negative pragmatic transfer.docx

negative pragmatic transfer.docx

《negative pragmatic transfer.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《negative pragmatic transfer.docx（31页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

negativepragmatictransfer

StudiesonNegativePragmaticTransferinInterlanguagePragmatics

ShaozhongLiu

GuangxiNormalUniversity,Guilin,541004,China

Abstract:

Transferisapervasivetermandthishasledtodiverseinterpretationsandresearchpracticesofit.Thispaperreviewedtherelatedliteratureontransferstudiesinsecondlanguageacquisition,linguisticstudiesandnon-linguistic.Italsomadeasurveyaboutapproachesintransferstudies,nativespeakers’attitudestowardtransfer,andtransfersmadebyChineselearnersofEnglish.Itwasarguedthattransferresearchevolvedfromalinguistic-to-non-linguisticpath,andthereisanecessityinthecurrenttrendtoshiftfromtheformertothelatter.

Keywords:

transfer,linguistictransfer,pragmatictransfer,secondlanguageacquisition

Whatisnegativepragmatictransfer?

AswasmentionedinSection1.1,transfertopragmaticiansmeansdifferenceofuseduetoNLinfluence.Andtounderstandwhatisdifferent,apreliminarystepwastosortoutsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenlanguagesandtheuseoftheselanguages.Theefforttostudyhownon-nativespeakersunderstandandrealizeaspeechactintheTLhasspiraledintoatraditionidentifiedasthestudyofpragmaticuniversals.Asmanyas11speechactshavebeencoveredtodate:

requests,suggestions,invitations,refusals,expressionsofdisagreement,corrections,complaints,apologies,expressionofgratitude,complimentsandindirectanswers（Kasper,1992）.

Kasper（1995）focusedonpragmatictransferanddefineditas“theinfluenceexertedbylearners’pragmaticknowledgeoflanguagesandculturesotherthanL2ontheircomprehension,production,andacquisitionofL2pragmaticinformation”（Kasper,1992;1995）.

2.1Roleofnegativepragmatictransferininterlanguagepragmaticstudies

Thestudyofthelearnerlanguagehasbeenagrowingsourceofconcernalsoinpragmaticsinrecentyears.Thepragmaticperspectivetowardthelearnerlanguageledtothebirthofanewinterdiscipline,interlanguagepragmatics（ILP）.

Asthemainfocusofpragmaticsistoexaminehowanutterancemeaningisperceived,interlanguagepragmaticsmainlyconcernswithhownon-nativespeakersdifferfromnativespeakersininterpretingandproducingaspeechactintheTL.Tofindoutthedifferences,ILPresearcherswillbasetheirstudiesoncollecteddata.Thefirstissuetheywilltackleistherangeofdifferencebetweennon-nativesandnativesinperformingandcomprehendingaspeechact.Onthisbasis,theywillproceedtothecontextualdistributionofsuchdifferences,strategiesintargetlanguageuse,linguisticformsusedforconveyinganideainthetargetlanguage,illocutionarymeaningsandpoliteness（Blum-Kulkaetal,1989;Kasper,1992;Takahashi,1990）.Allthisisrelatedtotransferinonewayoranother.

TherelatednessoftransferisalsoapparentincurrentissuesofILPresearch.Forinstance,oneofthetopicsofimmediateresearchinterestinILPnowadaysistoinvestigatelanguageuniversalsunderlyingcross-linguisticvariationanditsroleinILP.Thesortingoutoflanguageuniversalsnaturallyhelpsusfindoutwhatisanegativepragmatictransfer.Measuringapproximationofthelearner’slanguagetoTLnormsisanothercurrenttopic.PlacingthelearnerlanguageagainsttheTLnormalsohelpsustofindoutthedifferencebetweenthelearnerlanguageandthetargetlanguageandsimilaritybetweenthelearnerlanguageandthelearner’snativelanguage.AnothercurrentresearchtopicinILPistostudyNLinfluenceonthelearningofTL.Thisisdirecttopicaddressingthetransferissue（Kasper&Schmidt,1996;HeZiran,1996;LiuShaozhong,1997d）.Itisnothardtoseetheimportanceofpragmatictransferinalltheseresearchtopics.

2.2Contrastivestudiesofspeechacts

Ahostoftransfer-relatedstudieshavebeendocumented.Thesecross-culturalexaminationswereconductedwithaviewtofindouthownon-nativespeakers,duetotheirNLinfluence,differfromnativespeakersinunderstandingandrealizingaparticularspeechact.

Cohen&Olshtain（1981）studiedhowHebrewlearnersofEnglishasL2didthingswiththeirinterlanguageofEnglish,anddiscoveredthatthenonnativeuseofapologysemanticformulawasgenerallyfewerthanthatofthenativeEnglishspeakers.Bythis,thestudydisplayedthetransferofHebrewfeaturesintotherealizationofapologymaking.

Olshtain（1983）alsoattemptedatfindingthedegreeandtypesoftransferamongsomeEnglishandRussianspeakinglearnersofHebrewasL2.HerelicitationquestionnaireonapologyofeightsituationsshowedthatEnglishlearners’percentageofapologymakingwasthehighest,andnextwasthatbytheRussians,withthatbytheHebrewsthelowest.ShefurtherillustratedthistendencyinanothersimilartestamongtheHebrewILofEnglish-speakinglearners.

