语用能力和文法能力的关系——送受礼物行为的实证研究
|
摘要
本文通过对送受礼物这一交际行为中对英语学习者语用能力所做的实证研究，旨在分析语用能力和文法能力之间的关系问题。本文送受礼物的情景安排是学生借向一位国外的老师送礼物表达敬意和感谢，这种送礼区别于贿赂性质的送受礼物。
受测对象是上海师范大学英语专业二年级的30名学生和化学专业的24名学生。他们首先接受了一项语言能力的测验，然后根据得分高低重新划分成两个样组：语言水平较高的一组24人，语言水平较低的一组30人。重新划分的两组被要求以对话的形式首先用英语，然后用汉语，来构思两封信的内容，分别告诉一个外国学生和一个中国学生怎样给分别给中国老师和外国老师呈送礼物，在这一过程中我们可以总结出到英语学习者在不明就里时是发挥自己的语用知识储备，进行这样那样的语言迁移的。测试信过后我们设计了一个问题表，要求学生从五个备选项(包括课堂教育)中做出选择，看哪个或哪几个对于学生语用知识的获得是最有帮助的。
对两封信的分析包括两个阶段：学习者在汉语和英语两种文化中送礼物图式的鉴定；语用迁移的确认。通过这两个确认，我们进而分析得出结论为：中国外语学习者的语用能力并不会和其文法能力呈同向协调前进；学习者在目标语文化中的送受礼物图式仅在“送”这个阶段发生偏差，受语用迁移的影响，而在“受”时迁移的发生不明显；课堂教学对于学习者语用知识的获得和语用水平的提高几乎没有起到作用，他们认为语用知识的主要来源是电视节目和课外阅读。结论对于英语教学有一定的启示意义：英语教学不能只注重文法能力的提高，语法正确的句子不一定符合某一特定文化的规约。语用能力对于掌握一门语言的交流模式至关重要，应尽量进行系统的课堂讲授。
This study aims to sort out the relationship between pragmatic ability and grammatical ability, with a particular focus on the speech act set of Gift Offering and Accepting (G.O.A.). G.O A. in this study is set to be the situation of a student offering gifts to his foreign tutor to show gratitude and respect instead of bribery.
The subjects of the study were 30 second-year English majors and 24 first-year chemistry students at Shanghai Teachers' University. After a pioneering proficiency test for the 54 subjects, the two groups were rearranged according to their scores achieved to be: 24 subjects in the higher proficiency sample and 30 in the lower proficiency sample. Then the two newly-set groups were required to write a letter, first in Chinese, and the second, in English, telling his friend what to say to achieve the G.O.A. communication goal in China and in UK in the form of dialogue. The writing was followed by a questionnaire, asking the subjects about the main sources (5 options are given) of the knowledge about G.O.A.
The analysis of the two writing tasks consisted of two stages, i.e., the identification of G.O.A. schema in both English and Chinese, and the identification of pragmatic transfer. Based on the two identifications, the results show that Chinese learners' development of pragmatic knowledge is not concurrent with that of their grammatical knowledge; the deviation of the learners' schema of G.O.A. in western culture occurs only partially at the Gift Offering Stage; classroom instruction plays little role in the learners' development of pragmatic knowledge of G.O.A. in English, while TV and out-of-class reading are the two main sources. As for pedagogical implication, grammatically right utterances might be improper pragmatically, so systematic pragmatic knowledge
teaching should be put more emphasis on in class..
受测对象是上海师范大学英语专业二年级的30名学生和化学专业的24名学生。他们首先接受了一项语言能力的测验，然后根据得分高低重新划分成两个样组：语言水平较高的一组24人，语言水平较低的一组30人。重新划分的两组被要求以对话的形式首先用英语，然后用汉语，来构思两封信的内容，分别告诉一个外国学生和一个中国学生怎样给分别给中国老师和外国老师呈送礼物，在这一过程中我们可以总结出到英语学习者在不明就里时是发挥自己的语用知识储备，进行这样那样的语言迁移的。测试信过后我们设计了一个问题表，要求学生从五个备选项(包括课堂教育)中做出选择，看哪个或哪几个对于学生语用知识的获得是最有帮助的。
对两封信的分析包括两个阶段：学习者在汉语和英语两种文化中送礼物图式的鉴定；语用迁移的确认。通过这两个确认，我们进而分析得出结论为：中国外语学习者的语用能力并不会和其文法能力呈同向协调前进；学习者在目标语文化中的送受礼物图式仅在“送”这个阶段发生偏差，受语用迁移的影响，而在“受”时迁移的发生不明显；课堂教学对于学习者语用知识的获得和语用水平的提高几乎没有起到作用，他们认为语用知识的主要来源是电视节目和课外阅读。结论对于英语教学有一定的启示意义：英语教学不能只注重文法能力的提高，语法正确的句子不一定符合某一特定文化的规约。语用能力对于掌握一门语言的交流模式至关重要，应尽量进行系统的课堂讲授。
This study aims to sort out the relationship between pragmatic ability and grammatical ability, with a particular focus on the speech act set of Gift Offering and Accepting (G.O.A.). G.O A. in this study is set to be the situation of a student offering gifts to his foreign tutor to show gratitude and respect instead of bribery.
