“What are you/we talking about?”是英语口语交际中常见的习语构式,不仅具有规约意义和语境制约下的语用意义,而且用来调节和管理前述话语与交际行为,属于元语用意识指示语。本文基于元语用理论,通过分析美国当代英语语料库口语子库...“What are you/we talking about?”是英语口语交际中常见的习语构式,不仅具有规约意义和语境制约下的语用意义,而且用来调节和管理前述话语与交际行为,属于元语用意识指示语。本文基于元语用理论,通过分析美国当代英语语料库口语子库中构式“What are you/we talking about?”的语用意义,揭示其在不同语境下说话人的元语用意识体现。研究发现,构式“What are you/we talking about?”体现说话人对交际中语篇、信息、发话人和交际双方四个维度的元语用意识,具体表现在管理话语组织结构,为听话人提供认知解读框架,构建权威身份,管理人际亲疏关系。本研究拓展了构式研究的理论视角,对构式的元语用阐释有助于我们更全面地推理和解读说话人的交际意图。展开更多
This study investigates the differences in pragmatic competence between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland university students.Participants included 19 native speakers of English,115 Chinese mainland students,divided into...This study investigates the differences in pragmatic competence between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland university students.Participants included 19 native speakers of English,115 Chinese mainland students,divided into those who had spent time abroad in an English-speaking country(CM A)and those who had not(CM NA),and 97 Hong Kong students,divided into those from an English-medium secondary school(Hong Kong EMI)and those from a Chinese-medium school(Hong Kong CMI).Linguistic proficiency was measured by a C-test,and pragmatic competence by a Metapragmatic Knowledge Test,an Irony Test and a Monologic Role Play.Group scores were compared using ANCOVAs to control for differences in proficiency.The results point to a continuum of pragmatic competence—EMI>CMI>CM A>CM NA—reflecting the groups’access to English in real-life contexts.The differences between the Hong Kong groups and the Chinese mainland groups were clearest in those tests measuring processing capacity(i.e.,Irony Response Time and the Monologic Role Play).CM A,but not CM NA,performed as well as the Hong Kong groups on measures of metapragmatic awareness.The results are discussed in terms of Bialystok’s(1993)distinction between analyzed representation and control of processing.展开更多
This paper addresses a very general problem—the relationship between implicit and explicit forms of meaning–that is as old as scholarly attention to language in use.It first tries to define the problem.Then it prese...This paper addresses a very general problem—the relationship between implicit and explicit forms of meaning–that is as old as scholarly attention to language in use.It first tries to define the problem.Then it presents some elementary aspects of the way in which the problem has been dealt with in the pragmatic literature.This is followed by an excursion into the world of related natural-language concepts,as reflected in the English metapragmatic lexicon.Finally,the paper tries to make a contribution to a solution by proposing a threedimensional matrix to account for what might look like a one-dimensional gradable scale from implicit to explicit.An attempt is made to illustrate the potential usefulness of the suggestions.Conclusions mainly take the form of perspectives for future research.展开更多
文摘“What are you/we talking about?”是英语口语交际中常见的习语构式,不仅具有规约意义和语境制约下的语用意义,而且用来调节和管理前述话语与交际行为,属于元语用意识指示语。本文基于元语用理论,通过分析美国当代英语语料库口语子库中构式“What are you/we talking about?”的语用意义,揭示其在不同语境下说话人的元语用意识体现。研究发现,构式“What are you/we talking about?”体现说话人对交际中语篇、信息、发话人和交际双方四个维度的元语用意识,具体表现在管理话语组织结构,为听话人提供认知解读框架,构建权威身份,管理人际亲疏关系。本研究拓展了构式研究的理论视角,对构式的元语用阐释有助于我们更全面地推理和解读说话人的交际意图。
文摘This study investigates the differences in pragmatic competence between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland university students.Participants included 19 native speakers of English,115 Chinese mainland students,divided into those who had spent time abroad in an English-speaking country(CM A)and those who had not(CM NA),and 97 Hong Kong students,divided into those from an English-medium secondary school(Hong Kong EMI)and those from a Chinese-medium school(Hong Kong CMI).Linguistic proficiency was measured by a C-test,and pragmatic competence by a Metapragmatic Knowledge Test,an Irony Test and a Monologic Role Play.Group scores were compared using ANCOVAs to control for differences in proficiency.The results point to a continuum of pragmatic competence—EMI>CMI>CM A>CM NA—reflecting the groups’access to English in real-life contexts.The differences between the Hong Kong groups and the Chinese mainland groups were clearest in those tests measuring processing capacity(i.e.,Irony Response Time and the Monologic Role Play).CM A,but not CM NA,performed as well as the Hong Kong groups on measures of metapragmatic awareness.The results are discussed in terms of Bialystok’s(1993)distinction between analyzed representation and control of processing.
文摘This paper addresses a very general problem—the relationship between implicit and explicit forms of meaning–that is as old as scholarly attention to language in use.It first tries to define the problem.Then it presents some elementary aspects of the way in which the problem has been dealt with in the pragmatic literature.This is followed by an excursion into the world of related natural-language concepts,as reflected in the English metapragmatic lexicon.Finally,the paper tries to make a contribution to a solution by proposing a threedimensional matrix to account for what might look like a one-dimensional gradable scale from implicit to explicit.An attempt is made to illustrate the potential usefulness of the suggestions.Conclusions mainly take the form of perspectives for future research.
