言语交际中的语用失误研究

VIP免费

3.0 陈辉 2024-11-20 4 4 591.91KB 70 页 15积分

侵权投诉

Chapter One Defining Pragmatic Failure

Verbal communication is very important in daily life. Through verbal

communication, people either with the same cultural background or with different

cultural backgrounds can communicate with and understand each other and learn from

each other. Through verbal communication, conflicts can be solved too. But in reality

misunderstanding, miscommunication, and even communication breakdown usually

occur in intracultual and intercultural communications. Pragmatic failure, as an

important source of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and communication

breakdown, hinders people’s communication. As Jenny Thomas (1983：97) pointed out,

“while grammar error may reveal a speaker to be a less than proficient language-user,

pragmatic failure reflects badly on him/her as a person”.

Although pragmatic failure is a very common phenomenon in verbal

communication, it is not studied thoroughly in pragmatics. A precise definition of

pragmatic failure is not yet found even in the classics of pragmatics. So based on the

findings of previous researchers, the author makes an effort to study and define

pragmatic failure.

§ 1.1 A brief literature review

The present study of pragmatic failure in this thesis would not come into being

without the basis of pioneers’ work. In order to gain the main idea of what has been

done by previous researchers, the author finds it necessary to review previous studies

of pragmatic failure. Among those researchers Jenny Thomas stands out for her

peculiar insight into this domain.

§ 1.1.1 Thomas’s study of pragmatic failure

Pragmatic failure was studied systematically by British linguist Jenny Thomas

foremost. In 1983 she published “cross-cultural pragmatic failure”, in which she

defined, classified and explained sources of pragmatic failure, and gave her

suggestions in teaching to solve pragmatic failure, which laid the theoretical

foundation of pragmatic failure.

A Study of Pragmatic Failure in Verbal Communication

1.1.1.1 Thomas’ definition of pragmatic failure

Thomas defined pragmatic failure at the beginning of “cross-cultural pragmatic

failure”. She employed the term “pragmatic failure” to refer to “the inability to

understand ‘what is meant by what is said’” (1983: 91). So, the notion of pragmatic

failure is basically cognitive in nature.

1.1.1.2 Classification of pragmatic failure

Thomas put forward her understanding about the classifications based on the

difference between pragmatic force and sociopragmatic factors. She further

distinguished two types of pragmatic failure:

a. “Pragmalinguistic failure occurs when the pragmatic force mapped by S

(speaker) onto a given utterance is systematically different from the force most

frequently assigned to it by native speaker of the target language, or when speech

act strategies are inappropriately transferred from L1 to L2” (Thomas, 1983: 99).

b. “Sociopragmatic failure refers to the social conditions placed on language

in use” (ibid.).

What Thomas means is that S fails to map a pragmatic force to an utterance

assigned by the native speakers, or makes a speech act strategy inappropriately transfer.

Concerning two different classes of pragmatic failure, Thomas gave different reasons.

1.1.1.3 Causes of pragmatic failure

As to the question of why does pragmatic failure occur in verbal communication,

Thomas probed deeper into this phenomenon. In Thomas’ understanding,

pragmatlinguistic failure was basically a linguistic problem, caused by differences in

the linguistic encoding of pragmatic force. Pragmalinguistic failure might arise from

two identifiable sources: teaching-induced errors and pramalinguistic transfer—“the

inappropriate transfer of speech act strategies from one language to another, or the

transferring from the mother tongue to the target language of utterances which are

semantically/syntactically equivalent, but which because of different interpretive bias

tend to convey a different pragmatic force in the target language” (Thomas, 1983: 101).

Some teaching techniques might actually increase the likelihood of pragmalinguistic

Chapter One Defining Pragmatic Failure

failure. To place too much emphasis on metalinguistic knowledge could lead to

pragmatic failure. In her explanation, she gave an example: To answer the question

Have you brought your coat? with Yes, I have brought my coat! would sounds petulant

or positively testy.

Thomas thought that sociopragmatic failure occurred because of cross-culturally

different perceptions of what constituted appropriate linguistic behavior. In her

understanding, this type of pragmatic failure was caused by “cross-cultural mismatches

in the assessment of social distance, of what constitutes an imposition, of when an

attempt at a ‘face threatening act’ should be abandoned, and in evaluating relative

power, rights, and obligations, etc” (Thomas, 1983: 104). Viewing from

sociopragmatic aspect, Thomas also analyzed the size of imposition, taboos,

cross-culturally different assessment of relative power or social distance and value

judgments respectively.

