EXPLAIN ABOUT " PRAGMATICS"
Hi, this time I want to give a little explanation about PRAGMATICS. You can see here https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Foc7guSg2MNYuuIPMz7MoK6u7QL1obt/view?usp=drivesdk
If there are questions, I will be happy to answer questions from all my friends. Happy learning.
If there are questions, I will be happy to answer questions from all my friends. Happy learning.
Assalamu'alaikum Yola. I've read your blog about pragmatics. I just want to know, How do we know the meaning of the words or the sentences that are pragmatic? How do we differentiate the words or sentences of pragmatic meaning and the words or sentences that aren't pragmatics?
BalasHapusWalaikumssalam. Ok I think the answer to your question is in the material I gave. But never mind, I explain again by giving an example again
HapusEx: I heart you!
Semantically, "heart" refers to an organ in our body that pumps blood and keeps us alive. However, pragmatically, "heart" in this sentence means "love" -hearts are commonly used as a symbol for love, and to "heart" someone has come to mean that you love someone.
Thank you for your answer. But, I think you don't understand my question. I ask you about : how do we know and differentiate the sentence which is pragmatic and no???? Please read and understand my questions. Thank you.
HapusOk, U see, if semantic focuses mainly on the significance of the meaning in a literal sense.
HapusPragmatics focuses on the meaning of words according to the context and their inferred meanings as well
Thanks
I give you a sentence. Then please tell me this is the pragmatics meaning or semantics meaning. "Can you help mom to mop the floor now?"
HapusOh my god, pragmatics help mam clean floor. Tx
HapusYour answer is really bad. I think that you do not understand about my qiestions. I am not asking you about the meaning of that sentence. But, I am asking you about the types of the sentence. Is it pragmatics sentence or semantics sentence? Thank you.
HapusI think you should re-read again all the questions on your blog in order to make you have a better undertanding about the questions. So, you can give the best answer. I do really hope you consider my suggestions. Thank you.
HapusWhy pragmatics have an important role in teaching language, including teaching English as a foreign language?
BalasHapusThanks for ur question,
HapusPragmatics is the way we convey the meaning through the communication. The meaning includes verbal and non verbal elements and it varies according to the context, to the relationship between utterers, also to many other social factors.Its dynamic growth makes English an international language that connects people all around the world. As a consequence, English can be regarded as the common focus of all English speakers who do not share a language or a culture. As a matter of fact, English is spoken in different settings and levels of intercommunication. As a result, speakers must know many pragmatic elements in order to avoid inaccuracies and misunderstandings during communication. Such a great usage of English language requires a pragmatic competence which will help all those who speak or learn English as a second language. Thomas defined pragmatic competence as “… the ability to analyze language in a conscious manner.” (as cited in Holmes & Brown, 2007, p 524).Pragmatic competence refers to the ability to comprehend, construct utterances which are accurate and appropriate to the social and cultural circumstances where the communication occurs. Pragmatic competence should be a leading goal for all those who teach English as a second language, which simultaneously represents a challenging task as well. Therefore the role of pragmatics is very important
Komentar ini telah dihapus oleh pengarang.
HapushI Yusuf! I want to try to answer your question.
HapusAccording to me, the pragmatics is so important in teaching English as a foreign language, because the language is universal. it is one of the most important element that should had by the teacher when they want to teaching English to their students in the class, and I think as the good teacher we should apply our pragmatics knowledge to teach them exactly to improving their language skill.
As we know our students has different background, and it must be different culture also. So, we can show that from the difference itself. And then, it is important to apply of pragmatics knowledge in teaching English to school students because the students not only learning about speaking but also all of the language skills, such as listening, reading and writing, so they must be active and creative in getting their language ability.
We talk start from reading, the students should know and make a comprehending of the information that they have found after they read some sentences or paragraph. If they do not know what the meaning of the word, and how they can identify sentence by sentence, it will be difficult for them.
The second, in writing students required to write some sentences or paragraph in good constructions, if they want to have or produce a good writing. The students should know how to choice or use the word that suitable based on the context.
And the last, it is about listening. In listening comprehension students should know many of vocabulary and how the people pronounced the word, because in English there are so many words that have the same sound, and it needs more explanation from the teacher. This thing needs the role of the teacher in guiding the students to get the good result. And to be the guider or teacher you have to apply your ability or knowledge especially pragmatics knowledge. The teacher should teach their students to find the suitable meaning of the word when they are in reading the text. The teacher should guide their students.
