as电动葫芦图片:"cross-culture teaching" 请问关于这个主题的论文资料 谢谢了。 着急！！！！

speech act theory and its application in chinese efl classroom

　　abstract：
　　to learn a language is to learn how to communicate in
　　that language. but in daily communication with native
　　speakers, many chinese learners of english fail to use english
　　tactfully or appropriately. this article intends to analyze
　　some basic principles of speech act theory and their
　　application in efl classroom. it is concluded that in foreign
　　language teaching, teachers should try to foster learners’
　　linguistic competence and pragmatic competence as well.
　　key words：speech act，cross cultural communication，pragmatic
　　competence
　　introduction
　　in our daily life, it seems that we live in a world of
　　speeches, because we keep producing “speech acts”. we have the
　　linguistic competence. but it doesn't mean we have the
　　communicative competence in that language. communicative
　　competence is made up three component parts: linguistic
　　competence, pragmatic competence and cognitive and affective
　　capacity.
　　traditionally, in teaching english as a foreign language
　　(efl), the form of english has been emphasized in the efl
　　classroom. it results in the fact that students with good
　　mastery of english forms fail to communicate in english
　　appropriately. here is an example:
　　a foreign guest remarked to a chinese interpreter, a young
　　lady who had graduated not long ago from a university:
　　foreign guest: your english is excellent. really quite fluent.
　　chinese lady: no, no. my english is quite poor.
　　the foreign guest felt a bit puzzled. the foreign guest
　　meant to express his appreciation. in response to this
　　appreciation, the chinese lady should follow some cooperative
　　principles by saying “thanks”. but her reply violated the
　　quality maxim of cooperative principles (grice, 1975). as a
　　result this conversation can’t go on.
　　the failure in the communication mentioned above is
　　just an example. in cross-cultural communication, when we
　　speak a foreign language, though our grammar may be correct,
　　we cannot speak it tactfully and appropriately just because of
　　cultural differences. so in foreign language teaching, it is
　　very important to help the students understand the speech acts
　　and the cultural difference between source language and target
　　language. hence in teaching efl in the chinese context,
　　communicative approach takes priority though the forms are
　　important as well.
　　speech acts theory
　　speech acts theory makes great contribution to cross-cultural
　　communication. the theory was initiated by the philosopher,
　　j.l. austin in 1962. in his book austin’s initial distinction
　　is between constative and performative utterances (speech). a
　　constative one is an utterance which roughly serves to state a
　　fact, report that something is the case, or describe what
　　something is. performative utterances, on the other hand, are
　　those that have three characteristics: (a) they are performed
　　in saying something; (b) they cannot be performed unless
　　language is used; (c) they have connected with them
　　performative verbs the occurrence of which as a main verb in a
　　present tense, indicative, active, a first person sentence
　　marks explicit what act a speaker intends to be performing in
　　uttering the sentence. austin suggests that statements are
　　merely one kind of speech act, that any statements, if only
　　they are uttered in appropriate circumstances, may be regarded
　　as implicit performatives. this leads to his new account: any
　　speech act comprises at least two and typically three,
　　sub-acts: locutionary act, illocutionary act and
　　perlocutionary act. according to austin, the locutionary act
　　“includes the utterance of certain noises, the utterance of
　　certain words in a certain construction and the utterance of
　　them with a certain ‘meaning’” (austin, 1962: 94). in other
　　words, it is the act of conveying literal meaning by means of
　　syntax, lexicon and extra-linguistic knowledge. as austin
　　puts it, the illocutionary act can be regarded as the force
　　with which the sentence was employed. “saying something will
　　often, or even normally, produce certain consequential effects
　　upon the feelings, thoughts, or actions of the audience, or of
　　the speaker, or of other persons…. we shall call the
　　performance of an act of this kind the performance of a
　　perlocutionary act or perlocution” (austin, 1962: 101).
　　perlocutionary act is the consequence of, or the change
　　brought about by, the utterance. j. searle (1969) improved
　　this speech act theory by introducing indirect speech act
　　theory. he argues that, where a certain force is part of the
　　meaning, where the meaning uniquely determines a particular
　　force, these are not two different acts but two different
　　labels for the same act, and he reached the conclusion that
　　there are only illocutionary acts. searle holds that (1) the
　　basic linguistic unit is not a sign, but a speech act; (2)
　　speech acts are controlled by two types of rules: regulative
　　rules (dynamic rules for performing illocutionary acts in
　　communication) and constitutive rules (basic rules recognized
　　as for performing utterance and prepositional acts).
