Enlightenment of Pragmatic Failure on Foreign Language Teaching

Enlightenment of Pragmatic Failure on Foreign Language Teaching

Many pragmatic failures in cross-cultural communication are due to participants' unfamiliarity with many types of English conversation activities, and inappropriately copying the linguistic and nonverbal means used in Chinese conversation activities into English conversation activities.

This paper discusses the understanding of pragmatic failure and its enlightenment to foreign language teaching, and defines pragmatic failure as? Because participants in communicative activities give grammatical words different pragmatic meanings, the results of communicative activities deviate from expectations? ; The existing dichotomy of pragmatic failure is understood as an interrelated continuum; On the basis of objective understanding of pragmatic failure, stimulate learners to be full of? Different? Curiosity about the world leads them to think about the deep motivation of pragmatic failure, and with a peaceful, open and inclusive mind, through learning, exploration, negotiation and communication, they can truly understand different cultures and infiltrate the people in them.

Keywords: pragmatic failure; Foreign language teaching; arouse

? Pragmatic failure? Since its establishment, it has been widely concerned by researchers. PadillaCruz combed the relevant research abroad so far; [1] Sunya reviewed the domestic research in recent twenty years, [2] and will not repeat it here. This paper attempts to put forward some thoughts from two aspects: the understanding of pragmatic failure and its enlightenment to foreign language teaching, combined with related research.

First, pragmatic failure.

Thomas defines pragmatic failure in cross-cultural communication as? Can't understand the meaning? It is pointed out that pragmatic failure will occur when the listener's perception of the meaning of the speaker's speech is not as good as the speaker's wish. [3] What comes naturally to mind? Pragmatic failure does not refer to errors in language use in general diction and sentence-making, but refers to errors in inappropriate speech, or errors in inappropriate speech style and expression, which leads to the failure of communication to achieve the expected results? . [4] Qian Guanlian proposed:? The speaker uses sentences with correct symbolic relations in verbal communication, but unconsciously violates interpersonal norms and social conventions, or is divorced from time and space and does not look at the object. Such a mistake is called pragmatic failure? . [5]

Yao Xiaoying defines pragmatic failure as:? The speaker and the receiver give different illocutionary forces to the same grammatically correct words, which leads to the interruption of cross-cultural communication. ? [6] The first three definitions clarify the causes of pragmatic failure. However, the observation perspective based on one side in the communication process may make readers make pragmatic failures. Whose fault is this? Here comes the trouble.

We know that language communication is a dynamic process; In this process, either party may backfire for various reasons. In this case, the difficulty of communication comes from the listener and the speaker respectively. Call a taxi for the first time. ) the other party asked:? Where are you from? I replied:? China? Still wondering if taxis are still divided into nationalities? The other party may think I'm joking and say:? Sorry, we can't. ? Hearing this, I was furious. There is no racial discrimination. Just ask:? Why? The other party froze for a long time and then hung up? It can be seen that when defining pragmatic failure, it seems impossible to entangle whose fault it is. Thomas believes that failure is essentially related to the interruption of cross-cultural communication. [3] In contrast, the author is more in favor of Yao Xiaoying's definition method based on communication process. [6]

This paper attempts to understand pragmatic failure as follows: participants in communication activities give grammatical words different pragmatic meanings, which leads to the result of communication activities deviating from expectations. In my opinion, when discussing the definition of pragmatic failure, the inevitable question is: Who will judge pragmatic failure: the authority (the participant in the communication process) or the bystander (the researcher)? Barra thinks, Only the communicator can judge whether communication is a success or a failure. For example, A asked B for $5 and B gave her $4. Under normal circumstances, A may think that this is a successful communication, but if she actually needs $5 to buy something from the vending machine, it is a failed communication.

Again, if B gave her $50, it was a failed communication. ? [7] Although this discussion is not aimed at pragmatic failure, it shows us the complexity of the results of communicative activities and the difficulties that outsiders may encounter in judging this. The premise of judging pragmatic failure is that there are universally accepted verbal and nonverbal behaviors, and it is necessary to consider which of many possibilities belongs to the knowledge of the majority.

Second, the enlightenment of pragmatic failure to foreign language teaching

(A) an objective understanding of pragmatic failure

In teaching, we can help learners achieve an objective understanding through an objective analysis of pragmatic failures. What is the root of pragmatic failure? Different? , is a normal phenomenon in the process of communication, not a scourge. Saussure pointed out that the value of any factor is determined by the factors around it. Only the language difference? . [8]

The value of a language unit needs to be reflected through its relationship with other units in the system, especially the differences. The theory of linguistic value is not limited to the field of linguistics. Similarly, if communication activities are regarded as a system, it is the differences in language, culture and society that eventually lead to communication deviating from the original intention of the participants, which makes the values of all parties involved in communication activities established and the boundaries gradually clear, prompting us to examine all parties from a comparative perspective and explore the road to ideal communication through reflection and consultation.

In other words, no matter how the communication results are affected, the differences between all parties in communication activities are natural and reasonable. We should have an objective understanding of pragmatic failure. From the perspective of language, the structure and meaning of language can be one-to-one correspondence, one-to-many correspondence or many-to-one correspondence. From the pragmatic point of view, individuals who use language give different meanings or illocutionary forces to language structures. All these may complicate the communication process, encoding and decoding.

At the same time, things exist in the system, and among the many elements that make up different things, there are also * * *, so there are? Birds of a feather flock together? Said. These * * * features are induction and subdivision? Different? This is also the basis of pragmatic failure research. In sexology research, it is especially necessary to avoid over-generalization. Whether it is over-emphasis on personality or over-generalization of * * * *, it will hinder our understanding and experience of the essence of things.

