東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Cross-cultural comparison of English...

Chen, Hongyin Julie.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal.

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal./
Author:	Chen, Hongyin Julie.
Description:	179 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 57-07, Section: A, page: 2915.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International57-07A.
Subject:	Education, Bilingual and Multicultural. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=9640110
ISBN:	0591058693

Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal.
Chen, Hongyin Julie.

Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal. - 179 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 57-07, Section: A, page: 2915.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, 1996.

In cross-linguistic communication and foreign language learning, differences in language use have been noted to be a factor for communication breakdown or pragmatic failure. The differences can be attributed to the ways in which people of a speech community customarily associate forms with meanings. This association could vary across languages and is related to the sociocultural beliefs and values of the speech community. The culture-specificity of language use is particularly evident in speech acts.

ISBN: 0591058693Subjects--Topical Terms:

626653
Education, Bilingual and Multicultural.

Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal.
LDR:03155nam 2200289 a 45 001 934528
005 20110509
008 110509s1996 eng d
020 $a 0591058693
035 $a (UnM)AAI9640110
035 $a AAI9640110
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Chen, Hongyin Julie. $3 1258228
245 1 0 $a Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal.
300 $a 179 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 57-07, Section: A, page: 2915.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, 1996.
520 $a In cross-linguistic communication and foreign language learning, differences in language use have been noted to be a factor for communication breakdown or pragmatic failure. The differences can be attributed to the ways in which people of a speech community customarily associate forms with meanings. This association could vary across languages and is related to the sociocultural beliefs and values of the speech community. The culture-specificity of language use is particularly evident in speech acts.
520 $a This study is a line of research exploring native English speakers' and advanced Chinese EFL learners' beliefs about how a face-threatening speech act, refusal, should be expressed. Among speech acts, refusal is particularly challenging for the Chinese EFL learners because of its double bind. On the one hand, refusal has to carry the linguistic function of conveying no; on the other hand, it is inevitably face-risking. Metapragmatically comparing how the native speakers and the EFL learners accomplish the function of the speech act while addressing its sociocultural constraints, the study investigates the groups' criteria for pragmatic appropriateness of refusal. The findings suggest that, asserting individuality and stressing the linguistic function of the speech act, the native speakers considered truthfulness, directness, clarity and effectiveness as the most important, whereas valuing social interaction and solidarity, the EFL learners were more concerned about being indirect, preserving face, and avoiding embarrassment. The differences can be attributed to (1) the high or low pragmatic context of the speech community, (2) the positive or negative face addressed, and (3) the level at which communication occurs. These factors cause linguistic and cultural misunderstandings to occur. To avoid pragmatic failure, it is important that the learners recontextualize their sociocultural perspectives, by (1) having an ethnographer's mindset and taking an emic stand in viewing target language use with reference to the values and beliefs of the speech community, and (2) approaching their home speech community with an etic stand to reflect upon the pragmatics of their native language and to gain insights into why cross-cultural miscommunication would occur and how it can be avoided.
590 $a School code: 0093.
650 4 $a Education, Bilingual and Multicultural. $3 626653
650 4 $a Education, Language and Literature. $3 1018115
650 4 $a Language, Linguistics. $3 1018079
650 4 $a Language, Modern. $3 1018098
690 $a 0279
690 $a 0282
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0291
710 2 0 $a Indiana University. $3 960096
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 57-07A.
790 $a 0093
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 1996
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=9640110