The subjects of the study were 30 second-year English majors and 24 first-year chemistry students at Shanghai Teachers' University. After a pioneering proficiency test for the 54 subjects, the two groups were rearranged according to their scores achieved to be: 24 subjects in the higher proficiency sample and 30 in the lower proficiency sample. Then the two newly-set groups were required to write a letter, first in Chinese, and the second, in English, telling his friend what to say to achieve the G.O.A. communication goal in China and in UK in the form of dialogue. The writing was followed by a questionnaire, asking the subjects about the main sources (5 options are given) of the knowledge about G.O.A.
The analysis of the two writing tasks consisted of two stages, i.e., the identification of G.O.A. schema in both English and Chinese, and the identification of pragmatic transfer. Based on the two identifications, the results show that Chinese learners' development of pragmatic knowledge is not concurrent with that of their grammatical knowledge; the deviation of the learners' schema of G.O.A. in western culture occurs only partially at the Gift Offering Stage; classroom instruction plays little role in the learners' development of pragmatic knowledge of G.O.A. in English, while TV and out-of-class reading are the two main sources. As for pedagogical implication, grammatically right utterances might be improper pragmatically, so systematic pragmatic knowledge
teaching should be put more emphasis on in class..
引文
1. Andrew Cohen.1995.Investigating the production of speech act sets.In Speech Acts Across Cultures:Challenges to Communication in a Second Language,Susan M.Gass,Joyce Neu (eds.)
2. Anna Wierzbicka.1985 Different Cultures,different languages,different speech acts:Polish vs.English.Journal of Pragmatics 9.145-178.
3. Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford.1990. Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40, 467-501.
4. Bardovi-Harlig & Kathleen. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: a research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, Dec. pp.677-713.
5. Beebe, L. M. 1994. Notebook data on power and the power of notebook data. Paper presented at the 28th Annual TESOL Convention, Baltimore, MD.
6. Blum-Kulka. 1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language: a study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3,29-59.
7. Boodberg, Peter A. 1953. The semasiology of some primary confusion concepts. Philosophy East and West 2(4): 317-332.
8. Chen Jianping. 1999. Different cultures, different speech act sets - speech act theory and its implication to intercultural communication studies. Paper for International Conference on Discourse and Language Function, '89.
9. Claus Faerch & Gabriele Kasper. 1986. Cognitive dimensions of language transfer. In Crosslinguistic influence in Second Language Acquisition, Eric Kellerman & Michael Sharwood Smith (eds.) Pergamon Press.
10. Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. 1981. Developing a measure of sociolinguistic competence: the case of apology. Language Learning, 31, 112-134.
11. Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E. & Rosentain. 1986. Advanced EFL apologies: what remains to be learned. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 62:51-74.
12. Cohen, Andrew D. 1996. Speech acts. In Sandra Lee Mckay and Nancy H. Hornberger (eds.), Sociolinguitic and Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
13. Coulmas, F. (ed.) 1997. The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
14. Eisenstein, & Bodman, J. W. 1986. "I very appreciate": expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 167-185.
15. Florian Coulmas. 1979. On the sociolinguistic relevance of routing formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 3. pp.239-266. North-Holland Publishing Company.
16. Gass, S. 1979, Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327-344.
17. Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (eds.) 1983. Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
18. Grace Yi Qiu Zhong & Patricia Noble Sullevan. 1995. TOEFL super course: 432-438. Third edition. Foreign Language Press, Shang Hai Far East Publishers and Simon and Schuster Inc.
19. Gumperz, J. J. 1966. Linguistic repertoires, grammars, and second language instruction. In Dil (eds.): Language in Social Groups: Essays by John Gumperz. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press (1971).
