从“请求”言语行为看二语语用语言意识与语用语言能力

论文摘要

本研究就“请求”言语行为,对外语学习者英语语用语言能力做了调查,并尝试探讨了学习者对目的语输入中语用语言特征的意识与其语用语言能力之间的关系。文献中不乏就某一言语行为,讨论英语本族语者和外语学习者之间语言差异的比较性研究,本文侧重于从语言习得角度结合意识因素分析外语学习者语用中介语的语用语言特征。实验采用了三种测试方法:意识反馈问卷,语篇完型问卷和话语多项选择,主要分两部分完成。首先,在两周内分三次完成意识反馈问卷的收集,每次按照同样的步骤进行。受试在阅读对话后,就相同情景下英语本族语者与非英语本族语者的语言进行比较,并列出可能超越自己语言表达水平的话语。之后,受试开始意识反馈问卷的作答。在第一部分实验结束两周后,完成语篇完型问卷和话语多项选择问卷的收集。研究结果表明,大部分受试在比较任务中意识到了英语本族语者和英语作为外语学习者之间在实施“请求”言语行为时所体现的语言差异。但这些差异并未引起他们过多的注意(平均意识强度为3.5)。在语用语言能力产出型测试中,很多受试表现出对“Could you VP”(能力策略)和“Would you VP”(意愿策略)两种“请求”表达的偏好,较少使用复合句句型。除礼貌用语外,大多亦不采用词汇/短语修饰手段。英语本族语者的评分表明受试基本能够正确实施“请求”言语行为(平均语用恰当程度为3.46),但在恰当程度上还有待提高。在理解性测试中,受试和本族语者对相同情境下“请求”的表达存在很大的差异(平均趋同度为2.5)。较产出性测试,受试对“请求”表达的选择略显多样化,但仍以上述两种形式为主。对于本族语者习惯使用的可能性策略形式,如“Would it be possible…”,受试没有明显的倾向。在将三份问卷结果进行相关分析后,数据显示受试对语用语言特征形式的意识程度与其语用语言能力之间并非显著相关,尽管其语料中体现出一定联系。本研究就学习者“请求”中心语的语用语言特征进行了归纳,并初步探讨了学习者对语用语言特征形式的意识强弱与其语用语言能力之间的关系,渴望能对语用教学及研究有所帮助。

论文目录

• Abstract in Chinese
• Abstract in English
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• 1.1 Research Orientation and General Research Questions
• 1.2 The Rationale of the Present Study
• 1.3 Research Method
• 1.4 Composition of the Present Study
• Chapter 2 Literature Review
• 2.1 Pragmatics and Pragmalinguistics
• 2.2 Pragmatic Errors
• 2.3 Speech Acts and Pragmatic Performance
• 2.3.1 Speech Acts
• 2.3.2 Pragmatic Performance
• 2.4 Request Speech Act
• 2.5 Awareness and ILP Development
• Chapter 3 Research Methodology
• 3.1 Dissecting the Research Questions
• 3.2 Research Design
• 3.2.1 Participants
• 3.2.2 Instruments
• 3.2.2.1 Instrument for Pragmalinguistic Awareness
• 3.2.2.2 Instruments for Pragmalinguistic Competence
• 3.2.3 Material and Instructional
• 3.2.3.1 Materialfor Awareness Retrospection Questionnaires
• 3.2.3.2 Questionnaires for Pragmalinguistic Competence
• 3.2.4 Data Collection
• 3.2.5 Data Transcription, Coding and Scoring
• 3.2.5.1 Pragmalinguistic Awareness Data
• 3.2.5.2 Pragmalinguistic Competence Data
• 3.2.5.3 Judgment of Request Head Act in DCT
• Chapter 4 Results and Findings
• 4.1 Answer to the First Research Question
• 4.1.1 Awareness of Request Strategy Formulae
• 4.1.2 Awareness of Internal Downgrading Devices
• 4.2 Answer to the Second Research Question
• 4.2.1 DCT Results of Request Strategy Category
• 4.2.2 DCT Data of Request Strategy Types
• 4.2.3 DCT Results of Internal Syntactic Downgraders
• 4.2.4 DCT Data of Internal Lexical Downgraders
• 4.2.5 DCT Data of Pragmatic Appropriateness
• 4.3 Answer to the Third Research Question
• 4.3.1 Distribution of Choices in MCT by NSs and Chinese Students
• 4.3.2 Preference for Request Strategy Types by NSs and Chinese Students
• 4.3.3 Statistical Result of MCT by Chinese Students
• 4.4 Answer to the Fourth Research Question
• Chapter 5 Discussion of Results
• 5.1 Discussion of the Finding Related to the First Research Question
• 5.2 Discussion of the Findings Related to the Second Research Question
• 5.3 Discussion of the Findings Related to the Third Research Question
• 5.4 Discussion of the Findings Related to the Fourth Research Question
• Conclusion
• Conclusion of This Study
• Implications of This Study
• Limitations of This Study
• References
• Appendix A 攻读学位期间所发表的学术论文目录
• Appendix B Theoretical framework of Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper （1989）
• Appendix C Contents of Discourse Completion Test（DCT）
• Appendix D Contents of Multiple Choice Test （MCT）
• Appendix E Transcripts of Three Dialogues for ARQ （NS-NS）
• Appendix F Transcripts of Three Dialogues for ARQ （NNS-NNS）
• Appendix G Target Request Head Act Forms in ARQ
• Appendix H Instruction in ARQ
• Appendix I 详细中文摘要
• Acknowledgements