語用遷移與二語水平的關(guān)系研究

前言

　　語用遷移是二語習得研究領(lǐng)域的一個熱門課題。許多專家學者已從學習環(huán)境、課堂教學、二語水平以及在國外居住時間等方面對影響語用遷移的條件進行過研究，并取得了很大的成績。然而，在語用遷移與二語水平的關(guān)系問題上仍存在著兩種分歧：一種認為二語水平越高，越不易受母語影響，語用遷移越小，二者呈負相關(guān)；而另一種則認為二語水平越高，把握目的語的能力越大，越容易把母語中的典型特征融入目的語，語用遷移也就越大，二者呈正相關(guān)。本書通過考察一組大學一年級和大學三年級中國英語學習者的拒絕言語行為來研究二語水平與語用遷移的關(guān)系，結(jié)果表明語用遷移的程度與二語水平總體呈正相關(guān)關(guān)系。高水平英語學習者能夠用其掌握的語言知識來表達自己想要表達的內(nèi)容，而這些內(nèi)容往往具有典型的母語特征。低水平英語學習者，由于缺乏足夠的語言知識，只能中規(guī)中矩地使用已學的英語知識，有時還會出現(xiàn)過度使用。　　目前對于語用遷移（或語言遷移）的作用，大都是強調(diào)其對二語習得的負面影響，很多遷移研究最后大都提出如何消除母語遷移的建議，認為學好一門外語一定要擺脫母語的蛛絲馬跡的影響。這未免有些夸張，也抹殺了先前習得的母語知識對第二語言學習的積極促進作用。我想，出現(xiàn)這種情況的原因之一就是對語用遷移采取了一種非此即彼的研究方法：學習者話語中要么有語用遷移，要么沒有語用遷移。其實，母語對二語習得的影響是有一個程度大小的變化過程的。正常情況下，語用遷移的程度是應(yīng)隨著學習者語言水平的提高而減小的，即呈現(xiàn)出語用遷移與語言水平間的負相關(guān)關(guān)系。這也是大多數(shù)外語教師、學習者和研究者都希望看到的。

內(nèi)容概要

　　語用遷移研究是二語習得領(lǐng)域的一個重要課題。二語水平是影響語用遷移諸多因素中最為明顯的一個，但對語用遷移與二語水平之間關(guān)系的研究甚少，且僅有的幾項研究結(jié)果對兩者之間的關(guān)系爭論較大。本書對語用遷移的類別進行了重新界定，并在對比中美拒絕策略異同的基礎(chǔ)上，通過跟蹤考察一組中國大學生英語學習者拒絕言語行為的發(fā)展變化情況來研究二語水平與語用遷移的關(guān)系，并提出了一項語用遷移假說，為在大學英語教學中逐漸實施語用教學提供了理論和實踐上的借鑒。     本書適讀于外語及對外漢語專業(yè)本科生、研究生，外語教師，語言教學和語言研究教育工作者。

