《A STUDY ON PRAGMATIC FAILURE OF ENGLISH MAJORS.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《A STUDY ON PRAGMATIC FAILURE OF ENGLISH MAJORS.doc（24页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、A STUDY ON PRAGMATIC FAILURE OF ENGLISH MAJORSAbstractThis essay made a study on the prevalence of some problems in using English. Based on a questionnaire towards undergraduates of English majors, it made a detailed analysis of the results, which showed that the students had certain basic knowledge
2、 of English, they could make a correct judgment about some common errors in using English, still, from the analysis, their competence of using English is not very well and there existed much serious pragmatic failures. This paper tried to analyze and study the pragmatic failure by combining the surv
3、ey results and using modern theory and method, such as The Speech Act Theory, The Theory of Conversational Implicature, Relevance theory, the Cooperative Principle and The Politeness Principle, etc. It also concentrated on discussing the relationship between pragmatic failure and English Language Te
4、aching. Moreover, with regard to how to train and improve the students ability of using English, it put forward some countermeasures and suggestions in order to promote reforms and innovations in teaching English. Key words: pragmatic failure; study; English teaching; countermeasures and suggestions
5、英语专业学生语用失误调查分析摘 要本文针对普遍存在的英语语用问题，通过问卷调查的方法，对大学本科英语专业毕业班学生进行了调查。结果显示：学生具备一定的英语基础知识，能正确判断一些常见的语用错误，但从总体上看，学生的语用能力还不强，存在较严重的语用失误。本文试结合调查结果，运用现代语用学理论和方法，如言语行为理论、会话含意理论、关联理论、礼貌原则、合作原则等，对英语语用失误问题进行阐释和研究，着力探讨英语语用失误与英语教学的关系，并就如何培养和提高学生的语用能力，推进英语教学改革和创新提出一些对策和建议。关键词：语用失误；调查分析；英语教学；对策建议Contents1. Introduction
6、12. Data Collection and Research Methods22.1 Research questions2 2.2 Subjects2 2.3 Research methods2 2.4 Research stages3 2.5 Research results33. Comprehensive Analysis of Pragmatic Failure53.1 Analysis from perspective of the speech act theory63.2 Analysis from perspective of the theory of conversa
7、tional implicature73.3 Analysis from perspective of the relevance theory83.4 Analysis from perspective of the politeness principle94. Implications of Pragmatic Failure for English Teaching95. Conclusion12Notes13Bibliography14Appendix115Appendix221A Study on Pragmatic Failure of English Majors1. Intr
8、oductionPragmatic failure refers to the errors in our speech communication because of failing to accomplish a perfect communicative effect. In 1983, a British linguist Thomas came up with the pragmatic failure. In his opinion, pragmatic failure is not simply the wrong use of language, namely, gramma
9、tical mistakes, occurred in common usage but it refers to inappropriate speaking, improper manner of speaking and expressions not conforming to the custom, which results in not being able to achieve the expected effect. This is a profound analysis of the essence of pragmatic failure. After that, oth
10、er scholars also made research into pragmatic failure. Some principles and theories they have formed, such as speech act theory, the theory of conversational implicature, relevance theory, the politeness principle, the cooperative principle etc, which provided a basis for our study on the pragmatic
11、failure.In our country, the study on pragmatics and pragmatic failure started in 1980s. In 1980, Hu Zhuanglin（胡壮麟）, who works in Beijing University, published a thesis on Pragmatics in the third issue of Foreign Linguistic. In 1988, He Ziran（何自然） published A Survey of Pragmatics; after that, He Zhao
12、xiong （何兆熊）published An Introduction to Pragmatics and Jiang Wangqi （姜望琪）published Contemparory Pragmatics. At the same time, they took an active part in investigating and making researches on current situation of Chinese students pragmatic competence and pragmatic failure. For example, Gu Tongqing(
13、辜同清) and Hong Gang(洪岗),etc. had already made a study on the college students pragmatic failure. They put forward types of pragmatic failure which was probably caused by the pragmatic differences between Chinese and English. And they also pointed out some methods or ways to improve Chinese students p
14、ragmatic competence. But on the whole, most studies focuses on theories, while studies with combination of both quality and quantity are less.Chinas entry into WTO made a claim for higher requirement for English majors pragmatic competence. Instructional program for English majors clearly stated tha
15、t the students English communicative competence should be trained. However the fact is often that college graduates pragmatic competence can hardly be expected to meet the needs of practical work, a great many phenomenon of “English errors” and “deaf and dumb English” have still been existed. Theref
16、ore, we should not only find the reason theoretically but also solve it in actual practice. This paper tried to explore from the level of integrating theory with practice, namely to analyze the phenomenon of pragmatic failure and its reasons on the basis of the survey under the speech act theory, th
