The Role of Pragmatic Functions of Language in L2 Learning and L2 Use

LidaTorkiDepartment of English language, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran.

M.A. degree, Specialization: English Language Teaching, Faculty member of Islamic Azad

University

Email: l_torki@yahoo.com – l.t5510@gmail.com

Abstract: The barriers to culture learning are more nonverbal than verbal. The

present paper is going to have a brief discussion about the importance of the

pragmatic functions of language and to show its contribution to the second language

development by analyzing it. This paper emphasizes that the most important problem

about learning a language is more than a sentence-level phenomenon, but it must be

along with the pragmatic functions of a language. The pragmatic purpose of

language-the use of signs and symbols for communication is thus the ultimate aim of

second language learning. The analysis of the functions of language can be referred

to as discourse analysis to capture the notion that language is more than a formal

feature of a language. Without context, with the intersentential and super sentential

relationship of discourse, it would be difficult to communicate unambiguously with

one another. We can’t ignore the importance of its non-verbal features (gesture, eye

contact, body language) in learning a language and in analyzing it. Discourse is such

a complex web that it will probably never be reduced to a simple formula or a neatly

packaged syllabus,because discourse is infinite and qualitative whereas a syllabus is

quantitative and finite. Discourse is such an intricate web of psychological, socio-

cultural, and linguistic features that it is easy to get entangled in but one part of that

web. And it is primarily impossible in the near future to describe the whole of human

discourse in such a way that language teachers are provided with ready solutions to

the teaching of a foreign language.

Keywords: Pragmatic Functions, Language, Learning, Use, second language

1

Introduction

The present paper is going to have a brief discussion about the pragmatic

functions of language and also to show its contribution to the second language

development. The pragmatic purpose of language- the use of symbols and signs for

communication is the ultimate aim of second language learning. The analysis of the

functions of language can be referred to as discourse analysis to capture the notion

that language is more than a sentence-level phenomenon. The analysis of discourse

is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the

description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions which those

forms are designed to serve in human affairs. While some linguists may concentrate

on determining the formal properties of a language, the discourse analyst is

committed to an investigation of what that language is used for. While the formal

approach has a long tradition, manifested in innumerable volumes of grammar, the

functional approach is less well-documented. Attempts to provide even a general set

of labels for the principle features of language have resulted in vague and often

confusing terminology. Without context, with the inter sentential and super sentential

relationship of discourse, it would be difficult to communicate unambiguously with

one another. The surface structure of a sentence in the context of total discourses in

conjunction with its prosodic features (stress, intonation and other phonological

nuances) and its non-verbal features (gestures, eye contact, body language) determine

the actual interpretation of that single sentence. Any analytic approach in linguistics

which involves contextual considerations necessarily belongs to that area of language

study called pragmatics. Doing discourse analysis certainly involves ‘doing syntax

and semantics, but it primarily consists of doing pragmatics ‘. Morris’s definition of

pragmatics as ‘the relations of signs to interpret the connection’ (1938:6), becomes

quite clear. In discourse analysis, as in pragmatics, we are concerned what people

using language are doing, and accounting for the linguistic features in the discourse

as the means employed in what they are doing. And the major emphasis was that the

2

discourse analyst necessarily takes a pragmatic approach to the study of language in

use.

A second language learner not familiar with contextual discourse constraints of

English might utter such a sentence or sentences like it with perfect pronunciation

and perfect grammar, but fail to achieve the communicative purpose of, say

apologizing to a dinner host or hostess, and instead appear to be impolitely critical or

complaining.

Second language research realizes that formal approaches that emphasize the

speech product of the learner ignore important functions of language. One learns how

to do conversation, one learns howto interact verbally, and out of this interaction

syntactic structures are developed.

It is necessary, then, in the course of understanding the principles of second

language learning and teaching, to understand significant variables in linguistic

discourse, variables that comprise what has been come to be called communicative

competence. This paper will outline some of those variables in an attempt to provide

a global, overall picture of important discourse features of language.

