非英語專業(yè)大一學生英語閱讀理解中語用推理能力的研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-05 10:17
【摘要】：Sperber和Wilson的關聯(lián)理論認為言語交際是一個明示-推理的過程。從說話者的角度來看,交際是一個明示的過程,而從聽話者的角度來看,交際則是一個推理的過程。于此相似,閱讀理解的過程也是作者與讀者之間進行書面交際的過程。從作者的角度看閱讀理解是一個明示的過程,而從讀者角度來看,閱讀理解則是一個推理的過程。作者常常省略了一些他認為讀者早已經(jīng)知道的信息或者解釋,因此讀者需要借助他們的百科知識、邏輯知識和詞匯知識去推測隱藏在字面意思里的作者的意圖。從這點來說,閱讀理解也是一個明示-推理的過程。在關聯(lián)理論的框架下,閱讀理解的過程除了是明示-推理的過程外,也是一個尋求最佳關聯(lián)和選擇語境的過程。閱讀理解的本質是推理。讀者運用推理來理解作者在文章中傳遞的明示意圖。因此,推理能力會影響到讀者對文章的理解。本研究中,推理能力也即語用推理能力,指學生能夠根據(jù)可得到的事實或消息,借助一些閱讀策略及他們的邏輯、百科和詞匯知識去做出預測或者解釋的能力。為了了解大學非英語專業(yè)一年級學生英語閱讀理解中語用推理能力的現(xiàn)有水平以及是否在不同類型的推理題目中學生的語用推理能力保持不變,作者設計了如下的研究問題:1)非英語專業(yè)一年級學生閱讀理解中的語用推理能力的現(xiàn)狀如何?2)語用推理能力在不同類型的推理題目,即細節(jié)推理題、猜測詞義題、態(tài)度推理題和主旨推理題中表現(xiàn)是否不同?3)造成這種現(xiàn)象的原因何在?為了探尋問題的答案,一共有205名受試參加了這一研究。研究工具是閱讀理解的測試題和調查問卷。所有的數(shù)據(jù)是通過SPSS 20.0這一統(tǒng)計軟件分析的。結果如下:1)學生的語用推理能力總體水平不高,需要提高。2)學生的語用推理能力在不同類型的推理題目中是不一樣的。在細節(jié)推理題目中,語用推理能力最強。在主旨推理題目中語用推理能力最弱。在猜測詞義中展現(xiàn)出的語用推理能力要強于態(tài)度推理題目中的語用推理能力。3)教師經(jīng)常講授做細節(jié)題目的策略,是學生細節(jié)推理能力較強的重要原因。在閱讀課上,教師經(jīng)常組織猜測詞義的活動,并且在猜詞的過程中為學生提供猜詞線索,這使得學生詞義猜測的推理能力較強雖不如細節(jié)推理能力。學生態(tài)度推理能力較弱的主要原因在于找不到合適的依據(jù)來判斷作者的態(tài)度。學生主旨推理能力最弱的原因在于教師沒有盡量多的提供背景知識,很少分析文章結構以及很少訓練學生概括文章主要內容的能力。根據(jù)對問卷調查的分析,對于英語閱讀教學作者提出了幾點建議。首先,老師在閱讀課上要適當講授構詞法的知識。其次,老師要指導學生尋找正確的關鍵詞。再次,閱讀課前老師要提供與文章相關的背景知識。最后,老師要訓練學生概括文章主要內容的能力。
[Abstract]:Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory holds that verbal communication is an ostensive-inferential process. From the perspective of the speaker, communication is an explicit process, and from the perspective of the hearer, communication is a process of reasoning. Similarly, the process of reading comprehension is a process of written communication between the author and the reader. From the author's point of view, reading comprehension is an explicit process, while from the reader's point of view, reading comprehension is a process of reasoning. The author often omits information or explanations that he thinks the reader already knows, so readers need to use their encyclopedic knowledge, logic knowledge and lexical knowledge to speculate on the author's intentions hidden in the literal meaning. From this point of view, reading comprehension is also an ostensive-inferential process. Within the framework of relevance theory, the process of reading comprehension is not only an ostensive-inferential process, but also a process of seeking the best relevance and choosing context. The essence of reading comprehension is reasoning. The reader uses reasoning to understand the schematics conveyed by the author in the article. Therefore, the ability of reasoning will affect the reader's understanding of the article. In this study, the ability of reasoning, that is, pragmatic reasoning, refers to the ability of students to make predictions or explanations based on available facts or information, with the help of some reading strategies and their logic, encyclopedic and lexical knowledge. In order to understand the current level of pragmatic reasoning ability of non-English major freshmen in English reading comprehension and whether the pragmatic inference ability of middle school students in different types of reasoning topics remains unchanged. The author designs the following research questions: 1) what is the present situation of pragmatic reasoning ability in reading comprehension of non-English major freshmen? 