ABSTRACT

This proposed research is significant as its focusses on Papuan – Indonesian TESOL teachers and their
perspectives and concerns in responding to the need for Indonesian students to achieve proficiency in
English. These students in Papua Province typically come to English learning with proficiency in
Bahasa Indonesia and a local Papuan language. It is the pragmatic interface of these languages with
English that is the focus of the proposed project. It examines cultural pragmatics of teaching English
as both the second and/or third language (L2 and L3), including the role of L1, code-switching and
Cummins Principle in bilingual theory. As the key initiative of the success of the teaching of English,
teachers’ perspectives on how their students comprehend develop their ability and produce meaning
in the target language (English) will be investigated. Unlike other studies based solely on syntactic
features, this critical linguistic dimension will be analyzed; including teachers’ efforts to address these
concerns. The proposed study intends the use of a sample of 20 Papuan – Indonesian English
teachers. These teachers will be selected according to four job classifications in four different
learning situations: First, 5 Native Papuan English Teachers (NPET) teach Native Papuan Students
(NPS). Second, 5 Native Papuan English Teachers (NPET) teach Non-Native Papuan Students (NNPS).
Third, 5 Non-Native Papuan English Teachers (NNPET) teach Native Papuan Students (NPS). Fourth, 5
Non-Native Papuan English Teachers (NNPET) teach Non-Native Papuan Students (NNPS). A
Descriptive Qualitative Research Method and Grounded Theory (GT) will be adopted in this study
involving one-on-one interviews with the 20 teachers, followed by in-depth class observation and
analyses to identify the challenges teachers are facing, their perspectives and how they tackle their
concerns. Students’ perspectives will also be considered and several students will be chosen randomly
from each type of the class and interviewed.

Timika, 20 April 2017

The writer,
Fredy laumal

Pragmatics : the societally necessary and consciously interactive dimension of the study of language
(Mey, 1993, p. 315); the study of language from the point of view of 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 other participants in the act of communication (Crystal, 1997, p. 301).

Intercultural Pragmatics: social interaction across cultural lines and on the way that language
is used in these interactions; it concerns with how individual and cultural factors are intertwined in
communication (Kecskes, 2013).

This study on conversational humour in French and Australian English investigates how speakers use
humour spontaneously in naturally occurring conversations during social visits among friends.
Following the four dimensional model outlined in Béal and Mullan (2013), this paper focuses on the
speaker/target/recipient interplay and the various pragmatic functions of conversational humour in
a number of representative examples from the two languages-cultures. For example, Australians
show a marked preference for recipient-oriented humour, creating complicity with the other
participants by threatening another's face for the sake of humour. French speakers on the other
hand, prefer to reinforce complicity at the expense of an absent third party via third-party oriented
humour. The pragmatics of conversational humour in social visits: French and Australian English
Christine Béala, , , Kerry Mullanb,
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.09.004

Linguistic pragmatics is defined, for the purposes of this article, as the science of language use. Its
roots in linguistics, psychology, anthropology, and especially semiotics and the philosophy of
language are briefly described. Then some basic notions of pragmatics are reviewed: deixis and
indexicality, forms of implicit meaning such as presupposition and conversational implicature,
speech acts, and conversation. Major considerations for a definition of the field are introduced: the
view of language as action, the role of cooperation and coordination, the importance of common
ground and context, the distinction between coded and inferred meaning. The major approaches
and traditions are briefly described, as well as interdisciplinary interfaces linking pragmatics to other
fields in the humanities and social sciences. The article concludes with a cursory look at current
trends and perspectives.

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition)

2015, Pages 795–802
Pragmatics, Linguistic
Jef Verschueren.
Pragmatics, Linguistic
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2015, Pages 795-
802

Pragmatics is the study of human language use as it is exercised in a community of social practice.
The exercise is, however, not limited to verbal signs: other communicative means are also included
under the definition (e.g., as becomes clear when one studies pragmatic acts in addition to the
traditional speech acts). In addition, emphasis is placed on the way communication is organized, first
of all in the classical models put forward by Austin, Searle, and Grice, but extending also this
approach to comprise more recent advances in pragmatic thinking, especially in relation to what
used to be called the hyphenated disciplines: sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, the study of humans
in interaction with computers, the teaching of first and second languages, and a host of other
practically and theoretically oriented fields of study.

Pragmatics: Overview
Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (Second Edition), 2006, Pages 51-62
J.L. Mey

Intercultural pragmatics studies problems arising in communication between people with different
cultural backgrounds and different cultural expectations, which in the contemporary world occurs on
an unprecedented scale. It is a discipline that has developed in response to what Istvan Kecskes
(2004), the editor of the new journal Intercultural Pragmatics, calls “the challenges of a new era.”
At a time when every year millions of people cross borders, not only between countries but also
between languages, and when more and more people of many different cultural backgrounds have
to live together in modern multiethnic and multicultural societies, it is increasingly acknowledged
that cross-cultural communication requires cultural learning, and that ways of speaking associated
with different languages and cultures need to be properly described, understood, and taught. As
also noted by Kecskes, the old paradigms have proved unequal to the task.