Tq for u help me answer this
HapusHey yusuf..
HapusI think u must see the answer of your friends
Hi yola! You are welcome. You did a great job. You answered the question with a complete explanation. I really love your improvement. 😍
HapusHi Yola, thank you for sharing, u explained, based on Jenny Thomas there are 3 thing that we have to concider about pragmatics, right? The question is what is the thing that we have to considering in the context of utterance? Could u give me more explanation and give an example, how to concider it?
BalasHapusHello Yola and Vero! Please allow me to give an answer of Vero’s question on your blog, Yola. It is true that there are 3 things that we should consider about pragmatics. They are:
Hapus1. The negotiation of meaning between speaker and listener.
2. The context of the utterance.
3. The meaning potential of an utterance.
I’d like to give explanation and examples of the 3 things that we should consider about pragmatics. I’ll give the explanation and examples by researchers also. Actually, Jenny Thomas did not give a detail explanation about them. So, we can understand by ourselves and we can see the explanation of the researchers.
1. The negotiation of meaning between speaker and listener.
For me, this is very easy to understand. It means that we as a speaker or as a listener sometimes should understand and negotiate to the utterance of our interlocutors. So, we can avoid misunderstanding and miscommunication at the same time. For example: A talk to B
A: What do you think of this? Is it a real apple or just a toy?
B: I think it’s a toy.
A: Are you sure? I can see the true color of the apple.
B: It’s just a toy.
A: it’s just a toy. Yes, you’re right.
The example above may look like a confirmation check, but it was classified into repetition, other repetition to be precise. This repetition strategy was probably employed by the listener to signal his agreement with the previous speaker’s utterance “it’s just a toy”. In this case A was trying to repeat the previous utterance from B without a rising intonation. Thus, it was not to verify that he has correctly heard what was previously mentioned by a speaker but presumably to agree with the previous statement.
According to Hartono and Ihsan (2017), Negotiation of meaning occurs in the interactions as a communication strategy to make meaning comprehensible. In a conversation, speakers and interlocutors may employ negotiation of meaning strategy to achieve mutual understanding. Negotiation of meaning is important in language acquisition and second or foreign language learning. With the use of negotiation of meaning, speakers and interlocutors can avoid misunderstanding and communication breakdowns. For examples: A talk to B
A: I have two penguins here. I don’t know how they can live
in this room
B: heeee…so it’s funny (laugh)
A: eh eh someone should found(*) this picture must be think
out of the box, must think out of the box. Ah.. What else do
you have? Oh wait wait
In this example, speaker A corrected his previous utterance by saying ‘must think out of the box’, without “be”. The speaker immediately corrected his utterance after realizing that he made error in his previous utterance. This spontaneous ability to self-correct may depend on a speaker’s English language proficiency. In this case, the participants have relatively good English as evidenced by their TOEFL score. Therefore, it is expected that they should be able to do self-correction. However, it should be noted that having good English language per se does not prevent language users from making a mistake in communication because sometimes people still make a mistake although they know the correct ones.
You can search it on google by copying this pdf on bracket (25874173.pdf), then you’ll find the key words of the pdf An Analysis of Meaning Negotiation Strategies Used in..
2. The context of the utterance.
HapusFor me, the context of the utterance is evaluation of an utterance containing indexicals depends on such things as the time and place of utterance and who is speaking. For example:
For instance, our evaluation of “Rendy wants to buy his book” may depend how we interpret “his book”, which in turn depends on whether the context contains “His pen is the pen that Rendy owns” or instead “His pen is the pen that Rendy last bought”.
According to Christopher Gauker on Philosophical Studies 91 (2):149-172 (1998), “For many purposes in pragmatics one needs to appeal to a context of utterance conceived as a set of sentences or propositions. The context of utterance in this sense is often defined as the set of assumptions that the speaker supposes he or she shares with the hearer. I argue by stages that this is a mistake. First, if contexts must be defined in terms of shared assumptions, then it would be preferable to define the context as the set of assumptionsthat the interlocutors really do share. Second, not all shared assumptions belong to the context, because not all are relevant. Third, hearers need not accept every member of the context, because some presuppositions are informative. Finally, presupposition coordination problems show that contexts may have contents that even the speaker does not accept. Contexts, we may conclude, are mind-transcendent. In one sense of the term a "presupposition" is an interlocutor's take on this mind-transcendent context.” For example:
Similarly, the evaluation of utterances of sentences containing words like “yet”, “even” and “only” depends on the content of the propositional context. For instance, the evaluation of an utterance of “The mail has not arrived yet” may depend on whether the propositional context contains something such as “The mail will arrive today”. A different class of cases is sentences containing active verbs such as “to know”. For instance, our evaluation of an utter-ance of the sentence “Matt knows that his paper is late” depends on whether the propositional context includes “Matt’s paper is late”. Yet a different sort of case is the way in which our evaluation of sentences containing possessive noun phrases depends on the propositional context.
