Pragmatic Competence

doi:10.1017/9781108884303.029

28 - Pragmatic Competence

from Part V - Language Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2022

Elly Ifantidou

Edited by

Istvan Kecskes

Show author details

Istvan Kecskes: Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany

Book contents

Get access

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

language learning language teaching proficiency language competence pragmatic competence intercultural language competence

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 741 - 765

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108884303.029 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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.CrossRef Google 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

Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday.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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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

Ishida, M. (2005). Review of Anne Barron. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 737–741.CrossRef 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.CrossRef Google 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. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, 23(4), 339–364.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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

Book contents

28 - Pragmatic Competence

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive