negative pragmatic transferWord格式.docx

negative pragmatic transferWord格式.docx

《negative pragmatic transferWord格式.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《negative pragmatic transferWord格式.docx（31页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

Abstract:

Transferisapervasivetermandthishasledtodiverseinterpretationsandresearchpracticesofit.Thispaperreviewedtherelatedliteratureontransferstudiesinsecondlanguageacquisition,linguisticstudiesandnon-linguistic.Italsomadeasurveyaboutapproachesintransferstudies,nativespeakers’attitudestowardtransfer,andtransfersmadebyChineselearnersofEnglish.Itwasarguedthattransferresearchevolvedfromalinguistic-to-non-linguisticpath,andthereisanecessityinthecurrenttrendtoshiftfromtheformertothelatter.

Keywords:

transfer,linguistictransfer,pragmatictransfer,secondlanguageacquisition

Whatisnegativepragmatictransfer?

AswasmentionedinSection1.1,transfertopragmaticiansmeansdifferenceofuseduetoNLinfluence.Andtounderstandwhatisdifferent,apreliminarystepwastosortoutsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenlanguagesandtheuseoftheselanguages.Theefforttostudyhownon-nativespeakersunderstandandrealizeaspeechactintheTLhasspiraledintoatraditionidentifiedasthestudyofpragmaticuniversals.Asmanyas11speechactshavebeencoveredtodate:

requests,suggestions,invitations,refusals,expressionsofdisagreement,corrections,complaints,apologies,expressionofgratitude,complimentsandindirectanswers（Kasper,1992）.

Kasper（1995）focusedonpragmatictransferanddefineditas“theinfluenceexertedbylearners’pragmaticknowledgeoflanguagesandculturesotherthanL2ontheircomprehension,production,andacquisitionofL2pragmaticinformation”（Kasper,1992;

1995）.

2.1Roleofnegativepragmatictransferininterlanguagepragmaticstudies

Thestudyofthelearnerlanguagehasbeenagrowingsourceofconcernalsoinpragmaticsinrecentyears.Thepragmaticperspectivetowardthelearnerlanguageledtothebirthofanewinterdiscipline,interlanguagepragmatics（ILP）.

Asthemainfocusofpragmaticsistoexaminehowanutterancemeaningisperceived,interlanguagepragmaticsmainlyconcernswithhownon-nativespeakersdifferfromnativespeakersininterpretingandproducingaspeechactintheTL.Tofindoutthedifferences,ILPresearcherswillbasetheirstudiesoncollecteddata.Thefirstissuetheywilltackleistherangeofdifferencebetweennon-nativesandnativesinperformingandcomprehendingaspeechact.Onthisbasis,theywillproceedtothecontextualdistributionofsuchdifferences,strategiesintargetlanguageuse,linguisticformsusedforconveyinganideainthetargetlanguage,illocutionarymeaningsandpoliteness（Blum-Kulkaetal,1989;

Kasper,1992;

Takahashi,1990）.Allthisisrelatedtotransferinonewayoranother.

TherelatednessoftransferisalsoapparentincurrentissuesofILPresearch.Forinstance,oneofthetopicsofimmediateresearchinterestinILPnowadaysistoinvestigatelanguageuniversalsunderlyingcross-linguisticvariationanditsroleinILP.Thesortingoutoflanguageuniversalsnaturallyhelpsusfindoutwhatisanegativepragmatictransfer.Measuringapproximationofthelearner’slanguagetoTLnormsisanothercurrenttopic.PlacingthelearnerlanguageagainsttheTLnormalsohelpsustofindoutthedifferencebetweenthelearnerlanguageandthetargetlanguageandsimilaritybetweenthelearnerlanguageandthelearner’snativelanguage.AnothercurrentresearchtopicinILPistostudyNLinfluenceonthelearningofTL.Thisisdirecttopicaddressingthetransferissue（Kasper&

Schmidt,1996;

HeZiran,1996;

LiuShaozhong,1997d）.Itisnothardtoseetheimportanceofpragmatictransferinalltheseresearchtopics.

2.2Contrastivestudiesofspeechacts

Ahostoftransfer-relatedstudieshavebeendocumented.Thesecross-culturalexaminationswereconductedwithaviewtofindouthownon-nativespeakers,duetotheirNLinfluence,differfromnativespeakersinunderstandingandrealizingaparticularspeechact.

Cohen&

Olshtain（1981）studiedhowHebrewlearnersofEnglishasL2didthingswiththeirinterlanguageofEnglish,anddiscoveredthatthenonnativeuseofapologysemanticformulawasgenerallyfewerthanthatofthenativeEnglishspeakers.Bythis,thestudydisplayedthetransferofHebrewfeaturesintotherealizationofapologymaking.

Olshtain（1983）alsoattemptedatfindingthedegreeandtypesoftransferamongsomeEnglishandRussianspeakinglearnersofHebrewasL2.HerelicitationquestionnaireonapologyofeightsituationsshowedthatEnglishlearners’percentageofapologymakingwasthehighest,andnextwasthatbytheRussians,withthatbytheHebrewsthelowest.ShefurtherillustratedthistendencyinanothersimilartestamongtheHebrewILofEnglish-speakinglearners.

