Variables to consider upon having decided to include pragmatics in the teaching of languages

Abstract

The relationship between the systems of language and of culture has been put forward and abundantly discussed since the late 60s, given that the second influences greatly the pragmatic level of the first. This issue has been explored in various empirical and experimental studies, particularly within the area of intercultural discourse, and thereon has been well documented in various analyses investigating pragmalinguistic (PML) failure. These linguistic pitfalls have been mostly justified and explained through applying the approach of the language transfer hypothesis to show that L1 conventions are inappropriately and unsuitably transferred from the L1 to the L2. However, there is reason to feel that approaching this failure from another standpoint is due, and that doing so will contribute to increased success in the teaching and learning of languages. This text initially presents the topic by drawing on examples from various studies, and it discusses this PML aspect in the teaching of a L2: a) to disclose its role in the communication tools used between native and non-native speakers by looking at an array of different types of L1s and language teaching setups, and b) through fingering distinctions between international and minority languages under the framework of intercultural communication. Various questions are raised and discussed, across a range/variety of opposing poles (e.g. the world’s largest and most influential to less commonly taught languages, teach/not teach, explicit/implicit), in order to produce answers that would help each language teacher find their own answers to tackle and overcome problems of what to include in their teaching and how to go about it. To draw the text to an eloquent end, teaching proposals that integrate digital technologies are presented.

Crossing Linguistic Bridges: Unravelling the Art of Persuasion Among Albanian Writers in Greek

“…In the case where native speakers do not recognise that the origin of friction is of linguistic concern and not a personality issue, they violate a receptive maxim of quality politeness (a reverse case to Grice's, 1999, productive maxims of politeness), in that they understand information in a false way, which in turn leads them, as a consequence, to generalise potentially erroneous views concerning the character or personality of the L2 speaker (Riley, 1989) which they have no ethical right to judge. However, the final choice and thus the responsibility always belong to the learners/users of the language, as they are the ones who encode strategically (Ypsilandis, 2023). In this light, learners should be allowed to decide how to proceed with their final strategic choices, provided that these are conscious/aware decisions/selections based on knowledge and are not grounded either on erroneous L1 transfer or faulty perceptions about the L2 language and culture.…”