Pragmatics is a term traditionally used to label one of the three main divisions of

semiotics (along with semantics and syntactic). In modern linguistics, it is applied to

the study of language from the point of view of the Users,especially of the choices

they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction, and

the effects their use of language has on the other participants in an act of

communication. The field focuses on “areas” between semantics, sociolinguistics,

and extra-linguistic context. At present no precise pragmatic theory has been

achieved, mainly because of the variety of topics it has to account for including

aspects of Deixis, Conversational Implicatures, Presuppositions, Speech acts and

Discourse structure. In a narrow linguistic view, pragmatics deals with those aspects

of context which are formally encoded in the structure of a language that would be

part of a user’s pragmatic competence. At the opposite extreme, it has been defined

as the study of those aspects of meaning not covered by a semantic theory. In this

connection, some semanticists see the subject as contrasting with true-conditional

3

connection; it is suggested that the difficulties which arise in relation to the latter (for

example how to handle the notion of presupposition are more readily explicable with

reference to pragmatics. More exclusively, it has been characterized as the study of

the principles and practice of conversational performance, this including all aspects

of language usage, understanding and appropriateness.

Several derivative terms have been proposed in order to classify the wide range

of subject matter involved. Pragmalinguistics has been used by some to refer to the

more linguistic “end” of pragmatics, wherein one studies these matters from the

viewpoint of the structural resources available in a language. Sociopragmatics, by

contrast, studies the way conditions on language derive from the social situation.

General pragmatics is the study of the principles governing the communicative use of

language, especially as encountered in conversations-principles which may be studied

as putative universals, or restricted to the study of specific language. Applied

pragmatics focuses on problems of interaction that arise in contexts, where successful

communication is critical, such as medical interviews, judicial settings and

counseling.

Review of Related Literature

The Study of the Pragmatic Functions of Language

The highest point of language learning is not simply in the mastery of the forms

of language but the mastery of forms in accomplishing the communication functions

of language. While forms are the manifestation of language, functions are realization

of those forms. The pragmatic aim of language- the use of signs and symbols for

communication- is thus the final aim of the second language learning.

The analysis of the functions of language can be regarded as discourse analysis

to understand the notion that language is more than a sentence phenomenon. A single

sentence can seldom be fully analyzed without considering its context. We use

language in stretches of discourse we string many sentences together in cohesive

units such that sentences bear inter-relationship. Both the production and the

comprehension of language are a factor of our ability to perceive and process

4

stretches of discourse, to formulate representations of meaning from not just a single

sentence but referents in both previous sentences and following sentences. Through

discourse, we greet, request, agree, persuade, question, command, criticize, and

much, much more. The surface structure of a sentence in the context of total

discourse, in conjunction with its prosodic features (stress, intonation, and other

phonological nuances) and its nonverbal features (gestures, eye contact, body

language) determine the actual interpretation of that single sentence.

It is necessary, then, in the course of understanding the principles of second

language learning and teaching, to understand significant variables in linguistic

discourse, variables that comprise what has come to be called “communicative

competence”. Here we will take into consideration that the basic principles of

discourse analysis can be applied to individual language.

Registers and Styles

We use different styles and registers of language depending upon the context in

terms of subject matter, our audience, the mode of discourse (speaking or writing),

and the formality of the occasion. It is supposed that there are distinct varieties of

language associated with people’s occupations and to these the name register has

been given, Register refers to styles, which vary considerably, within a single

language user’s idiolect. The adult second language learner must acquire adaptability

of register in order to be able to encode and decode the discourse around him

correctly.

Martin Joos [9] provided one of the most common classic terms to subsume

subject matter, the audience, the mode of discourse, and the occasion. Joos

recognized five different levels of formality each showing different forms of speech

to fit separate functions: (1) oratorical, or “frozen” (2) deliberative or formal (3)

consultative (4) causal, and (5) intimate.

An oratorical style is used in public speaking before a large audience; wording is

carefully planned in advance, intonation is somewhat exaggerated, and numerous

rhetorical devices are appropriate.

5

A deliberative style is also used in addressing audiences, usually audiences too

large to permit effective interchange between speaker and hearers, though the forms

are normally not as polished as those in the oratorical style. An example is

universally classroom lecture.

A consultative style is typically a dialogue, though formal enough that words are

chosen with some care, doctor-patient conversations, business transactions, and the

like are usually consultative in nature.