1.1.1.4 Suggestions for teaching to solve pragmatic failure

After the previous steps of definition, classification, identification of possible

reasons, Thomas (1983) goes further to provide suggestions for teachers. She (1983)

suggested that pramalinguistic failure was only a question of highly conventionalized

language usage and language-specific, which could be corrected and taught quite

directly as part of the grammar by the teacher. By contrast sociopragmatic failure was

culture-specific and much more difficult to deal with, since it involved the student’s

system of beliefs as much as his /her knowledge of the language. She argued that it was

essential to avoid prescriptivism in this very sensitive area of language in use. To do so

the teachers must draw on insights from theoretical pragmatics and develop ways of

heightening and refining students’ metapragmatic awareness.

It is on the basis of Thomas’ findings that researchers at home and abroad probe

deeper into this area and have produced different fundamentals concerning pragmatic

failure.

§ 1.1.2 The studies of pragmatic failure in China

Many Chinese scholars such as He Ziran (1986, 1988, 1997, 2002), Huang Cidong

(1988), Wang Dexing (1990), Jia Yuxing (1997), Qian Guanlian (1997, 2002), Yang

A Study of Pragmatic Failure in Verbal Communication

Min (1998), Cao Chunchun (1998), Hu Wenzhong (1999), Dai Weidong & Zhang

Hongling (2000), Sun Ya (2001), Zhang Guo (2004), Liu Si (2004), Liu Si & Liu

Runqing (2005) have made their contributions on the study of pragmatic failure.

As one of the forerunners researching into pragmatic failure, He Ziran (1986)

investigated Chinese students’ pragmatic failure in communication in English through

a questionnaire about communication in daily life. He also analyzed causes of

pragmatic failure from the angle of English teaching. He pointed out that improper

teaching on the part of teachers or inauthentic teaching materials could lead to some

pragmatic failures. Other researchers have also made their respective voices heard. Jia

Yuxin and Wang Dexing compared Chinese culture and Western cultures. Cao

Chunchun (1998) studied pragmatic failure from the point of violating politeness

principle. Hu Wenzhong (1999) thought that cultural conflicts were produced because

sometimes people, with their own cultural standards, judged others with different

cultural backgrounds. Dai Weidong and Zhang Hongling (2000) said that pragmatic

failure was caused mainly by the speaker’ negative cultural transfer. Sun Ya (2001)

researched into the causes of pragmatic failure from a cognitive view. Zhang Guo

(2004) defined pragmatic failure and explained causes of pragmatic failure with the

theory of adaptation proposed by Verschueren. Liu Si (2004) reviewed some empirical

evidence, which showed that native-speakers and nonnative speakers of a target

language appeared to have different systems of pragmatics. She explored four factors

causing differences—language proficiency, teaching materials, classroom instructions

and pragmatic transfer, and put forwared some pedagogical suggestions. In 2005, Liu

Si and Liu Runqing did a quantitative study of apology expressions between native

speakers of Chinese and native speakers of English.

Moreover, Men Mei and Liu Qinliang (2000) tested the English pragmatic

competence of non-English majoring undergraduates. Gu Tongqing (2003) explored

non-English majoring postgraduates’ pragmatic competence for using English. Hao

Qinhai (2000: 26) researched “cross-cultural pragmatic failure in hybrid advertising

language”. Ye Shaoning & Teng Qiaoyun (2003) discussed English teaching and

cultivation of pragmatic competence.

Through the brief literature review of previous studies of pragmatic failure, we can

know that pragmatic failure has been studied from different angles such as its

definition, classification, causes and suggestions in teaching and cultivating pragmatic

Chapter One Defining Pragmatic Failure

competence, and a lot of research achievements have been obtained. But most of such

studies of pragmatic failure are either too macro or communicative in general.

Therefore, a need for a narrow-sense pragmatic failure is yet to be found and a more

precise description is yet to be made. We can also see that their studies mainly

concentrate on intercultural pragmatic failure while intralcultural pragmatic failure is

scarcely studied. In reality pragmatic failure occurs not only in intercultural

communication, but also in intercultural communication. So pragmatic failure should

be more comprehensively examined.