17、e theory of conversational implicature, relevance theory, the cooperative principle and the politeness principle, etc. Besides, with regard to how to meet the needs of economic development and international exchanges and how to improve Chinese college students pragmatic competence, it put forward so
18、me countermeasures in order to promote reforms and innovations in English teaching.2. Data Collection and Research Methods2.1 Research questionsThrough the questionnaire and detailed analysis of the results, the author is going to answer the following questions: First, what is the level of English m
19、ajors pragmatic competence？ Second, what are the English majors self-assessment and their overall evaluation on teaching and management? What are their opinions and demands on subject matter and suggestions about Xiaogan Universitys English teaching? What are the problems of English teaching in trai
20、ning students pragmatic competence? Third, what are the reasons of pragmatic failure? What are the future directions of English teaching reforms? Then the paper put forward some countermeasures to improve the method of teaching, which may benefit the improvement of college students pragmatic compete
21、nce and English level.2.2 SubjectsThe subjects of the study are the undergraduates of Foreign Language Department in Xiaogan University. There are three reasons: First, relatively, these graduates have a sound basis and they are not easily affected by the vocabulary and grammar when they do the ques
22、tionnaire. So it can stress on pragmatic competence, which is the key point. Second, in 1990s, Hong Gang(洪岗) had done some research on freshman and seniors of English majors. The survey is also a study for the pragmatic competence of English majors which act to validate and supplement through the co
23、ntrast. Third, the subjects come from different provinces such as Hubei, Guangxi, Beijing, Sichuan, Chongqing, Zhejiang, Fujian,etc. The students include a wide range of areas and there will be some differences between students in English language competence, which may be more typical and convincing
24、 concerning the research findings.2.3 Research methodsMainly this study adopted random sampling, questionnaire, interview, on-spot recording, literature analysis, induction, etc. There are about more than 200 senior English majors that from Foreign Language Department of Xiaogan University. Through
25、random sampling, 105 pieces of questionnaire were handed out with 91 pieces handed in which accounted for 86.7%. 40 pieces of questionnaire about English teaching were handed out with 36 pieces handed in which accounted for 90%. The pragmatic competence questionnaire and its pragmatic failure test a
26、dopted the questionnaire was designed by He Ziran(何自然) and Yan Zhuang (阎庄) which is attached to the back of the book A Survey of Pragmatics, the content involves some common pragmatic phenomenon in our daily lives, which included appellation, introduction, call, table manner and rejection, request,
27、invitation, asking, praise, expressing appreciation, etc. English teaching questionnaire was designed by according to the situation of undergraduates who are from English department in Xiaogan University and combining other reference opinions. The content involved the students assessments about cour
28、se arrangement, teaching method, teaching pattern, management, language environment, hardware facilities, etc. 2.4 Research stagesThere are three stages: First, the investigation about English pragmatic competence and pragmatic failure started on 26th, January 2007 and ended on 1st, February 2007. S
29、econd, by combining with interview, the investigation about teaching started on 28th, January 2007 and ended on 1st, February 2007. Third, the collection of reference materials was completed and statistics about pragmatic failure from the testing and interview was counted. Fourth, try to illustrate
30、theoretically in a view of pragmatics based on the statistical analysis about the materials that was made out.2.5 Research resultsThe results of research showed that the students had certain knowledge about cross-cultural exchanges and they could judge correctly about some common pragmatic errors. B
31、ut generally speaking, most of students had weak English pragmatic competence which resulted in much pragmatic failure. According to preliminary statistics, the total failure rate is 54.3%. The failure rate of multiple choice is 56.6% and the failure rate of true or false statements is 42.9%. The lo
32、west failure rate is 3.3%, the highest failure rate reaches 96.7%. From different type of investigation, though the subjects are different, the questionnaires are different and the results are also different, still one problem stands out obviously, that is, the phenomenon of English pragmatic failur
33、e exists in a large scale and from the results, it is serious to some extent. In contrast, for example, in 1991, Hong Gang(洪岗) chose 44 senior English majors from Foreign Language Department of one major state-owned Normal University for study, the failure rate is 46.60%(quoted in:李怀奎,2005:60)1. In
34、2003, Gu Tongqing(辜同清) investigate 68 non-English master degree candidates and the pass percentage is 20.6%2. In contrast, this survey is objective. The results are shown in Table1, 2,3.Table 1 Statistical Score 1Full marksThe highest markThe lowest markAverage5840926.38Table 2 Statistical Score 2Nu
35、mbersPassing gradePassing numbersPassing rate %9134.81718.70Table 3 Different score sectionNumber and percentBelow 2020-3435-40More than 40N2945170%31.8731.8718.700The students self-assessment are also not very high: 72.2% of students thought that they had many or some pragmatic failures; for the ap
36、plication of English, 5.6% of students replied that they could speak English fluently, 72.2% of students replied that they could communicate only moderately, 19.4% of students replied that they could read and write but they couldnt communicate. For the question of “if the teacher speak English compl
37、etely in class”, 25% of students replied that they could understand more than 90%, 52.8% of students replied that they could understand 70-80%, and 22.3% students replied that they could only understand less than 60%. The students thought that they most hoped to improve listening and speaking abilit
38、y. (See chart 1)Chart 1 Competence most needed to be improvedThe students assessments about the current situation of English teaching are clearly shown in chart 2. With regard to the degree of satisfaction, most students chose medium satisfied and moderate. But among these six items, four items, nam
39、ely, management, language environment, facilities and foreign teachers level, are not satisfying. That is to say, some students are still not satisfied with them, so it can be seen that there exists some weak links in English teaching and there also leaves much space for improvement.Chart 2 Students
40、 assessments about the current situation of English teaching3. Comprehensive Analysis of Pragmatic FailureAccording to British linguist Thomass opinion, English pragmatic failure can be divided into two categories: One is pragmalinguistic failure, which is caused by speech impediment (improper dicti
41、on or misunderstanding,etc.). This survey showed the percentage of this failure, 55.6% in partand 42.9% in part. This kind of failure manifests in the following aspects: the utterances are not in accord with a language as used by a native speaker; misusing other expressions; arbitrarily applying Chi
42、nese semantic and structure what they imagine to be; inappropriate diction; being off the point or misusing the ambiguous words; misunderstanding the illocutionary force. For instance, part,question 1,3,6,29,38,42,47 and part, question 8. The other is sociopragmatic failure, which mainly refers to t
43、hose failure caused by not understanding the cultural differences between each other and influencing the choice of language form. This survey showed the percentage of this failure, 59.5% in partand 42.9% in part. This kind of failure manifests in the following aspects: different thoughts or ideas, d
44、ifferent speech act, social poise and grace, etc., which all belong to culture matters. The fundamental reason is that the students lack of insight and comprehension about the differences between Chinese and English culture. For instance, in the questionnaire, part, question 9,16,19,36 and part ,que
45、stion 5. Of course, to distinguish these two categories is not absolutely. The context is different and the intention of each side is different, the understanding of utterances is also different. One failure can be seen as a pragmalinguistic failure viewed from one perspective, and from the other on
46、e, it can be seen as a sociopragmatic failure. So we will find some utterances contain both of them. For example, question 4. At the same time, with the increasingly close contact of culture, language, which is included in culture itself, increasingly enrich itself while absorbing other languages. C
47、hinese accept some English responses gradually. For example, to response the others praise, at first, Chinese are very modesty, but now, they accept and will response “谢谢”. Usually the demarcation of pragmatic failure is speaker-oriented, but the final judgment is determined by its effect on listene
48、r. In addition, pragmatic failure is not confined to language communication but also involving non-language behavior. No matter it is pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic, theoretically, most of them are caused by violating the principles of pragmatics. Pragmatics is the study of using language, which specializes in comprehending and using language. It is also a study particular about whether the language is suitable and appropriate or not. The major theories include The Speech Act Theory, The Theory of Conversational Implic
