1、河南大学 硕士学位论文开题报告硕士学位论文开题报告书 选题名称 初中英语学习者语用能力培养教学策略的实证研究 An Empirical StudyonTeaching Strategiesof Developing English Learners Pragmatic Competence in Middle School 培 养 单 位： 河南大学 学 科 专 业： 学科教学（英语） 研 究 方 向： 英语教育 学 号： 104754140480 开 题 人 姓 名： 高燕平 导师姓名、职称： 李淑静 副教授 填 表 日 期： 2015年9月1日 河南大学研究生院 制表填 表 说 明1.开题
2、报告为A4大小，封面及至项必须用计算机输入，不得随意改变表结构。开题人应逐项认真填写，完毕，将本表全部打印输出，于左侧装订成册。2.文字输入部分，一律五号字、仿宋体、单倍行间距编排。3.“参考文献”著录按照GB7714-87文参考文献著录规则执行。书写顺序为：序号作者论文名或著作名杂志或会议名卷号、期号或会议地点出版社页号年。4.开题报告应由本学科专业导师组评审通过。指导教师审阅通过后，由开题人在学科组或更大范围内宣读，并接受质疑、评议。导师组由三名以上导师组成。评审合格后，本报告暂由导师负责保管。5.为加强论文撰写进程的跟踪指导和督查，在论文定稿之前，至少应对研究写作进行三次考察。开题人要向
3、导师、本学科专业的内研究生汇报论文进展情况，包括论文已经取得的成果、目前面临的难题等，进行充分的讨论，并认真做好记录。6.论文撰写完成，由导师确定定稿后，方可进入学位申请环节。本表上交学院研究生教育管理办公室，归入开题人学位档案。.选题简况-1 拟定论文题目初中英语学习者语用能力培养教学策略的实证研究-2 论文性质基础理论研究 ； 应用基础研究 ； 应用技术研究-3 与导师目前研究课题的关系其中一部分； 没有关系.选题依据-1 本选题的研究意义With the modernization of transportation facilities and telecommunication eq
4、uipment, cross-cultural communication has become more and more frequent and necessary. All old notions of time and space are being changed. It is in this sense that people usually say that the earth is getting smaller and smaller or all the nations have been brought into a common “Global Village”. T
5、his requires a smooth and successful communication with people from different cultures. Language is the most important tool for people to communicate with others. However, even if one has skillfully mastered the grammatical knowledge of a foreign language, and can speak the language fluently, he som
6、etimes cant correctly and properly figure out what people from different cultures say really means or cant make himself understood, which may result in misunderstanding and communicative failures. Besides, more attention has been paid to linguistic knowledge in English teaching in junior schools in
7、China, but much less to pragmatic competence. Most students have various kinds of problems when they are encountering native speakers of English, though they have a large vocabulary and a good command of rules of grammar. It is obvious that English teachers should develop the students communicative
8、competence and treats it as the goal of English teaching. Therefore, in order to help students communicate successfully in intercultural context, it is significant for English teachers to identify and minimize the students pragmatic failure in English teaching. During the research, we can find out t
9、hat the pragmatic characteristics of learners interlanguage and the relationship between linguistic competence and pragmatic competence have been well studied, but the research on the development of pragmatic competence and the factors influencing pragmatic development has not received due attention
10、 from researchers. It is in urgent need to explore how EFL learners develop their pragmatic competence. So this research attempts to highlight the importance of cultivating students pragmatic competence in English language teaching, aims to find out underlying causes for pragmatic failure and sugges
11、ts solutions to improve students pragmatic competence, and thus achieve the goal of ELT.-2 国内外研究现状（文献综述）Foreign studies on pragmatic failures It is generally recognized that there exist large quantities of pragmatic failures in intercultural communication and that it is very important and necessary
12、to study the phenomenon of pragmatic failure and the acquisition of pragmatic competence. The study of pragmatic failure and acquisition of pragmatic competence (Blum-Kulka 1982; Thomas 1983; Wolfson 1989; Kasper 1997,2001) has greatly increased in recent years. These studies, most of which are base
13、d on Jenny Thomas research “cross-cultural pragmatic failure” in Applied Linguistics (1983: 91-112), have established that non-native speakers might commit pragmatic failure even when they have wonderful grammatical and lexical command of the target language. According to Thomas, pragmatic failures
14、arise when the information that the hearer receives is different from what the speaker wants to convey, or the speaker thinks that the hearer should understand what he says (Thomas, 1983). She stresses that the speaker and the hearer do not share the common context in interpersonal communication. So
15、 it is possible to misunderstand each other, pragmatic failure has occurred; the utterance fails to achieve the speakers goal. The danger of pragmatic failure is that it is likely to result in misunderstandings, embarrassment, frustration, anger and/or cross-cultural communication breakdowns. Thomas
16、 (1983) also distinguishes pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure. In her study, she states “pragmalinguistic failure occurs when the pragmatic force mapped on to a linguistic token or structure that is systematically different from that normally assigned to it by native speakers”. It m
17、ay arise from two identifiable sources: teaching-induced errors and pragmalinguistic transfer, when the learner speaks, she/he may make inappropriate transfer of speech act strategies from L1 to L2, or transfer from L1 to L2 utterances which are semantically or syntactically equivalent, but which, b
18、ecause of different interpretive bias, tend to convey a different pragmatic force in the target language. She argues that pragmatic force in the target language. She argues that pragmalinguistic failure is simply a question of highly conventionalized usage which can be taught quite straight forwardl
19、y as part of grammar, and thus fairly easy to overcome. Sociopragmatic failure, on the other hand, is concerned with the students system of beliefs as much as his/her knowledge of the language, and therefore is rather difficult to deal with. G. Leech (1983) said “the transfer of the norms of one com
20、munity to another may lead to pragmatic failures.” In other words, pragmatic failure refers to communication breakdown resulting from being unable to realize a variety of pragmatic differences. Different from grammatical errors, pragmatic failure can be regarded as a fact that a non-English native s
21、peakers are being deliberately impolite, unfriendly or even rude.One way to decrease instances of pragmatic failure is for students to learn the pragmalinguistic aspects of the target language (Hinkel: 1997; Kasper: 1997; Koike:1989). These aspects cannot be taught, however, until teachers know what
22、 they are. Numerous L2 educators (Helt:1982; Morian:1983; Seelye:1993) have point out that L2 teachers often do not teach pragmalinguistic information because they are not consciously aware of it; and this lack of conscious knowledge is true for both native and non-native teachers of a language ( Wo
23、lfson:1989).Domestic study on pragmatic failures With the rise of pragmatics and cross-cultural communication study in the west, Chinese scholars have conducted numerous studies on cross-cultural communication and pragmatic failure since the mid-1980s and have provided useful suggestions for foreign
24、 language teaching in china. Chinese scholars follow J. Thomas definition (He Ziran, 1997:205; Qian Guanlian,1997:223). They believe that pragmalinguistic failure is caused by inappropriate interpretation of context (Zhang Juwen:2000); sociolinguistic failure is caused due to ignorance or misunderst
25、anding of speakers and hearers social and cultural background (He Ziran,1997:207). But He Ziran pointed out that the classification into pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure is not absolute. Because the content that the speaker intended to express and the hearers interpretation will b
26、e different, an inappropriate discourse will either be sociolinguistic or pragmalinguistic error (He Zi ran, 1988:205). In 1984, Huang Cidong first suggested “pragmatic error” in pragmatics and pragmatic Error (Foreign Languages 1984:Vol.1). By analyzing ten pragmatic errors in detail, he states tha
27、t learning a language, besides mastering its knowledge and skills, must highlight the different applications of linguistic forms in varied non-linguistic contexts. The article is characterized with a qualitative analysis and deals with the different meanings of speech acts between different cultural
28、 backgrounds. Consequently, the author suggests that pragmatic content regarding speech acts should be added to texts and taught to learners. This is the outset of domestic research of pragmatic failure. He Ziran and Yan Zhuang (1986) made a research into the Chinese-English pragmatic differences on
29、 79 young linguistic teachers from several universities. The findings reveal that lack of pragmatic competence is one of the severe problems in second language acquisition. Wang Zhen ya (1990) also made an investigation with a socio-cultural test. The test includes 60 questions covering such cultura
30、l items as politics, geography, history, literature, and religion. The findings indicate that: 1) the linguistic competence is not always consistent with the cultural competence; and 2) the cultural competence is worse than the linguistic competence (Hu Wenzhong 108-118). Pragmatic failure is one of
31、 the reasons causing cross-cultural communication breakdown. In the 1980s, domestic scholars began the study of it and have accomplished some results, for example, Deng Yanchang, Liu Runqing (1989), He Ziran (1988), Hu Wenzhong (1985, 1988), Wang Dexing (1990). Among them, Wangs article, labeled as
32、pragmatic problems in cross-cultural communication (Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 1990.Vol.4), Introduces the reasons of PF and in which aspects Chinese learners tend to produce the most possible PF. Probing into the process of cross-cultural communication, Wang thinks that PF concern with both the cultural and linguistic conventions, and the differences between them in two cultures are the ultimate cause of it. His investigation displays learners pragmatic problems lie in nine aspects, say, appellation, greet
