We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
While linguistic creativity is an essential feature of those who actively create instances of verbally expressed humor (VEH), awareness of context is equally indispensable. Humor is primarily cognitive, so it follows that language is the lowest common denominator between speaker/writer and receiver, in order for a joke, pun, quip, etc., to achieve its goal and, above all, to be recognized as being humorous in intent. However, over and above familiarity with the formal rules of a common language between interactants, successfully transmitted humor is also context dependent. Context involves both adherence to pragmatic rules and the recipient’s sociocultural encyclopedia. And if these two elements were not sufficient, humor also embroils the issue of sense of humor and the moral closeness/distance of our recipient to the object of our humor in order for it to be considered benign.
Discourse analysis is one of the clinical methods commonly used to assess the language ability of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the majority of published analytic frameworks are not geared for highlighting the pragmatic aspect of discourse deficits in acquired language disorders, except for those designed for quantifying conversational samples. This study aimed to examine how pragmatic competence is impaired and reflected in spoken monologues in Chinese speakers with TBI.
Methods:
Discourse samples of five tasks (personal narrative, storytelling, procedural, single- and sequential picture description) were elicited from ten TBI survivors and their controls. Each discourse sample was measured using 16 indices (e.g., number of informative words, percentage of local/global coherence errors, repeated words or phrases) that corresponded to the four Gricean maxims. Twenty-five naïve Chinese speakers were also recruited to perform perceptual rating of the quality of all 50 TBI audio files (five discourse samples per TBI participant), in terms of erroneous/inaccurate information, adequacy of amount of information given, as well as degree of organization and clarity.
Results:
The maxim of quantity best predicted TBI’s pragmatic impairments. Naïve listeners’ perception of pragmatics deficits correlated to measures on total and informative words, as well as number and length of terminable units. Clinically, personal narrative and storytelling tasks could better elicit violations in pragmatics.
Conclusion:
Applying Gricean maxims in monologic oral narratives could capture the hallmark underlying pragmatic problems in TBI. This may help provide an additional approach of clinically assessing social communications in and subsequent management of TBI.
Chapter 6 focuses on meaning and the interpretation of language. It contrasts the meaning of words, which we have stored in our mental lexicon and which we refer to as lexical meaning, with grammatical meaning, such as tense and aspect, gender, and number. There is also pragmatic meaning which depends on our knowledge of the world and contextual information. The difference between denotation, connotation, and reference are explored and basic concepts such a synonymy, antonymy, homonymy, etc. are introduced. Prototype theory is analyzed with appropriate examples. The chapter links to syntax by examining subcategorization, including transitive and intransitive verbs, and also thematic roles and their relation to syntactic structure. It presents the difference between sentences, propositions, and utterances, explaining in depth the importance of truth conditions. The chapter presents important concepts of entailment, contradiction, presupposition, and implicature and concludes with a brief discussion on theoretical frameworks such as cognitive and formal approaches to semantics.
Pragmatics refers to the way we understand and use language in social situations. For example, language choices we make express social roles and distance, power status, age, gender, and identity. These language choices have an effect on our interlocutors as we communicate. They can also lead to pragmatic mishaps, which are actually responsible for the majority of L2/Lx miscommunication (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998). In order to set the stage for an interculturally oriented curriculum that emphasizes pragmatics, this chapter reviews research on L2 pragmatics, what it is, and how to teach it in the L2/Lx classroom. Speech acts, conventional expressions, Gricean maxims, politeness and impoliteness, as well as humor are included in the discussion. The chapter concludes with practical suggestions for teaching L2/Lx pragmatics with an intercultural communication orientation and sample language teaching activities.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.