　　“in contrast to austin, who focused his attention on how
　　speakers realize their intentions in speaking, searle focuses
　　on how listeners response to utterances, that is how one
　　person tries to figure out how another is using a particular
　　utterance. what we can see in both austin and searle is a
　　recognition that people use language to achieve a variety of
　　objectives. if we want to understand what they hope to
　　accomplish, we must be prepared to take into account factors
　　that range far beyond the actual linguistic form of any
　　particular utterance” (r. wardhaugh, 1998:285).
　　on the basis of the speech act theory, some linguists have
　　developed theories on word meaning and conversational
　　implicaure. grice (1975) develops his remarkable theory of
　　conversational implicatures. in any conversation, only certain
　　kinds of “moves” are possible at any particular time because
　　of the constraints that operate to govern exchanges. these
　　constraints limit speakers as to what they can say and
　　listeners as to what they can infer. grice calls the
　　overriding principles in conversation “cooperative
　　principles”: “make your conversational contribution such as is
　　required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted
　　purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
　　engaged.” (grice, 1975: p45). he lists four maxims that follow
　　from the cooperative principle: quantity, quality, relation
　　and manner. the most important cooperative principle in human
　　communication is linguistic politeness put forward by leech
　　(1983). he holds in communication, participants should follow
　　the politeness principle of tact maxim, generosity maxim,
　　modesty maxim, agreement maxim and sympathy maxim.
　　but different cultures have different value of politeness and
　　have different expressions in their speech acts. these
　　differences may lead to pragmatic failure in cross-cultural
　　communication.
　　cross-cultural communications
　　communication is dynamic, interactive and irreversible.
　　it usually includes the following components: behavioral
　　source, encoding, message, channel, responder, decoding,
　　response and feedback. successful communication involves the
　　participants mutual understanding and tactful and appropriate
　　verbal exchanges. but the communication between people from
　　different cultural background can more easily go wrong than
　　that from the same culture, because
　　“many of the meanings and understandings, at the level of
　　ongoing processes of interpretation of speaker’s intent,
　　depend upon culturally specific conventions, so that much of
　　the meaning in any encounter is indirect and implicit. the
　　ability to expose enough of the implicit meaning to make for a
　　satisfactory encounter between strangers or culturally
　　different speakers requires communicative flexibility”
　　(gumperz and cook-gumperz, 1982, p14).
　　foreign language learners need to develop this communicative
　　flexibility, this ability to cross cultural boundaries.
　　different cultures have different expressions in their speech
　　acts. in cross-cultural communication, any utterances can be
　　interpreted to have illocutionary speech acts. however, when
　　we want to translate an utterance with a certain illocutionary
　　act into another language, there may be various kinds of
　　interpretations. the illocutionary force of the utterance may
　　be diminished. for example, “你吃了吗?”(ni chi le ma? “have you
　　eaten?”), “你上那儿去?” (ni shang na’er qu? “where are you
　　going?”). these utterances have the illocutionary speech acts
　　of greeting in the chinese context. but if one asks american
　　friends the same questions, the original illocutionary force
　　doesn’t exist. the american friends may feel confused at this
　　“inquiry”.
　　w. barnett pearce (1994) analyzes the differences of
　　the performative speech acts (especial in different cultures):
　　(a) differences in coverage of speech acts that people can
　　perform. for example, the remark “you have a lovely wife” is
　　regarded natural and highly appreciated by westerners, but in
　　the chinese context it would be regarded indecent. (b)
　　differences in the diversity of speech acts. for example,
　　people from one culture may express “i love you” in various
　　ways, while people from another culture may express in only
　　one or two ways. (c) differences in rules of performing speech
　　act. in some western countries, it is very common to make
　　promise by swearing to god, but in other countries, it may be
　　regarded insincere. (d) differences in the acceptance of new
　　message. (e) differences in attitude to the conversation.
　　doctors are sensitive to patients’ intentional runaround while
　　some people pay little attention to speakers’ intention.
