Abstract

 The language used in academic texts and pedagogy is referred as academic discourse. Being student and teacher, the researchers observed that mixing of home language with academic language was a common practice in many institutions. Some linguists appreciate it, while others resist it by claiming it detrimental to objectivity and neutrality. Chiang (2006) finds role of teacher’s discourse a determining factor in pedagogy.  Current study was conducted to observe the phenomenon of hybridization in academic discourse and to assess it in the light of pragmatics. Pragmatic analysis is known as a useful method to infer covert and implicit meanings of language (Savignon, 2007) and the researchers deemed it appropriate for current research. The pragmatic analysis could provide a newer outlook on academic discourse. Data was collected through observation sheet from the classes. Questionnaire was also used to get relevant data from teachers. The findings revealed that teachers often relied on cultural and ideological underpinnings in their pedagogy.  The individual conversational styles were also responsible for different mode of hybridization and subsequently reinforced diverse facet of discourse different in pragmatic nature. The data was first analyzed for hybridization followed by its pragmatic analysis. The study was important in the backdrop of one of many beliefs, that meaning never remains fixed and it resides in socio-cultural structures and lack of pragmatic knowledge among interlocutors impedes semantic proficiency. The study revealed utility of pragmatic competence in turning this mixing of discourses in a class into a continuum. It also found that knowledge of academic pragmatics could reinforce semantic proficiency.

Key Words

Hybridity/

Hybridization, Academic Discourse, Linguistic Continuum, Pedagogy, University Teachers

Introduction

Academic Discourse is defined as the way of using language and communication in academic premises. It is the language of teachers and students for teaching learning purposes. The written texts and pedagogical practices targeted for evaluative purposes fall under academic discourse. Hyland (2009) views academic discourse as the way of thinking and the ways of using language in academic settings for academic purposes. A teacher or a learner necessarily experiences exposure to academic discourse in his/her academic life. Academic discourse is significant in the sense that it is vehicle for the generation and development of knowledge in academia. When a teacher applies various sources of knowledge to elucidate his/her pedagogical theme surely s/he is banking on hybridization. There are different sources of knowledge i.e. senses, authority, reason and intuition. The empiricists believe that fundamental source of all our knowledge is senses. Authority is another source of importing information from past. Third source of knowledge is “Reason” which is a logical interpretation of things by using known facts to reach at new facts. Deductive and Inductive reasoning are two important aspects of this specific way of reaching to the facts. Intuition apparently sounds unscientific or mystical which refers to very subjective approach towards reality of things. Other sources of knowledge include faith accompanied by supernatural revelation, instincts, racial memory or collective unconscious, cultural memories, extrasensory perception, anamnesis or “recollection” (Audi, 2005). Scientific method is based on empiricism where observation and experimentation constitute bedrock of investigative and interpretive process. From teaching and learning to assessment as central stakeholder, a learner remains at the forefront of academic discourse. As already mentioned the convention of applying diverse sources for academic instructions is called hybridity in academic discourse. It is quite relevant and pertinent question for contemporary pedagogy if single empiricist or positivist pedagogy is useful or it is hegemonic in nature breeding monopoly of rationalist. The question becomes further significant in a time when world is more prone to the slogans of democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism and parity

According to (Bakhtin, 1981) a hybrid discourse is co-presence of two consciousnesses. It represents two values, two understandings and plural prospects. A teacher is not a programmed robot but surely is socially, cognitively and dynamically programed ‘being’ who does not live in vacuum but is supposed to bring in class his/her socio-cultural interactions. It is researchers’ observation that teachers mix their home language in pedagogical practices. This practice according to Fairclough and Wodak (1997) generates a sort of discourse which is not produced without context. Discourses are always connected to other discourses produced synchronically and subsequently. Werth (1999) has discussed in detail how socio-cultural context play role in the realization of discourse world in evoking and establishing common grounds of knowledge. Werth further adds that background common knowledge among the participants enriches and gives meaning to the discourse. Context makes discourse dynamic and easily comprehendible and in pragmatic analysis of any discourse we study how this dynamism works in whole communicative situation. The researchers deemed it quite important and appropriate area of research in Pakistani settings and opted to investigate it from pragmtics’perspective.  

Literature Review

As briefly discussed in above paragraph academic discourse is the lifeline of educative pursuits. It is inseparable from academic milieu. The discourse in which a text is written or taught carries considerable significance. In other words classroom discourse plays undeniable role in the formation of concepts. The dissemination of knowledge and reaching to facts overwhelmingly relies on how we approach, theorize and synthesize them. In this way classroom discourse becomes manifold important owing to its educative role for the generation and progression of knowledge. Lave and Wenger (1991) find how learning is interpreted as a holistic form not depending on specific activities but row under the influence of social acclimatization. 

Bakhtin (1981) used for the first time this word ‘hybrid’ emphasizing the continuum for the sake of better literacy. He calls hybrid construction as double styled, double accented structure bearing enormous significance. At deeper level it has multiple semantic modes demonstrating polyphonic and multivocal trend of exhibiting several social voices and serving many social meanings. Hybridization for Bakhtin is inseparable fusion of much linguistic consciousness; an ideological becoming; a continuum and a process of assimilating public and private, external and internal, centripetal and centrifugal, authoritative and persuasive. The linguistic continuum for Bakhtin produces more enriched linguistic repertoire whereby one language illuminates another resulting in meaningfully more creative and more intellectual discourse. Hyland (2009) find that variant social scenarios like educative process, propagating ideas and producing knowledge depend on educational and academic settings. It is not mere process of teaching and research business but it simultaneously responds to and interacts with social realities and social roles specific to certain social groups. Hyland (2000 p1) finds that “successful academic writing depends on the individual writer’s projection of a shared professional context” therefore the successful learners depend how successfully they interpret context i.e. how much pragmatically competent they are.

Gee (1996) writes that discourses are the ways of understanding social realities and are the ways of thinking, being and behaving. Classroom or academic discourse is a source or vehicle of producing knowledge and the way this discourse is used is very important for educative aims. It is important to understand that the discourse used for pedagogical purposes is based on watertight compartmentalization of subjectivity versus objectivity or the linguistic continuum through discourse hybridization exists inside the classrooms. Hyland (2009) believes how academic discourse constitutes our lives and cast impact on educational products. The process of mixing other discourses in academic discourse is known as hybridization and Hebb (2000) refers this process as mixing of school and home languages. Home language does not necessarily mean language at home but communicative norms and conventions fostered by society or acculturative process which intervene in academic discourse. For Bizzell (1999) hybridization is a slippery term which can loosely be called as blend and mixing of non-academic discourses with traditionally accepted academic discourse. It is not a negative phenomenon because academic literacy is not merely inculcation of academic discourse but hybridization process constitutes a continuum which conforms to pluralistic approach in literacy. She advocates this concept in pedagogy and finds as productive continuum rather a dichotomy obstructing educative process. Hebb (2000) agrees with Bakhtin and puts forward analogical reference of bridge and travelers. For him hybrid discourse is a bridge, a connection between travelers (conversant) to freely travel in any direction. 

The diversity due to this linguistic continuum for Hebb (2000) results in broadening horizons of thinking and the learners are equipped with better and sharper academic literacy to handle rhetorical and academic challenges. For Bizzell(1999) two mixed academic discourse such as non-traditional shared cultural references, personal experiences, indirection and appr0priative histry and humor have revolutionizd literacy targets in the world. She argues that deliberate hybrid discourse over the time has attained the capacity for achieving reflective, dense, rigorous and serious intellectual targets not yet achieved through conventional and past academic discourse. She considers that variety in academic discourse offers opportunity for academic discourse. Kells (1999) thinks otherwise about hybridization.  He believes that this mixing of academic and non-academic discourses will reduce classroom discourse to such level that it will be valued as impoverished and unacceptable. Hebb (2000) believes that mixing from continuum perspective is productive and other discourses are valued and not listed as aberrations. Hybridity for Hebb is more a possibility and opportunity than a challenge. It empowers learner while limiting oneself to one singular discourse enfolds and wraps them in a marginalized and isolated battlefield of knowledge blurring their cultural and discursive frontiers. 

