Учебно-методическое пособие к курсу «лингвострановедение и страноведение» для студентов старших курсов (стр. 14 из 19)

Part of (he explanation lies in the fact that pragmatics is a comparatively new field of study. But more relevant is the fact that we cannot formulate rules of pragmatic usage in the way that rules are formulated in grammar. The best we can offer is a set of guidelines, because so many factors influence the way we speak and how polite or indirect we are. The sorts of questions we must ask ourselves are: In spite of the difficulties of generalizing, we attempt in this dictionary to capture "guidelines" of pragmatic usage by three means:

1 . By Usage Notes forming part of the alphabetic entries for words (see, for example, the Usage Notes under actually, afraid, all right, (I) mean, please, surely).

• USAGE ...In conversation actually can be used to soften what you are saying, especially if you are correcting someone, disagreeing, or complaining: "Happy Birthday, Tom." "Well. Actually my birthday was yesterday. " But it can be used with the opposite effect, if you speak With sarcasm: I didn't ask your opinion, actually.

2 . By Language Notes covering more general pragmatic topics, which cannot be limited to the treatment of individual words, and which affect the meaning, in context, of many different words or phrases. (See, for example, the Language Notes for Apologies (p 38), Criticism and Praise (p244). Invitations and Offers(p556), and Thanks (pl097).)

3 . By comments and examples within the entries for individual words, showing how they are used in context. This example at quite shows how it can be used to show annoyance:

(shows annoyance) If you've quite finished interrupting, perhaps I can continue.

And this example at respect shows how it is used in a fixed phrase to express polite disagreement: (used formally to introduce an expression of disagreement) With (t he greatest) respect/Wit h due respect, I think you 're wrong.

What we can reasonably attempt to show in these Notes is the way in which pragmatic questions are resolved in some typical situations, for a (hypothetical) "average" speaker of British or American English. The Notes are designed to help overcome problems of inappropriateness, whether these are caused by linguistic or by cultural differences.

Answer the following questions:

1. What is the beginning of Pragmatics connected with?

2. What conditions produced Pragmatics?

3. What are the chief contributions of the active type dictionaries to Pragmatics?

4. In what way is Pragmatics reflected in active type dictionaries?

5. What information do the learner’s dictionaries give to English language learners?

6. Which of two opposing lexicographical principles (the descriptive or prescriptive) is accepted by the learner’s dictionaries?

6. Didactic and pragmatic approaches to English Language Teaching Assumptions

Contrary to P.O. Strevens who distinguished sub-languages or varieties of English within the English language M. Berns, an American professor at Purdue University from Indiana develops the idea of the Concentric Circles of World Englishes. She speaks about three circles, namely:

1) Inner circle, including such countries as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Britain and USA where English is considered a primary language.

2) Outer circle, including the former main colonies dominions and dependent territories such as Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan, Nigeria and some others (14 in number) where English is official , state or semi-official language, which has norm developing status and extended functional range.

3) Expanding circle includes many other countries of the world, which have no close ties with the so-called Inner circles like China, Egypt, Indonesia, Japan, Russia.

The full characteristics of the abovementioned circles and characteristics of World Englishes is seen from the following table.

The Concentric Circles of World Englishes (adapted from Kachru 1985)

OUTER CIRCLE Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania,

Zambia, Philippines.

INNER CIRCLE Characteristics of

Australia English

Canada primary language

New Zeland norm-providing

United Kingdom

USA

EXPANDING CIRCLE

China

Egypt

Indonesia an international language

Israel performance variety norm-

Japan dependent

Korea

Nepal

Saudi Arabia

Taiwan

Zimbabwe

Former countries of the USSR

One of two/ more codes – official, state, associate, language status – norm-developing, extended functional range

On the basis of this conception the author tries to formulate the corresponding attitude to a doctrine of English language teaching. Her assumptions are based on the following ideas in didactic and pragmatic approaches.

Didactic approach means that:

1. Everyone learns English in order to interact with native speakers;

2. English is inextricably linked to the culture of the UK or the USA;

3. Using English means dealing with the realities of Great Britain or the United States,

that is, with British or American ways of doing, thinking, and being.