Causal conversations are between friends or colleagues or sometimes members

of a family; in this context words need not be guarded and social barriers are

moderately low.

An intimate style is one characterized by complete absence of social inhibitions.

A talk with family and very close friends, where you can reveal your inner self, is

usually in an intimate style.

Categories of style also applies to written discourse. Written style is therefore

usually more deliberately with the exception of friendly lectures, notes, or literature

intended to capture a more personal style. [2]

Styles are manifested by both verbal and nonverbal features. Differences in style

can be conveyed in body language, gestures, eye contact and the like-all very difficult

aspects of “language” for the learner to acquire. Verbal aspects of style alone are

difficult enough to learn. Syntax in many languages is characterized by more

contractions and other deletions in intimate and causal styles. Lexical items vary too.

Bolinger [3] gave a somewhat tongue-in-check illustration of lexical items that have

one semantic meaning but represent each of the five styles: on the ball, smart,

intelligent, perceptive, and astute from intimate to frozen, respectively. Style

distinctions in pronunciation are likely to be most remarkable in the form of

hesitations and other misarticulations, phonological deletion rules in lower registers

and informal speech, and perhaps a more affected pronunciation in higher registers.

The articulation of register adaptability for second language learners poses no simple

problem. Cross-cultural variation is a primary barrier- that is realizing cognitively

and affectively what levels of formality are appropriate or inappropriate. Japanese

6

students, for example, are often surprised by the level of informality expressed by

their American professors. The acquisition of registers thus combines a linguistic and

culture-learning process.

Communicative Acts

Communication may be considered as a combination of acts, a series of

elements with purpose and intent. Communication is not merely an event, something

that happens; it is functional, purposive, and designed to bring about some effect,

some change, however subtle or unobservable- on the environment of hearers and

speakers. Communication is a series of communicative acts or speech acts.To use

John Austin’s [1] term which are used systematically to do particular purposes.

Austin stressed the importance of consequences of linguistic communication. Second

language learners need to understand the purpose of communication developing an

awareness of what the purpose of a communicative act is and how to achieve that

purpose through linguistic forms.

Michael Halliday [9] used the term functions to denote the purposive nature of

communication and mentioned seven different functions of language:

1. Instrumental function: The “I want” function

2. Regulatory function: The “Do as I tell you ,” function

3. Interactional function: The “Me and You” function

4. Personal function: The “Here I come” function

5. Heuristic function: The “tell me why,’’

6. Imaginative function: The “let’s pretend” function

7. Informative function: The “I’ve got something to tell you,” function

A single sentence or conversation might incorporate many different functions

happening at the same time. Yet it is understanding of how to use linguistic forms to

achieve these functions of language that comprises of second language learning. A

learner might acquire correct word order, syntax, and lexical items but not understand

how to achieve a desired and intended function through careful selection of words,

7

structure, intonation, nonverbal sentence, and astute perception of the context of a

special stretch of discourse.

Halliday’s seven functions of language tend to mask the almost infinite variety

and complexity of communication acts. Consider for example, the list of

communicative acts below.

1. Greeting, parting, inviting, and accepting 2. Complimenting congratulating,

seducing, charming3.Interrupting 4.Requesting 5.Evading, lying, shifting blame,

changing the subject 6.Criticizing, reprimanding, ridiculing, insulting, threatening,

warning7.Complaining 8. Accusing, denying 9. Agreeing, disagreeing, arguing10.

Persuading, insisting, suggesting, reminding, asserting, and advising11. Reporting,

evaluating, commenting 12, commanding, ordering, demanding 13.Questioning,

probing 14.Sympathesizing15, Apologizing, making excuses.

Subtle differences between communicative acts must be learned. The

appropriate contexts for various acts must be discerned. The forms of language used

to accomplish the functions must become part of total linguistic repertoire of the

second language learner.

Rules of Conversation

Conversation is the most significant locus of the functional use of the rules of

discourse.

Very early in life, children learn the first and essential rule of conversation:

attention getting. If you wish linguistic production to be functional, and to

accomplish its intended purpose, you must of course have the attention of the hearer

or audiences.

Once the speaker has secured the hearer’s attention his task becomes one of

topic nomination. Usually a person will simply take part in an issue by making a

statement or a question which leads to a special topic.

Once a topic is nominated, participants in a conversation then take part in topic

development, using conversations of turn-taking to accomplish various functions of

language.

8

Within topic development one encounters instances of topic clarification,

shifting, avoidance, and interruption. Topic clarification manifests itself in various

forms of heuristic functions. In the case of conversations of between second language

learners and native speakers, topic clarification often involves seeking or giving

repair (correction of linguistic forms that contain errors). Topic shifting and

avoidance may be affected through both verbal non-verbal signals.

Interruptions are a typical feature of all conversations. Language users learn how

to interrupt politely- a form of attention getting. Children typically have to be

“taught” how and when to interrupt.

Topic termination is an art which even native speakers of a language have

difficulty in mastering at times. Each language has verbal and nonverbal signals for

such termination. Each teacher must be aware of the rules of conversation in the

second language and to aid learners both to perceive those rules and follow them in

their own conversations.

Personality Factors

Language and person are inextricably interrelated; one’s personality is often the

central feature in a conversation. And as a participant speaks, comprehends and

provides non-verbal feedback, he reveals his personality.

Some factors of personality are empathy, self-esteem and dominance of which

the dominance is an important factor in conversational analysis.Such dominance can

indicate either high self-esteem or it may be a defense of a rather insecure self-

esteem. The term empathy refers to the quality of being able to imagine and share the

thoughts, feelings, and point of view of other people. Empathy s thought to contribute

to the attitudes we have towards a person or group with a different language and

culture from our own, and it may contribute to the degree of success with which a

person learns another language. In general, the group dynamics of a conversation are

a factor of personality differences and the expression or exposure of certain

personalities. No single participant should be judged or analyzed apart from the

9

whole context and the total group of persons in a conversation. The degree to which a

learner utilizes the personal function of his second language in conversation will

depend on the total group dynamics and the interaction of personalities in the group.

What a person says, how he says it, when he says it, and how he hears others- all

these are important considerations in seeking a clear understanding of the effect of

personality on conversational discourses.

Non-Verbal Dimensions of Discourse

Nonverbal communication is so subtle and subconscious in a native speaker that

verbal language seems, by comparison, quite mechanical and systematic. Language

becomes distinctly human through its nonverbal dimensions, or what Edward Hall [8]

called the “hidden dimension”. The expression of culture is so bound up in nonverbal

Communication that the barriers to culture learning are more nonverbal than verbal.

Verbal language requires the use of only one of the five sensory modalities: hearing.

But these remain in our conversation repertoire three other senses by which we

communicate every day, if we for the moment rule out taste as falling within a

communicative category. We will examine each of these.

Visual Modality

Gesture and Body Language

All cultures throughout the history of humankind have communicated by body

language. Julius Fast’s Body language [6] explained how many messages are

communicated as you fold your arms, cross your legs, stand, walk, move your eyes

and mouth, and use various gestures.

But as universal as kinesics communication is, there is tremendous variation

cross-culturally in the specific interpretation of gestures. Human beings all move

their heads, blink their eyes, move their arms and hands, but the significance of these

movements varies from society to society.. Sometimes a gesture that is appropriate in

one culture is insulting in another. Nodding the head, for example, means “yes”

10

among most European language speakers. But in the Eskimo gestural system, head

nodding means “no” and hand shaking means “yes”.

Eye Contact

Cultures differ widely in this particular visual modality of nonverbal

communication. In American culture it is permissible for two participants of equal

status to maintain prolonged eye contact. In fact an American might interpret lack of

eye contact as discourteous lack of attention; while in Japanese eye contact might be

considered rude. An important aspect of unambiguous conversation in a second

language is the acquisition of conventions for conveying messages by means of eye

signals.

Proxemics

The study of the physical distance between people when they are talking to each

other, as well as their postures and whether or not there is physical contact during

their conversation. These factors can be looked at in relation to the sex, age, social

and cultural background of the people involved, and also their attitudes to each other

and their state of mind. According to Edward Hall [8], when a North American,

having have the problem pointed out to him, permits the Latin American to get close

enough, he will immediately notice that the latter seems much more at ease.