Some eminent postcolonial and other scholars hold different notion about intermixing of academic discourse. Verscheren,(1999) opine that hybrid discourse is multi-located, dislocated and exiled oscillating between identities. Djik (1998) views ideology interfacing in hybridization process. Olson (1999) questions these notions as that of Bizzell (1999) that hybridization zone of hybrid academic discourses is fraught with tension where cultures meet, grapple and fight and clash with each other (see also Bawarshi, 2006; Canagarajah, 2006; Hawisher, Selfe, Guo, & Liu, 2006).  Richardson (2002) examined that use of mother tongue is useful in literacy development among learners. Tang and John (1999) observed that often students confront academic literacy as dry process and mixed form of discourse is a helping hand for them. Sengupta (1999, 312) believes that “as teachers we can develop rhetorical awareness and empower students to talk as literate, educated adults about texts that they read” (p. 312).Lea and Street (2006) concluded in their work that switching academic settings bring out maximum from and for the students. Canagarajah (2002), MacDonald (1987, 2010) and others observe that students import their community consciousness in the classes and to address them in their consciousness is comparatively better pedagogy. Cunningham (2017) finds position of request production in telecollaboration but the work contains different settings and research objectives. Although this study has different settings, but provides an innovative and quite important clue for pragmatic layers of any discourse.

Royster (1996) supports the notion of continuum and finds it as a breeding place for growth of genius. It helps in the emergence of peculiar expertise which is supportive to the learners to achieve and attain amazing creative and reflective expressions. It helps in bringing ordinary limits to excellence because of its unifying nature. Due to classrooms of diverse backgrounds, and variated tendencies, multiplicity with respect to politics and religion of learners a pluralistic class comes into existence. Some linguists favor and others oppose the presence of multiplicity of discourses. Some consider it as ideologically productive and vice versa. It is significant to know how there is possibility of linguistic continuum. Pragmatic analysis of Pakistani academic discourse has never been attempted prior to this work. The work was much needed to understand teacher learner positioning regarding pedagogical discourse. Vásquez & Sharpless (2009) dominantly discuss TESOL curriculum with respect to pragmatics. Griffiths & Cummins, (2017) argue in detail about pragmatics and semantics but their study focuses on English language and English speaking milieu. It does not include pedagogical content but deals in general about semantics but provides clues of pragmatic inquiry. Havid & Nababan (2018) demonstrate characters’ politeness in novels regarding pragmatic technique of imparting commands. The study is with respect to translation but in this project a lot about pragmatic analysis involves dissemination of meaning.




Significance of the Study




Current study was significant from many respects. Foremost importance was in the fact that it was first ever research work of its nature as far as researchers’ own review of literature was concerned. The study introduced new avenues of inquiry both with respect to linguistically pluralistic position of discourses in the class and role of pragmatics in interpreting them.  The preceding discussion revealed how one school of thought contests the hybridization and other contests for it. It was in itself manifestation of the fact that linguistic continuum in academic discourse was workable area of research. The researcher was interested to analyze pedagogical practices if there had been phenomenon of hybridization or not. Pragmatics helps explaining and understanding beyond sentence level meaning of discourse. In mixed form of pedagogy the pragmatic competence has important role in deciphering other discourses. The study was further significant keeping in view the prevalent situation where classes are often multicultural, multilingual, multi-ideological and multiethnic. Apart from addition in existing knowledge the study would possibly help new researchers for future research.  




Research Questions




Following research questions were investigated.

i. What is the nature of hybridization in academic discourse and how does it correspond to the concept of linguistic continuum?

ii. What are perceptions of teachers regarding hybridization in academic discourse?

iii. How can mixed academic discourse be analyzed through pragmatic analysis?




Research Objectives




Current research intended to accomplish following objectives in order to seek the answer of above stated research questions.

i. To investigate and assess academic discourse in Pakistani university classes from hybridization perspective.

ii. To find out and assess nature of hybridization during pedagogical practices.

iii. To observe if there was linguistic continuum in academic discourse or not.

iv. To assess the effect of hybridization through pragmatic analysis. 

Methodology

Creswell (2008) believes that action-research methodology is relevant for studies which target to "enhance the practice of education through the systematic study of a local problem" (p. 599). Current research adopted action research methodology by non-participant approach with the population of study. In order to seek the answers of above stated research questions, the selection of appropriate methodology was of paramount significance Noffke (2009) while prompting merits points out that action research epistemologically views knowledge and practice as inherently connected. Thus, the empirical observations collected through implementing action research at the site of study were reflected upon and then used wherever relevant and appropriate to modify the design of the pedagogical initiative for future practical applications and to inform research. The study was both qualitative and quantitative in nature demanding use of triangulation. The quantitative part was about frequency and fraction of hybrid items and semantic units while qualitative part dealt interpretation of the data.  Following methods were adopted to collect data.

i. Observation sheet for non-participant observation in the classes.

ii. Questionnaires for the teachers 

The observation sheet was designed keeping in view the objectives and research questions of the study. It is annexed as Appendix (A). The audio recording device was also one option but the researcher found observation sheet more appropriate. It was free of noise disturbance and possibilities of other technical errors associated with gadgets. Questionnaire (Appendix B) was used to elicit required data from the same teachers whose lectures were observed. The questions in the questionnaires focused on teachers’ views and perceptions regarding hybridization. The answers of the teachers provided first hand data about research questions.




Population




Keeping in view the objectives of present study a selective population was more suitable rather than random sampling. Eight lectures (1 hour per lecture) in social science subjects were observed in Hazara University Mansehra from four subjects. The lectures of the following subjects were selected for the sake of non-participant observation. The study was basically pedagogy related and served unilateral facet of classroom discourse so the discourse of students was not included in the observation. 

i. English

ii. Pakistan Studies

iii. Political Science/International Relations

iv. Architecture

The names of the subjects and teachers were coded for the sake of convenience.  E1 and E2 for example were for the teachers of English. P1 and P2 were for the teachers of Pakistan Studies. The teachers of International Relations and Architecture were codified as R1, R2 and A1 and A2 respectively.




Data Analysis




In the first stance here is discussed nature of hybridization which was found in the pedagogy of Pakistani teachers.  The subjects selected for study were of social sciences. There were total four subjects and eight teachers. Data analysis section contains two sub headings. Under heading 1, the nature of this hybridization is discussed followed by heading 2 i.e. detailed pragmatic analyses. The purpose of separating hybridization was to make research clearer and friendly to the readers. The mixing of diversity in academic discourse is hybridity in present context. The following paragraphs are illustrating how this hybridization works in Pakistani classrooms. As far as mixing of discourse is concerned the researcher observed that it was frequently practiced in academic discourse. Although the topics of discussion were quite different in all the classes with respect to respective subjects but none of the lectures was without this practice. The researchers focused only on the content of the classroom discussion and in the observation sheet did not note informal and ceremonious words of the teacher. The researchers noted the content exhibiting hybridization and arranged it in order at the end. Teaching methods, stereotypical remarks, non-verbal movements and styles were also not part of current research and therefore were not included in the observation sheet. It is worth mentioning that different frames of references are important in the formation of one’s perception. Goffman (1974) explains how people interpret their surroundings through their primary framework. Current data revealed how academic discourse involved various frames and how the interlocutors in the classrooms made continuum through hybridization. 

Different strategies were used in the classes to necessitate various perspectives of the discussion. Wodak (2010) explains how these strategies like nominational or referential ones result in, in-group or out-group constructions. These strategies are particularly used to evoke addressee’s faculty of constructing out and in group strata. Such strategies form only true frame of reference of worldview. In one classroom discussion referential strategy of Collectivisation was excessively used by uttering epithets time and again. The epithet west was freely used for one European country referring segregation of Oriental and Occidental cultures and religions. There were also such negative appraisement strategies by emphatic use of subjective epithets. The classifier real for example was often used as immediate modifier in many situations while discussing a general topic. 

On many occasions it was observed and noted how genitive nominalization was used to deliver one’s point of view. The sentences uttered in one class like “Economic process started soon after the creation of Adam and Eve” show i.e.Religionisation which brings at surface importance of Economics in terms of faith. This can be referred as scripture frame for interpretation of Economics. Negative epithets like so called applies device of mitigation for out group in discussion. The devices like collectivisation, association, inclusion, exclusion, gendserization, aggregation, argumentation and augmentation are entailed by various strategies to make discourse ideological. Data for current study showed there was manifest use of perspectivation by the teachers. The researcher noted use of all above mentioned strategies in academic discourse selected for current research. There occurred on various occasion frequent uses of grammatical markers tilting towards subjective and opinionated discourse. The strategies of inclusion and exclusion were also applied to intensify and mitigate respectively. Predicational strategies were another significant tool for pedagogy. These strategies according to Wodak (2010) are used for labeling social actors positively or negatively. Like referential strategies the predicational strategies were also used. 

The utterances like Our life today is being shaped by, the Western social and cultural modes.” Show how predicational strategy works as negative attribution. In this predication is used as a negative attribution. In one instance of Genderisation the words like “only men are responsible for the plight of women” shows teacher’s belief in emphasized Feminity. In the argument like “our education system will not create good man and Muslim” is another example of predicational strategy of applying ideological bent towards education. This gives a type of message that a country has Muslim population only. 

The predication containing adjective good and Muslim, both are strategies making Exclusion and Collectivisation pattern towards education system of any country. .”.  The use of words like broken, kids, orphanage, homicide, rapes and rampant were used to build argument against cloning in one lecture. It seemed according to the authors all these evils were because of cloning and before the advent of this phenomenon the world was free of these “vices”. The author in the predication used words to evoke Social Empathy Frame to convey his message with intensity. Another important aspect was foregrounding and backgrounding in discourse. Argument from Absurdity is also called reductio ad absurdum which believes that, avoiding absurdity one should believe in something. It is often invalid form of reasoning which can give false result although having good argument in premise and result. On many occasions this strategy was also used by teachers. Inference is another important argumentation strategy. It is also known as abduction. It considers all viable discussion and finds out which is most likely true. It works on possible causes and effects of thing. Some of the teachers also applied it in their pedagogy. There was discussion going on about women rights and the use of Speech Acts like responsible vehemently spoke how the teacher was emphasizing his particular point of view.

  In another lecture the phrase “it is the man” in itself was emphatic and claimed absoluteness which showed writer’s involvement or too much concern about privileged Feminity. Intensification and mitigation was another common and important discourse strategy used to obtain required objectives. Wodak (2010) believes that its objective is to modify the epistemic status of a proposition. In current study it was seen that mitigation and intensification was used in academic process of pedagogy. All above discussion reveals one point that there was existence of hybridization in the form of ideological underpinnings in Pakistani academic discourse. This presence was in the form such devices like aggregation, exclusion and other mentioned above which lead one to undercurrent existence of mixing ideology in academic discourse.

Core objective of current study was about pragmatic analysis of hybridization in academic discourse of Pakistani academia. Data collected showed how hybridization was present in the form of referential and predicational strategies. This hybridization revealed traces of other discourses working with academic pedagogy. Along with scientific method of empiricism and objectivity there was mixing of personal narration, ideology, anecdotes, folk prolixity and pedantry. All these elements in pedagogy make academic discourse a mixed form of pedagogy working differently from pure academic discourse of empiricism and objectivity. This deviation can be termed anomaly in academic discourse which can be studied from various perspectives. It can be evaluated in the light of Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis, Causal Layered Analysis approach or some other approach of Critical Theory. The researcher opted to approach it from Pragmatics’ perspective. Pragmatics is branch of linguistics which explores meaning beyond sentence level.

 According to (Yule, 1996) pragmatics study necessarily involves and explores the listeners ‘inferences in deciphering great deal of unsaid.  Pragmatic analysis is an endeavor to bring at surface the meaning of the speakers and thereby to recognize more than said utterances or sentences. The purpose of this analysis was to assess academic discourse beyond hybridization level. It was to observe what type of pragmatic meanings work beyond ‘other discourses’ in the class. The analysis showed there were face threatening and face saving acts in the use of language for pedagogy. The act of politeness in the words of Brown & Levinson (1987) if not observed does impede smooth communicative process. The study showed flouting of politeness tenets by frequent use of face threatening acts by teachers. Cook (1994) believes that this act of flouting overturns our schemata and may expose us to uncomfortable views about the world .Face threatening acts mostly worked where the teachers inclined more political or ideological towards any topic. This resulted bit stiffness in selection of vocabulary and use of facts. 

