语用失误对英语教学的启示

Abstract: Pragmatic Failure is one of the key reasons which results in intercultural communicative failure. Compared with the grammar mistakes, the pragmatic failures are subtle and have not received much attention from Chinese English learners. Misunderstanding caused by intercultural pragmatic differences is the source of intercultural communication breakdown and therefore much more attention should be paid to our communication. This paper mainly depicts the enlightenment from pragmatic failures in the English language teaching by exploring into the pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure, and tries to seek the effective approaches to reduce or avoid pragmatic failure in real communication which can help English learners to use language appropriately and achieve the best effect of communication and teaching.

Key words: Pragmatics; Intercultural Communication; Pragmalinguistic Failure; Sociopragmatic Failure

     摘  要：语用失误是导致跨文化交际失误的关键原因之一。与语法错误相比较，语用失误比较微小，没有太多地吸引英语学习者的注意。跨文化语用差别引起的误解是跨文化交际失败的主要原因。本文通过对语用语言失误和社会语用失误进行探索，着重描述了语用失误对英语教学的启示, 试图探寻在现实交际中减少或避免语用失误的有效途径，以期帮助英语学习者能适当的运用语言，达到交流和教学的最佳效果。

     关键词：语用学；跨文化交际；语用语言失误；社会语用失误

Introduction
Linguistic research has been a marked increase particularly since the 1950s when Chomsky developed his grammar-based approach to language acquisition (Chomsky         
1957). Considerable research expansion has also resulted in more attention on second language acquisition inclusive of semantics and pragmatics described succinctly in Mangubhai and Son (2003) respectively as “the study of meaning” and meaning derived through context. From their perspective, pragmatics deserves attention but has been put in a category containing four types of meaning. However, others such as Charles Morris considered that the study of language should be parceled into syntax, semantics and pragmatics while certain researchers at least in the past have seen pragmatics as a fuzzy area, possibly not deserving of being categorized as a separate and main field.
Pragmatics is fluxing and evolving constantly, there have appeared different perspectives or approaches to pragmatics, such as Dascal (1983) analyzes the field from the standpoint of the philosophy of language, Green (1989/1996) lays particular emphasis on textual pragmatics and more formal aspects of pragmatics, Mey (1993) regards pragmatics as the societally necessary and consciously interactive dimension of the study of language, Thomas (1995) argues convincingly for a social, psychological and cognitive approach to pragmatics, Verschueren (1999) lays his emphasis on a general cognitive, social and cultural perspective on language use, while Blakemore (1992) and Sperber & Wilson (1986/1995) take a cognitive approach.

1  Basic concepts of Pragmatics & theories relate to the study
Linguistic research has seen a marked increase particularly since the 1950s when Chomsky developed his grammar-based approach to language acquisition (Chomsky         1957). Considerable research expansion has also resulted in more attention on second language acquisition inclusive of semantics and pragmatics described simply in Mangubhai and Son (2003) respectively as “the study of meaning” and meaning derived through context.  From their perspective, pragmatics deserves attention but has been put in a category containing four types of meaning. However, others such as Charles Morris considered that the study of language should be categorized into syntax, semantics and pragmatics while certain researchers at least in the past have seen pragmatics as a fuzzy area, possibly not deserving of being categorized as a separate and main field.
1. 1 Concept of Pragmatics
Pragmatics has been a field that has been considered by some scholars to be rather difficult to define or not sufficiently important to be considered distinct to semantics. It has also not always received sufficient attention in L2 learning. A clear definition of what pragmatics is in terms of context and meeting truth conditions is presented as well the potential for ambiguity in defining intercultural pragmatic failure from other types.
What is pragmatics? Yule describes pragmatics as “the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those forms”.[1] Pragmatics is concerned with the notion of implication, i.e. implied meaning as opposed to the mere lexical meaning expressed (Grice, 1967, cited in Thomas 1995, p. 56). From the following definitions listed some by Levison (1983: 6-27), a better understanding about pragmatics may be made clear:转贴于 酷文网-论文下载中心 http://www.coolwen.net