DifferentfromOlshtain,Scarcella（1983）（citedinKasper,1992）specificallyexaminedthediscourseaccentofsomeSpanish-speakingEnglishlearners.ShefoundthecommunicativestyleofherinformantscomparabletothoseintheirnativelanguageSpanish.ThusScarcellaclaimedthatSpanishlearnersofEnglishasasecondlanguage（ESL）shiftedwhatwasconceivedofascommunicativelyappropriateL1stylesintoEnglish.

House（1988）echoedScarcellabyexecutingherstudyamongherGermanstudentslearningBritishEnglish.Inapologyrealization,theseGerman-speakinglearnersofEnglishwereobservedtohavetransplantedtheirGermancommunicativestyles,fortheselearnerswerelessinclinedtouseroutineapologyexpressionssuchas“sorry”asbytheBritish.

Garcia（1989）replicatedastudyamongsomeVenezuelanSpanishspeakersontherealizationoftheapologyspeechact.Differentfromtheabovestudies,Garcia’sinterestwastouncoverwhetherthelearnerstransfertheirL1politenessstyleintherole-playsituations.HerfindingswerethattheVenezuelansusedmorepositivepolitenessstrategiesbysayingsomethingnicesoastoexpresstheirfriendlinessorgoodfeelings,whilethenativeSpanishspeakersappliedmorenegativestylessuchasself-effacing.

Beebe,Takahashi,&

Uliss-Weltz（1990）initiatedastudyamongtheJapaneselearnersofEnglishasasecondlanguageconcerningthemakingofrefusals.ThedifferencedetectedwasapparentinthatJapaneseESLlearnersconceptualizedthenecessityofstressingthestatusdifferenceininteractions,whiletheAmericansdeniedtheexistenceofsuchdifferencesevenifsuchdifferencesindeedexisted.

InanexplorationaboutpolitenessorientationamongtheJapaneseESLlearners,TakahashiandBeebe（1993）reportedthattheJapaneseturnedtorejectpositiveremarksinsituationwheretheAmericansfavoredthem;

andthattheJapaneseemployedformulaicexpressions,whereastheAmericansdeniedthem.

Takahashi&

Beebe’s（1993）studiedtheperformanceofcorrectionbyJapaneseESLlearners.Intheirarticleentitled“Cross-linguisticinfluenceinthespeechactofcorrection”,Takahashi&

Beebe（1993:

138-157）reportedthattheJapaneselearnersshiftedstylesfromJapaneseintheselectionofstrategies.Intheirpreviousstudiesonface-threateningactscarriedoutbythesamegroupsofnativeandnonnativespeakers,theauthorspointedoutthelearners’distinctivepatternsofstyleshiftingaccordingtointerlocutorstatus.Focusingonthemodificationofcorrectionsbymeansofpositiveremarksandsofteners,theJapaneselearners’style-shiftingpatternswereclearlyinfluencedbytransferfromJapanese.WhileJapaneselearners,reflectingnativesociopragmaticnorms,shiftedmorestylesthanAmericanrespondentsinperformingrefusing,contracting,anddisagreeing.However,thisstudyindicateddramaticstyleshiftingintheAmericanspeakers’useofpositiveremarks.Theirprevalentuseofpositiveremarksinthehigh-lowcondition,whichwasnotmatchedbytheJapaneselearnersorJapanesenativespeakers,providedmoreevidenceofapositivepolitenessorientationinAmericaninteraction,andgreateremphasisonstatuscongruenceinJapaneseconversationalbehavior.ThestudyalsosupportedBeebe&

Takahashi’searlierclaimthatpragmatictransferprevailedinhigherproficiencylearners.

Blum-Kulka（1982;

1983）investigatedrequestrealizationbyEnglishlearnersofHebrewasL2.ShediscoveredthatEnglishlearnersofHebrewnegativelytransferredtheirpragmalinguisticformsintotheHebrewability（“canyou”）questions,andinthechoiceofdirectnesslevelsinrequestrealization.Theformercasereflectedthelearners’inabilitytoconveythepragmaticforce,whilethelatterdisplayedthatwheretheHebrewcontextdemandedmoredirectness,thelearnerspreferredindirectstrategies.However,forimperativequestions,abilityquestions,‘whynot’questionsand‘Doyoumindif…’forms,EnglishlearnersofHebrewsuccessfullytransferredthecross-linguisticallysharedstrategies.Thus,Blum-Kulkaconcludedthatapparentsimilarityinformandfunctionacrosslanguagesdidnotholdforallcontexts.

Olshtain（1983）repeatedBlum-Kulka’sstudybylookingintoaparticularsemanticformula.LikeBlum-Kulka,shealsotookasherinformantstheEnglishlearnersofHebrew.ShedetectedthatEnglishlearnerswerehabitualtomaptheEnglishsemanticformulasintoHebrewwhenexpressingapologyandofferingrepairs,whichwasnotpreferredinHebrewunderthesamespeechsituation.Thisstudythusprovidedfurtherevidencesforherpreviousstudies（Oshtain,1981）andOlshtain&

Cohen（1989）.

ByDCT（dialogcompletiontest）technique,House&

Kasper（1987）launcheda“CCSARP（cross-linguisticspeechactsrealizationpatterns）Project”withafocusonmainlytheGermanandDanishlearnersofBritishEnglishforthepu