2) pragmatic reasoning ability in different types of reasoning topics, namely, detailed reasoning, conjecture, meaning, etc. What are the reasons for this phenomenon? To find out, 205 participants took part in the study. The research tools are reading comprehension tests and questionnaires. All the data were analyzed by SPSS 20.0 statistical software. The results are as follows: (1) the students' ability of pragmatic reasoning is not high in general and needs to be improved. 2) the students' competence of pragmatic reasoning is different in different types of reasoning topics. Among the detailed reasoning topics, pragmatic reasoning is the strongest. Pragmatic reasoning is the weakest in the topic of general purpose reasoning. The ability of pragmatic reasoning in guessing the meaning of words is better than that in the topic of attitude reasoning. 3) the teachers often teach the strategies of doing detailed questions, which is the important reason for the students' strong ability of detailed reasoning. In reading class, teachers often organize activities to guess the meaning of words, and provide students with clues to guess words in the process of guessing words, which makes students' reasoning ability of guessing word meaning is not as good as that of detailed reasoning. The main reason why students' attitude reasoning ability is weak is that they can not find a suitable basis to judge the author's attitude. The weakest reason for the students' inferential ability lies in the fact that the teachers do not provide as much background knowledge as possible, rarely analyze the structure of the article and rarely train the students to generalize the main content of the article. Based on the analysis of the questionnaire, some suggestions are put forward for the author of English reading teaching. First of all, the teacher in the reading class to properly teach word-formation knowledge. Second, the teacher should guide the students to find the correct keyword. Thirdly, the teacher should provide background knowledge about the article before reading class. Finally, the teacher should train the students to summarize the main content of the article.
【學位授予單位】：山東師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：H319.3
本文編號：2223975
[Abstract]:Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory holds that verbal communication is an ostensive-inferential process. From the perspective of the speaker, communication is an explicit process, and from the perspective of the hearer, communication is a process of reasoning. Similarly, the process of reading comprehension is a process of written communication between the author and the reader. From the author's point of view, reading comprehension is an explicit process, while from the reader's point of view, reading comprehension is a process of reasoning. The author often omits information or explanations that he thinks the reader already knows, so readers need to use their encyclopedic knowledge, logic knowledge and lexical knowledge to speculate on the author's intentions hidden in the literal meaning. From this point of view, reading comprehension is also an ostensive-inferential process. Within the framework of relevance theory, the process of reading comprehension is not only an ostensive-inferential process, but also a process of seeking the best relevance and choosing context. The essence of reading comprehension is reasoning. The reader uses reasoning to understand the schematics conveyed by the author in the article. Therefore, the ability of reasoning will affect the reader's understanding of the article. In this study, the ability of reasoning, that is, pragmatic reasoning, refers to the ability of students to make predictions or explanations based on available facts or information, with the help of some reading strategies and their logic, encyclopedic and lexical knowledge. In order to understand the current level of pragmatic reasoning ability of non-English major freshmen in English reading comprehension and whether the pragmatic inference ability of middle school students in different types of reasoning topics remains unchanged. The author designs the following research questions: 1) what is the present situation of pragmatic reasoning ability in reading comprehension of non-English major freshmen? 