Based on all these previous studies of pragmatic failure, the author will try to

present his definition in the following section.

§ 1.2 Defining pragmatic failure

As can be seen in previous parts, many definitions of pragmatic failure have been

given by different researchers. But as to what is the essence of pragmatic failure, there

are defects in previous studies. In this chapter the author defines pragmatic failure on

the basis of pioneers’ definitions and through his own study.

§ 1.2.1 Previous definitions of pragmatic failure

Thomas (1983:91) put forward the term “pragmatic failure” and defined pragmatic

failure as “the inability to understand ‘what is meant by what is said’”.

There are flaws in Thomas’s definition of pragmatic failure. Her definition was

criticized by some scholars. For instance, Qian Guanlian (2002: 195) thought that

Thomas’ definition of pragmatic failure did not seem to be pragmatic failure of the

speaker, but as if the hearer was unable. He gave his definition of pragmatic failure.

Qian thought that this kind of mistake that the speaker in verbal communication made

in using the correct sentences, but violating unconsciously the interpersonal formulas,

social norms, or ignores the hearer, or what he said was not fit for the time or space,

was pragmatic failure.

He Ziran made investigations of pragmatic failure in 1988 and 1997. In 1988 He

Ziran defined pragmatic failure as a kind of mistake in verbal communication which

prevented communicators from achieving the perfect communicative effect. And then,

he (1997: 205-206) pointed out that pragmatic failure was not the performance error,

A Study of Pragmatic Failure in Verbal Communication

but the failure, which resulted in that the communicators could not achieve the

expected purpose, and it was caused by inappropriate tongue or the unconventional

expression.

Zhang Guo (2004: 60) gave his definition of pragmatic failure:

“在跨文化或母语文化交际中听话人没有准确或全面理解说话人的意义，或

说话人使用了符号关系正确的句子，但不自觉地违反了人际规范、社会规约、或

不合时间，不看对象，这样性质的错误就叫语用失误。”.

He defined pragmatic failure as a kind of mistake in intercultural or local cultural

communication in which the hearer could not understand the speaker’s meaning

accurately and thoroughly, or the speaker used the correct sentences, but violated the

interpersonal formulas, social rules or ignored the hearer unconsciously, or what he

said was not fit for the time or space. In Zhang Guo’s definition, both the speaker and

the hearer are taken into consideration in communication, which is quite similar to

Qian’s (2002), but different from He’s (1997) definitions in which the hearer’s role in

the occurrence of pragmatic failure is left out.

Hu Gengshen (2004: 125) considered that “failure is any inappropriateness in the

process of communication that impacts the communicative effect.”

Although their definitions of pragmatic failure are different from each other, most

of them think that pragmatic failure is a kind of mistake affecting communicators in

getting anticipated communicative effect.

§ 1.2.2 The author’s definition of pragmatic failure

With reference to pioneers’ research achievements, under the author’s supervisor’

enlightenment and help, and through his own study of cases in reality, the author

attempts to give a definition of pragmatic failure as follows:

Pragmatic failure is a theoretical construct which helps to explain possible

causes of communication breakdown. Pragmatic failure is an interactional

setback which involves both the speaker and the hearer in interactional context or

situation.

In the occurrence of pragmatic failure both the speaker(S) and the hearer(H) are

involved in the interactional context or situation: in communication, at the beginning if

S fails to identify S’s mental states (intention or goal of interaction),H will fail to

identify the S’s intention or goal. If S can identify S’s intention or goal of interaction,

文档加载中……请稍候！
如果长时间未打开，您也可以点击刷新试试。

下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便

15 积分 4人已下载

立即下载 VIP免费下载

摘要：

ChapterOneDefiningPragmaticFailure1ChapterOneDefiningPragmaticFailureVerbalcommunicationisveryimportantindailylife.Throughverbalcommunication,peopleeitherwiththesameculturalbackgroundorwithdifferentculturalbackgroundscancommunicatewithandunderstandeachotherandlearnfromeachother.Throughverbalcommunic...

展开>> 收起<<

言语交际中的语用失误研究.pdf

共70页,预览7页

还剩页未读，继续阅读

言语交际中的语用失误研究

相关推荐

开通VIP享超值会员特权

作者详情

相关内容

推荐作者

热门标签

举报选择: