Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- Part V Language Learning
- 28 Pragmatic Competence
- 29 Pragmatic Awareness in Intercultural Language Learning
- 30 Interculturality and the Study Abroad Experience: Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Development
- 31 Intercultural Mediation in Language Learning
- 32 Interaction in the Multilingual Classroom
- Index
- References
28 - Pragmatic Competence
from Part V - Language Learning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- Part V Language Learning
- 28 Pragmatic Competence
- 29 Pragmatic Awareness in Intercultural Language Learning
- 30 Interculturality and the Study Abroad Experience: Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Development
- 31 Intercultural Mediation in Language Learning
- 32 Interaction in the Multilingual Classroom
- Index
- References
Summary
Over the last two decades, second-language pragmatics brought to the fore commonalities and conventions shared by speakers and hearers, those which create a common ground for communication, as well as culture varieties in language use, and those which cause communication breakdowns in real-life contexts. But, of course, meaning which is to be understood entirely under the influence of social interaction and cognitive change cannot capture the modalities or channels speakers use to convey a certain content of an utterance. Typically, natural behaviors, in the form of emotive effects, are integrated somehow into the interpretation of utterances in everyday life situations, a point generally missed in the literature on how utterances are understood in a second language. In the light of the above observations, an original feature of this chapter is its discussion of cases where "natural," i.e. affective, and linguistic communication interact in the interpretation of utterances. The task of describing and explaining what is conveyed by nonpropositional types of meaning, those "affective aspects of learning," such as feelings, attitudes, or preferences, falls squarely within the domain of L2 pragmatics, and the central aim of this chapter is to redress the balance.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 741 - 765Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Aline, D. and Hosoda, Y. (2021). Deployment of the formulaic utterance “how about∼” in task-based second language classroom discussions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B. (eds.) (2005). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Exploring Institutional Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2019). Using corpus-linguistic methods to track longitudinal development: Routine apologies in the study abroad context. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 87–105.Google Scholar
Bradley, M. M. and Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction Manual and Affective Ratings: Technical Report C-1. The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, Florida: University of Florida.Google Scholar
Chang, W-L M. and Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural communicative competence and emotion among second language learners of Chinese. In Kecskes, I. and Sun, C., eds., Key Issues in Chinese as a Second Language Research. New York: Routledge, pp. 267–286.Google Scholar
Citron, F. and Goldberg, A. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 2585–2595.Google Scholar
Citron, F., Güsten, J., Michaelis, N., and Goldberg, A. (2016a). Conventional metaphors in longer passages evoke affective brain response. NeuroImage, 139, 218–230.Google Scholar
Citron, F. M., Michaelis, N., and Goldberg, A. E. (2016b). Comprehension of conventional metaphors by second language speakers: Do they show the same degree of emotional engagement as natives do? Paper presented at the UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference (UK-CLC 2016). Bangor University, July 18–21, 2016.Google Scholar
Citron, F. and Zervos, E. (2018). A neuroimaging investigation into figurative language and aesthetic perception. In Baicchi, A., Digonnet, R., and Sandford, J., eds., Sensory Perceptions in Language, Embodiment and Epistemology. Cham: Springer, pp. 77–94.Google Scholar
de Saussure, L. and Wharton, T. (2019). La notion de pertinence au défi des effets émotionnels. TIPA: Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage, 35. http://journals.openedition.org/tipa/3068.Google Scholar
de Saussure, L. and Wharton, T. (2020). Relevance, effects and affect. International Review of Pragmatics, 12, 183–205.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. Soteriadou, L. and Taxitari, L. (2018). Developing pragmatic competence in an instructed setting: The effectiveness of pedagogical intervention in Greek EFL learners’ request production. L2 Journal e-scholarship, 10, 3–30.Google Scholar
Fajardo-Dack, T., Argudo, J., and Abad, M. (2020). The development of pragmatic competence in CLIL classrooms. Mextesol Journal, 44(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
Foolen, A. (2012). The relevance of emotions for language and linguistics. In Foolen, A., Ulrike M. Lüdtke, Timothy P. Racine, and Jordan Zlatev, eds., Moving Ourselves, Moving Others. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 349–368.Google Scholar
Foster-Cohen, S. H. (2004). Relevance theory, action theory and second language communication strategies. Second Language Research, 20(3), 289–302.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, H. (2008). Narrative as snapshot: Glimpses into the past in Alzheimer’s discourse. Narrative Inquiry, 18(1), 53–82.Google Scholar
