英语专业学生语用失误调查分析A STUDY ON PRAGMATIC FAILURE OF ENGLISH MAJORS

《英语专业学生语用失误调查分析A STUDY ON PRAGMATIC FAILURE OF ENGLISH MAJORS》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英语专业学生语用失误调查分析A STUDY ON PRAGMATIC FAILURE OF ENGLISH MAJORS（26页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、A STUDY ON PRAGMATIC FAILURE OF ENGLISH MAJORSByCheng TingJune, 2007Xiaogan UniversityAbstractThis essay made a study on the prevalence of some problems in using English. Based on a questionnaire towards undergraduates of English majors, it made a detailed analysis of the results, which showed that

2、the students had certain basic knowledge of English, they could make a correct judgment about some common errors in using English, still, from the analysis, their competence of using English is not very well and there existed much serious pragmatic failures. This paper tried to analyze and study the

3、 pragmatic failure by combining the survey results and using modern theory and method, such as The Speech Act Theory, The Theory of Conversational Implicature, Relevance theory, the Cooperative Principle and The Politeness Principle, etc. It also concentrated on discussing the relationship between p

4、ragmatic failure and English Language Teaching. Moreover, with regard to how to train and improve the students ability of using English, it put forward some countermeasures and suggestions in order to promote reforms and innovations in teaching English. Key words: pragmatic failure; study; English t

5、eaching; countermeasures and suggestions英语专业学生语用失误调查分析摘 要本文针对普遍存在的英语语用问题，通过问卷调查的方法，对大学本科英语专业毕业班学生进行了调查。结果显示：学生具备一定的英语基础知识，能正确判断一些常见的语用错误，但从总体上看，学生的语用能力还不强，存在较严重的语用失误。本文试结合调查结果，运用现代语用学理论和方法，如言语行为理论、会话含意理论、关联理论、礼貌原则、合作原则等，对英语语用失误问题进行阐释和研究，着力探讨英语语用失误与英语教学的关系，并就如何培养和提高学生的语用能力，推进英语教学改革和创新提出一些对策和建议。关键词：语用

6、失误；调查分析；英语教学；对策建议Contents1. Introduction12. Data Collection and Research Methods22.1 Research questions2 2.2 Subjects2 2.3 Research methods2 2.4 Research stages3 2.5 Research results33. Comprehensive Analysis of Pragmatic Failure53.1 Analysis from perspective of the speech act theory63.2 Analysis fr

7、om perspective of the theory of conversational implicature73.3 Analysis from perspective of the relevance theory83.4 Analysis from perspective of the politeness principle94. Implications of Pragmatic Failure for English Teaching95. Conclusion12Notes13Bibliography14Appendix115Appendix221A Study on Pr

8、agmatic Failure of English Majors1. IntroductionPragmatic failure refers to the errors in our speech communication because of failing to accomplish a perfect communicative effect. In 1983, a British linguist Thomas came up with the pragmatic failure. In his opinion, pragmatic failure is not simply t

9、he wrong use of language, namely, grammatical mistakes, occurred in common usage but it refers to inappropriate speaking, improper manner of speaking and expressions not conforming to the custom, which results in not being able to achieve the expected effect. This is a profound analysis of the essen

10、ce of pragmatic failure. After that, other scholars also made research into pragmatic failure. Some principles and theories they have formed, such as speech act theory, the theory of conversational implicature, relevance theory, the politeness principle, the cooperative principle etc, which provided

11、 a basis for our study on the pragmatic failure.In our country, the study on pragmatics and pragmatic failure started in 1980s. In 1980, Hu Zhuanglin（胡壮麟）, who works in Beijing University, published a thesis on Pragmatics in the third issue of Foreign Linguistic. In 1988, He Ziran（何自然） published A S

12、urvey of Pragmatics; after that, He Zhaoxiong （何兆熊）published An Introduction to Pragmatics and Jiang Wangqi （姜望琪）published Contemparory Pragmatics. At the same time, they took an active part in investigating and making researches on current situation of Chinese students pragmatic competence and prag

13、matic failure. For example, Gu Tongqing(辜同清) and Hong Gang(洪岗),etc. had already made a study on the college students pragmatic failure. They put forward types of pragmatic failure which was probably caused by the pragmatic differences between Chinese and English. And they also pointed out some metho

14、ds or ways to improve Chinese students pragmatic competence. But on the whole, most studies focuses on theories, while studies with combination of both quality and quantity are less.Chinas entry into WTO made a claim for higher requirement for English majors pragmatic competence. Instructional progr

15、am for English majors clearly stated that the students English communicative competence should be trained. However the fact is often that college graduates pragmatic competence can hardly be expected to meet the needs of practical work, a great many phenomenon of “English errors” and “deaf and dumb

16、English” have still been existed. Therefore, we should not only find the reason theoretically but also solve it in actual practice. This paper tried to explore from the level of integrating theory with practice, namely to analyze the phenomenon of pragmatic failure and its reasons on the basis of th

17、e survey under the speech act theory, the theory of conversational implicature, relevance theory, the cooperative principle and the politeness principle, etc. Besides, with regard to how to meet the needs of economic development and international exchanges and how to improve Chinese college students

18、 pragmatic competence, it put forward some countermeasures in order to promote reforms and innovations in English teaching.2. Data Collection and Research Methods2.1 Research questionsThrough the questionnaire and detailed analysis of the results, the author is going to answer the following question

19、s: First, what is the level of English majors pragmatic competence？ Second, what are the English majors self-assessment and their overall evaluation on teaching and management? What are their opinions and demands on subject matter and suggestions about Xiaogan Universitys English teaching? What are

20、the problems of English teaching in training students pragmatic competence? Third, what are the reasons of pragmatic failure? What are the future directions of English teaching reforms? Then the paper put forward some countermeasures to improve the method of teaching, which may benefit the improveme

21、nt of college students pragmatic competence and English level.2.2 SubjectsThe subjects of the study are the undergraduates of Foreign Language Department in Xiaogan University. There are three reasons: First, relatively, these graduates have a sound basis and they are not easily affected by the voca

22、bulary and grammar when they do the questionnaire. So it can stress on pragmatic competence, which is the key point. Second, in 1990s, Hong Gang(洪岗) had done some research on freshman and seniors of English majors. The survey is also a study for the pragmatic competence of English majors which act t

23、o validate and supplement through the contrast. Third, the subjects come from different provinces such as Hubei, Guangxi, Beijing, Sichuan, Chongqing, Zhejiang, Fujian,etc. The students include a wide range of areas and there will be some differences between students in English language competence,

24、which may be more typical and convincing concerning the research findings.2.3 Research methodsMainly this study adopted random sampling, questionnaire, interview, on-spot recording, literature analysis, induction, etc. There are about more than 200 senior English majors that from Foreign Language De

25、partment of Xiaogan University. Through random sampling, 105 pieces of questionnaire were handed out with 91 pieces handed in which accounted for 86.7%. 40 pieces of questionnaire about English teaching were handed out with 36 pieces handed in which accounted for 90%. The pragmatic competence questi

26、onnaire and its pragmatic failure test adopted the questionnaire was designed by He Ziran(何自然) and Yan Zhuang (阎庄) which is attached to the back of the book A Survey of Pragmatics, the content involves some common pragmatic phenomenon in our daily lives, which included appellation, introduction, cal

27、l, table manner and rejection, request, invitation, asking, praise, expressing appreciation, etc. English teaching questionnaire was designed by according to the situation of undergraduates who are from English department in Xiaogan University and combining other reference opinions. The content invo

28、lved the students assessments about course arrangement, teaching method, teaching pattern, management, language environment, hardware facilities, etc. 2.4 Research stagesThere are three stages: First, the investigation about English pragmatic competence and pragmatic failure started on 26th, January

29、 2007 and ended on 1st, February 2007. Second, by combining with interview, the investigation about teaching started on 28th, January 2007 and ended on 1st, February 2007. Third, the collection of reference materials was completed and statistics about pragmatic failure from the testing and interview

30、 was counted. Fourth, try to illustrate theoretically in a view of pragmatics based on the statistical analysis about the materials that was made out.2.5 Research resultsThe results of research showed that the students had certain knowledge about cross-cultural exchanges and they could judge correct

31、ly about some common pragmatic errors. But generally speaking, most of students had weak English pragmatic competence which resulted in much pragmatic failure. According to preliminary statistics, the total failure rate is 54.3%. The failure rate of multiple choice is 56.6% and the failure rate of t

32、rue or false statements is 42.9%. The lowest failure rate is 3.3%, the highest failure rate reaches 96.7%. From different type of investigation, though the subjects are different, the questionnaires are different and the results are also different, still one problem stands out obviously, that is, th

33、e phenomenon of English pragmatic failure exists in a large scale and from the results, it is serious to some extent. In contrast, for example, in 1991, Hong Gang(洪岗) chose 44 senior English majors from Foreign Language Department of one major state-owned Normal University for study, the failure rat

34、e is 46.60%(quoted in:李怀奎,2005:60)1. In 2003, Gu Tongqing(辜同清) investigate 68 non-English master degree candidates and the pass percentage is 20.6%2. In contrast, this survey is objective. The results are shown in Table1, 2,3.Table 1 Statistical Score 1Full marksThe highest markThe lowest markAverag

35、e5840926.38Table 2 Statistical Score 2NumbersPassing gradePassing numbersPassing rate %9134.81718.70Table 3 Different score sectionNumber and percentBelow 2020-3435-40More than 40N2945170%31.8731.8718.700The students self-assessment are also not very high: 72.2% of students thought that they had man

36、y or some pragmatic failures; for the application of English, 5.6% of students replied that they could speak English fluently, 72.2% of students replied that they could communicate only moderately, 19.4% of students replied that they could read and write but they couldnt communicate. For the questio

37、n of “if the teacher speak English completely in class”, 25% of students replied that they could understand more than 90%, 52.8% of students replied that they could understand 70-80%, and 22.3% students replied that they could only understand less than 60%. The students thought that they most hoped

38、to improve listening and speaking ability. (See chart 1)Chart 1 Competence most needed to be improvedThe students assessments about the current situation of English teaching are clearly shown in chart 2. With regard to the degree of satisfaction, most students chose medium satisfied and moderate. Bu

39、t among these six items, four items, namely, management, language environment, facilities and foreign teachers level, are not satisfying. That is to say, some students are still not satisfied with them, so it can be seen that there exists some weak links in English teaching and there also leaves muc

40、h space for improvement.Chart 2 Students assessments about the current situation of English teaching3. Comprehensive Analysis of Pragmatic FailureAccording to British linguist Thomass opinion, English pragmatic failure can be divided into two categories: One is pragmalinguistic failure, which is cau

41、sed by speech impediment (improper diction or misunderstanding,etc.). This survey showed the percentage of this failure, 55.6% in partand 42.9% in part. This kind of failure manifests in the following aspects: the utterances are not in accord with a language as used by a native speaker; misusing oth

42、er expressions; arbitrarily applying Chinese semantic and structure what they imagine to be; inappropriate diction; being off the point or misusing the ambiguous words; misunderstanding the illocutionary force. For instance, part,question 1,3,6,29,38,42,47 and part, question 8. The other is sociopra

43、gmatic failure, which mainly refers to those failure caused by not understanding the cultural differences between each other and influencing the choice of language form. This survey showed the percentage of this failure, 59.5% in partand 42.9% in part. This kind of failure manifests in the following

44、 aspects: different thoughts or ideas, different speech act, social poise and grace, etc., which all belong to culture matters. The fundamental reason is that the students lack of insight and comprehension about the differences between Chinese and English culture. For instance, in the questionnaire,

45、 part, question 9,16,19,36 and part ,question 5. Of course, to distinguish these two categories is not absolutely. The context is different and the intention of each side is different, the understanding of utterances is also different. One failure can be seen as a pragmalinguistic failure viewed fro

46、m one perspective, and from the other one, it can be seen as a sociopragmatic failure. So we will find some utterances contain both of them. For example, question 4. At the same time, with the increasingly close contact of culture, language, which is included in culture itself, increasingly enrich i

47、tself while absorbing other languages. Chinese accept some English responses gradually. For example, to response the others praise, at first, Chinese are very modesty, but now, they accept and will response “谢谢”. Usually the demarcation of pragmatic failure is speaker-oriented, but the final judgmen

48、t is determined by its effect on listener. In addition, pragmatic failure is not confined to language communication but also involving non-language behavior. No matter it is pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic, theoretically, most of them are caused by violating the principles of pragmatics. Pragmati

