Importance of teaching pragmatics for second language learners of Italian L2/LS

Importance of teaching pragmatics for second language learners of Italian L2/LS

Introduction

Starting from the premises introduced by Nuzzo (2012) on the relevance of pragmatics, it is highlighted that in order to know how to use a language effectively and adequately (culturally I add) to different situations, it is necessary to learn the pragmatic component present in human communication, that is to say develop the ability to relate the words we use to the context in which we find ourselves when we use them. Knowing how to do and use the language means concentrating on the functions of the language in a given socio-cultural situation.

Framework of analysis

The theoretical framework sees statements intended as social actions where grammar and lexicon are not sufficient to use effectively and adequately to the various situations. Take for example a non-native speaker of Italian intent on listening to loud music and at a certain point you hear the protest:

" non e' un po' altina?"

In this question we find "non e' " as a negative question, " un po' " and the adjective altered as lexical elements of mitigation.

Probably with the help of the context he could understand the statement but could hardly formulate a similar protest without performing a linguistic act too direct, abrupt or perceived as rude like "the music is too loud". Imagine a non-native who proposes to a native Italian an evening at the cinema using the statement "go to the cinema tonight?" instead of using a more appropriate "come to the cinema tonight?".

The realization of linguistic acts and the spatial deixis are phenomena of interest of pragmatics. In the pragmatic perspective, language can be observed from two opposite and complementary angles, that is, by observing the context, acting on the language or how language influences the context.

Austin reflects on the relationship between descriptive and non-descriptive sentences. The former can be true or false while the others are assessable in terms of happiness or unhappiness of the act.

If I say "qui c'è' lo zucchero" I can check if it is true or false.


If I say "ti ringrazio" I can evaluate whether it is happy or unhappy to be able to say this statement.


This dichotomy will be overcome with a more complex theory of linguistic acts: all sentences have a meaning and have a specific illocutionary force, that is, they "do" something.


By saying "qui c'è' lo zucchero" I not only inform the interlocutor of the presence of sugar, but I am inviting him to use it if he wishes. In short, in the light of the context, the same statement can perform different actions in different contexts: it can have different illocutionary forces depending on the communicative situation in which it is produced.

The statement "here is sugar" can be interpreted:

- take it home

- it can be a request (take it to grandma)

- it can be an offer (take it).


For example, the following statements can all be used to protest a person who has not respected his turn in the row.

1. scusi, ci sarei prima io.

2. non vede che siamo in fila?

3. Rispetti la fila per favore.

4. c'è' sempre chi fa il furbo.

5. Il signore con la giacca verde e' l'ultimo della fila.

In statements 1,2,3 the intention to communicate the protest is more explicit than in the other statements where instead it is necessary to make inferences that lead to identify the actual illocutionary force. It is necessary to dissolve the implications produced by the speaker, who expresses his communicative intentions in a non-transparent way. Grice (1975, 89) calls the implications the propositions that in certain contexts intend to communicate something different from what they say. Usually, participants in a verbal exchange do not show particular difficulties in tracing an implication to the corresponding communicative intentions. This is due, according to Grice, to the fact that human conversation, understood as finalized behavior, is rational and guided by the "principle of cooperation". This principle requires that you give your contribution to the conversation in the manner required, at the appropriate time, by the purpose or direction of the communication exchange in which you are engaged. These are not prescriptive rules but are shared points of reference, so that the listener assumes that the violation is only apparent and is automatically reduced to looking for the "real" meaning behind that on the surface.

In other words, when we try to make sense of an utterance that, in the context, does not seem interpretable to us, our research is unconsciously guided by the attempt to make that utterance pertinent, informative, true or in any case in accordance with the "principle of cooperation" . Generally, violations are intentionally exploited in order to obtain particular communicative effects and often respond to the reasons of politeness.