　　obviously, we have to overcome these differences to master the
　　ability of speech acts in order to achieve successful
　　communication. however, it is very difficult to define the
　　illocutionary force of speech acts, thus the problem is how to
　　deal with it to serve for efl teaching effectively. olshtain
　　and cohen offer the term “speech act set” to refer to a single
　　function with a set of structures beyond that of the single
　　utterance, differing from a speech act (single utterance
　　functions) and a speech event (a conversation, a lecture,
　　etc.). olshtain and cohen suggest that speech acts be studied
　　as sets of formulas, which perform the same function by
　　referring to the speech act of apology as an example of
　　analysis. for example, when the offender is positively
　　inclined to apologize, the steps of the formulas may be: step
　　one: an expression of an apology (“i’m sorry.” “please forgive
　　me”, etc.); step two: an explanation or account of the
　　situation (“i was caught in the rain.”); step three: an
　　acknowledgment of responsibility (“it’s my fault.”); step
　　four: a promise of non-recurrence (“i will never be late
　　again.”), etc.
　　the study of speech acts and the sets of formulas are very
　　useful in cross-cultural communication, because different
　　cultures, even different communities in the same culture have
　　different rules in performing the speech acts. so sets of
　　formulas of speech acts are important for foreign language
　　learners to perform appropriate communication.
　　speech acts vary in cultures, gender, occupation, etc.,
　　which causes great difficulties in our daily communication. it
　　is very important for foreign language learners to understand
　　the cultural differences between the source language and the
　　target language. how to help learners to develop this
　　communicative ability in classroom setting? is it possible to
　　conduct an effective pedagogical approach in efl teaching in
　　nonnative background? this is a challenge to traditional way
　　of foreign language teaching.
　　communicative approach in teaching efl
　　teaching efl in the chinese context is traditionally
　　related to the form of english (phonological, grammar and
　　vocabulary), which a person needs to know about in his
　　communication. “but a knowledge of the form (even when that
　　knowledge is perfect) does not enable a person to communicate”
　　(li, 1987). any language course should aim to help the
　　students acquire not just knowledge of the form but
　　communicative competence. communicative competence in english
　　is made up of three component parts: linguistic competence,
　　pragmatic competence, and cognitive and affective capacity.
　　traditional english course focus only on one dimension of the
　　communicative competence, ignoring the other two. the
　　structuralists believe that “teachers should teach the
　　language, not about the language” (j. c. richards & t. s.
　　rodgers, 1986). on the ‘stimulus-response’ basis, they claim
　　that foreign language learning is a mechanical habit-formation
　　process. by doing pattern drills and reciting dialogues, the
　　learners are expected to minimize the chances of making
　　mistakes so that they can form a good habit. typical pattern
　　drills include : “ask me if i have seen any movies lately”,
　　“ask me who the screenwriter is”. the students respond
　　grammatical correctly: “have you seen any movies lately?”,
　　“who is the screenwriter?” (yang, 1998)
　　yet, language is not just words and grammar. there is always
　　content when people communicate. “in fact, language is best
　　learnt when it is a medium for learning some other subject or
　　an exchange for affective or humanistic purposes” (li, 1987).
　　students are human beings. they have their cognitive and
　　affective capacity.
　　pragmatic competence (the use of language) is also neglected
　　in traditional and structuralist language courses. actually,
　　this competence “enables students to know how different
　　communicative functions are realized in english, and who can
　　say what to whom, how, when, why, under what circumstances and
　　in what context” ( li, 1987).
　　in efl classroom of the chinese context, teachers should help
　　the learners to develop the communicative competence from the
　　dimensions of linguistic competence, communicative competence
　　and cognitive and affective capability. while teaching the
　　knowledge of forms of english, teachers should also provide
　　information about the usage of english language. for example,
　　the utterance “sit down please” has the illocutionary force of
　　command. it’s improper to address to a visiting foreign guest.
　　instead, the chinese host should make another utterance with
　　the illocutionary acts of invitation, such as “please take a
　　seat” or “be seated please”. in order to learn standard,
　　decent and universal english, efl learners should be exposed
　　to “authentic language” (li, 1984) of english. “authentic
　　language” is the language that a person uses in real life to
　　achieve communicative purposes. let’s look at the following
　　dialogue:
　　billy: excuse me, miss， could you please tell me if this is
　　the way to the business department?