Page 60 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol. 4(1) (2016)
P. 60
ilson, 1986; Lewis, 1979; Watzlawick et al.,studia universitatis her editati, letnik 4 (2016), številk a 1 60Morris6 proposed his threefold divisions of semi-
1971; Bara, 2002).1 Among Grice’s merits (1975),2 otics in syntax (the study of mutual formal rela-
there is the introduction of the inferential mod-hereditati tions of signs), semantics (the study of relations
el, which contrasts the code model of communi- of signs with objects to which they are applica-
cation. His model considers communication as ble) and pragmatics (the study of the relation of
a process in which the addressee of the message signs with those who interpret them). In this pa-
(receiver, listener, or hearer) has to rebuild the per, the focus is put on the last two sectors, the
meaning of the utterance produced by the ad- semantic and the pragmatic ones, aiming to con-
dresser (speaker), not relying much on what he tribute to the study of lexic and phraseology, a
says but on what his communicative intensions discipline that has recently detected the impor-
actually were. The inferential processes convey tance of phraseological elements in discourse
the interpretation of meaning and the concept analysis for the development of the speakers’ in-
of context, intended as “the set of premises used tercultural communicative competence in a lan-
in interpreting an utterance” (Sperber and Wil- guage.
son, 1986, p.15),3 assumes a role of primary im-
portance. In that optics, in order to achieve a From the lexical competence
successful speech act, the speaker “who intends in the l2/fl to the communicative
an utterance to be interpreted in a particular way intercultural competence
must also expect the hearer to be able to supply Dell Hymes’7 introduction of the concept of
a context which allows that interpretation to communicative competence marked a decisive re-
be recovered” (Sperber & Wilson, 1986, p.16)4. versal in the field of language acquisition stud-
Once the narrow relationship between language ies. According to the author, besides the linguis-
and context had been identified, the pragmatic tic competence perceived as knowledge of the
theories took the direction towards the twofold normative system of rules in the target language,
studies of the effect of utterances on the con- learners develops a sociolinguistic competence
text and the effects of the context on the mean- which enables them to use the language in dif-
ing of words and expressions. Our research inter- ferent communicative contexts in an appropriate
est deals with the second direction, according to way.8 The perspective and the terminology intro-
which “we cannot understand the exact mean- duced by Hymes have been resumed by lots of
ing of an utterance drawing only on syntactic authors, becoming a part of the theoretical jus-
or semantic roles because, at a certain point, we tifications of the new communicative approach
need to use contextual information in different within the field of language teaching. It is as-
ways”.5 The American semiologist Charles W. tonishing that this kind of orientation “turned
to the know how to deal with a language, does
1 Paul Grice, “Logic and Conversation,” in Syntax and Semantics: Speech not correspond at the same time to the reflection
Acts, Vol. 3, eds. P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (New York: Academic of the semantic-lexical aspects, essential for gain-
Press, 1975), 41-58; Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, Relevance: Com- ing communicative competence”.9 The first sys-
munication and Cognition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986); David Lewis, tematic approach to the study of lexis goes back
“Scorekeeping in a Language Game,” Journal of Philosophical Logic,
8(1979): 339-359; Paul Watzlawick, Janet Helmick Beavin and Don- 6 Charles Morris, Lineamenti di una teoria dei segni (Torino: Paravia,
ald deAvila Jackson, Pragmatica della comunicazione umana. Studio 1970).
dei modelli interattivi, delle patologie e dei paradosi (Roma: Astrolabio,
1971); Bruno Bara, Pragmatica cognitiva. I processi mentali della comuni- 7 Dell Hymes, “Models of the interaction of language and social set-
cazione (Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 2002). ting,” Journal of Social Issues 23(2) (1967): 8-38; Dell Hymes, “On Com-
municative competence,” in Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings, eds. J. B.
2 Grice, “Logic and Conversation,” 41-58. Pride and J. Holmes, (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), 269-293.
3 Sperber and Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
4 Sperber and Wilson. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. 8 Hymes, “On Communicative competence,” 269-293.
5 Eleonora Farina and Ottavia Albanese, “Making Inferences and In- 9 Mario Cardona, “L’insegnamento e l’apprendimento del lessico in
dividual Differences in Emotion Understanding,” Psychology of Lan- ambiente CLIL. Il CLIL e l’approccio lessicale. Alcune riflessioni,”
guage and Communication, 11(2) (2007): 4. Studi di Glottodidattica, 2 (2009): 2.
1971; Bara, 2002).1 Among Grice’s merits (1975),2 otics in syntax (the study of mutual formal rela-
there is the introduction of the inferential mod-hereditati tions of signs), semantics (the study of relations
el, which contrasts the code model of communi- of signs with objects to which they are applica-
cation. His model considers communication as ble) and pragmatics (the study of the relation of
a process in which the addressee of the message signs with those who interpret them). In this pa-
(receiver, listener, or hearer) has to rebuild the per, the focus is put on the last two sectors, the
meaning of the utterance produced by the ad- semantic and the pragmatic ones, aiming to con-
dresser (speaker), not relying much on what he tribute to the study of lexic and phraseology, a
says but on what his communicative intensions discipline that has recently detected the impor-
actually were. The inferential processes convey tance of phraseological elements in discourse
the interpretation of meaning and the concept analysis for the development of the speakers’ in-
of context, intended as “the set of premises used tercultural communicative competence in a lan-
in interpreting an utterance” (Sperber and Wil- guage.
son, 1986, p.15),3 assumes a role of primary im-
portance. In that optics, in order to achieve a From the lexical competence
successful speech act, the speaker “who intends in the l2/fl to the communicative
an utterance to be interpreted in a particular way intercultural competence
must also expect the hearer to be able to supply Dell Hymes’7 introduction of the concept of
a context which allows that interpretation to communicative competence marked a decisive re-
be recovered” (Sperber & Wilson, 1986, p.16)4. versal in the field of language acquisition stud-
Once the narrow relationship between language ies. According to the author, besides the linguis-
and context had been identified, the pragmatic tic competence perceived as knowledge of the
theories took the direction towards the twofold normative system of rules in the target language,
studies of the effect of utterances on the con- learners develops a sociolinguistic competence
text and the effects of the context on the mean- which enables them to use the language in dif-
ing of words and expressions. Our research inter- ferent communicative contexts in an appropriate
est deals with the second direction, according to way.8 The perspective and the terminology intro-
which “we cannot understand the exact mean- duced by Hymes have been resumed by lots of
ing of an utterance drawing only on syntactic authors, becoming a part of the theoretical jus-
or semantic roles because, at a certain point, we tifications of the new communicative approach
need to use contextual information in different within the field of language teaching. It is as-
ways”.5 The American semiologist Charles W. tonishing that this kind of orientation “turned
to the know how to deal with a language, does
1 Paul Grice, “Logic and Conversation,” in Syntax and Semantics: Speech not correspond at the same time to the reflection
Acts, Vol. 3, eds. P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (New York: Academic of the semantic-lexical aspects, essential for gain-
Press, 1975), 41-58; Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, Relevance: Com- ing communicative competence”.9 The first sys-
munication and Cognition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986); David Lewis, tematic approach to the study of lexis goes back
“Scorekeeping in a Language Game,” Journal of Philosophical Logic,
8(1979): 339-359; Paul Watzlawick, Janet Helmick Beavin and Don- 6 Charles Morris, Lineamenti di una teoria dei segni (Torino: Paravia,
ald deAvila Jackson, Pragmatica della comunicazione umana. Studio 1970).
dei modelli interattivi, delle patologie e dei paradosi (Roma: Astrolabio,
1971); Bruno Bara, Pragmatica cognitiva. I processi mentali della comuni- 7 Dell Hymes, “Models of the interaction of language and social set-
cazione (Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 2002). ting,” Journal of Social Issues 23(2) (1967): 8-38; Dell Hymes, “On Com-
municative competence,” in Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings, eds. J. B.
2 Grice, “Logic and Conversation,” 41-58. Pride and J. Holmes, (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), 269-293.
3 Sperber and Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
4 Sperber and Wilson. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. 8 Hymes, “On Communicative competence,” 269-293.
5 Eleonora Farina and Ottavia Albanese, “Making Inferences and In- 9 Mario Cardona, “L’insegnamento e l’apprendimento del lessico in
dividual Differences in Emotion Understanding,” Psychology of Lan- ambiente CLIL. Il CLIL e l’approccio lessicale. Alcune riflessioni,”
guage and Communication, 11(2) (2007): 4. Studi di Glottodidattica, 2 (2009): 2.
