阅读7crossculture pragmatic failureWord格式.docx
- 文档编号:22863686
- 上传时间:2023-02-05
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:13
- 大小:50.09KB
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.
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 阅读7crossculture pragmatic failure 阅读 crossculture
![提示](https://static.bdocx.com/images/bang_tan.gif)