49、cs is the study of using language, which specializes in comprehending and using language. It is also a study particular about whether the language is suitable and appropriate or not. The major theories include The Speech Act Theory, The Theory of Conversational Implicature, Relevance theory, the Coo

50、perative Principle and The Politeness Principle. This paper tried to analyze some pragmatic failure which occurred in the research results under these basic theories and principles. 3.1 Analysis from perspective of the speech act theoryThe Speech Act Theory originated by the Oxford philosopher J.L.A

51、ustin, which became a pragmatic theory after his student JohnR.Searle who inherited and developed it. In 1955, Austin gave a series of lectures about How to Do Things with Words and came out The Speech Act Theory. In Austins opinion, there are three senses in speech act. Namely locutionary act, illo

52、cutionary act and perlocutionary act. In Austins opinion, when one says any sentence, they will finish all these three acts. For example, question 37, “B is in the way. A: May I get through here? ” It just seems a question, but the implication is a imperative mood in order to rouse the other person

53、to act, he will know the intention of the speaker from the context, so the appropriate speech act is “Yes, (opening a passageway)”, which answers the question and also realizes the other persons true intention. But 52.9% of students chose “Yes，please”, “Yes”, “(Opening a passageway without demur.)”,

54、 which are incomplete.Based on Austins theory, American philosopher Searle put forward The Indirect Speech Act Theory, which mainly discussed some tactful expressions. Namely, one locutionary act can express different kinds of illocutionary act or one illocutionary act can be expressed by different

55、kinds of locutionary act. It solved the problem of how to use literal meaning to express extra meaning for a speaker. For example, question 38, “At a dinner, A: May I have the biscuits?” This is a locutionary act, but the speaker hoped another person to pass him the biscuits, this was an illocutiona

56、ry act. When someone heard that, he said not only yes but also passed the biscuits to that person. So the appropriate speech act is “Sure.（handing along the biscuits）”. But 60.2% of students chose “Yes, Help yourself”, “Go ahead”, “Yes, of course”, these are not considering about the illocutionary a

57、ct and prelocutionary act. In this question, the person who asked the other one to hold the biscuits, he didnt make an order, however he said, “May I have the biscuits?”, this is a question in form, but in that context, the listener would understand the illocutionary act, which he hoped the other pe

58、rson to “handing along the biscuits”.3.2 Analysis from perspective of the theory of conversational implicature Conversational implicature is used by Paul Grice to account for what a speaker can imply, suggest, or mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally says. These are two aspects of what p

59、eople convey in real communication, which can simply be expressed by surface meaning and implied meaning. Implied meaning relies on surface meaning, but bears much more than it. Usually, the conversational implicature is the implied meaning obtained by inference from the surface meaning based on cer

60、tain context. For successful communication, Grice (1967) proposed, in one of his series of lectures, William James Lectures, in Harvord University, people must obey certain behavioral rule, namely, Cooperative Principle. This principle is composed of four categories of maxims as follows: (1) Quantit

61、y maxim; (2) Quality maxim; (3)Relation maxim; (4)Manner maxim. In specific context, sometimes one principle was violated but it doesnt indicate that the cooperative principle stop functioning. Its just that the transmission and understanding of the meaning are expressed in a implicit way. The conve

62、rsational implicature results from the violation of one maxim in cooperative principle. For instance, part in the questionnaire , question 3, “After Mark told his professor about his plan for a journey, Professor: It can be very cold at this time of the year at place. Mark: Oh, come on.” The respons

63、e is obviously inappropriate. The professor said it can be very cold at this time of the year at place, which is not direct. The conversational implicature maybe is to advise him to take some clothes against cold or advice him not to go to that place. This is against the manner principle. And Mark a

64、lso didnt understand what professor really said and his response is off the point. Another example, part,question 8, “If someone gives you directions in English so quickly that you dont understand, you might respond”, the response “Excuse me, Im still 1earning the 1anguage.could you repeat that a li

65、ttle more slowly?”, which corresponds with the cooperative principle and it is appropriate. But 36.6% of students chose “Thank you. I appreciate your help” and “Could you repeat that?”, which are against the quality (say something false) and the quantity maxim (he didnt say the reason why the other person should repeat). And 28.9% of students chos