中国英语学习者陈述性语用知识与程序性语用知识的差距及其与总体外语水平的关系

论文摘要

在Faerch and Kasper(1984)提出的陈述性语用知识与程序性语用知识的理论框架下，本文试图研究课堂外语学习环境下学习者语用能力的发展模式。另外，多种调查工具的运用力求对语用能力的操作化定义更为全面。本研究的受试为58名英语专业的学生。根据他们的托福成绩，这些受试被分为中级水平和高级水平组。本研究中的调查工具包括了英语的书面话语填充，多项选择问卷，汉语的话语填充以及关于语用学习状况的问卷调查。数据分析显示：随着学习水平的提高，(1)尽管高水平组在语用的语言策略或形式运用意识方面有所提高，但两类语用知识之间的差距依旧存在。(2)语用判断中频繁出现的语用失误表明学习者的陈述性的语用知识零碎且不成系统性。(3)两个水平组都存在两类语用知识的巨大差异，而且，随着学习水平的提高，这种差距也并未减小。以上研究结果结合受试在汉语产出和语用学习状况问卷调查中的表现进行讨论。结论表明两类语用知识之间的区别不仅在理论上是有效的，而且可以得到实证证明。

论文目录

• Declaration
• Acknowledgement
• Abstract
• 摘要
• Table of contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figure
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• 1.1 General research topic
• 1.2 Rationale for the Present Study
• 1.3 Key Research Questions
• 1.4 Contents of the Remaining Chapters
• Chapter 2 Review of the Related Literature
• 2.1 Overview
• 2.2 Declarative pragmatic knowledge and procedural pragmatic knowledge
• 2.2.1 Distinction between the two types of pragmatic knowledge
• 2.2.2 Relationship between the two types of knowledge
• 2.3 Review of existing studies on interlanguage pragmatic development
• 2.4 Request making: a synthesis of research
• 2.4.1 The speech act of request-making
• 2.4.2 Request making in English
• 2.4.3 Request-making in Chinese
• 2.5 Summary and conclusions
• Chapter 3 The Present Study
• 3.1 Specific research questions
• 3.2 Methods
• 3.2.1 Participants
• 3.2.2 Materials
• 3.2.2.1 English written discourse completion test （English WDCT）
• 3.2.2.2 Multiple-choice questionnaire （MCQ）
• 3.2.2.3 Chinese written discourse completion test （Chinese WDCT）
• 3.2.2.4 Questionnaire on acquisition of English pragmatic knowledge in the Chinese classroom setting
• 3.2.3 Procedures
• 3.3 Data presentation and analysis
• 3.3.1 English WDCT
• 3.3.2 MCQ
• 3.3.3 Chinese WDCT
• 3.3.4 Questionnaire
• Chapter 4 the Results of the Study
• 4.1 Overview
• 4.2 Results for performance on the English WDCT
• 4.3 Results for performance on the MCQ by two participant groups
• 4.3.1 Results for the ranking of politeness degree of request forms
• 4.3.2 Result for choice of request forms and certainty of choices
• 4.3.3 Result for the reasons of choices
• 4.4 Results for comparison of English WDCT and MCQ at the two proficiency levels
• 4.4.1 Gap between WDCT and MCQ at the intermediate level
• 4.4.2 Gap between WDCT and MCQ at advanced level
• 4.4.3 Further examination of gap between procedural and declarative knowledge
• 4.5 Results for the change of gap with increase in proficiency
• 4.6 Results for questionnaire on acquisition of English pragmatic knowledge in the Chinese classroom setting
• Chapter 5 Discussion, Conclusions, Pedagogical Implications, Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research
• 5.1. Overview
• 5.2 Major findings of the present study
• 5.3 Discussion
• 5.3.1 Lack of relationship between linguistic proficiency and procedural pragmatic knowledge
• 5.3.2 Lack of relationship between linguistic proficiency and declarative pragmatic knowledge
• 5.3.3 The gap between two types of pragmatic knowledge
• 5.3.4 Failure of gap to narrow down with increase in linguistic proficiency
• 5.4 Conclusions
• 5.5 Pedagogical implications
• 5.6 Limitations and recommendation for further research
• References
• Appendices
• Appendix A 英语语用能力测试
• Appendix B 英语语用恰当性判断测试
• Appendix C 汉语语用能力测试
• Appendix D 英语语用知识学习与运用情况调查表
• Appendix E Comparison of production by two proficiency levels
• Appendix F Comparison of judgment by two proficiency levels