Type A
|
Code |
Competences Specific | | A2 |
Masters the main linguistic bases of theoretical and applied linguistics |
| A3 |
Has an advanced knowledge of English at all levels, both in speaking and writing; also knows the linguistic system of English (lexical, phonetic, grammatical, pragmatic, discourse) and can give it an adequate didactic treatment |
| A5 |
Identifies, describes, analyses, and evaluates resources, strategies, methods and didactic processes used in teaching English, and applies them adequately in any EFL/ESL context, in line with students’ needs |
| A6 |
Plans, structures, and designs didactic units; programs and organizes the contents of the discipline in diverse contexts bearing in mind the different rhythms in learning English |
Type B
|
Code |
Competences Transversal | | CT5 |
Communicate complex ideas effectively to all sorts of audiences |
| CT6 |
Develop abilities to manage their professional career |
Type C
|
Code |
Competences Nuclear |
Type A
|
Code |
Learning outcomes |
| A2 |
Identifies and analyses the basic units as well as teaching and learning strategies to develop a global communicative competence (discursive, textual, pragmatic) in English
| | A3 |
Critically reflects on the teaching-learning of the different linguistic levels (grammar, lexicon, phonetics, and pragmatics) and analyses, elaborates, compares and evaluates didactic proposals to tackle them
Critically reflects on studies in the field of interlanguage pragmatics
| | A5 |
Analyses, compares, evaluates and selects appropriate materials to present, practice and correct elements of the pronunciation, grammar, lexicon and pragmatics of English
Argues and reasons why, when and how to work on the pronunciation, grammar, lexicon and pragmatics of English
| | A6 |
Elaborates practical proposals and activities to include the different linguistic competences (pragmatics, grammar, lexicon, phonetics) in the teaching plan
|
Type B
|
Code |
Learning outcomes |
| CT5 |
Produce quality texts that have no grammatical or spelling errors, are properly structured and make appropriate and consistent use of formal and bibliographic conventions
Draw up texts that are structured, clear, cohesive, rich and of the appropriate length, and which can transmit complex ideas
Draw up texts that are appropriate to the communicative situation, consistent and persuasive
Use the techniques of non-verbal communication and the expressive resources of the voice to make a good oral presentation
Construct a discourse that is structured, clear, cohesive, rich and of the appropriate length, and which can transmit complex ideas
Produce a persuasive, consistent and precise discourse that can explain complex ideas and effectively interact with the audience
| | CT6 |
Raise their professional self-awareness
Develop a professional attitude
Analyse the professional environment of their speciality
Design specific professional tracks
|
Type C
|
Code |
Learning outcomes |
Topic |
Sub-topic |
Week 1: 1) Module overview. 2) What is pragmatics? |
|
Week 2: 1) Conversational implicatures. 2) Scalar implicatures. |
|
Week 3: 1) Deixis, presupposition, metaphor. |
|
Week 4: 1) Speech acts. |
|
Week 5: 1) Conversational structure. |
|
Week 6: 1) Politeness. 2) Positive and negative face. |
|
Week 8: 1) Can semantics be dissociated from pragmatics? 2) Grammatical illusions as semantico-pragmatic constructs. |
|
Methodologies :: Tests |
|
Competences |
(*) Class hours
|
Hours outside the classroom
|
(**) Total hours |
Introductory activities |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
Lecture |
|
8 |
20 |
28 |
Problem solving, exercises in the classroom |
|
7 |
9 |
16 |
Presentations / oral communications |
|
4 |
9 |
13 |
Assignments |
|
1 |
15 |
16 |
Personal attention |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
(*) On e-learning, hours of virtual attendance of the teacher. (**) The information in the planning table is for guidance only and does not take into account the heterogeneity of the students. |
Methodologies
|
Description |
Introductory activities |
Description and presentation of the course contents. |
Lecture |
Introduction and analysis of the main topics of the course. Presentation of their application in the EFL classroom. |
Problem solving, exercises in the classroom |
Discussion and practice of basic concepts. Proposals to deal with pragmatic issues, differences and conflicts in the teaching and learning of EFL/ESL. |
Presentations / oral communications |
Oral presentation of a key pragmatics text / Microteach on key issue in pragmatics, and presentation of final written project. |
Assignments |
Critical reading, review of material, planning a class. |
Personal attention |
Students will be in touch with the instructor (individual appointments, email or Moodle). |
Description |
Students may contact me at geraintpaul.rees@urv.cat to discuss any issues related to the course or to make an appointment for a tutorial. |
Methodologies |
Competences
|
Description |
Weight |
|
|
|
|
Presentations / oral communications |
|
Oral presentations |
20% |
Assignments |
|
Final written assignment |
40% |
Others |
|
Four short written activities |
40% |
|
Other comments and second exam session |
Written assignment task for those students who do not pass the course in the first call |
Basic |
|
Main textbook: Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. (1997/2008 edition). Other main readings:
Irun Chavarria, M. & E. Baiget Bonany. 2006. Raising awareness of
pragmatics in the EFL classroom: A proposal. Revista de Estudios
Culturales de la Universitat Jaume I, 133-144. Katsos, N., M.-J. Ezeizabarrena, A. Gavarró, J. Kuva? Kraljevi?, G. Hrzica, K. K. Grohmann, A. Skordi et al. [+ 50 authors]. 2012. The acquisition of quantification across languages: Some predictions. In A. K. Biller, E. Y. Chung & A. E. Kimball (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 258-268. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Maillat, D. S. & Oswald. 2009. Defining manipulative discourse: The pragmatics of cognitive illusions. The International Review of Pragmatics 1, 348–370. Terkourafi, M. 2016. The linguistics of politeness and social relations.
In K. Allan (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Linguistics, 221-235. New
York: Routledge. Additional/optional readings: Austin, J. L. 1955/1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Geurts, B. 2007. Implicature as a discourse phenomenon. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 261-275.
Huang, Y. 2016. Introduction: What is pragmatics? In Y. Huang (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks Online. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.33 Papafragou, A. & J. Musolino. 2001. Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. IRCS Technical Reports Series. 29.Potts, C. 2014. Presupposition and implicature. In
S. Lapin & C. Fox (eds.), Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Contemporary
Semantics, 2nd edition, 168-202. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Redmond, M. V. 2015. Face and politeness theories. English Technical Reports and White Papers. 2. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Tello Rueda, Y. 2006. Developing pragmatic competence in a foreign language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 8. Wellwood, A., R. Pancheva, V. Hacquard & C. Phillips. 2018. The anatomy of a comparative illusion. Journal of Semantics 35, 543-583. |
Complementary |
|
|
(*)The teaching guide is the document in which the URV publishes the information about all its courses. It is a public document and cannot be modified. Only in exceptional cases can it be revised by the competent agent or duly revised so that it is in line with current legislation. |
|