Introduction to Pragmatic Research Methods

INTRODUCTION

Linguistics is often defined as a “scientific study” of language because of the nature of investigation that is involved in the study. Over time, language experts have applied scientific methods such as observation of some phenomena/variables in language use, identification of problems, formulation of some testable hypotheses, collection and analyses of data based on some methodology, presentation of research findings and recommendations based on findings. 

However, not all pragmaticists view their subject as science although, at one point or another, they have had to apply one or more scientific methods. In this article, we shall be examining some general methods of pragmatic research that you will need to familiarise yourself with and in fact, get involved in. Topics that are investigable will be suggested, which means that after this study you should be able to carry out pragmatic research work on any topic of your choice. 

This article, however, do not intend to delve into extensive theoretical issues/discussions of research methodologies across disciples, rather to give you basic guidelines on how to carry out linguistic investigation, particularly pragmatics which is our main concern here.

Doing a Project Work in Pragmatics

Let us consider this scenario: you get to the library, and you see a 100-level student (a boy) of English reading a book on politics and it was during the second semester examination. And you say to him: “hello, why don’t you read a book on language?”

Then he replies: “it’s because I enjoy reading politics.” You leave him and move on to take your seat. Again, you observe another student, this time a 200-level female student of English reading a book on sports. You also say to her: “why don’t you read a book on language?” She looks at you for a while, smiles and drops the book; then she goes to the shelf and picks a book on language and begins to read. 

You nod in satisfaction because this student understands your indirect speech act, rather than the 100-level student who took your indirect speech act for a direct speech act. You can reasonably begin to imagine that the two different responses you got from the two students from two different levels may suggest some topics that may be turned to testable hypotheses as follows:

•              100 level students do not generally understand indirect speech acts

•              100 level students may show their displeasure to strangers by responding to the propositional content rather than the illocutionary force of utterances, by treating indirect speech act as if they were direct speech acts

•              Not all 100 level students treat indirect speech act as though they were direct speech acts, their responses depend on variables such as age, mood, level of exposure, degree of communicative competence, subject of request etc.

•              When 100 level students do not respond to the illocutionary force of indirect speech acts, it is simply a matter of choice and not for lack of pragmatic understanding

Each of these may be investigated, by trying to frame a testable hypothesis. For example, we may hypothesize that 100 level students respond equally (un) cooperatively to indirect and direct requests and then set out to test this hypothesis by designing an experiment in which a sample of 100 level students are selected and made to respond to series of requests, some expressed directly, some indirectly. 

The data collected from this experiment is then recorded and transcribed, analysed and finding will emerge proving the hypothesis right or that it failed. If it turns out that the 100 level students irrespective of their programmes respond to the direct speech act than the indirect speech act, this will presumably have implications on the way mature students should address new students. This research might also suggest a follow-up one which should find out whether 100 level students failed to respond to indirect speech because they don’t understand their pragmatic contents or because they don’t generally like to be talked to indirectly. This kind of research is usually referred to as “empirical” because it studies really observable phenomena findings.

Grundy (2000:219) summarises the nature of pragmatic investigation as follows:

•              Frame a testable hypothesis (or series of hypotheses) suggested by some observation about the way the world appears to work

•              Design an experiment which will enable you to collect data which test this hypothesis

•              Collect the data under experimental conditions

•              Quantify the data in order to determine whether or not the hypothesis is proved

•              Consider the implications of the findings and whether follow-up experiments would be useful

Let me quickly mention here that a “hypothesis” is a tentative statement about relationships that exist between two or among many variables; they are assumptions or conjectural statements about relationships that need to be tested and subsequently accepted or rejected. Empirical research often tries to determine whether there is a significant association or not between two variables. For example, you may try to establish whether there is a significant association between the level of exposure and understanding of indirect speech acts.

The different positions about how pragmatic research should be carried out have given rise to different approaches especially by the fact that not all aspects of pragmatics could be investigated using the scientific approach described above. As a matter of fact, pragmatic meaning depends very much on inference, which is not a directly observable phenomenon; therefore, there are a lot of other ways as we shall see in this study that pragmatic investigation may be carried out without the empirical approach.

It is also important to note that identification of a research problem, will generally lead to Research Questions. This often replaces the hypothesis as a guide to data collection and analysis, especially where research does not involve experiments. For instance, in our research about the 100 level students, research questions may be framed as follows:

•              Do all 100 students respond negatively to indirect speech act?

•           What factors are responsible for the negative response of 100

level students to indirect speech acts? Etc.

You will observe that the above approach is associated with spoken discourse, where recording and transcription are necessary. Interestingly, you will also notice that not all spoken discourse demands the kind of scientific approach described above. For example, if you’re doing a pragmatic study of a conversation, you may not need an experiment about how frequent some 100 level students respond to requests; rather you will be concerned with observing the sequential properties of the talk and how interactants take turns and so on. We shall examine some other areas of research as we proceed.