Pragmatic approach implies that:

1) Not everyone learning English will interact with native speakers. In fact, they are more likely to interact with speakers from other expanding circle countries as well as from outer circle countries.

2) English is not associated with inner circle countries alone, but can be used to express social and cultural meanings not a part of the lives of British or Americans.

3) Using English can mean dealing with local realities, local ways of doing, being, and thinking as well.

Aids to the study of the text:

1. What is the task of Pragmatics?

2. Discuss the identity of Pragmatics.

3. What areas of overlap of Pragmatics and other sciences can be pointed out?

4. Is it reasonable to contrast it with Semantics?

5. What are the relations of Pragmatics with other sciences?

6. Is Pragmatics of great practical value for Lexicography?

7. What do we usually study in speech acts analysis?

8. What types of illocutionary acts does influential approach set up?

9. What do we mean by felicity conditions?

10. Describe the essence of indirect speech acts.

11. Dwell on the connection of Pragmatics and dictionary.

12. What approach to the English language is suggested by Berns?

13. Illustrate the essence of pragmatic approach to the English language.

Chapter 7. Language, Culture and Communication

1. Sociocultural Aspects of Foreign Language Teaching

S. Ter-Minasova

The history of the former Soviet Union has provided Foreign Language Teaching with an extremely interesting experience. Indeed, FLT in the USSR was an experiment - enormous in scale and with amazing consequences -in how to teach a foreign language if learners (and teachers, of course) are completely cut off from the world where this foreign language is used naturally. "Completely" in this context means just that, with no leakage in the form of radio, television, native speakers, books, newspapers, language teaching materials, no hint of what is called the culture of the nation in the broad, anthropological sense of the word, where "culture" does not mean "arts" but means "the way people live" (what and how they eat, how they work, how they rest, what kind of homes they have, etc.). The experiment was very "pure": for most people the fear of being accused of "communication with foreigners" (an official term), i.e. potential enemies (an official term) was too great to allow them to use the scanty opportunities which might occasionally arise. It was safer to sit quietly behind the Iron Curtain and learn the language of Shakespeare and Dickens through their works, which were ideologically proper and approved of by the authorities (so-called "contemporary English" was represented by John Galsworthy's "The Forsyte Saga"). For a long period of time in Russia teaching foreign languages had only one purpose: reading classical authors.

Then, about 20 years ago, with science and technology progress, there came the idea that a foreign language could be an indispensable means of professional communication, as a tool of the trade. So legions of specialists of all kinds put aside Dickens and Galsworthy and read nothing but special, or LSP (Language for Special Purposes) text.

After this era of the complete triumph of LSP there came the present-day extreme of "communicative approach" and a foreign language is seen first and foremost as a means of everyday communication. Consequently, FL courses took the form of a set of everyday, mundane topics: "registering in a hotel", "hiring a car", "going to a restaurant" ("bank", "post-office", etc.)

Thus, Foreign Language Teaching, like any other sphere of human activities, developed through going from one "fashion" extreme to another.

In the rush of all these "fashions" the function of language as a tool of culture has been ignored.

However, this aspect of FLT is extremely important for many reasons.

1 .Language reflects the world of its users. The vision of the world of a nation is conveyed by its language, the latter reflecting not only geography, climate, mode of living, but also the moral code, relations between people, the system of values, determined by socio-historical factors. Thus, culture in the broad, anthropological sense of the word is reflected by language.

2. Language accumulates and stores the culture of a nation, and passes it on from generation to generation, or, for that matter, from nation to nation.

3. Language shapes its user, imposing on him/her the vision of the world and the culture of human relations reflected and stored in it.

4. The use of language largely depends on the background knowledge of the user, that is why cultural studies are indispensable in foreign language learning and teaching. Without the cultural background knowledge of the world where it is naturally used the language turns into a dead language which was so convincingly proved by the history of the Soviet Union.

As well known, language is the main, the most explicit, the most obvious official and socially acknowledged means of communication. The life and development of any human society is based on communication through language (which does not exclude, of course, other ways of communication).

Developing communicative skills (the latest 'fashion" in The world of FT teachers and learners) is a difficult problem everywhere but it is particularly complicated in this country where for so many years Foreign Language Teaching was generally oriented on recognition while production was neglected.