(B) the correspondence and connection of dichotomy

Yu Dongming pointed out that many pragmatic failures in cross-cultural communication are caused by participants being unfamiliar with many types of English conversation activities and inappropriately copying the linguistic and nonverbal means used in Chinese conversation activities into English conversation activities. ? [9] The reason for plagiarism is largely due to the lack of correspondence between the acquired language knowledge and the accumulated language expressions and pragmatic situations.

Language learning based on grammatical rules or Chinese-English translation, which learners are familiar with, is deficient in the quality (corresponding to the situation, so meaningful) and quantity (extensive reading, audio-visual reading) of language input. Can't be effectively activated and called? Communication skills and language knowledge can't match. Therefore, the focus of teaching is to guide learners to realize the crux, and take this as a starting point to explore the cultivation of pragmatic competence in teaching. First of all, we don't have to play? Pragmatic language failure? And then what? Social pragmatic failure? As mutually incompatible poles, they can be regarded as a continuum.

Classification is just a way of understanding, and the ultimate goal is from intensive reading of categories to overall grasp of interrelationships. On this continuum, it lasted nearly? Closed class? Greetings, thanks, apologies, requests, refusals and other communication types in life can achieve better learning results through explicit teaching [1 1]. [12] and more complex categories, especially the level of social pragmatic failure, need more design and verification.

The reason is that the pragmatic success of speech often depends not on grammaticality (syntactic standard) or interpretability (semantic standard), but on its appropriateness or appropriateness in a specific situation. [13] No matter whether communication activities are conducted in a foreign language or a mother tongue, it takes some efforts to be appropriate.

Appropriateness needs to integrate cognition, thinking and expression, and just right is the result of the joint efforts of various abilities. The complexity and immeasurability of this ability make the study of pragmatic failure doomed to combine the forces of cognition, psychology, society and other disciplines from multiple angles; Relevant teaching activities must shift from traditional teaching to guiding and helping learners to explore, accumulate and deeply understand their own small-world culture in a meaningful context, and care about the interconnection and different multi-world cultures.

The author also links the dichotomy of pragmatic failure with the relationship between pragmatics and other fields of linguistics. The subject and object of research, the instrumentality and humanity of the object? We are used to and obsessed with dichotomy, stick to a plane, feel at ease in either one or the other, and have a clear distinction. Unintentional classification has changed from the initial way of understanding the whole to separatism and persistent goals. When we are addicted to the promotion of various categories, the overall situation in our hearts is gradually blurred, and finally we lose our grasp of the whole.

As far as language research is concerned, while looking down, looking up and analyzing the research object, we should not forget ourselves in it, and construct, shape and interpret meaning, so that meaning can be born, circulated and passed down because of these creative activities. In my opinion, this is also the value of pragmatics that distinguishes it from phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics.

Third, the conclusion

What needs to be added is that although the existing pragmatic failure research focuses on the narrow sense? Intercultural? The speech acts of native speakers and non-native speakers in communication, pragmatic failures in mainstream culture and subculture (including oral and written communication) and nonverbal pragmatic failures are also worthy of further study. We pay attention to and study pragmatic failure, which has nothing to do with value judgment, nor is it to correct mistakes, nor is it to eradicate differences. Instead, I hope to guide learners to start from the appearance of pragmatic failure and learn to think and explore its deep motivation.

Learn compassion in the process of learning, and consciously learn from others in the process of communication. Measure people by yourself? Gradually transform into understanding and accepting differences, and then learn to put yourself in the other's shoes, so as to do as the Romans do. What impresses the world more than seeking common ground while reserving differences is the power of reserving differences. Take care of differences and understand them; Similarity and difference, each in its place. Helping and guiding learners to grow freely with tolerant wisdom may be the greatest gospel of ideal education.

References:

[1]PadillaCruz, M. Understanding and overcoming problems in cross-cultural communication [J]. International Review of Language Teaching in Applied Linguistics, 20 13( 1):23-54.

[2] Sun Ya, Dai Ling. A Study of Pragmatic Failure in China [J]. Foreign Language and Foreign Language Teaching, 2002(3): 19-2 1.

[3] Thomas, J. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure [J].AP-plied languages,1983 (2): 91-12.

[4] He Ziran. Pragmatics and English learning [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1997:205-206.

[5] Qian Guanlian. China's Cultural Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Tsinghua University Publishing House, 2002: 195.

[6] Yao Xiaoying. On the Essence of Pragmatic Failure from the Perspective of Two-way Cognitive Interaction of Communicating Subjects [J]. Foreign Language Teaching, 2007(3):28-30.

[7]Bara, b cognitive pragmatics: psychological process of communication [M]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang university press, 2013:153-154.

[8] Ferdi South? De? Saussure A course in general linguistics [M]. Translation: Gao. Beijing: Commercial Press,1985:162-167.

[9] Yu Dongming. A Pragmatic Study on Types of Conversational Activities and Cross-cultural Communication [J]. Foreign Languages, 1999 (V): 14- 19.

[10] He Ziran, Zhang Juwen. Pragmatic Methods in Foreign Language Teaching [J]. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching, 2003(4):3-8.

[1 1] Dai Weidong, Yang Xianju. Classroom teaching model of second language pragmatic acquisition [J]. Foreign Language Industry, 2005( 1):2-8.

Duan Lingxuan. An empirical study on the teachability of pragmatic competence in foreign language teaching in China [J]. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, 2009(4):67-74.

He Ziran, Chen. Contemporary pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004: 168.

;