2) pragmatic reasoning ability in different types of reasoning topics, namely, detailed reasoning, conjecture, meaning, etc. What are the reasons for this phenomenon? To find out, 205 participants took part in the study. The research tools are reading comprehension tests and questionnaires. All the data were analyzed by SPSS 20.0 statistical software. The results are as follows: (1) the students' ability of pragmatic reasoning is not high in general and needs to be improved. 2) the students' competence of pragmatic reasoning is different in different types of reasoning topics. Among the detailed reasoning topics, pragmatic reasoning is the strongest. Pragmatic reasoning is the weakest in the topic of general purpose reasoning. The ability of pragmatic reasoning in guessing the meaning of words is better than that in the topic of attitude reasoning. 3) the teachers often teach the strategies of doing detailed questions, which is the important reason for the students' strong ability of detailed reasoning. In reading class, teachers often organize activities to guess the meaning of words, and provide students with clues to guess words in the process of guessing words, which makes students' reasoning ability of guessing word meaning is not as good as that of detailed reasoning. The main reason why students' attitude reasoning ability is weak is that they can not find a suitable basis to judge the author's attitude. The weakest reason for the students' inferential ability lies in the fact that the teachers do not provide as much background knowledge as possible, rarely analyze the structure of the article and rarely train the students to generalize the main content of the article. Based on the analysis of the questionnaire, some suggestions are put forward for the author of English reading teaching. First of all, the teacher in the reading class to properly teach word-formation knowledge. Second, the teacher should guide the students to find the correct keyword. Thirdly, the teacher should provide background knowledge about the article before reading class. Finally, the teacher should train the students to summarize the main content of the article.
【學位授予單位】：山東師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：H319.3
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 王晨爽;張廣;魏緒濤;;思維導圖在大學英語閱讀教學中的運用[J];大學英語(學術版);2015年02期
2 樊玲;周流溪;;認知語用推理框架中的轉喻[J];外語學刊;2015年02期
3 吳亞欣;柳皓;;語用推理的經(jīng)驗本質[J];科學技術哲學研究;2015年01期
4 車霄;;對獨立學院非英語專業(yè)學生英語聽力課中進行語用推理策略的研究[J];吉林省教育學院學報(下旬);2015年01期
5 李明;;試談語用推理及相關問題[J];古漢語研究;2014年04期
6 王志遠;;語用推理與聽力理解中信息差的彌補[J];重慶科技學院學報(社會科學版);2014年07期
7 姜望琪;;語用推理之我見[J];現(xiàn)代外語;2014年03期
8 施琳;;關聯(lián)理論指導下的英語閱讀教學——以上海卷高考英語閱讀為例[J];中國科教創(chuàng)新導刊;2013年14期
9 周芬芬;岳好平;;語用推理在大學英語閱讀教學中的應用[J];淮北職業(yè)技術學院學報;2013年01期
10 高帆;;圖式理論與大學英語閱讀教學[J];英語廣場(學術研究);2011年Z5期
相關碩士學位論文 前6條
1 高嘉;語用推理策略在大學英語聽力教學中應用的實證研究[D];重慶師范大學;2014年
2 陳新萍;語用推理視角下高職英語閱讀課的實驗研究[D];沈陽師范大學;2014年
3 秦姍姍;格萊斯會話含義理論的語用推理研究[D];西南大學;2014年
4 柳媛慧;大學英語閱讀理解中的語用推理研究[D];湖南科技大學;2008年
5 劉坤;英語閱讀理解中的語用推理[D];長春理工大學;2007年
6 朱艷紅;語用推理研究及其對大學英語閱讀教學的啟示[D];吉林大學;2006年
，本文編號：2223975
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/waiyulunwen/yingyulunwen/2223975.html
最近更新
教材專著
