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(43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