From philosophy to applied linguistics

From philosophy to applied linguistics we note how these studies highlight the importance of the concrete situation of enunciation in the interpretation of linguistic acts. This datum is of great importance and is usually overlooked in the philosophical formulation of the theory which tends to consider the linguistic act as an abstract and isolated entity. The link between linguistic acts and context of enunciation highlights the plurality or illocutionary polysemy of the act, or the possibility for the same statement to communicate at the same time multiple illocutionary forces, often organized hierarchically (Kebrat-Orecchioni, 2001, p.46). This plurality suggests that the strength of an utterance may be the fruit of negotiation between the participants in the communicative exchange, while the atomistic conception tends to ignore the role of the interlocutor in the production of linguistic acts. In reality, the progress of a conversation implies wide variations in the interpretation of the individual sentences and therefore in the attribution of the illocutionary forces which are made explicit, negotiated and established during the exchange. There are interactional aspects of the use of language, considering each act in relation to its location within the conversational sequences in which it is inserted and not neglecting the relationship between speaker and listener. Very interesting is the attention it brings to the delimitation of the act. In this way the notion of macro-act is introduced (Ferrara, 1985, p141). In fact, different linguistic acts individually endowed with different illocutionary forces can be understood and interpreted only taking into account the entity of a "macro-act" underlying the exchange and guarantor of its pragmatic coherence. The concept of speech act set is analogous (Olshtain, Cohen, 1983, p.18-20). These acts are used in combination to convey a certain force as a whole. For example, the speaker VAL in making a macro-act of requesting advice first by asking for information (she knows groups ...) then providing her information (I would already have a list) and finally formulating the real request for advice (she could give me some advice). Another aspect in practical production is the variation in intensity, also called modification of the illocutionary force (Bazzanella, Caffi, Sbisa ', 1991), (Bazzanella, Gili Fivela, 2009). In fact, it has been noted that linguistic acts may contain, in addition to their illocutionary strength, also intensity indicators (modifiers) which signal the speaker's willingness to modify the intensity of the illocutionary strength of the act in the sense of attenuation or growth. For example, the expression "per favore" in the statement " un biglietto della metropolitana per favore" produced by a speaker at the newsagent: this act has the function of signaling that the speaker is making a request but at the same time serves to mitigate it intensity '.

Analyzing avoiding politeness form as a protection of the negative face of the speaker in Italian.

While in many languages ​​the use of politeness seems to be a routine practice, in Italian the use of some politeness marks still seems to be very "subjectivized" because they are felt as a form of threat to the speaker's need to protect his need of negative despite the production of the request. In short, the speaker do not intend to pay the cost for the act of request. In other words, the politeness form such as "per favore" ( please) can be perceived as a threat to my need for a negative face, as a form of "caporetto" of my private territory while the request in Italian can also means "I trust you "and for this I allow myself to ask you such a request. The politeness form intended as enhancement of the positive face of the other interlocutor is perceived as a less threatening act by the speaker who produces this act. For example, the production of "ti ringrazio" ( thank you)  is a way to avoid paying too many costs for your negative face and at the same time it allows you to give the other interlocutor a positive face.

In making requests in Italian, justifications, probing the ground, unpacking are all pragmatic moves to achieve the goal by trying to pay as little as possible in terms of cost for our negative face.

 Lexical modifiers such as "maybe, perhaps, by any chance" have the function of creating that feeling of mitigation in the production of a request.

Probability also helps to reduce the cost for the positive face of the requesting speaker.

Generic requests for information are another valid way to probe the terrain in Italian in harmony with the reduction of costs for the negative face.

For examples:

verresti al cinema stasera?

vuoi venire al cinema stasera?

Ti piacerebbe venire al cinema stasera?

Sarei molto felice se tu venissi al cinema stasera. Che fai vieni?

Laura mi presti un attimo il cellulare?

Scusami Laura mi presteresti un attimino il cellulare?

Laura potrei chiederti gentilmente il tuo telefonino?

These examples are a way of highlighting the possibility of working on such linguistic acts as a way of achieving greater pragmatic awareness on the part of the learner.

Conclusion

According with Nuzzo 92012)  many pragmatic meanings of linguistic forms vary in relation to changing context and therefore it is difficult to interpret and understand their function. It seems  that the socio-pragmatic component, that is, the knowledge of the social norms that regulate linguistic action in a given culture is difficult to acquire. In fact, students are more sensitive to learning the pragmalinguistic component while students continue to show little sensitivity for contextual variables.
In short, it is clear that pragmatics is useful and appropriate to teach, but much more research needs to be done on the most suitable tools to do it.

Bibliography

Nuzzo, E ( 2012) Insegnare la pragmatica in italiano L2. Recenti ricerche nella prospettiva della teoria degli atti linguistici[con P. Gauci]. Roma, Carocci, 2012