Some of the teachers also used few mitigating expressions which ensured face saving acts in the classes. Face threatening situations emerge while narrating events or matters in direct speech acts. Grammatical markers like modifiers, compliments and deictically used phrases were used by few teachers as mitigating devices to express their views with relatively more politeness. Imperative sentences were frequently used with bald on strategies. Bald on according to (Yule, 1996) is the most direct approach using imperative forms such as “Punish them”, “Give us” etc. It was observed that least teachers applied hedges in their teaching. Most of them vehemently applied perfectionist’s stance while explaining topics of academic importance. The use of expressive and commissive speech acts at umpteen times revealed tendency of applying subjective and personal narrative styles of instruction. 

Hedges are commonly used as precautionary measure to avert sense of absoluteness in any discourse. It does not marginalize others but keeps room open for views of others. The use of words like ‘as far as I know, ‘i think so’, ‘I may be mistaken’, ‘I am not sure if this is right’, I guess’ etc. In short it can be said that hedges are cautious notes and Yule (1996) says that speakers are conscious of the manner, quantity and quality maxim. Grice (1975) gave the concept of cooperative principle and its four sub principles. According to Grice if a discourse is as informed as required it observes maxim of quantity. If it is not false it observes maxim of quality. Maxim of relation is to be relevant while to be orderly and perspicuous is maxim of manner. The research showed all four maxims i.e. maxim of quality, quantity, relation and manner were flouted by teachers. Matters were often explained at unnecessary greater length which could be explained without long-windedness. Maxim of quality was also flouted in ideological related issues which showed mixing of subjective tendencies in academic discourse. The aspect of cooperative principle was not observed in true letter and spirit in maximum part of discussion. A similar study by Lalu &Thilagavathi (2018) is done in Sasak context Lombok Indonesia to exhibit flouting of Gricean maxims.

The researcher observed use of scalar implicature which made academic discourse value laden.  There was use of modifiers like ‘many’, ‘most’, ‘some’, ‘few’. ‘always’ and ‘often’ etc while interacting with the students. The frequent use of conventional implicature like ‘even’ and ‘yet’ was observed in the lectures exhibiting emphasis less on objectivity and more on normative propensity in the discussion. The participation of the students in learning process was not optimum as teachers most of the time held the floor. The high considerateness style was missing in many classes. This style in the words of Yule (1996) is that where speakers do not overlap, use a slower rate, apply longer pauses and avoid interrupting others. Presuppositions are important aspect of pragmatics. 

The academic discourse observed for the sake of current study revealed different types of presuppositions used by teachers. The lexical, factive and potential presuppositions marked the discourse. Presupposition is largely a concept relying on fact, knowledge or cultural schemata which is not absolutely an impartial source of knowledge. The use of presupposition is a kind of overlapping or hybridization. The presence of presuppositions and entailments provided a lead about hybridity, a sort of personal inclination for hypothesizing an argument. One important notion of politeness in pragmatics is solidarity strategy. Yule (1996) says it includes personal information, use of nicknames and sometime even abusive terms or shared slang expressions. The teachers mostly used inclusive terms like ‘let’s’ and ‘we’ which manifested use of solidarity strategy in their discourse. The most common vocal for indications of one’s attention like smiles, head nods, gestures and facial expressions are known as backchannels. In most of discussion while mixing discourses in the classes the teachers used these backchannels but their style chiefly remained high involvement which overshadowed active participation of learners.