Researching Topics

Getting an interesting research topic need not be difficult if you are interested in the study itself. The very first step is to ensure that you are adequately familiar with the area you are trying to study. However, being adequately familiar with a particular area of study is not the same thing as getting a researchable topic. A topic must capture the subject of your study. It should be concise and striking. You are usually required to narrow the topic and limit your writing to the topic. 

It makes it easier for you to include only the relevant information and maintain the required length of the project. Before submitting any topic for approval (if your research is for academic purpose) it is necessary to discuss it with your study group or classmates. You can also consult an expert or your teachers for their opinion. Below are possible subject areas that you may find interesting. They are mere suggestions and by no means restrictive. I have borrowed some of them from Grundy 2000:229.

(i)                Study of conversation – especially the structure of turn-taking and other conversational strategies

(ii)              Structure and Pragmatic properties of seminars, interviews, talk types (e.g. telephone conversation, contributions to radio-phoning programmes etc) especially investigating how roles are assigned, how expectations are signalled etc.

(iii)           Focusing on power and distance, how relation is encoded; facework – how speakers and hearers use politeness strategies

(iv)            Studies of infants and their recognition and production of pragmatic strategies; the role of pragmatics in enabling first language acquisition

(v)              Intercultural pragmatics – how members of different cultures accommodate and react to socio-pragmatic differences

(vi)            Study of contexts: whether external social structure determines how talk is organised and the type of contributions that occur; or is the context created by the talk itself?

(vii)         Ethnomethodology – providing ethnographic account of the way that talk and life are related. Showing how membership and cultural affiliation are oriented to and have both including and excluding functions

(viii)       Pragmatic strategies in mass media reporting – showing features of speech acts/implicatures of headlines, editorials, cartoons etc.

(ix)            Investigating how properties of entailment, implicatures, explicatures, direct/indirect speech and signalled in advertisements, barlines, etc. and their particular effects

(x)              Literary pragmatics – how writers employ their knowledge of language use to communicate pragmatic information in the context of some particular social groups etc.

As we have noted earlier, topics may be generated from these areas that may lead to an exciting and rewarding experience. Remember that it is always advisable to read round a subject area before deciding on a topic. A good topic is usually a product of an initial research to avoid starting off and get stuck along the way. Some topics may initially appear interesting when in actually fact they are complex for you at your undergraduate level. That’s why you need to always consult your supervisor or an experience person to guide you. Having a good researchable topic makes your work a bit easier and enjoyable.

Reading Literature

Your “Review of Literature” (or Literature Review) is not the same as “reading round” a subject area. Your review of literature begins after you have read round a subject area as part of your initial research. You must have also got a topic. If you do a serious review of literature on your chosen topic, you will be surprised that a good number of works has been done in that area. This will give you adequate background understanding of your topic, and help you identify the significance of your own study (i.e., your work is likely going to cover an area where previous works have not adequately covered). 

Generally, your review of literature will give you a firsthand understanding of the theoretical background of your topic area. That is why it is always good to begin with early (perhaps classical) account of the study and then the recent, and the most recent works on the topic. Recent works (or publications) in any topic areon usually found in current journals of the particular discipline. You are therefore advised not to rely on textbooks alone. There are several international journals on the subjects of pragmatics and discourse analysis. 

You may search the internet for journals such as The Journal of Pragmatics; Pragmatics; Intercultural Pragmatics; Discourse and Society; Discourse Studies; Discourse and Communication; Journal of Politeness Research etc. There are also local academic journals in your library that can be of help to you. When you read, you will notice that authors and researchers would have made statements to explain certain terms, concepts or theories that you might have found difficult in textbooks. Some may even refer you to other helpful materials. You may also find certain analytical procedures explained and applied.

It is necessary to warn you against the temptation to copy from a source without proper acknowledgement or referencing. Unfortunately, some students find similar works to theirs, and all they do is to “dub live” or simply make a textbooksphotocopy of the material and submit as theirs. This is academic fraud that is punishable by law. Avoid this temptation by all means. 

If you understand what you are reading, you can always put your understanding in your own words and where you must quote or paraphrase you endeavour to acknowledge your source. I’m sure that you must have been taught how to do this in your general study course. Reading literature on your topic demands that you do appropriate note­taking. This will enable you organise your materials and prepare you for the actual writing of the project. Again, I’m sure that you are familiar with note-taking techniques. On a final note, if you read enough, you will be able to write enough.

CONCLUSION

Writing and submitting a well-research project on any topic of your choice is a compulsory graduation requirement for all undergraduate students. Therefore, the importance of the procedure for linguistic research cannot be over emphasised. In this unit, we have attempted to take you through some fundamental first steps to doing research in pragmatics. We started by giving you a general overview on how to begin and finish empirical research and then went on to describe some first steps of pragmatic research namely, choosing a topic and doing a review of literature. These are the fundamentals; try to understand and apply them and you will be ready for the next steps.