本文選題：拒絕言語行為 + 語用失誤　； 參考：《青島科技大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：當(dāng)今,語用能力這一概念在語言習(xí)得和教學(xué)中都獲得了廣泛關(guān)注。盡管二語學(xué)習(xí)者做出了很大努力來提升自己的語用能力,但是,在某些特定的情景下,他們?nèi)匀徊恢涝撊绾伪憩F(xiàn)地更加符合目的語的文化規(guī)范。換句話說,中國(guó)英語學(xué)習(xí)者目前的語用能力相對(duì)較弱。本文以言語行為理論為研究框架,旨在探討中國(guó)英語學(xué)習(xí)者拒絕言語行為中的語用失誤。研究主要探討三方面問題:(1)中國(guó)英語學(xué)習(xí)者和本族語者在實(shí)施拒絕言語行為時(shí)在選取拒絕策略時(shí)有什么異同?(2)中國(guó)英語學(xué)習(xí)者在實(shí)施拒絕言語行為時(shí)會(huì)犯哪些語用失誤及是什么原因?qū)е逻@些語用失誤的?(3)中國(guó)英語學(xué)習(xí)者的語言水平會(huì)影響語用失誤嗎?本研究的實(shí)驗(yàn)對(duì)象一共有三組,第一組受試者是35名來自山東某高校的高水平英語學(xué)習(xí)者,第二組受試者是35名來自同一高校的低水平英語學(xué)習(xí)者。第三組受試者是20名來自加拿大的英語本族語者。研究的實(shí)驗(yàn)工具為包括邀請(qǐng)、給予、建議和請(qǐng)求的9個(gè)拒絕情境的語篇補(bǔ)全測(cè)試,其中,社會(huì)地位和社會(huì)距離等因素將會(huì)被考慮在內(nèi)。研究結(jié)果表明,英語本族語者和中國(guó)英語學(xué)習(xí)者都比較傾向于使用委婉的拒絕策略,且多會(huì)使用多種拒絕策結(jié)合在一起來降低面子威脅。相對(duì)而言,中國(guó)英語學(xué)習(xí)者在拒絕言語行為中表現(xiàn)得更加直接。在本研究中,中國(guó)英語學(xué)習(xí)者所犯的語用失誤包括錯(cuò)誤使用目的語表達(dá)方式或從母語遷移表達(dá)方式、不能成功拒絕、違反目標(biāo)語語言規(guī)則及文化規(guī)則四類。文化差異以及母語負(fù)遷移等被認(rèn)為是造成這些語用失誤的主要原因。此外,研究結(jié)果還顯示,高水平學(xué)習(xí)者與低水平學(xué)習(xí)者所犯的語用失誤在頻率與類型方面相近,表明學(xué)習(xí)者的目的語水平對(duì)語用失誤沒有顯著影響。
[Abstract]:Nowadays, the concept of pragmatic competence has gained wide attention in language acquisition and teaching. Although L2 learners have made great efforts to improve their pragmatic competence, they still do not know how to behave more in accordance with the cultural norms of the target language in certain specific situations. In other words, the pragmatic competence of Chinese EFL learners is relatively weak. Based on the theory of speech act, this paper aims to explore the pragmatic failure of Chinese EFL learners' refusal speech act. The study focuses on three aspects: (1) what are the similarities and differences between Chinese English learners and native speakers in choosing refusal strategies when implementing refusal speech acts? 2) what languages do Chinese English learners commit when they commit refusal speech acts? Do Chinese EFL learners' language proficiency affect pragmatic failure? There are three groups of subjects in this study. The first group is 35 high level English learners from a university in Shandong province and the second group is 35 low level English learners from the same university. The third group consisted of 20 native speakers from Canada. The experimental tools of the study are text completion tests with 9 rejection situations including invitation, giving, suggestion and request, in which social status and social distance will be taken into account. The results show that both native English speakers and Chinese EFL learners tend to use euphemistic refusal strategies and tend to use a combination of multiple refusal strategies to reduce face threats. Comparatively speaking, Chinese English learners are more direct in refusal speech acts. In this study, the pragmatic failures made by Chinese EFL learners include the wrong use of target language expressions or transfer from their mother tongue, the failure to refuse successfully, and the violation of the target language and cultural rules. Cultural differences and negative transfer of mother tongue are considered to be the main causes of these pragmatic failures. In addition, the results also show that the frequency and type of pragmatic failures committed by high and low level learners are similar, indicating that the target language level has no significant effect on pragmatic failure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：青島科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：H319.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 盧加偉;;認(rèn)知框架下的課堂語用教學(xué)對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)者二語語用能力發(fā)展的作用[J];解放軍外國(guó)語學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年01期

2 王偉;;基于語料庫的漢譯英語用失誤研究[J];中國(guó)科技翻譯;2012年04期

3 陶源;姜占好;;語用能力培養(yǎng)的認(rèn)知觀[J];外語學(xué)刊;2012年03期

4 朱躍,李家玉;中英商業(yè)購(gòu)物中“拒絕”言語行為對(duì)比研究[J];外語教學(xué);2004年01期

5 吳建設(shè);拒絕語的表達(dá)方法[J];四川外語學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年04期

6 李桂芝,張國(guó);從順應(yīng)理論角度探析語用失誤的原因[J];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年01期

7 孫亞;從認(rèn)知角度看語用失誤[J];四川外語學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年06期

8 王愛華!610053;英漢拒絕言語行為表達(dá)模式調(diào)查[J];外語教學(xué)與研究;2001年03期

9 馬月蘭;中美拒絕語策略共性比較研究[J];西安外國(guó)語學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年02期

10 馬月蘭;中美“拒絕”言語行為比較研究[J];青海師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1998年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1828629