语用迁移与二语水平的关系研究
2009-11
科学出版社
卢加伟，张晓莉 著
201
语用迁移是二语习得研究领域的一个热门课题。许多专家学者已从学习环境、课堂教学、二语水平以及在国外居住时间等方面对影响语用迁移的条件进行过研究，并取得了很大的成绩。然而，在语用迁移与二语水平的关系问题上仍存在着两种分歧：一种认为二语水平越高，越不易受母语影响，语用迁移越小，二者呈负相关；而另一种则认为二语水平越高，把握目的语的能力越大，越容易把母语中的典型特征融入目的语，语用迁移也就越大，二者呈正相关。本书通过考察一组大学一年级和大学三年级中国英语学习者的拒绝言语行为来研究二语水平与语用迁移的关系，结果表明语用迁移的程度与二语水平总体呈正相关关系。高水平英语学习者能够用其掌握的语言知识来表达自己想要表达的内容，而这些内容往往具有典型的母语特征。低水平英语学习者，由于缺乏足够的语言知识，只能中规中矩地使用已学的英语知识，有时还会出现过度使用。 目前对于语用迁移（或语言迁移）的作用，大都是强调其对二语习得的负面影响，很多迁移研究最后大都提出如何消除母语迁移的建议，认为学好一门外语一定要摆脱母语的蛛丝马迹的影响。这未免有些夸张，也抹杀了先前习得的母语知识对第二语言学习的积极促进作用。我想，出现这种情况的原因之一就是对语用迁移采取了一种非此即彼的研究方法：学习者话语中要么有语用迁移，要么没有语用迁移。其实，母语对二语习得的影响是有一个程度大小的变化过程的。正常情况下，语用迁移的程度是应随着学习者语言水平的提高而减小的，即呈现出语用迁移与语言水平间的负相关关系。这也是大多数外语教师、学习者和研究者都希望看到的。
语用迁移研究是二语习得领域的一个重要课题。二语水平是影响语用迁移诸多因素中最为明显的一个，但对语用迁移与二语水平之间关系的研究甚少，且仅有的几项研究结果对两者之间的关系争论较大。本书对语用迁移的类别进行了重新界定，并在对比中美拒绝策略异同的基础上，通过跟踪考察一组中国大学生英语学习者拒绝言语行为的发展变化情况来研究二语水平与语用迁移的关系，并提出了一项语用迁移假说，为在大学英语教学中逐渐实施语用教学提供了理论和实践上的借鉴。 本书适读于外语及对外汉语专业本科生、研究生，外语教师，语言教学和语言研究教育工作者。
前言Acknowledgements导读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)
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.
虽然看起来会比较费力，不过会努力看完。这类的书，比较缺。