The Artifacts

The nonverbal messages of clothing and ornamentation are also important

aspects of communication. Clothes for both sexes in many cultures often signal a

person’s sense of self-esteem, socio-economic class and general character.

Kinesthetic Modality

Touching, sometimes referred to as kinesthetics, is another culturally loaded

aspects of nonverbal communication. Touching in some cultures signals a very

11

personal or intimate register, while for other cultures extensive culture is

commonplace.

Olfactory Modality

Our noses also receive sensory nonverbal messages. The olfactory modality is of

course an important one for animal kingdom, but for the human race, too, different

cultures have established different dimensions of olfactory dimensions. Second

language and especially second culture learners need to be aware of the accepted

mores of other cultures in the olfactory modality. We cannot underestimate the

importance of nonverbal communication in second language learning and in

conventional analysis.

The Notional-Functional Syllabus: Discourse Analysis in the Classroom

In language teaching, a syllabus in which the language-content is arranged

according to the meaning a learner needs to express through language and the

functions the learner will use the language for. The term Notional is taken from

Notional Grammar. A notional syllabus is contrasted with a grammatical syllabus or

structural syllabus (one which consists of a sequence of graded language items) or a

situational syllabus (one which consists of situations and the relevant language items.

A notional syllabus contains:

(a) The meanings and concepts the learner needs in order to communicate (e.g.

time, quantity, duration, location) and the language needed to express them. These

concepts and meanings are called notions.

(b) The language needed to express different functions or speech acts (e. g.

requesting, suggesting, promising, describing). These notions and functions are then

used to develop learning/teaching units in a language course.

A weakness of the structural syllabus, in its focus on grammars, is tendency to

highlight a grammatical feature to the exclusion of practical application in real

situations. Notional syllabuses seek to overcome that weakness in their attention to

12

the final purpose of language: functional, pragmatic communication between and

among human beings.

Pragmatics and Discourse Context

The discourse analyst necessarily takes a pragmatic approach to the study of

language in use. The discourse analyst has to take account of the context in which a

piece of discourse occurs.Some of the most obvious linguistic elements which require

contextual information for their interpretation are the deictic forms such as here,

I,you,this and that. In interpreting these elements in a piece of discourse, it is

necessary to know who the speaker and hearer are, and the time and place of the

production of the discourse.

Some Aspects of Contextual Description Which are Required in the Analysis of

Discourse

Because the analyst is investigating the use of a language in context by a

speaker/writer, he is more concerned with the relationship between the speaker and

the utterance, on the special association of use, than with the potential relationship of

one sentence to another, regardless of their use. That is, in using terms such as

reference, presupposition, implicature and inference, the discourse analyst, is

describing what speakers and hearers are doing, and not the relationship which exists

between one sentence and another.

Reference

The relationship between words and the things, actions, events, and qualities

they stand for. An example in English is the relationship between the word tree and

the “object” referent in the real world.

Presupposition

Presupposition is defined in terms of assumptions the speaker makes about what

the hearer is likely to accept without challenge. Consider the following example:

13

(a) My uncle is coming home from Canada.

(b) My uncle isn’t coming home from Canada.

(c) I have an uncle.

If we rely on a notion of speaker, or pragmatic, presupposition, we can simply

treat (c) as a presupposition of the speaker in uttering (a).

Implicatures

The term “implicature” is used by Grice to account for what a speaker can

imply,suggest, or mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally says. The use of

conversational maxims to imply meaning during conversation is called conversational

implicatures, and the “cooperation” between speakers in using the maxims is

sometimes called the co-operative principle.

Conversational maxim: an unwritten rule about conversation which people know

and which influences the form of conversational exchanges. For example in the

following exchange:

1. Let’s go to the movies.

2. I have an examination in the morning.

B’s reply might appear not to be connected to A’s remark. However, Since A

has made an invitation and since a reply to an invitation is usually either an

acceptance or a refusal, B’s reply is here understood as an excuse for not accepting an

invitation (i.e. a refusal) B has used the “maxim” that speakers normally give replies

which are relevant to the question that has been asked. The philosopher Grice has

mentioned that there are four conversational maxims [7]:

(a) The maxim of quantity: give as much information as is needed.

