Hong Kong Shue Yan University



Hong Kong Shue Yan University

Department of English Language & Literature

2nd term, 2019-2020

Course Title: Issues in Pragmatics

Course Code: ENG486

Year of Study: 4th Year

Number of Credits: 3

Duration in Weeks: 15

Contact Hours per Week: Lecture (2 hours) + Tutorial (1 hour)

Pre-requisite(s): ENG160 Introduction to Linguistics

Prepared by: Dr. Cedric DESCHRIJVER

Course Aims

Within the broader field of linguistics, pragmatics has increasingly established itself as an independent discipline of scientific inquiry with its own theories and research methods. This final-year course aims to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of the key concepts in pragmatics, with a particular focus on applications of these key concepts to explain real-life language communications. As such, the course begins with brief reviews of basic concepts and theories of pragmatics, which serve as recapitulation and extension of the pre-requisite course (i.e., ENG160). Following these, the course will proceed to discuss various issues surrounding the applications of these key pragmatic concepts in real-world contexts of communication. In particular, the course materials (including the group projects to be presented by students) will be featuring the three languages used daily in the Hong Kong context (i.e. English, Cantonese and/or Mandarin).

Course Outcomes, Teaching Activities and Assessment

|Course Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) |

|Upon completion of this course, students should be able to: |

|ILO1 |Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the key concepts and theories of pragmatics; |

|ILO2 |Apply these pragmatic theories to interpret and explain some real-life examples/phenomena of language use in context |

| |(such as conversations); |

|ILO3 |Understand, analyze and interpret empirical data of pragmatic research (from primary sources); |

|ILO4 |Apply key concepts and theories of pragmatics to conduct and present a small-scale research project that involves |

| |language data (group based). |

|Teaching and Learning Activities (TLAs) |

|TLA1 |Pre-Class Reading Assignments |

|TLA2 |Presentation of Key Concepts and Theories |

|TLA3 |In-class Discussions |

|TLA4 |Video-Watching and Discussion |

|TLA5 |Oral Presentations by Students in Groups |

|TLA6 |Quizzes on comprehension of contents in lectures |

|Assessment Tasks (ATs) |

|AT1 |Group Presentation (in-class) |10% |

| |Students are to form into groups of 3 or 4 and deliver an oral presentation on a selected topic | |

| |within 40 minutes in the tutorial session each week. | |

|AT2 |Mid-term Quiz |15% |

|AT3 |Group Project (Presentation and Report) |35% |

| |Students are to form into groups of 3 or 4 and deliver an oral presentation (12%) on a selected | |

| |topic within 20 minutes plus 10 minutes Q&A. As a group, they are required to submit a written | |

| |report (18%). There should be a critical discussion of at least one Pragmatic theory/concept | |

| |with the support of (self-collected) linguistic data. In addition to the group work of which | |

| |assessment will be based on group performance, students are to undergo peer marking (5%) and | |

| |assess individual groupmates’ overall contribution to the group work. | |

|AT4 |Final Examination |40% |

| |TOTAL |100% |

|Alignment of Course Intended Learning Outcomes, Teaching and Learning Activities and Assessment Tasks |

|Course Intended Learning Outcomes |Teaching and Learning Activities |Assessment Tasks |

|ILO1 |TLA1,2,3,4 |AT1,2,4 |

|ILO2 |TLA1,2,3,4,5 |AT2,3 |

|ILO3 |TLA1,2,3,4,5,6 |AT3,4 |

|ILO4 |TLA6,7 |AT3,4 |

Course Outline

Week 1 Introduction: Pragmatics within linguistics

Reading: He, Chapters 1 & 2.

Week 2 Deixis and Reference

Reading: He, Chapter 3.

Levinson, S.C. (2004), in Horn, L.R. and Ward, G. (eds.). (pp. 97-121).

[Lunar New Year Break]

Week 3 Austin and Searle: Performatives and Speech Acts

Reading: He, Chapter 7.

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Chapter 1.

Week 4 Grice: Implicatures

Reading: He, Chapter 4.

Grice, H.P. (1975) in Cole et al. (pp. 41-58).

Week 5 Presupposition

Reading: He, Chapter 6.

Atlas, J. D. (2004), in Horn, L.R. and Ward, G. (eds.). (pp. 29-52).

Week 6 Linguistic Politeness I

Reading: He, Chapter 5.

Cutting (2015), pp. 32-43.

Week 7 Reading Week

Week 8 Midterm

Intercultural Pragmatics

Reading: Cutting (2015), pp. 66-78.

Week 9 Metapragmatics and Metapragmatic Awareness

Reading: Verschueren (2000).