You can search it on google by copying this DOI on bracket (10.1023/A:1004247202476), then you’ll find the key words What is a context of utterance?
3. The meaning potential of an utterance.
HapusFor me, the meaning potential of an utterance is an utterance containing potential words depends on the words that we choose to deliver our thought to interlocutors. For example:
According to Li on Journal of Chinese Language and Computing 18 (3):121-137 (2006), One important reason why a word is endowed with a pragmatic meaning in an utterance is to communicate a concept which we use in our thought, but for which we have no word in our language. However, unlike metaphors, we can often communicate this concept by modifying a certain word for which we have a stable conceptual representation in memory. When interpreting a word in an utterance, we encourage the hearer to narrow or broaden the original concept to the point where he can derive the set of implications we intend to communicate. For example:
Because she is the last child, she has always been the princess of the house.
The underline word means that whatever she wants, she get it.
The concept expressed by the use of a familiar word may depart from the concept encoded by the use of that word in various ways. It may also be narrower, as in (4), broader, as in (5), or both narrower and broader, as in (6).
(4) A: I cannot open the freezer because of the ice
B:(Dentist) Open your mouth
(5) A. Mark passed everything with distinction. He is such as genius!
B. I have a square spot on my leg
(6) With five older sisters, David has always been the prince of the house.
In (4), the encoded concept is automatically narrowed to denote only a subset of particular ways of opening. In (5), it is broadened to the point where it includes not only real geniuses, or geometrically perfect squares, but, more generally, very clever people, such as Mark, and square-like shapes, such as the spot on the speaker’s leg. Finally, in (6), processing only some of our encyclopedic assumptions about princes (e.g. the knowledge that princes are well looked after, that they get everything they want or need, etc.) during utterance comprehension results in a simultaneous narrowing and broadening of the encoded concept. The resulting pragmatic meaning of ‘prince’ in (6) is narrower than the encoded concept in that it denotes only princes who are treated in a special way (excluding poor princes or those in exile) and broader in that it does not only denote members of a royal family but, more generally, ordinary people who receive very special treatment typical of princes.
You can search it on google by copying this pdf on bracket (http://www.colips.org/journals/volume18/JCLC_2008_V18_N3_03.pdf), then you’ll find the key words of the pdf The Pragmatic Construction of Word Meaning in ... - COLIPS.
Tq sikin help me again
HapusI think that is so much sikin..
HapusN difficult to understanding
Hello mesin! Why you said like that? Is it because I explained the answer with a long explanation? I think you said like that just because you do not really care about the topic. You just care about your comment. Isn't it? 🤣
Hapushai kak sikin ..... I want comment on ypurself. can you wait a little while waiting to answer yola and vero questions later after they answer them ..
Hapusbecause I know you are good, you understand everything. but let us learn a little about this, don't all of our friend's blogs, you always answer them before they answer.
like in my blog, you always answer our friend's questions, so I'm confused of what else to say because you've answered it first.
I think give us a chance to answer on our own blog. thanks ......
hello yola.... is there the easiest technique in distinguishing a sentence, whether the sentence is semantics or pragmatics for example.
BalasHapusKomentar ini telah dihapus oleh pengarang.
HapusHello Mesin! Allowing me to help you answer Mesin's question, Yol. Actually, this question, I've ready gotten on my blog. So, it makes me easy to answer your question, Mey. The easy way to distinguish the sentences both the pragmatic and semantic meaning is you should know the meaning of both of them.
HapusBoth the pragmatic and semantic meaning of your sentence are important when communicating with other people. Although semantics is concerned only with the exact, literal meaning of the words and their interrelations, pragmatic usage focuses on the inferred meaning that the speakers and listeners perceive.
The following examples demonstrate the difference between the two:
She hasn’t taken a shower.
He was so tired he could sleep for days.
In both of these examples, the context and pragmatic meaning really define the sentence.
