阅读7crossculture pragmatic failureWord格式.docx

阅读7crossculture pragmatic failureWord格式.docx

《阅读7crossculture pragmatic failureWord格式.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《阅读7crossculture pragmatic failureWord格式.docx（13页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

Whatknowledge,attitudesandskillsshoulda"

globallycompetent"

（Lambert,1999）personpossess?

Throughmyreadings,Iamincreasinglyconvincedthattheanswerliesinthestudyofcross-culturalpragmatics.AsThomas（1983）haspointedout:

"

Everyinstanceofnationalorethnicstereotypingshouldbeseenasareasonforcallinginthepragmaticistanddiscourseanalyst!

（p.107）.

AtthebeginningofmyresearchIreferredtoanumberofcross-culturalcomparativestudieswhichexaminespecificaspectsofpragmaticsacrossvariouslanguageandethnicgroups,forexample:

praisingandcomplimentinginthePolishandEnglishlanguage（Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk,1989）;

issuesoffaceinaproblematicChinesebusinessvisittoBritain（Spencer-Oatey&

Xing,2000）;

JapaneseandEnglishresponsestounfoundedaccusations（Tanaka,Spencer-Oatey&

Cray,2000）;

argumentationandresultingproblemsinthenegotiationofrapportinaGerman-Chineseconversation（Gü

nthner,2000）;

etc.Whilethesestudiesareveryinteresting,theywereinitiallytoospecifictoassistmeingaininganoverviewoftheissuesinvolvedincross-culturalpragmatics.Ithereforedecidedtostartwithasearchforpragmaticuniversals,andtomovefromtheretowardsculture-specificpragmatics,inter-culturalinteractionsandpragmaticfailure,andfinallytowardsimplicationsforlanguageteaching.Thisarticlesummarizesmyfindingsalongeachofthesesteps.

ARETHEREPRAGMATICUNIVERSALS?

Yule（1996,p.4）describespragmaticsas"

thestudyoftherelationshipsbetweenlinguisticformsandtheusersofthoseforms"

.Whilesyntaxisthestudyofhowlinguisticformsarearrangedinsequence,andsemanticsexaminestherelationshipbetweenlinguisticformsandentitiesoftheworld,pragmaticsisconcernedwiththenotionofimplicature,i.e.impliedmeaningasopposedtothemerelexicalmeaningexpressed（Grice,1967,citedinThomas1995,p.56）.Therearetimeswhenwesay（orwrite）exactlywhatwemean,butmuchmorefrequentlywearenottotallyexplicit,asinthefollowingexchangewithisadaptedfromWierzbicka（1991,p.391）:

Example1:

Twowomendiscussingtheirchildren:

A:

HowisTomgoingatschool?

B:

Ah,well...youknowwhattheysay:

boyswillbeboys.

Yeah,butgirlsarenoeasier...youknowwhatJessdidtheotherday?

...

SpeakerBdoesnotexplicitlystatehowTomisprogressingatschool.Still,herremark"

boyswillbeboys"

whichisatautologyandliterallyquitemeaningless,providessufficientinformationtoherinterlocutorfortheconversationtocontinuesmoothly.Inthiscase,SpeakerBconveyedmorethantheliteralmeaningofherwordswouldsuggest.Atothertimestheimplicatureofwhatissaidmaybequitedifferentfromthemeaningofthewordsused,asinthefollowingexample:

Example2:

Onbeingdisturbedbythenext-doorneighbour'

slawnmowerearlyonSundaymorning:

Greatwaytowakeup!

（grumpily）Sureis.

TheaboveexchangeisanexampleofwhatGricehastermedconversationalimplicature,whiletheuseoftheword'

but'

inthefollowingexampleprovidedbyThomas（1995,p.57）isoneofconventionalimplicature:

Example3:

Myfriendswerepoor,buthonest."

Regardlessofthecontextinwhichitoccurs,theword'

carriestheimplicaturethatwhatfollowswillruncountertoexpectations.The'

expectation'

inexample3being,that"

poorpeoplearedishonest"

.

Obviously,languageusersmustsharecertainrulesandconventionswhichenablethemtounderstandoneanotherinthemanyinstanceswherethemeaningandtheintent,i.e.theillocutionaryforce（Yule,1996,p.48）,ofutterancesarenotexplicitlystated.Inhistext"

Logicandconversation"

Grice（1975,citedinThomas1995,pp.61-63）suggestsfourconversationalmaximsandtheCooperativePrinciple（CP）toexplainthemechanismsthroughwhichpeopleinterpretimplicature.Grice'

sCooperativePrinciplestates:

Makeyourcontributionsuchasisrequired,atthestageatwhichitoccurs,bytheacceptedpurposeordirectionofthetalkexchangeinwhichyouareengaged.

Grice'

sformulatedtheconversationalmaximsofQuantity,Quality,RelationandMannerasfollows:

Quantity:

makeyourcontributionasinformativeasisrequired（forthecurrentpurposeoftheexchange）.Donotmakeyourcontributionmoreinformativethanisrequired.