Week 10 Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication

Reading: Herring (2015), in Herring, Stein and Virtanen (pp. 245-268).

Week 11 Linguistic Politeness II: Culture, Identity, and Politeness

Reading: Kadar & Haugh (2013), Chapter 11

Weeks 12-13 Project Presentations

Week 14 Recapitulation

Week 15 Reading Week

Principal and Required Readings

Required Textbook:

He, Z. (2010). Notes on pragmatics. Nanjing, China: Nanjing Normal University Press.

(Please buy it before class begins by ordering it online or from local bookshops).

Principal Readings:

1. Atlas, J.D. (2004). Presupposition, in Horn, L.R. and Ward, G. (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. (pp. 29-51).

2. Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Chapter 1.

3. Cutting, J. (2015). Pragmatics: A Resource Book for Students. Abingdon: Routledge.

4. Grice, H. P. (1975). "Logic and Conversation", in Cole et al. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts.

5. Herring, S. (2015). "Relevance in computer-mediated communication", in Stein, D., & Virtanen, T. (eds.) Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter/Mouton. (pp. 245-268).

6. Kadar, D., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7. Levinson, S.C. (2004). "Deixis", in Horn, L.R. and Ward, G. (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

8. Verschueren, J. (2000). Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics 10(4), 439-456.

Supplementary Readings

1. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: United States Department of State.

2. Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: A multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

3. Horn, L. R., & Ward, G. (Eds.) (2004). The handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

4. Huang, Y. (2006). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

5. Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 317-334). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

6. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2003). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.

7. Liu, J. (2006). Measuring interlanguage pragmatic knowledge of EFL learners. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

8. Lucy, J. A. (1993). "Reflexive language and the human disciplines", in Lucy, J.A. (ed.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics (pp. 9-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.

10. Rose, K. R. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong: Phase 2. Journal of Pragmatics, 41/11, 2345-2364.

11. Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. Röver, C. (2009). Teaching and testing pragmatics. In Long M. & C. Doughty (eds.) The handbook of language teaching (pp. 560-577). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

13. Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56(2), 269-318.

14. Verschueren, Jef (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.

Academic Honesty

You are expected to do your own work. Dishonesty in fulfilling any assignment undermines the learning process and the integrity of your college degree. Engaging in dishonest or unethical behavior is forbidden and will result in disciplinary action, specifically a failing grade on the assignment with no opportunity for resubmission. A second infraction will result in an F for the course and a report to College officials. Examples of prohibited behavior are:

• Cheating – an act of deception by which a student misleadingly demonstrates that s/he has mastered information on an academic exercise. Examples include:

• Copying or allowing another to copy a test, quiz, paper, or project

• Submitting a paper or major portions of a paper that has been previously submitted for another class without permission of the current instructor

• Turning in written assignments that are not your own work (including homework)

• Plagiarism – the act of representing the work of another as one’s own without giving credit.

• Failing to give credit for ideas and material taken from others

• Representing another’s artistic or scholarly work as one’s own

• Fabrication – the intentional use of invented information or the falsification of research or other findings with the intent to deceive

To comply with the University’s policy, the written report has to be submitted to VeriGuide.

Assessment Rubric for Oral Presentation (in-class and project)

|Criteria |Exemplary |Satisfactory |Developing |Unsatisfactory |

|Communication Skills |Consistently speaks with |Generally speaks with |Has difficulty speaking |Does not speak with |

| |appropriate volume, tone, |appropriate volume, tone, |with appropriate volume, |appropriate volume, tone, |

| |and articulation. |and articulation. |tone, and articulation. |and articulation. |

| |Consistently employs |Frequently employs |Employs infrequent eye |Makes no eye contact. |

| |appropriate eye contact and|appropriate eye contact and|contact and/or poor | |

| |posture. |posture. |posture. | |

| |Consistently employs |Adequately employs |Employs limited nonverbal |Does not employ nonverbal |

| |appropriate nonverbal |appropriate nonverbal |communication techniques. |communication techniques. |

| |communication techniques. |communication techniques. | | |

| |Consistently exhibits |Generally exhibits poise, |Exhibits limited poise, |Lacks poise, enthusiasm, |

| |poise, enthusiasm, and |enthusiasm, and confidence.|enthusiasm, and confidence.|and confidence. |

| |confidence. | | | |

| |Adheres to prescribed time |Adheres to prescribed time |Violates prescribed time |Violates prescribed time |

| |guidelines. |guidelines. |guidelines. |guidelines. |

| |Employs creative use of |Employs appropriate visual |Employs ineffective visual |Uses no visual aids. |

