毕业论文课题相关文献综述

For more than thirty years, the question of how to reduce pragmatic failures and strengthen pragmatic competence has aroused great attention among scholars abroad and at home. Many academic researches and experiments have been conducted, which have contributed to the further study on this topic. Some relevant phrases Cross-cultural Communication: It means that people of different countries and different cultures communicate with each other. Hua (2004) also states that Intercultural communication is communication between people whose cultural perceptions and symbols are distinct enough to alter the communication event. Li (2004) points out three forms of this kind of communication, that is, interracial communication, interethnic communication, and intra-cultural communication. Pragmatic Failure: It has been widely recognized that this term was originally put forward by Jenny Thomas, an English linguist, in her article Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failures in 1983. She defines it as The inability to understand what is meant by what is said. and divides it into two categories: pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure. Pragmalinguistic failure is basically a linguistic problem, caused by differences in the linguistic encoding of pragmatic force. It occurs when the pragmatic force mapped by the 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). Sociopragmatic failure usually refers to the error of language expression, deriving from the incomprehension or neglection of the different social and cultural backgrounds of speakers. Pragmatic failure is highly likely to occur between non-native speakers and native speakers. Previous studies on the reasons of pragmatic failure With respect to the main reasons of pragmatic failure, many scholars have done lots of researches and proposed their own opinions. Although some views are similar to other scholars, each person has his or her own focus. The first main reason approved by many scholars is the negative influence of mother tongue. According to Wang (2011), Huang (2012), and Ding (2013), the way of speaking has been formed for a long time in peoples growing and daily life, which is difficult to change. When communicating with other people, especially native people, Chinese EFL learners easily mix the usage of some Chinese words with that of some English words and do not follow the rules of English communication, which causes the incorrectness of expression in some English sentences. Thomas (1983) also describes that Pragmalinguistic transfer means 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. The second main cause is the differences between Chinese culture and Western culture. According to Samovar et al (2000), we define culture as the deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, actions,attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religions, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and artifacts acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving. Seen from this definition, beliefs, values, and religions have played a quite important part in the cross-cultural communication. Value systems in American culture and Chinese culture are different in the following aspects: relationship of humankind to nature, relational (social) orientation, human nature orientation, activity orientation, time orientation, etc(Wang, 2002). Due to the great influence of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, Chinese culture centers on collectivism, while Western culture has belief in individualism under the impact of Christianism. Li (2009) thinks that cultures differ in their tendency to urge people to be independent or interdependent. Individualistic cultures emphasize social members personal achievements. Contrastively, collectivism concerns social harmony, community and group. Huang (2012) states that righteousness and filial piety are the focus of Chinese culture. When Chinese keep contact with others, they consider humanity as the most valuable thing. So, standing at a overall situations perspective, they always take the long-term benefit into account. However, Western culture, represented by the United States, pays more attention to the personal rights and goes for freedom. Reflecting on value of culture, the difference between individualism and collectivism influence the intercultural communication between Chinese speakers and English native speakers(Xie, 2012). While it is good for Chinese to take care of others in almost every aspect, it is regarded as the great offense to Westerners privacy. So, the lack of understanding of the differences between Chinese culture and Western culture results in the increase of pragmatic failure. The third main reason is the differences in traditions and folk customs. According to Zhang (2002), folk custom refers to a kind of lifestyle and social norm, which is gradually formed during the historical development of a country or an ethnic group. It is involved in many aspects, such as clothing, food and marriage. There are huge differences in traditions and folk customs between different countries. People of different races have special affections for their own folk customs, which is not allowed to be infringed. So, if non-native speakers are not familiar with those traditions and folk customs, it is highly possible for them to give rise to pragmatic failure. Huang (2012) deems that the different attitudes towards the concept of time are a significant factor of pragmatic failure. The life in America is very fast-paced, which contributes to the strong sense of time, while Chinese have cultivated a feature of slowness under the idea of farming. Because of the lack of understanding in this part, pragmatic failure easily occurs. Han (2013) points out that the use of taboo words and the difference in address can bring about pragmatic failure as well. In daily life, on account of different living environments, psychological factors and viewing angles, people of different races show different affections in the process of English use(Hao, 2013). Hao indicates that the discrepancy of use of color and number also contributes to pragmatic failure. There are some other causes raised by scholars. Both Long (2010) and Wang (2011) point out that the lack of pragmatic teaching in class is an important element of pragmatic