DifferentfromOlshtain,Scarcella（1983）（citedinKasper,1992）specificallyexaminedthediscourseaccentofsomeSpanish-speakingEnglishlearners.ShefoundthecommunicativestyleofherinformantscomparabletothoseintheirnativelanguageSpanish.ThusScarcellaclaimedthatSpanishlearnersofEnglishasasecondlanguage（ESL）shiftedwhatwasconceivedofascommunicativelyappropriateL1stylesintoEnglish.

House（1988）echoedScarcellabyexecutingherstudyamongherGermanstudentslearningBritishEnglish.Inapologyrealization,theseGerman-speakinglearnersofEnglishwereobservedtohavetransplantedtheirGermancommunicativestyles,fortheselearnerswerelessinclinedtouseroutineapologyexpressionssuchas“sorry”asbytheBritish.

Garcia（1989）replicatedastudyamongsomeVenezuelanSpanishspeakersontherealizationoftheapologyspeechact.Differentfromtheabovestudies,Garcia’sinterestwastouncoverwhetherthelearnerstransfertheirL1politenessstyleintherole-playsituations.HerfindingswerethattheVenezuelansusedmorepositivepolitenessstrategiesbysayingsomethingnicesoastoexpresstheirfriendlinessorgoodfeelings,whilethenativeSpanishspeakersappliedmorenegativestylessuchasself-effacing.

Beebe,Takahashi,&Uliss-Weltz（1990）initiatedastudyamongtheJapaneselearnersofEnglishasasecondlanguageconcerningthemakingofrefusals.ThedifferencedetectedwasapparentinthatJapaneseESLlearnersconceptualizedthenecessityofstressingthestatusdifferenceininteractions,whiletheAmericansdeniedtheexistenceofsuchdifferencesevenifsuchdifferencesindeedexisted.

InanexplorationaboutpolitenessorientationamongtheJapaneseESLlearners,TakahashiandBeebe（1993）reportedthattheJapaneseturnedtorejectpositiveremarksinsituationwheretheAmericansfavoredthem;andthattheJapaneseemployedformulaicexpressions,whereastheAmericansdeniedthem.

Takahashi&Beebe’s（1993）studiedtheperformanceofcorrectionbyJapaneseESLlearners.Intheirarticleentitled“Cross-linguisticinfluenceinthespeechactofcorrection”,Takahashi&Beebe（1993:

138-157）reportedthattheJapaneselearnersshiftedstylesfromJapaneseintheselectionofstrategies.Intheirpreviousstudiesonface-threateningactscarriedoutbythesamegroupsofnativeandnonnativespeakers,theauthorspointedoutthelearners’distinctivepatternsofstyleshiftingaccordingtointerlocutorstatus.Focusingonthemodificationofcorrectionsbymeansofpositiveremarksandsofteners,theJapaneselearners’style-shiftingpatternswereclearlyinfluencedbytransferfromJapanese.WhileJapaneselearners,reflectingnativesociopragmaticnorms,shiftedmorestylesthanAmericanrespondentsinperformingrefusing,contracting,anddisagreeing.However,thisstudyindicateddramaticstyleshiftingintheAmericanspeakers’useofpositiveremarks.Theirprevalentuseofpositiveremarksinthehigh-lowcondition,whichwasnotmatchedbytheJapaneselearnersorJapanesenativespeakers,providedmoreevidenceofapositivepolitenessorientationinAmericaninteraction,andgreateremphasisonstatuscongruenceinJapaneseconversationalbehavior.ThestudyalsosupportedBeebe&Takahashi’searlierclaimthatpragmatictransferprevailedinhigherproficiencylearners.

Blum-Kulka（1982;1983）investigatedrequestrealizationbyEnglishlearnersofHebrewasL2.ShediscoveredthatEnglishlearnersofHebrewnegativelytransferredtheirpragmalinguisticformsintotheHebrewability（“canyou”）questions,andinthechoiceofdirectnesslevelsinrequestrealization.Theformercasereflectedthelearners’inabilitytoconveythepragmaticforce,whilethelatterdisplayedthatwheretheHebrewcontextdemandedmoredirectness,thelearnerspreferredindirectstrategies.However,forimperativequestions,abilityquestions,‘whynot’questionsand‘Doyoumindif…’forms,EnglishlearnersofHebrewsuccessfullytransferredthecross-linguisticallysharedstrategies.Thus,Blum-Kulkaconcludedthatapparentsimilarityinformandfunctionacrosslanguagesdidnotholdforallcontexts.

Olshtain（1983）repeatedBlum-Kulka’sstudybylookingintoaparticularsemanticformula.LikeBlum-Kulka,shealsotookasherinformantstheEnglishlearnersofHebrew.ShedetectedthatEnglishlearnerswerehabitualtomaptheEnglishsemanticformulasintoHebrewwhenexpressingapologyandofferingrepairs,whichwasnotpreferredinHebrewunderthesamespeechsituation.Thisstudythusprovidedfurtherevidencesforherpreviousstudies（Oshtain,1981）andOlshtain&Cohen（1989）.

ByDCT（dialogcompletiontest）technique,House&Kasper（1987）launcheda“CCSARP（cross-linguisticspeechactsrealizationpatterns）Project”withafocusonmainlytheGermanandDanishlearnersofBritishEnglishforthepu