And although both recognition and production skills cannot be developed without the background knowledge of the world of the language under study, it is speech production, the actual use of language which makes the importance and inevitability of the sociocultural component so evident. Indeed, it is a great misunderstanding to believe that in order to use language, to produce speech, both written and oral, it is enough to know words as lists of meanings and rules of bringing them together in speech (that is, grammar and syntax). The problem is that the idea of meaning as a reference to reality invariably leads one out of the world of language into the world of reality. Consequently, bringing words together means bringing objects of reality together. The real worlds may coincide in some physical features but the visions of the world by different peoples representing different speech communities do not coincide.

Now, before going any further, it is necessary to discuss the relationship between man, language and the world.

Let us begin with the man - language relationship. It is obvious that these two concepts are intertwined: man and the language he uses. There is no way to study man except through his language. Man is a point where all disciplines called humanities meet (humanities study all the problems connected with the human being). But the principal way for a man to express himself and to exchange the results of the studies is through language. So man cannot be studied without language and language should not be studied without man. Consequently, when you study language you must always take into consideration the speech community in question, the real people who use it and all the infinite speech acts which reflect the social structures, reflect the world. So man and language are very closely bound.

The language - world relationship is the next point. Language reflects the world surrounding the language-user - this is common knowledge. The concept of a language picture of the world is well-known too. Indeed, language does reflect what is seen, heard, felt - experienced - by the people who use the language. That is why through dead languages it is possible to reconstruct the picture of dead worlds. It is very interesting to conduct an archaeological dig(excavation) through language. That is what anthropological linguistics is trying to do. Naturally the language picture of the world is different for every nation ( the Russian picture of the world is different from the Spanish, English, American or any other where the worlds them - selves are different!) Of course, they overlap because there are universal parts of these pictures that reflect the features of the real world common to different nations. But there are also aspects of there worlds which are different: climate, geography, history, mode of life, etc. Those things which do not exist in the picture have no words for them. For instance, in Russian there are lots of words which have become borrowings from Russian into other languages (it is natural: no thing - no word for it): troika, samovar, balalaika. The things are uniquely Russian and so are the words. The same can be said about sovietisms: bolsheviks, kolkhoz, Soviets. These products of Russian history came into existence in the Russian world, so the words denoting them were borrowed by other language. All this is quite obvious. Now a more subtle point must be specified. We keep talking about words of a language reflecting the world. However, actually, there are three levels: 1) the level of reality, of the real world which is objective and exists regardless of man, 2) the level of thinking, the level of our ideas about this world, 3) the level of speech – words.

Thus, when we speak of language, of words, very often we do not realize that a word reflects an object through a concept. A concept is an abstraction, the concept of a table is an abstract idea, a generalization. The definition of the word gives you this idea: " a table - a flat surface, usually supported by four legs, used for putting things on". (Cambridge International Dictionary of English). This is the concept of a table in our culture. In other cultures the same concept may be represented in a different way. In Turkmenistan, for instance, a table is a piece of cloth on the floor. People there do not sit at a table, they lie at it. They bring our kind of tables only for European visitors. Tables of our culture may have four legs, or three, or one, or no legs at all, it may be anything which is used as a table, which represents the concept of a table. And it is only after the concept that the word comes. Thus, the reflection of the world by language is not a simple mirror - like act. It creates a picture of the world and not a photograph. A photograph is neutral, objective and gives a mirror-like reflection of the world (if it is not an artistic photograph of course). Language creates a picture of the world. Pictures, however, may be painted by realists, impressionists, modernists, etc. And sometimes the picture is quite far from reality because it comes from concepts - both collective and individual - of the artist's mind, it reflects the artist's vision of the world determined by so many factors. These factors make the artist see the world in this particular way. The same with languages. It is not a simple, mechanical process of taking photographs. Every nation has its own vision of the world which is reflected by its language and depends on various factors.

The most crucial of them is what may be broadly called “culture”. This word is widely used in different ways, and it is important to make its meaning implicit in this context. "Culture" in the broad, anthropological sense of the word is defined as the way the people of a community see the world around them, their way of thinking, behaving, reacting to the world and to other people. Culture is manifested by intellectual, moral and physical attributes.