Hamilton, H. (2020). Pragmatics and dementia. In Schneider, K. and Ifantidou, E., eds., Developmental and Clinical Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 611–646.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2014). Pragmatic Competence and Relevance, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2019). Relevance and metaphor understanding in a second language. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R., eds., Relevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 218–230.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2021a). Second language pragmatics. In Haugh, M., Kádár, D., and Terkourafi, M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 758–779.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2021b). Metaphor comprehension: Meaning and beyond. In Ifantidou, E., de Saussure, L., and Wharton, T., eds., Beyond Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2021c). Non-propositional effects in verbal communication: The case of metaphor. Journal of Pragmatics, 181, 6–16.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. and Hatzidaki, A. (2019). Metaphor comprehension in L2: Meaning, images and emotions. Journal of Pragmatics, 149, 78–90.Google Scholar
Izard, C. (1984). Emotion-cognition relationships and human development. In Izard, C., Kagan, J., and Zajonc, R., eds, Emotions, Cognition and Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17–37.Google Scholar
Jary, G.M. (1998). Is relevance theory asocial? Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 11(11), 157–169.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149–169.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013). Why do we say what we say the way we say it? Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 71–83.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2016). Cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford Handbooks Online, pp. 401–415. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.29.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Sauter, D., Tracy, J., and Cowen, A. (2019). Emotional expression: Advances in basic emotion theory. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 43(2), 133–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, 23(4), 339–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyuh, I. (1994). A comparison of Korean and American refusal strategies. English Teaching, 49, 221–251.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2009). Pragmatics, propositional and non-propositional effects: Can a theory of utterance interpretation account for emotions in verbal communication? Social Science Information, 48, 447–463.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
Phelps, E. A. (2004). Human emotion and memory: Interactions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 198–202.Google Scholar
Sanchez-Hernandez, A. and Alcon-Soler, E. (2019). Pragmatic gains in the study abroad context: Learners’ experiences and recognition of pragmatic routines. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 54–71.Google Scholar
Schnall, S. (2005). The pragmatics of emotion language. Psychological Inquiry, 16, 28–31.Google Scholar
Schütze, U. (2016). Language Learning and the Brain: Lexical Processing in Second Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. and Ifantidou, E. (2020). Developmental and Clinical Pragmatics. Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2007). What is language: Some preliminary remarks. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., John Searle’s Philosophy of Language: Force, Meaning, and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–46.Google Scholar
Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 356–382.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1997). Remarks on Relevance Theory and the social sciences. Multilingua, 16(2/3), 145–151.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15(44), 117–149.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y. (eds.) (2018). Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tartaron, T. F. (2014). Cross-cultural interaction in the Greek world: Culture contact issues and theories. In Smith, C., ed., Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer, pp. 1804–1821.Google Scholar
Wei, R. (2018). Developing pragmatic competence in study abroad contexts. In Sanz, C. and Morales-Front, A., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice. New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 119–133.Google Scholar
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., and Kohl, K. (2021). The status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and Non-verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wharton, T. (2015). That bloody so-and-so has retired: Expressives revisited. Lingua, 176, 75–96.Google Scholar
Wharton, T. and Strey, C. (2019). Slave to the passions: Making emotions relevant. In Carston, R., Clark, B. and Scott, K., eds., Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 253–266.Google Scholar
Williams, G. (2020). Talking together at the edge of meaning: Mutual (mis)understanding between autistic and non-autistic speakers. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Brighton.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2019). Pragmatics and the challenge of “non-propositional” effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–38.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2018). Relevance theory and literary interpretation. In Cave, T. and Wilson, D., eds., Reading Beyond the Code. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
Woodard, R. D. (1997). Greek Writing from Knossos to Homer: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and the Continuity of Ancient Greek Literacy, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zalaltdinova, L. (2019). Modality as a reflection of pragmatic competence: Exploring modification of ELLs’ pragmatic knowledge based on the use of modality in the context of peer feedback. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University at Albany, State University of New York.Google Scholar