書籍目錄

前言Acknowledgements導(dǎo)讀Chapter 1  Introduction　1.1  Origin of the Research　1.2  Method of the Research　1.3  Organization of the BookChapter 2  Literature Review　2.1  Speech Act Theory　2.2  Refusals across Cultures　　2.2.1  Rubin's Study　　2.2.2  Liao and Bresnahan's Study　　2.2.3  Nelson et al.'s Study　　2.2.4  Wang Aihua's Study　2.3  Concepts of Language Transfer and Pragmatic Transfer　　2.3.1  Language Transfer　　2.3.2  Pragmatic Transfer　2.4  Major Studies on Pragmatic Transfer in Speech Acts　　2.4.1  Studies on Pragmatic Transfer in Other Speech Acts　　2.4.2  Studies on Pragmatic Transfer in Refusal Speech Act　2.5  Studies on the Relationship between L2 Proficiency and Pragmatic TransferChapter 3  Research Design and Theoretical Framework　3.1  Research Questions　3.2  Research Methodology　　3.2.1  Subjects　　3.2.2  Instruments　　3.2.3  Data Analysis　3.3  An Operational Criterion for Discussing Pragmatic Transfer　　3.3.1  Necessary Evidence for Identifying the Occurrence of Pra~natic Transfer　　3.3.2  A Basic Principle for Pragmatic Transfer Identification　　3.3.3  Defining the Degree of Discrepancy　　3.3.4  Pragmatic Transfer Reclassified　3.4  A Hypothesis on the Relationship between L2 Linguistic Proficiency and L1 Pragmatic Transfer　　3.4.1  A Working Criterion to Judge the Relationship between L2 Linguistic Proficiency and L1 Pragmatic Transfer　　3.4.2  A Hypothesis on the Relationship between L2 Linguistic Proficiency and L1 Pragmatic Transfer　3.5  Main Theories Employed in Discussing Pragmatic Transfer　　3.5.1  Politeness Theory　　3.5.2  Gile's Accommodation Theory　3.6  A General Research Procedure of the StudyChapter 4 Pragmatic Transfer in Chinese EFL Learners' Refusals　4.1  Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer in the Frequency of Semantic Formulas　　4.1.1  Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer in the Frequency of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Requests　　4.1.2  Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer in the Frequency of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Invitations　　4.1.3  Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer in the Frequency of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Suggestions　　4.1.4  Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer in the Frequency of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Offers  4.2  Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer in the Order of Semantic Formulas　　4.2.1  Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer in the Order of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Requests　　4.2.2  Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer in the Order of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Invitations　　4.2.3  Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer in the Order of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Suggestions　　4.2.4  Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer in the Order of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Offers　4.3  Discussions on Pragmatic Transfer in L2 Refusals　　4.3.1  Types of Pragmatic Transfer in the Speech Act of Refusal　　4.3.2  Influences of Eliciting Factors on Pragmatic TransferChapter 5  The Relationship between L2 Proficiency and L1 Pragmatic Transfer　5.1  The Relationship between Proficiency and Pragmatic Transfer in the Frequency of Semantic Formulas in Each Refusal Eliciting Factor　　5.1.1  The Relationship in the Frequency of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Requests　　5.1.2  The Relationship in the Frequency of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Invitations　　5.1.3  The Relationship in the Frequency of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Suggestions　　5.1.4  The Relationship in the Frequency of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Offers  5.2  The Relationship between Proficiency and Pragmatic Transfer in the Order of Semantic Formulas in Each Refusal Eliciting Factor　  5.2.1  The Relationship in the Order of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Requests　  5.2.2  The Relationship in the Order of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Invitations　  5.2.3  The Relationship in the Order of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Suggestions　  5.2.4  The Relationship in the Order of Semantic Formulas in Refusals to Offers　5.3  Discussions on the Relationship between L2 Proficiency and L1 Pragmatic Transfer in the Refusal Speech Act　  5.3.1  The Influence of Eliciting Factors on the Relationship between L2 Proficiency and L1 Pragmatic Transfer　  5.3.2  Other Factors Affecting the Relationship between Linguistic Proficiency and Pragmatic Transfer　  5.3.3  Hypothesis Testing: the Relationship between L2 Proficiency and L1 Pragmatic Transfer　  5.3.4  The Acquisition Expectation for the Relationship between L2 Proficiency and L1 Pragmatic Transfer: Positive or Negative?Chapter 6  Causal Factors for Pragmatic Transfer and Reassessment of Its Role in SLA  6.1  Causal Factors for Pragmatic Transfer　  6.1.1  Learner-external Factors for Pragmatic Transfer　  6.1.2  Learner-internal Factors for Pragmatic Transfer  6.2  Reassessment of the Role of Pragmatic Transfer in SLAChapter 7 Major Findings and Prospects for Future Studies  7.1  Major Findings of the Present Study  7.2  Significance of the Research  7.3  Prospects for Future Studies on Pragmatic TransferBibliographyAppendix I  Discourse Completion TestAppendix II  Discourse Completion Test [Chinese Version]Appendix III  Classification of Refusals [Beebe et al. (1990)]Appendix IV  Classification of Refusals (Revised Version for This Book)

章節(jié)摘錄

　　Many studies have shown that differences between two language systems are more likely to cause prag- matic transfer. We focus on those evidences that could result in prag matic transfer owing to the differences between learners native lan guage and the target language. These evidences can be detected through a mathematically empirical survey.　　The second type of evidence is the strongest type of evidence for L1 pragmatic influence. If learners mother tongue exerts influence on their interlanguage performance， it will inevitably leave a mark on it. The task left for researchers is to try to find these marks and then compare them with learners native language to see how much they are similar to their L1. Therefore， the question now is how the degree of congruity is defined. However， in order to achieve an echoed effect with the first evidence， we study congruity from its opposite perspec- tive： discrepancy. Hence， the second type of evidence is changed to this： evidence of intra-L1-group small degree of discrepancy between learners L2 and IL performance.　　Actually， discrepancy is a better term than congruity in studying pragmatic transfer. This book proposes a working formula to decide the congruity between learners L1 and IL performance by bringing in the term degree of discrepancy， which will be introduced in 3.3.3.　　3.3.2 A Basic Principle for Pragmatic Transfer Identification　　This book examined pragmatic transfer that occurred in Chinese EFL learners speech act of refusal in terms of both use frequency and order of semantic formulas in refusal act. As for the order of semantic formulas， this book calculated the frequency of a certain semantic formula in a certain position. According to Takahashi and Beebe （1987： 55-131） and Beebe et al.

圖書封面

評論、評分、閱讀與下載

---

    語用遷移與二語水平的關(guān)系研究 PDF格式下載

---