Pragmatics as a part of linguistics has always been concerned with interpersonal interaction—but in
the past it was often locked in a monolingual and monocultural framework, derived, essentially,
from the English language and Anglo culture. A few decades ago, the pragmatic scene was largely
dominated by the search for the universals of politeness and for the universal maxims of
conversation, and it was widely assumed that the apparent diversity of ways of speaking worldwide
was superficial and could be explained in terms of some universal principles of interaction. Today, it
is increasingly accepted that that diversity is not superficial at all; that it can only be accounted for
with reference to different cultural attitudes and values; and further that the study of these different
attitudes and values requires a suitable metalanguage, justifiable from a global perspective.

The approach to intercultural pragmatics advocated and implemented in the so-called NSM
approach seeks to solve this crucial problem by pointing to the existence of a shared lexical and
grammatical core in all languages, and by developing a theory of cultural scripts based on that
shared core.

Other contemporary approaches to intercultural pragmatics seek other solutions to the problem of
metalanguage. The common theme is, increasingly, a move away from the supposed universals of
politeness and from the anglocentrism of the past and a search for a greater relevance to the
challenges of cross-cultural communication and education in the increasingly globalized world.

Intercultural Pragmatics and Communication

Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (Second Edition), 2006, Pages 735-742
A. Wierzbicka

Stemming from real or seeming incompetence, the pragmatic failures L2 learners and LF speakers
often commit may lead to stereotyping and negative labelling as a consequence of hearers'
mindreading abilities and relevance-driven interpretation of communicative behaviour. Pragmatic
incompetence may incite hearers to erroneously attribute beliefs, intentions or feelings to speakers
because of lowered epistemic vigilance and to sustain a specific type of epistemic injustice, which,
borrowing from social epistemology, is here labelled pragmatic-hermeneutical injustice. Pragmatic-
hermeneutical injustices could be avoided or overcome if hearers' vigilance triggered a shift of
processing strategy from naïve optimism to cautious optimism. Pragmatic failure, epistemic injustice
and epistemic vigilanceOriginal Research Article

Language & Communication, Volume 39, November 2014, Pages 34-50

Manuel Padilla Cruz.

Communication is becoming more and more intercultural because it involves interactants who have
different first languages, communicate in a common language, and represent different cultures.
Pragmatics research, however, with the exception of interlanguage pragmatics and crosscultural
pragmatics, does not seem to pay much attention to the intercultural aspect and remains
predominantly monolingual. Major issues and theories of pragmatics are discussed in a monolingual
framework that lacks or excludes any explanation of or reference to the applicability of ideas,
theories, and research findings to bi- and multilingual settings. Interlanguage pragmatics and
crosscultural pragmatics are also heavily influenced by monolingual pragmatic theories. Their main
focus is the comparison of monolingual competencies from the perspective of speech acts,
politeness, and transfer. An alternative to these approaches is bi- and multilingual pragmatics that
emphasizes that monolingual people and bilingual people do not differ in what they do with
language, but rather in how they do what they do. This difference is produced by the unique dual
language system in which a common underlying conceptual base operates one or more language
channels. Multilingualism: Pragmatic Aspects

Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (Second Edition), 2006, Pages 371-375

I. Kecskés.

Code-switching refers to the alternating use of two or more languages, either within a sentence
(intrasentential) or between sentences (intersentential). Because code-switching is governed by
grammatical rules, both language systems are presumed to be active while producing mixed
sentences. Code-switching occurs in discourse of fluent and nonfluent bilinguals alike, although
intrasentential switches are often thought to be illustrative of the level of bilingualism or comfort
with another language (e.g., Poplack, 1980). This chapter focuses on code-switching in preschool
children, with a special emphasis on the linguistic context, comparisons between intra- and
intersentential switching, the effect of level of bilingualism, differences in production and
comprehension of sentences, and experimental demands. To this end, we present new data from 36
Spanish-English bilingual children between the ages of 3 and 5, and tie the results to the theoretical
framework of Kroll and her colleagues (e.g., Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Sholl, Sankaranarayanan, & Kroll,
1995) on conceptual and lexical links between words in sentence processing. 15 Code-switching in
preschool bilingual childrenOriginal Research Article

Advances in Psychology, Volume 134, 2002, Pages 339-356

Zehra F. Peynircioğlu, Aydin Y. Durgunoğlu.