| |visual aids that enrich or |aids that relate to |aids. | |

| |reinforce presentation. |presentation. | | |

|Content and Coherence |Effectively defines a main |Adequately defines a main |Insufficiently defines a |Does not define a main idea|

| |idea and clearly adheres to|idea and adheres to its |main idea and adheres to |or adhere to its purpose. |

| |its purpose throughout |purpose throughout |its purpose throughout | |

| |presentation. |presentation. |presentation. | |

| |Employs a logical and |Employs a logical sequence |Employs an ineffective |Lacks an organizational |

| |engaging sequence which the|which the audience can |sequence confusing to the |sequence. |

| |audience can follow. |follow. |audience. | |

| |Demonstrates exceptional |Demonstrates sufficient use|Demonstrates insufficient |Demonstrates no supporting |

| |use of relevant research |of relevant research with |use of relevant research |details/evidence. |

| |with correct referencing. |correct referencing. |with correct referencing. | |

|Responses to questions |Confidently, politely, and |Politely and accurately |Ineffectively responds to |Unacceptably responds/does |

| |accurately responds to |responds to instructor’s or|instructor’s or |not respond to instructor’s|

| |instructor’s or classmates’|classmates’ questions and |classmates’ questions and |or classmates’ questions |

| |questions and comments. |comments. |comments. |and comments. |

Assessment Rubric for Written Report

|Criteria |Exemplary |Satisfactory |Developing |Unsatisfactory |

|Introduction |Consists of a sounding and |Consists of a research |Has problem formulating a |Does not include a research|

| |original research question |question that defines the |research question and |question and fails to |

| |that defines the research |research scope and |defining the research scope.|define the research scope. |

| |scope and introduces the |introduces the flow of | | |

| |flow of arguments |arguments. | | |

| |throughout in a logical | | | |

| |way. | | | |

|Content |Reveals an exceptional |Reveals a good |Reveals some understanding |Does not reveal any |

| |understanding and command |understanding of the topic |of the topic but does little|evidence of thought about |

| |of the material in |but discussion is limited |beyond standard textbook |the topic or understanding |

| |analytical and |to material covered. |treatments, and exhibits |of the issues involved. |

| |presentational respects and| |some errors of fact or | |

| |shows clear evidence of | |interpretation. | |

| |reading well beyond the | | | |

| |standard source material. | | | |

| |Shows considerable insight |Shows a considerable |Shows limited attempt to |Lacks clear argument. |

| |into the topic and |attempt to construct a |construct clear argument. | |

| |considerable originality in|clear and coherent | | |

| |the treatment of the chosen|argument. | | |

| |topic, and presents a clear| | | |

| |and coherent argument. | | | |

| |Exhibits an excellent and |Exhibits a good structured |Exhibits a poorly structured|Exhibits a badly structured|

| |well thought structured |piece of work. |piece of work and has |piece of work and is |

| |piece of work. | |limited attempt to construct|defective in one or more |

| | | |an argument. |respects. |

| |Shows correct referencing |Shows correct referencing |Fails to follow the correct |Lacks proper referencing. |

| |by following the correct |by following the correct |referencing style or shows | |

| |referencing style |referencing style, but with|incomplete referencing. | |

| |throughout the work. |occasional omission. | | |

|Language Use |Demonstrates good amount of|Demonstrates a good amount |Demonstrates limited |Has no control over |

| |various complex and simple |of complex and simple |attempts in the use of |sentence formation, |

| |sentence structures |sentence structures |complex sentence structures |spelling, punctuation and |

| |appropriately, excellent |appropriately, good control|and limited evidence of |capitalization. |

| |control over spelling, and |over spelling, and |proofreading with lots of | |

| |appropriate use of |appropriate use of |grammatical/ spelling | |

| |punctuation and |punctuation and |mistakes. | |

| |capitalization. |capitalization with limited| | |

| | |errors. | | |

| |Displays extensive and |Displays correct use of |Displays limited use of |Lacks any use of linguistic|

| |correct use of linguistic |linguistic terminologies |linguistic terminologies |terminologies. |

| |terminologies beyond |covered in the teaching |covered in the teaching | |

| |teaching materials. |materials. |materials. | |

|Conclusion |Sums up key arguments |Sums up key arguments |Has problem responding to |Has no attempt in summing |

| |throughout the report and |throughout the report and |the research question raised|up key arguments and |

| |includes a critical |attempts to answer the |in the introduction. |responding to the research |

| |response to the research |research question raised in| |question raised in the |

| |question raised in the |the introduction. | |introduction. |

| |introduction. | | | |

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download