In the first, did the speaker really mean to say that the woman has not ever taken a shower, not even once? Although the sentence says just that, the listener in the conversation may understand, based on other factors, that the speaker means that the woman they are referring to has not taken a shower … today.
In the second example, we have a guy who is so tired he can sleep for days. Is he really going to sleep for days? Semantically, we would need to take that sentence to mean exactly that. But, in casual conversation or pragmatics, the listeners and speaker might tell you that the guy was just saying he was really, really tired, and using those words to convey that meaning, instead of saying, ‘he was really tired.
Pragmatics meysin
HapusU lawasy help me sikin. Good job
HapusThank u sikin for your answer
HapusYola, I see your question is too short. Do you have a problem about the question? Please make it a long explanation for your friend. Thank you.
HapusAssalamualaikum kakyol, i wanna ask you, As a language study field, there are aspects that are not covered by structural grammar, transformation grammar, and grammar cases compared to pragmatic studies. can you explain about that?
BalasHapusHello Maya! allow me to answer your questions. In the 1960s, Chomsky introduced two central ideas relevant to the construction and evaluation of grammatical theories. One was the distinction between competence and performance. Chomsky noted the obvious fact that people, when they speak in the real world, often make linguistic errors, such as starting a sentence and then abandoning it midway through. He argued that such errors in linguistic performance are irrelevant to the study of linguistic competence, the knowledge that allows people to construct and understand grammatical sentences. Consequently, the linguist can study an idealised version of language, which greatly simplifies linguistic analysis (see the "Grammaticality" section below).
HapusThe other idea related directly to the evaluation of theories of grammar. Chomsky distinguished between grammars that achieve descriptive adequacy and those that go further and achieve explanatory adequacy. A descriptively-adequate grammar for a particular language defines the (infinite) set of grammatical sentences in that language; that is, it describes the language in its entirety. A grammar that achieves explanatory adequacy has the additional property that it gives an insight into the underlying linguistic structures in the human mind. In other words, it does not merely describe the grammar of a language, but it makes predictions about how linguistic knowledge is mentally represented. For Chomsky, the nature of such mental representations is largely innate and so if a grammatical theory has explanatory adequacy, it must be able to explain the various grammatical nuances of the languages of the world as relatively-minor variations in the universal pattern of human language.
Chomsky argued that even though linguists were still a long way from constructing descriptively adequate grammars, progress in terms of descriptive adequacy would come only if linguists hold explanatory adequacy as their goal: real insight into the structure of individual languages can be gained only by comparative study of a wide range of languages, on the assumption that they are all cut from the same cloth.
Oke maya. U can read the asnwers from sikin
HapusSikin..
HapusI see you are very antusias in many comments..
I hope u can do it forever 😆
Hi Mesin! Yes, you are right. Thanks for your compliment and suggestion. I want to give you a suggestion also. You should be enthusiastic too in doing your homework. Thank you. 😍
HapusHello Yola, I give you many questions and help you answer questions from our friends. I would like to give you a praise because your blog is good and well explained. i hope to see more topic on your blog for the next time.
BalasHapusOke tq sikin
HapusYes,
HapusYola's blog is very interesting to see
So, what is the interesting explanation about the topic that you really like, Mesin? I really want to know 🤗
HapusI'd like to give a comment also, your blog is too short actually. you only give a link and there is no many words there. unfortunately, it is not very good if someone open your blog and you just share the link of your topic.
BalasHapusOk thanks for ur simpaty
HapusIt is great for u yola
HapusWhat is a great thing that you mean, Mesin? I really do not understand about your statement for Yola. It is confusing. 🤔
HapusYou are welcome Yola, by the way I am not sympathy to you. I comment your weaknesses actually. 🤣🤣🤣
BalasHapusKomentar ini telah dihapus oleh pengarang.
BalasHapusI am waiting for your answer on this blog. It is so long time. I think you are not interested to answer the questions. 🙃
BalasHapusPlease be more active on your blog. Do not wasting your time by doing anything else that is useless for yourself. ⚡😕
BalasHapusIf you can be an active blogger. I would be very happy to know it. Because I want to have many friends who have good spirits 💪
BalasHapuswriting your blog is not very interesting. there is no explanation about the material you took
BalasHapushai kak yola...
BalasHapusI see in the your blog, actually is good , you can explain is the perfect, Your blog is very short and concise, but the content of the meaning is too short, I hope you can change it ... and I am the same as you ... so I give good suggestion for you. you don't angry.