语用迁移与二语水平的关系研究

语用迁移与二语水平的关系研究

图书基本信息
出版时间:2009-11
出版社:科学出版社
作者:卢加伟,张晓莉 著
页数:201
书名:语用迁移与二语水平的关系研究
封面图片
语用迁移与二语水平的关系研究
前言
  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。
内容概要
  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。
书籍目录
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)
章节摘录
  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.
下载链接

语用迁移与二语水平的关系研究下载

评论与打分
  •     虽然看起来会比较费力,不过会努力看完。这类的书,比较缺。