(b) The maxim of quality: speak truthfully.

(c) The maxim of relevance: say things that are relevant.

(d) The maxim of manner: say things clearly and briefly.

Consider the Following Example

A: I am out of petrol. B: There is a garage round the corner.

14

In this example, Grice suggests that B would be infringing the instruction be

relevant if he was stating a fact about the world via the literal meaning of his

utterance. The implicature, derived from the assumption that speaker B is adhering to

the cooperative principle, is that the garage is not only round the corner, but also will

be open and selling petrol. We might also note that in order to arrive at the

implicature, we have to know certain facts about the world, that garages sell petrol,

and that round the corner is not a great distance away. We would like to emphasize

the fact implicatures are pragmatic aspects of meaning and have certain identifiable

characteristic. They are partially derived from the conversational or literal meaning of

an utterance, produced in a specific context which is shared by the speaker and the

hearer, and depend on recognition by, the speaker and the hearer of the cooperative

principle and its maxims.

Inference

Inference means the process of arriving at an interpretation for utterances or for

the connections between utterances. It may be the case that we are capable of

deriving a specific conclusion 7(c) from specific premises 7(b), via deductive

inference, but we are rarely asked to do so in the everyday discourse we encounter.

7) a. If it is sunny, it’s warm

b. It’s sunny.

c. So, it’s warm.

Therefore the terms reference, presupposition, implicature and inference must be

treated as pragmatic concepts in the analysis of discourse. These terms will be used to

indicate the relationships between discourse participants and elements in the

discourse.

Implication for Classroom Teachers

The practical implications of discourse analysis for classroom methods and

techniques are abundant and the resources of discourse analysis have begun to

appear. As interest has changed in both linguistics and second language research

15

away from paying attention just to the forms of language to an interest in the

functional features of linguistic communication, so also language teaching paradigms

have begun to emphasize functional communication, with “ communicative

competence” one of the by-words of language teaching methodology. Such emphases

have placed importance in language curricula on communicative acts and

conversational analysis, with grammatical structures considering a secondary or even

at times a subordinate role. Traditional curricula constructed a set of lessons based on

a sequence of a grammatical structures in such a way that, say, the present tense was

followed by the past tense, then, the future tense, then models, and so on, with

lessons on prepositions, articles, and other categories all carefully sequenced in the

overall course syllabus.

In general, the notional syllabus should not be considered as a panacea, the last

word. Nor, however, are notional syllabuses merely “structural lamb served up as

notional-functional mutton” [4].What notional syllabuses do give us is, first of all an

organization of language content by functional categories; second, they provide a

means of developing structural categories within a general consideration of the

functions of language. We have not arrived at a final solution with the notional-

functional syllabus, but we have rather begun an avenue of exploration that

communication in a foreign language is something so complex that it will probably

never be reduced to a simple formula or a neatly packaged syllabus. Communication

is qualitative and infinite; a syllabus is quantitative and finite.

Conclusion

Discourse is such a complicated web of psychological, socio-cultural, and

linguistic features that it is easy to get entangled in but one part of that web. And it is

probably impossible in the near future to describe the whole of human discourse in

such a way that language teachers are provided with ready solutions in the teaching

of a foreign language. But some of the features of human communication are

becoming clearer. The language teacher and researcher can be a part of that cohesive

16

understanding of how learners acquire the ability to handle the discourse features of a

second language.

Selected Bibliography

1. Austin, John L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words? Cambridge: Harvard

University

2. Bolinger, Dwight (1975). Aspects of Language. Second Edition. New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

3. Brown, H. Douglas (1980). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching.

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

4. Campbell, Russel(1978). Notional-functional Syllabuses. Part I in Blatchford

and Schachter.

5. Fast, Julius (1970). Body Language. New York: M. Evans Company.

6. Grice, H.P. (1969). Logic and Conversation.Unpublished manuscript,

University of California, Berkeley.

7. Hall, E. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday.

8. Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruguaiya Hassan (1990). Language, Context and

Text: Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Francis Christie

(Ed.) Oxford University Press.

9. Joos, M. (1967). The Five Clocks. New York: Harcourt, Brace and world.

17