20. Gu Yueguo, 1990. Politeness phenomenon in modem Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
21. Hinkel, E. 1997. 'Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data.' Applied linguistics. 18:1-26.
22. Hu, Hsien Chin, 1944. The Chinese concept of"face". American Anthropologist, 46: 45-64.
23. Hymes, Dell. 1968. The Ethnography of reading. In Fishman, ed. pp.99-138.
24. House, J. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 225-252.
25. Jordens, P. & Kellerman, E. 1981. Investigations into the "transfer strategy" in second language learning. In J. G. Savard & L. Laforge (eds.), Actes ku 5 ieme Congres de l'Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquee (pp.195-215). Quebec: de J'université Laval.
26. Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. 1996. Development issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
27. Kellerman, E. 1977. Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin-Utrecht, 2(1), 58-145.
28. Kerekes, J. 1992. Development in nonnative speakers' use and perception of assertiveness and supportiveness in mixed-sex conversations (Occasional Paper No.21). Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of English as a Second Language.
29. Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across cultures: applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University ogf Michigan.
30. Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman,
31. Li, Wei. 1996. Chinese Language, culture and communication: A non-contrastive approach. In: Li Wei, ed., Chinese Language, culture and communication. Special double issue of Journal of Asian Pacific communication 7(3/4) 87-90, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
32. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. 1998. Pp.429. Jack C. Richards, John Platt. Heidi Platt (eds.).
33. Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., & Ross, S. 1996. Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenge to Communication in a Second Language. Pp.155-187, S. M. Gass and J. Neu (eds.)
Berlin: de Gruyter.
34. Olshtain, Elite & Andrew D. Cohen. 1983. Apology: a speech-act set. In Wolfson, Nessa & Elliot Judd. 1983. Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. London: Newbury House Publishers.
35. Olshtain, E. & Blun-Kulka. 1985. Degree of approximation: nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior. In S. Gass and C. Maddeb (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 303-325). Rowley, MA: Newburry House.
36. Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A. D. 1989. Speech act behavior across language. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (eds.), Transfer in Language Production (pp. 53-67). Norwood, NJ: Alblex.
37. Scarcella, R. 1979. On speaking politely in a second language. In C. A. Yorio, K. Perkins, and J. Schachter (eds.) On TESOL 79 pp. 275-287. Washington, DC: TESOL.
38. Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Smith, Richard, J. 1983. China's cultural heritage. Boulder, Co: Westview.
40. S. Takahasi & Dufon, 1989. Cross-linguistic influence in indirections: the case of English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Honolulu. Document reproduction service No. ED 370439.
41. Thomas, J. 1983. 'Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.' In Applied Linguistics 4: 92-112.
42. Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
43. Trosborg, A. 1987. Apology strategies in native/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11,147-167.
44. T. Takahashi & beebe. 1987. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALF Journal, 8, 131-155.
45. Wilder-Bassett. 1994. Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: polite noises for
cultural appropriateness. IRAL, 22, 3-17.
46. Whitney, William. 1881. On mixture in language. Transactions of the American Philological Association 12: 5-26.
47. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
48. Zhu Hua, Li Wei and Qian Yuan, 1998. Gift offering and acceptance in Chinese: contexts and fimctions. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 8(2): 87-101.
49. Zhu Hua, Li Wei & Qian Yuan. 2000. The sequential organization of gift offering and acceptance in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, pp.81-103.
50. 李筱菊, 1987. Communication English for Chinese Learners, core course 2. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
51. 应惠兰, 1999. New College English. 外语教学与研究出版社．浙江大学．
2. Anna Wierzbicka.1985 Different Cultures,different languages,different speech acts:Polish vs.English.Journal of Pragmatics 9.145-178.
3. Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford.1990. Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40, 467-501.
4. Bardovi-Harlig & Kathleen. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: a research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, Dec. pp.677-713.
5. Beebe, L. M. 1994. Notebook data on power and the power of notebook data. Paper presented at the 28th Annual TESOL Convention, Baltimore, MD.
6. Blum-Kulka. 1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language: a study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3,29-59.
7. Boodberg, Peter A. 1953. The semasiology of some primary confusion concepts. Philosophy East and West 2(4): 317-332.
8. Chen Jianping. 1999. Different cultures, different speech act sets - speech act theory and its implication to intercultural communication studies. Paper for International Conference on Discourse and Language Function, '89.
9. Claus Faerch & Gabriele Kasper. 1986. Cognitive dimensions of language transfer. In Crosslinguistic influence in Second Language Acquisition, Eric Kellerman & Michael Sharwood Smith (eds.) Pergamon Press.
10. Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. 1981. Developing a measure of sociolinguistic competence: the case of apology. Language Learning, 31, 112-134.
11. Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E. & Rosentain. 1986. Advanced EFL apologies: what remains to be learned. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 62:51-74.
12. Cohen, Andrew D. 1996. Speech acts. In Sandra Lee Mckay and Nancy H. Hornberger (eds.), Sociolinguitic and Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
13. Coulmas, F. (ed.) 1997. The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
14. Eisenstein, & Bodman, J. W. 1986. "I very appreciate": expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 167-185.
15. Florian Coulmas. 1979. On the sociolinguistic relevance of routing formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 3. pp.239-266. North-Holland Publishing Company.
16. Gass, S. 1979, Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327-344.
17. Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (eds.) 1983. Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
18. Grace Yi Qiu Zhong & Patricia Noble Sullevan. 1995. TOEFL super course: 432-438. Third edition. Foreign Language Press, Shang Hai Far East Publishers and Simon and Schuster Inc.
19. Gumperz, J. J. 1966. Linguistic repertoires, grammars, and second language instruction. In Dil (eds.): Language in Social Groups: Essays by John Gumperz. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press (1971).
20. Gu Yueguo, 1990. Politeness phenomenon in modem Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
21. Hinkel, E. 1997. 'Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data.' Applied linguistics. 18:1-26.
22. Hu, Hsien Chin, 1944. The Chinese concept of"face". American Anthropologist, 46: 45-64.
23. Hymes, Dell. 1968. The Ethnography of reading. In Fishman, ed. pp.99-138.
24. House, J. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 225-252.
25. Jordens, P. & Kellerman, E. 1981. Investigations into the "transfer strategy" in second language learning. In J. G. Savard & L. Laforge (eds.), Actes ku 5 ieme Congres de l'Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquee (pp.195-215). Quebec: de J'université Laval.
26. Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. 1996. Development issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
27. Kellerman, E. 1977. Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin-Utrecht, 2(1), 58-145.
28. Kerekes, J. 1992. Development in nonnative speakers' use and perception of assertiveness and supportiveness in mixed-sex conversations (Occasional Paper No.21). Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of English as a Second Language.
29. Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across cultures: applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University ogf Michigan.
30. Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman,
31. Li, Wei. 1996. Chinese Language, culture and communication: A non-contrastive approach. In: Li Wei, ed., Chinese Language, culture and communication. Special double issue of Journal of Asian Pacific communication 7(3/4) 87-90, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
32. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. 1998. Pp.429. Jack C. Richards, John Platt. Heidi Platt (eds.).
33. Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., & Ross, S. 1996. Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenge to Communication in a Second Language. Pp.155-187, S. M. Gass and J. Neu (eds.)
Berlin: de Gruyter.
34. Olshtain, Elite & Andrew D. Cohen. 1983. Apology: a speech-act set. In Wolfson, Nessa & Elliot Judd. 1983. Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. London: Newbury House Publishers.
35. Olshtain, E. & Blun-Kulka. 1985. Degree of approximation: nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior. In S. Gass and C. Maddeb (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 303-325). Rowley, MA: Newburry House.
36. Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A. D. 1989. Speech act behavior across language. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (eds.), Transfer in Language Production (pp. 53-67). Norwood, NJ: Alblex.
37. Scarcella, R. 1979. On speaking politely in a second language. In C. A. Yorio, K. Perkins, and J. Schachter (eds.) On TESOL 79 pp. 275-287. Washington, DC: TESOL.
38. Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Smith, Richard, J. 1983. China's cultural heritage. Boulder, Co: Westview.
40. S. Takahasi & Dufon, 1989. Cross-linguistic influence in indirections: the case of English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Honolulu. Document reproduction service No. ED 370439.
41. Thomas, J. 1983. 'Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.' In Applied Linguistics 4: 92-112.
42. Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
43. Trosborg, A. 1987. Apology strategies in native/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11,147-167.
44. T. Takahashi & beebe. 1987. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALF Journal, 8, 131-155.
45. Wilder-Bassett. 1994. Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: polite noises for
cultural appropriateness. IRAL, 22, 3-17.
46. Whitney, William. 1881. On mixture in language. Transactions of the American Philological Association 12: 5-26.
47. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
48. Zhu Hua, Li Wei and Qian Yuan, 1998. Gift offering and acceptance in Chinese: contexts and fimctions. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 8(2): 87-101.
49. Zhu Hua, Li Wei & Qian Yuan. 2000. The sequential organization of gift offering and acceptance in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, pp.81-103.
50. 李筱菊, 1987. Communication English for Chinese Learners, core course 2. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
51. 应惠兰, 1999. New College English. 外语教学与研究出版社．浙江大学．