Quality:

Donotsaywhatyoubelievetobefalse.Donotsaythatforwhichyoulackadequateevidence.

Relation:

Berelevant.

Manner:

Avoidobscurityofexpression.Avoidambiguity.Bebrief（avoidunnecessaryprolixity）.Beorderly.

Grice（1975,citedinThomas1995,p.65）proposedthatspeakersfrequentlyandblatantlyfailtoobserveanyofaboveconversationalmaximstopromptthehearertolookforameaningwhichisdifferentfrom,orinadditionto,theexpressedmeaning.Lookingbackatexample2above,apragmaticallycompetentlistenerismostlikelytointerpretthespeaker'

sutteranceof"

Greatwaytowakeup!

asasarcasticremarkandtounderstandthatthespeakerisexpressingannoyanceatbeingwokenupbytheneighbour'

slawnmower.However,asecondlanguagelearner,evenifs/heisquitefluentinEnglish,maynotnecessarilyarriveatthesameconclusion.

LikeGrice,otherwritershaveattemptedtoformulateuniversalsinlanguageuse.BrownandLevinson（1987,citedinSpencer-Oatey2000,pp.12-13）proposetheconceptoffaceasauniversalhumanneedandthekeymotivatingforceforpolitenessandrapportmanagement.Theymaintainthatfaceconsistsoftworelatedaspects:

negativefacerepresentingthedesireforautonomy,andpositivefacerepresentingthedesireforapproval.However,BrownandLevinsonaswellasGrice'

shavetheircritics.LinguistssuchasMatsumoto（1988）,Ide（1989）andMao（1994,allcitedinSpencerOatey2000,p.13）refertotheimportanceof"

socialidentity"

asaconceptinJapaneseandChinesesociety,whichhasbeenomittedinBrownandLevinson'

snotionofface.Similarly,Wierzbicka（1991,pp.67-68）describesaspectsofGrice'

sandBrownandLevinson'

sworkas"

ethnocentric"

withastrong"

anglo-centricbias"

andcautionsagainstattemptstoformulatelanguageuniversalsattheexpenseofculture-specifics.

AnotherattemptatfindinglanguageuniversalswasmadebyLeech（1983,citedinSpencer-Oatey2000,p.39）,whoformulatedsixpolitenessmaximsasfollows:

1.TACTMAXIM

a.minimizecosttoother

b.maximizebenefittoother

2.GENEROSITYMAXIM

a.minimizebenefittoself

b.maximizecosttoself

3.APPROBATIONMAXIM

a.minimizedispraiseofother

b.maximizepraiseofother

4.MODESTYMAXIM

a.minimizepraiseofself

b.maximizedispraiseofself

5.AGREEMENTMAXIM

a.minimizedisagreementbetweenselfandother

b.maximizeagreementbetweenselfandother

6.SYMPATHYMAXIM

a.minimizeantipathybetweenselfandother

b.maximizesympathybetweenselfandother.

Leech（1983,citedinBond,Zegarac&

SpencerOatey2000,p.56）proposesthatthemaximsofpolitenessworkinconjunctionwithGrice'

sfourconversationalmaxims,above,butconcedesthattheymayvaryinimportancefromculturetoculture.Forexample,inthecontextofrespondingtocompliments,theModestyMaximclearlyoutweighstheAgreementMaximinJapanesesociety,whileinEnglish-speakingsocietiesitiscustomarilymorepolitetoacceptacompliment"

graciously"

i.e.tofindacompromisebetweenviolatingtheModestyMaximandviolatingtheAgreementMaxim（Leech,1983,p.137）.

Clearly,itisdifficultifnotimpossibletocomeupwithuniversallyapplicablerulesforlanguageuseaseachculturehasmoreorlessculture-specificpragmaticfeatures.

CULTURE-SPECIFICPRAGMATICFEATURES

Manyculture-specificpragmaticfeaturesareimplicit,buttheyarenonethelesscentralincommunicativeencounters.Thefollowingarejustsomeexamples:

mentalsets:

aframeofmindinvolvinganexistingdispositiontothinkofaproblemorasituationinaparticularway（Sternberg,1995,citedinZegarac&

Pennington2000,p.166）;

e.g.whatisthemeaningofanofferofcoffeeafterameal;

isitaninvitationbythehosttostayalittlelongerorapolitehinttogueststhatitistimetoleave?

schemata:

apre-existingknowledgestructureinmemoryinvolvingacertainpatternofthings（Yule,1996,p.88）;

e.g.whatconstitutesanapartment,aholiday,aschool,arestaurantetc.

scripts:

apre-existingknowledgestructureforinterpretingeventsequences（Yule,1996,p.87）;

e.g.avisittothedoctor,shoppingatasupermarket,phoningtomakeanappointmentatahairdressingsalon,etc.

speechevents:

asetofcircumstancesinwhichpeopleinteractinsomeconventionalwaytoarriveatsomeoutcome（Yule,1996,p.57）;

eg.