從中介語語用學(xué)角度看中美請(qǐng)求語.pdf

1、華中科技大學(xué)碩士學(xué)位論文從中介語語用學(xué)角度看中美請(qǐng)求語姓名：彭媛申請(qǐng)學(xué)位級(jí)別：碩士專業(yè)：外國(guó)語言學(xué)及應(yīng)用語言學(xué)指導(dǎo)教師：樊葳葳20060409IAbstract The present study is anchored in the field of interlanguage pragmatics, and the approach taken is speech- act based- - - in

2、terest focusing on Chinese non- English majors and Americans’production of requests in English. The primary objective is to explore the influence of language proficiency and pragmatic transfer on

3、Chinese English learners’interlanguage and the correlation between language proficiency and pragmatic transfer. 100 Chinese English learners (CELs) and 30 American English speakers (AESs) participate

4、 in the present study. CELs have been divided into two groups according to their language proficiency, namely, higher- intermediate group and lower- intermediate group. Each group has 50 students.

5、 The data in the present study are collected by means of a modified written Discourse Completion Test (DCT), and they are categorized and coded on the basis of the request taxonomy of previ

6、ous studies. Then the comparison and analysis are conducted statistically regarding to three aspects: 1) the frequency of request strategies; 2) the frequency and categories of query preparatory

7、 strategy; 3) the frequency and types of lexical /phrasal downgraders. The findings indicate CELs and AESs have some similarities and differences with regards to request strategies, query preparat

8、ory categories and lexical/phrasal downgraders. Firstly, in terms of request strategies, CELs and AESs agree on the use of conventionally indirect strategy as the clearly preferred main strategy

9、 and query preparatory strategy as the most favored substrategy for the formulation of requests. The remarking difference between CELs and AESs lies in the frequency of the use of direct strate

10、gy. CELs tend to use more direct strategy compared to AELs. What’ s more, some direct substrategies (e.g. explicit performative, obligation) that are rarely used by native speakers have been emp

11、loyed by CELs. Secondly, with regards to query preparatory formulas, CELs and AESs seem to share a similar range of query preparatory categories. However, CELs show more unity and stereotype,

12、whereas AESs more diversity and individuality in the choice of query preparatory patterns. Lastly, it comes to the lexical/phrasal dowgraders. CELs and AESs have obvious differences in choosing