine the strategies of politeness used ininteraction. These strategies include solidarity strategy and deference strategy. In case of close social relations, interlocutorsuse solidarity strategy to express a sense of closeness to maintain a positive face, on the contrary, interlocutors use deferencestrategy when a considerable power exists and social relations are distant, in this case, “negative face, the need to beindependent, . and not to be imposed on by others." (Yule, 1996, p.60) is maintained The misnlace nf these two strategieswill undermine rather than respect the face which means“the public self-image中国煤化工ted in Yule, 1996,fYHCNM HG2. Classroom implicationsIn some places, English pedagogy has traditionally focused on the learning of linguistic forms; teachers andresearchers are less concerned with linguistic areas other than semantics. As a consequence, pragmatics, for example, stillremains a significant area to explore in second language teaching.The past decades have witnessed the on-going studies on pragmatics; therefore more attention should be shifted to thevalue of pragmatics in classrooms. In classroom teaching, we need an integration of pragmatics findings and the applicationof these findings to benefit both teaching and learning.The above pragmatic analysis for the interview shows that, in classroom teaching, students should be instructed tounderstand how people interact on the phone and in a live speech. Teachers should be able to provide students withopportunity to understand the maxims of cooperative and politeness principles.The use of authentic text shows that exposures to the language in use or contextualized data is a means by whichteachers enhance students' pragmatic awareness, researchers and teachers should develop authentic material used irclassrooms. By studying ways in which native speakers interact and by involving learners in learning process, students willbe able to communicate in real life situations.Although the idea that pragmatics can be taught in classrooms remains a controversial issue, the practice andexperience by many shows that authentic language data, verbal or nonverbal, if analyzed from pragmatic perspective, is ofgreat value to teach or learn the kind of English used by native speakers.To teach pragmatics is not to impart theories but to “develop the pragmatic competence by providing pragmaticallyappropriate input." (Bardovi-Harlig， 1996, pp.23-24) The input refers to the authentic data coupled with the pragmaticexplanation and the observation of students' performance. Teachers should act as facilitators to make pragmatics a trulylanguage use in social and cultural contexts.ReferencesBradovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. Pragmatics andLanguage Learning, 7, 22-39Brown, P. and S. Levinson, 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage.Cambridge: CUP.Burns, A., Joyce, H., & Gollin, S. (1996). I see what you mean. NSW: NCELTRCelce-Murica, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Grice, HP. (1999). Logic and conversation. In Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp.76-88). NewYork: RoutledgeLakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politmess: Minding your p's and q's. Chicago Linguistics society, 9, 292-305Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longmang.Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressMorris, C.W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath, R. Carmap & C. Morris (eds.) IntermnationalEncyclopedia of Unified Science (pp.77- 137). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Pecei, SJ. (1999). Pragmatics. London: RoutledgeRichards, J.C, Platt J., Platt H. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Beijing:Longman & Foreign Language Teaching and Research PressThomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: an introduction to pragmatics. New York: LongmanYule, G. (1986). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press中国煤化工YHCNMH G