 The following figure shows frequency of pragmatic markers used by teachers. The figure shows face threatening acts, face saving acts and flouting of maxims were used in profusion by teachers. Other pragmatic terms like hedges, observation of maxims and implicatures had relative less frequency in overall discourse. The use of backchannels was also present in rarity in pedagogical instructions. The findings showed excessive use of face threatening acts which makes it imperative to have pragmatic awareness of communicative process. Similarly flouting of maxims suggested need of empiricism, objectivity, rationality in hybridization to ensure quality learning as well as linguistic pluralism in the classes

Figure 1



Findings Based on Questionnaire

In order to seek the answer of research question regarding impact of hybridity on classroom learning a questionnaire was used. The questions chiefly focused on teachers’ experience about blending of allusive, ideological and other discourses with academic discourse. The purpose of this data was to divulge nature and purpose of hybridization. Interestingly all of the teachers confessed there was interface of home language in academic pedagogy. In the table below the data on the basis of teachers’ responses is tabulated under question numbers asked in the questionnaire. The numerical values were obtained on likert scale as shown in appendix (B). Maximum points on Likert scale for each question were five while minimum remained one. Below three showed strongly positive and above 3 showed orbit of strongly positive. Upto 40% value represents negative while between 40 and 66% is positive. The values above 66% show strong positive response. The chart of values illustrated in questionnaire. The table below in uppermost row shows question numbers asked in the questionnaires. The first left column shows codified list of teachers. Total score row demonstrates percentage against these questions.

Against question (i) the responses of all teachers were strong agreement about existence of hybridization in their academic discourse. Question (ii) was about perception of teachers and the responses against it also fell in strong agreement slot. As far as impact of hybridized academic discourse on academic proficiency of the students the responses were neither strong agree nor disagree column which showed teachers had no idea about it. In the following question about poor pedagogy because of this practice the answers fell I negative column. The teachers personally assumed it not an obstacle in academic output although their response about learners’ perception was not clear. Same responses persisted in next questions whereby teachers adopted neutral position. Their responses demonstrated that objectivity and communication are not dependent on this factor alone. The responses of last question revealed teachers believed that method or convention of mixing academic discourse with home discourses was a continuum rather an impediment. The same findings are further illustrated in table 2.  The responses indicated that use of various sources of knowledge in dissemination of academic process were in vogue in the classes. Teachers were well aware of their own use of it and they viewed it not detrimental for objectivity and flow of knowledge. They like Royster (1996), Hebb (2000) and Kells (1999) were of the view that hybridization was a part of linguistic continuum creating discourse pluralism in the classes. The responses fell in strong positive box regarding continuum question. The right most columns showed % of teacher’s responses. Those teachers who strongly agreed their points fall between 60 to 65% and vice versa.

   

Table 2.

No	i	ii	iii	iv	v	vi	vii	viii	%
E 1	5	4	1	4	3	3	4	2	65%
E 2	5	3	3	1	1	3	3	3	55%
P 1	5	4	1	1	2	1	3	4	52.5%
P 2	5	2	4	2	1	3	2	4	57.5%
R 1	5	2	3	2	1	3	2	4	55%
R 2	5	4	4	2	1	2	2	4	60%
A 1	5	3	3	2	2	1	2	3	52.5%
A 2	5	5	2	2	1	2	3	4	60%
Total score	40	27	21	16	12	18	21	28
%	100%	67.5%	52.5%	40%	30%	45%	52.5	70%

 

The above percentage obtained on the basis of teachers’ responses is further illustrated in pie chart below for clearer picture. The questionnaire was meant to verify findings already obtained through observation sheet. This enriched the results corroborating the fact of hybridization present in other classes as well. Overall the data obtained on the basis of questionnaire responded to question (2) investigated through this research study. It helped to make study coherent with respect to all three questions.

