12 therefore concerned mainly with the meaning of lexical items, whereas pragmatics
is defined as a study of relationships holding between linguistic forms and human beings who use these forms. In a simple way, it can be concluded that all of them
deals with meaning but the meaning is derived differently by respective study area. Syntax derives meaning from formal relation between one word and others,
while semantic derives meaning from the lexical item, whereas pragmatics derives meaning from the users‘ view. Thus, pragmatics focuses on meaning which
derives from both speakers and hearers.
a. Pragmatic Dimensions
Horn and Ward 2007 mention that the basic subfields of pragmatics theory consist of implicature, presupposition, speech acts, reference, deixis, and
indifiniteness. However, based on interlanguage pragmatics research, such fields of pragmatics can be classified into two broad categories, namely pragmalinguistics and
sociopragmatics Eslami- Rasekh, 2005. The former refers to the linguistic resources for conveying communicative acts and interpersonal meanings, whereas the latter
refers to the social perceptions underlying participants‘ interpretation and performance of communicative acts. This classification happens because
interlanguage pragmatic research traditionally distinguished knowledge into linguistic knowledge and social knowledge Soler and Marti´Nez-Flor, 2008.
To put it simple, pragmalinguistic knowledge is language knowledge that is needed by learners to produce certain speech act. It is language- specific. It is related
with language expressions used for particular speech act. While sociopragmatic knowledge is knowledge on how to perform a speech act which is acceptable by the
society of language users. In other words, it is knowledge on how to use
13
pragmalinguistic knowledge acceptably and appropriately. For instance expressions ‗can you….‘, ‗will you…‘, ‗Do you mind…..?‘ for request and expressions ‗Hi’,
‗Hello’, How do you do?‘, ‗How are you?‘ for greetings. Knowing such kinds of expressions is called pragmalinguistic knowledge. While using such kinds of
expressions for certain context ‗Hi’ or ‗hello’ for people you have already known and ‗How do you do? For people you do not know very well appropriately and
acceptably is called sociopragmatic knowledge.
b. Pragmatics in Language Teaching
There have been some literatures, which yield on the teachability of pragmatics. However, some skeptics have claimed that pragmatic competence can not
be taught and, as some have similarly claimed in the case of teaching language form, explicit focus on pragmatics in teaching is not necessary, as students will gradually
absorb pragmatic competence from their exposure to the target language Brock and Nagasaka, 2005. This claim is not totally true. This claim seems to be acceptable
only in ESL context. It has been already known that in ESL context, learners can get lots of exposures from their environments and society. However, this claim seems to
be inapplicable in EFL context. It is obvious that in EFL context, learners have limited number of language exposures from the society and environment. The central
cite for learning is the classroom with teachers and materials as the main source of learning. Thus, they have few and limited exposures on target language, so it is
impossible for them to absorb and master pragmatic competence only based on such limited number of exposures that they get in the classroom from either English
teachers or textbooks.
14 Thus, to make teaching pragmatic effective, Trosborg and Kasper as cited
in Pohl, 2004: 6 promote the sharpening of students awareness of appropriate pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic behavior through explicit teaching and
metapragmatic treatment. These can be achieved through description, explanation, and discussion of pragmatic features.
It has already been mentioned earlier that an explicit approach of teaching pragmatics is little bit more effective than implicit one. The explicit teaching of
pragmatics is in line with the awareness- raising approach which has been widely used in the current teaching of L2 pragmatics Ishihara, 2010: 113.
The explicit teaching approach can be reached through instructional design in the English course book, then transformed into classroom practice. Ishihara 2010:
113 mentions several classroom activities which yield to the explicit treatment of pragmatic teaching. She classifies such activities based on focus into two broad
categories, pragmalinguistic focus and socio pragmatic focus. The examples of pragmalinguistic focuses can be seen in the extract as follows.
analyzing and practicing the use of vocabulary in the particular context;
identifying and practicing the use of relevant grammatical structures;
identifying and practicing the use of strategies for a speech act;
analyzing and practicing the use of discourse organization e.g.,discourse structure
of an academic oral, and presentation;
analyzing and practicing the use of discourse markers and fillers e.g.,well, um, actually;
analyzing and practicing the use of epistemic stance markersi.e., words and
phrases to show the speaker‘s stance, such as: I think, maybe, seem, suppose, tend to, of course
noticing and practicing the use of tone e.g., verbal and non-verbal cues and
nuances.
Ishihara, 2010:113- 114 It is obvious that the activities above only emphasize on the linguistic aspect of
language. While the examples of sociopragmatic focus activities can be seen in the following extract.
15
analyzing language and context to identify the goal and intention of the speaker,
and assessing the speaker‘s attainment of the goal and the listener‘s interpretation
analyzing and practicing the use of directnesspolitenessformality in an interaction;
identifying and using multiple functions of a speech act;
identifying and using a range of cultural norms in the L2 culture; and
identifying and using possible cultural reasoning or ideologies behind L2
pragmatic norms.
Ishihara, 2010: 114
However, she adds that in reality of language teaching, there is not clear cut between both types of instructions. In other words, the instructions are blurred
either it belongs to sociopragmatic focus or pragmalinguistic focus since to do the activities requires learners to focus on both linguistic and social aspects. It can be
seen in the following extract.
collecting L2 data in the L2 community or the media, e.g., films, sit-coms;
comparing learners‘ L1 and L2 pragmatic norms;
comparing felicitous and infelicitous L2 pragmatic uses, e.g., comparing
successful and awkward interactions;
sharing personal stories about pragmatic failure or similar or different pragmatic norms in another culture;
reconstructing sample dialogues, e.g., recreating dialogues and sequencing of lines
from a dialogue ;
role-playing variation: role-plays with specific intentions, such as where one person attempts to persuade the other to accept an invitation and the other intends
to refuse the invitation. The role-play can be recorded for subsequent reflection,;
keeping a reflective journal or interaction log;
interviewing L2-speaking informants about norms for pragmatic behavior; and
experimenting with certain pragmatic behavior in the L2 community.
Ishihara, 2010: 114
Looking at those language instructions, we can infer that all of those instructions are used to improve learners‘ pragmatic competence which can be
found in English textbooks. However, practically not all of those instructions are applied in English textbooks. Sometimes, there are only some of the instructions
used in text books, whereas some of them are absent.
c. Pragmatic Failure of Language Learners
