Pragmatic Analysis and Comprehension of Poorly Written EFL Text

Oveesa Farooq, Rizwana Wahid


Pragmatic presuppositions are conditions which are necessary for a sentence to be appropriate in a given context. It is presumed that the context plays a crucial role in understanding the written or spoken text. The written text includes emails, letters, essays, passages, etc. but this paper has mainly concentrated on simple written text of undergraduate EFL students. As such, in the event the poorly written text (pieces of conversation, essays) is difficult to discern, the measures to be taken to understand/analyze the text under consideration forms the crux of this paper. An important thing about texts under study for pragmatic analysis is the approach to facts and opinions. It is presumed that the best way to understand a poorly written text is to collect the background information about the text, and to take the pieces of conversation as a whole rather than dissect the text or speech word by word, consequently making the text to be understood correctly in the light of the relevant context. It puts emphasis on teachers as they should employ certain strategies to teach students how to make their text comprehensible. They are very poor in writing skills and at most of the places, the text appears non sensible which makes analysis complex and ambiguous. And taking the help of context plays a significant role in comprehending such text.


pragmatics, written text, contextual meaning, morpho-syntactic patterns

Full Text:



Aldera, A. S. (2016). Cohesion in written discourse: A case study of Arab EFL students. Arab World English Journal, 7 (2), 328-341.

Allen, J. (1995). Natural language understanding ( 2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Benjamin Cummings, Pub.

Andrews, R. (2010). Teaching sentence-grammar for writing: the evidence so far. In T. Locke (Ed.), Beyond the grammar wars: a resource for teachers and students on developing language knowledge in the English/literacy classroom. Routledge.

Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility: Journal of Linguistics, 24, 65-87

Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1355-71.

Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Chapman, R. S. (2000). Children's language learning: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41 (1), 33-54.

Chierchia, G, & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1990). Meaning and grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Motta-Roth, D. (2013). The role of context in academic text production and writing pedagogy. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 19, 329-351

Grice, H.P.(1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman

Siegel, L. S. (2008). The repeated path between transparency and Opacity in language. In U. Bellugi, & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Sign and Spoken language: Biological constraints on linguistic form (pp. 229-243). Weinheim, Germany: VerlagChemie.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

Yule, G. (2006). The study of language (2nd edition). Cambridge: CUP.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research