Figure 2



Conclusion

The study addressed very pertinent question of pluralistic position of discourse in a classroom. The concept of linguistic continuum and hybridization is significant in the backdrop of today’s globalized and multilingual world. A conventional mode of teaching with fixed Translation Method or monolithic approach is receding in classes today. Modern pedagogy demands application of eclectic approaches to communicate meaning to the learners. A teacher while interpreting or evaluating a lesson needs amalgamation of content supported by his/her personal mode of delivery. Pragmatics is an essential communicative way in context and works in academic discourse as well. The objectives of the research were to assess and measure pragmatic aspect of academic discourse. The first part of the study evaluated if the discourse followed tradition of mixing discourses. The later part analyzed it in the light of pragmatics. The data showed how there was hybridization and what strategies were used by teaching practitioners in their discourse. The findings revealed there was almost every aspect of pragmatics working in the classes. The teachers were overlapping their classroom language not only with other discourses but were also applying pragmatic techniques in their pedagogy. Language is more than a grammar, syntax and semantics. The knowledge of pragmatics to understand socially, culturally intertwined meaning is undeniable. If a student is not well versed in pragmatic knowledge of one’s teachers, it is quite possible that actual communicative efficacy of academic discourse is not accessible to the learners. The pragmatic competence is a scaffolding technique to realize strengths and merits of mixing discourses. It is the understanding of pragmatics which makes hybridization a continuum rather an impediment in teaching learning process. 

The study demonstrated the importance of pragmatics in teaching learning process. The pragmatics helps the learners in understanding teachers’ unsaid meaning by constructing a sort of bridge between students and teachers. The study is also helpful in realizing importance of cooperative principles and discourse devices for better communication. The findings of the study explicitly show possibility of many discourses in the class in Pakistani context. This polyphonic atmosphere or multiplicity can be a possibility with appropriate pragmatics knowledge for the students. The same can turn into a hard challenge and obstacle for the learners for want of pragmatic competence. The findings exhibit importance of academic discourse with respect to pedagogical awakening. In literacy development teacher-scholar positioning plays imperative role. Both teachers and students can make it holistic and all-inclusive phenomenon if crevasse be crossed through pragmatics. The implications of hybridization are far reaching. These are positive if meaning is not lost and teachers-learners develop mutual articulacy. The same practice can result in academic fiasco if intelligibility and harmony gives place to alienation. Knowledge of pragmatics helps removing these factors which cause pedagogical estrangements in hybridized academic discourse 

References

• Bakhtin, M. (1981)
• Audi, R. (2005-10-27). The Sources of Knowledge. In (Ed), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology . : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 23 Sep. 2018, from
• Bardovi-Harlig, K.(1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning. Vol. (7) 21-39.
• Bawarshi, A. (2006). Taking up language difference in composition. College English. Vol. 68(6), 652-656.
• Bizzell, P. (1999). Hybrid academic discourses: What, why, how. Composition Studies, Vol. 27(2), 7-21.
• Brown, P.& S. Levinson (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Canagarajah, A.S. (2002). Critical Academic Writing And Multilingual Students. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Canagarajah, A.S. (2006a). The place of world Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 57(4), 586-620.
• Canagarajah, A.S. (2006b). Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between languages: Learning from multilingual writers. College English, Vol. 68(6), 589-604.
• Chiang, L. C. (2006). Voices from the language classroom: a descriptive study of interactive-decision making of an expert teacher. English Teaching & Learning. Vol. 4(April), 23-45.
• Cook, G. (1994), Discourse and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 3rd edn. Pearson International Edition.
• Cunningham, D. J. (2017). Methodological Innovation for the Study of Request Production in Telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, Vol. 1 (February,1),76-99.
• Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed) Discourse as Social interaction : Vol. ( 1) 258-284. Sage: London.
• Gee, J. P. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: Taylor and Francis.
• Goffman, erving. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New york, ny et al.: harper & row.
• Grice, H. P. (1975) 'Logic and conversation'. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press
• Griffiths, P., & Cummins, C. (2017). Pragmatics. In An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 98-117). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Retrieved from
• Hawisher, G.E., Selfe, C.L., Guo, Y.H., & Liu, L. (2006). Globalization and agency: Designing and redesigning the literacies of cyberspace. College English, Vol. 68(6), 619-636.
• Havid, A. & M. R. Nababan (2018) Characters' Politeness Strategies in Giving Command: Should Translators Keep Them? 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies - Vol 24(2): 181 - 193
• Hebb, J (2000). Hybrid Discourse and Academic Writing.Diss. Texas A&M University- Commerce. . Commerce, TX: UMI. 2000.072699.