failure. They believe that it is because teachers have little pragmatic knowledge and neglect the importance of pragmatic teaching that students have poor pragmatic competence. Politeness is universal....Despite the universality, the actual manifestations of politeness, the ways to realize politeness, and the standards of judgment differ in different cultures. In many cases Chinese learners offend their American interlocutors without realizing it due to their unawareness of the cross-cultural differences in those aspects mentioned above(Wang, 2002). Han (2013) indicates that two factors also cause pragmatic failure, that is, the difference in the way of compliment and the inappropriate response to praise and apology. Previous studies on the solutions to avoid pragmatic failure Since the problem of pragmatic failure is becoming more and more serious, many strategies and solutions have been proposed by scholars to improve Chinese EFL learners pragmatic competence and avoid pragmatic failures. There are more requirements for modern teachers. In Longs (2010) opinion, as educators, apart from grammar and syntax, teachers ought to master both pragmatic knowledge and background knowledge of Western culture. Besides, their teaching capacity should be constantly strengthened. In order to do great help for students pragmatic competence, teachers should change their traditional role to several new roles(Xiong, 2003). Xiong believes the role of teachers is required to be the combination of material analyzer, material producer, activity designer, coach and evaluator. More importance should be attached to pragmatic teaching and cultural teaching in class and raise students pragmatic and cross-cultural awareness. Zhang (2002) thinks that communicative competence reflects not only in the correctness of grammar, but also in the appropriateness of language behavior. It is essential and vital for teachers to combine language teaching with cultural teaching. Li (2004) proposes that teachers had better integrate pragmalinguistic knowledge into discourse teaching, grammar teaching, and vocabulary teaching. We should try our best to expose our students to English-speaking culture, and make a comparative study between these cultures and Chinese culture....we should really combine culture teaching with language teaching, cultivating and developing students intercultural awareness and the competence to speak both accurately and appropriately in the target language. Students should be provided with tools to analyze fundamental cultural aspects so that this cultural awareness will eventually lead to tolerance and mutual respect(Li, 2004). With regard to this aspect, Gao (2003) puts forward several suggestions: examining the patterns of daily life in the target culture, enhancing awareness of culturally appropriate behavior through information-oriented activities, increasing their awareness of the communication patterns through examining native speakersexpectations of verbal and non-verbal communication, and increasing their consciousness of cultural differences through exploring values and attitudes. Create and improve cross-cultural environment. In order to enhance pragmatic atmosphere, Wang (2011) recommends two advice. First, teachers should carry out cross-cultural teaching in the extracurricular activities, such as some selective courses concerning Chinese and Western culture. Second, teachers can organize some role-playing activities, like greetings, introduction, praise and apology. At the same time, Xie (2012) raises the idea of role-playing as well. Besides, Xie stresses other three approaches: emphasizing on culturally-loaded words or allusions, developing interpersonal contacts with native English speakers and using authentic materials. Huang (2012), Ding (2013), Gao (2003) and Li (2004) also insist that the cross-cultural learning environment is created and improved not only in class, but also in some extracurricular activities. Pragmatic principle is an important element to strengthen students pragmatic competence. Pragmatic principles such as deixis, speech act theory, conversational implication, cooperative principle and politeness principle can be introduced to students while they are learning the language. In this way, students pragmatic competence can be developed with their linguistic competence(Li, 2004). Xie (2012) also underlines that learning pragmatic principles will be the most effective method to enhance pragmatic competence. Since the Speech Act Theory, CP and PP are the basic principles of pragmatics, learning the three principles will be the emphasis. Both Li (2004) and Xie (2012) suggest that Chinese students should avoid negative stereotyping, which will become an obstacle to their successful pragmatic performance. It can make students difficult to find the real differences between non-native speakers and native speakers. In cross-cultural communication, therefore, if we are always open to new information so as to modify the content of stereotype or hold it flexibly, we will be more pragmatically competent(Wang, 2002). Cai (2013) emphasizes the importance of owning a universal perspective on meaning and realizing the uniqueness of every linguistic system. If Chinese students neglect this kind of uniqueness and stick to their negative stereotypes, it is highly likely to come about pragmatic failures. As mentioned above, many scholars have done different researches and presented their own views concerning pragmatic failures. Every one has his/her unique perspectives. So, it is inevitable that the opinions they raise in their papers are not involved in all angles. For example, when it comes to the causes of pragmatic failures, Ding (2013) only proposes two: the negative effect of mother tongue and the differences of social and cultural background. With reference to the solutions, Cai (2013) just suggests that Chinese learners should have a universal perspective on meaning and realize the uniqueness of every linguistic system. Apart from the incompletion of the content, little description of some points is another problem. In order to reduce pragmatic failures, Wang (2011) raises six suggestions. However, many of them are short of adequate statements. So, further research into the issue of pragmatic failure should take a more overall perspective into consideration and needs to be presented in detail.