Stephen van Vlack
Sookmyung Women`s University
Graduate School of TESOL
History of the English Language
Fall 2006
Week 15 - Answers
Kecskes and Papp (2000) Chapter 7
1. What is pragmatic transfer and how can it be stimulated?
In order to understand pragmatic transfer we first need to understand what pragmatics is. A person`s pragmatic skill relates to how they actually use the language they speak. How a person uses language to achieve certain purposes, whether these be communicative or cognitive is the realm of pragmatics. The simplest definition of pragmatics would be to call it `meaning in context.` Now, it should also be clear, as we have stated it earlier in this course, that language is also deeply connected to culture. How, why, when, where, as well as the specific forms used in an utterance are all determined by the culture in which the language is used. It is through pragmatics that we can clearly see how use determines usage. Pragmatics is the skill that allows us to produce comprehensible language as well as understand all language use by taking all these different contextual cues into account and forming/interpreting a message in association with them. In a very real sense we use our language to make sense not only of language but of the world itself. In fact the argument goes that the two cannot be separated simply because the world is needed to help us interpret the vague meanings of language (linguistic forms). Our L1, then, determines (and all subsequently learned languages in some way affect) our world view, the way we understand the world to work, the way we interpret things in the world. It is simply true that without context language is ambiguous.
Now, some of the ways in which language is used (pragmatic skills) will be universal. Some pragmatic skills apply to all languages because all human cultures, and languages as well, are much more similar than they are different. Pragmatic skills, therefore, are to an extent greater than other areas of language more prone to transfer. What generally happens is that the pragmatic skills of the L1 are transferred onto the L2 usage and often with little difficulty or thought. In fact, it has been argued in Kecskes and Papp (2000) as well as Kasper and Rose (2002) that pragmatic skills are the easiest to transfer among all the linguistic skills because of their real world nature. This does not mean that there are not many language specific elements of pragmatics, but it is more universal than other structural or semantic aspects of language.
The more universal nature of pragmatic skills mans that they should be easy to activate for transfer. But activation requires language use, not even authentic language use initially, but really any kind of language use, even reading can be used to develop pragmatic skills. We saw in the experiment recorded in Kecskes and Papp (2000) how reading skills can transfer. As we look below at how pragmatics relates to actual writing then this will become clearer.
2. What is pragmatic competence and how does it relate to norms of conversation?
As mentioned above, pragmatic competence is the ability to use language effectively in the real world (context), both for production and reception. Now, in order to do this there are universal ideas such as the idea that all instances of language use (language use events) have a purpose and a meaning. So, for example, if I walk into the classroom and say something like, `that`s it` you are going to start looking around desperately to find out what I might be talking about. This is your universal pragmatic competence telling you that I wouldn`t say something unless than was a good reason, therefore you must find the reason.
Pragmatics exists on two major levels. There are macro functions, such as that mentioned in the example above, where all language use has some reason. There is also the level of micro functions or what is sometimes termed `speech acts` which relate to very specific functions in language such as giving a compliment or making and excuse. Now, for all these aspects of pragmatics there are also language or culture specific norms which should be followed for effective communication and/or interpretation. For example, how one apologizes in Korean and English is similar but also varies quite a bit. In Korean silence is an accepted norm for apology (under certain conditions), while it is not in English. Norms determine how people within a specific cultural/linguistic group approach certain situations and how they can deal with them effectively through the use of not only certain forms but of communication strategies and these differ quite a bit from language to language/culture to culture. Once we take all these different norms of language use together we can begin to understand how it is through pragmatics that we not only understand language could also come to understand the world. This should be obvious because language is always used in context. We do things with language. Language is a way that human beings, and only human beings, deal with life on a very general basis. Linguistic behavior and social behavior are really different sides of the same coin and it is in this way that our knowledge of linguistic pragmatics really determines how we view what is normal in the world.
3. How is written discourse related to thought and why is this important for language development?
As mentioned above, language becomes not only the way one uses language itself, but the way one perceives and interprets the world. Language is, to a certain extent, the way we think. Our logical structure is reflected in and affected by the language we use. The easiest way to see this is by simply looking at how different speakers of different languages go about writing. Studies have shown that different languages, based not only on their structure but also on their cultural norms, go about organizing their pieces of writing in different ways. Here of course we`re talking about more formal types of writing in longer texts. These systematic differences have been shown in studies of how students of diverse language backgrounds structure their written discourse. Think about your own experience in learning how to write formally in English. I am sure you have had and maybe even continue to have difficulties in writing well in English and not just because of grammar and vocabulary. Based on my own experience as a teacher of English writing in Korea I can tell you that the students really do come to English writing with a different logic. They bring with them the norms of Korean discourse to English and even more. Because writing, on an even grader and much more controlled scale than speaking, is about problem solving how a person approaches an empty piece of paper is determined by much more than just the linguistic forms they are going to use. There are strategies for how students suppose to fill that blank piece of paper up. This is how pragmatics works in writing and I am sure all of you have felt it.
Being able to overcome the deep seated effects of the L1 is not an easy matter. As reported in Purves (1986) students need to reach a threshold level in their proficiency before they can begin to merge systems and use a CUCB for regular production in both languages and this applies to writing as well as to speaking. Interestingly, exposure to the L2 in the L2 environment alone was not a determining factor in the development of the CUCB, but rather the amount of formal exposure to the L2 prior to exposure to the L2 environment. This is where we get the optimal transfer, as was discussed in previous chapters. We need skills to flow downhill form strong areas to weak areas. Once this CUCB is established through an intensive exposure to the L2 leading to a process of concept neutralization then the learner will be able to make all skills available in all the different languages they have and that is exactly what we want.