Introduction
0.1Background of the Research
近年来，学者们更加重视语，这给语际语用学的诞生，一个新的跨学科领域，侧重于对学生的言语行为，根据他们了解的本土语言的特点和研究学生的法律应用目标语言进行这样的言语行为（刘绍忠，1997年）。语际语用学，第二语言习得研究的一个关键领域，借用了一些跨学科的语用学的理论和方法，并涉及到，除了到其他学科，社会语言学和心理语言学。此后的语言学习的语已成为第二语言习得研究和外语教学的重点。语用能力的研究可以追溯到20世纪70年代，当海姆斯创建务实思想，交际能力的中心。引入海姆斯的交际能力的概念已经在国内和国外第二语言和外语教学带来了巨大的冲击，与交际能力是外语教学的一个主要目标。在2001年，教育部发布的全日制义务教育教育英语课程标准“（试用版），明英语教学的最终目的是培养学生的综合能力，在使用英语，从而使他们能够与英国通信效果。然而，不仅做足够的来自学生语言能力，交际能力，但也是他们的务实能力。语言学习是一种方法，以提高自己，也是一个重要的工具，我们需要在国际环境中生存和发展。刈通信内容，如要求的信息，道歉，致意，问候，表达感激之情，不同的语言和语用所需要的不同的社会和文化背景的人沟通。语言学习者需要把握一个完美的语言形式和社会因素之间的关系的理解，因为这些因素作为助理的语言和适当的使用，避免误解和沟通障碍。Over recent years, scholars have paid much more attention topragmatics, which has given birth to Interlanguage Pragmatics, a newcross-disciplinary field, which focuses on the study on students' speechacts based on their understanding of the native languages and thecharacteristics and laws of students' applying the target language toconduct such verbal behaviors (Liu Shaozhong, 1997). InterlanguagePragmatics, a key field of second language acquisition research, borrowssome theories and methods of the cross-disciplinary pragmatics andrelates to, in addition to other disciplines, the social linguistics andpsychological linguistics. The pragmatics of those who are learning asecond language has become the focus of second language acquisitionresearches and foreign languages teaching. The first research onpragmatic competence was dated back to 1970s，when Hymes created thepragmatic ideology that centers on communicative abilities. The conceptof communicative abilities introduced by Hymes has brought tremendousimpact to second language and foreign language teaching at home andabroad, with communicative abilities being a key objective of foreignlanguages teaching. In 2001, the Ministry of Education published theStandards for English Curriculum of the Full-time Compulsory Education(trial version), expressly stating that the ultimate purpose of Englishteaching is to foster students' comprehensive abilities in using Englishand thus to enable them to communicate with English in effect. However,not only do adequate communicative abilities come from students'linguistic competence, but also their pragmatic competence. Languagelearning is an approach to improve ourselves, and also a key tool we willneed when living and developing in the international environment. Underdifferent communication context, such as asking for information,apologizing, giving compliments, greetings and expressing gratitude,different languages and pragmatics are needed to communicate withpeople of different social and cultural backgrounds. Language learnersare required to grasp a perfect understanding of the relationship betweenlanguage forms and social factors, since these factors act as assistants toappropriate use of languages and avoidance of misunderstandings andcommunication barriers.
A research conducted by Liu Jianda (2006) on English learners'linguistic competence in China resorts to the quantitative and qualitativemethods (among other demonstrations), and the results show that, sinceno direct contact between the participating students and the targetlanguage and its culture is made, their pragmatic competence does not beimproved like their grammatical competence. This mirrors that theirlinguistic knowledge is probably grounded on the grammatic level andhas not reached the pragmatic level. Yang Xianju (2008) discovers that,with appropriate teaching strategies, the English learners' pragmaticcompetence have enhanced to some extent in China. Qian Xuming (2006)complies statistics of errors in English examinations and then attributesthe main responsibility to improper pragmatic use, accounting for 45.3%of these pragmatic failures. This is because language is the carrier ofculture, the languages of different nations reflect the distinction of theirnational cultures. Being fluent in a language does not guarantee theappropriate use of such language in a specific context and therefore theavoidance of some pragmatic failures. According to Thomas (1983),pragmatic failures are the communicative failures caused by an incorrectunderstanding of the languages and consist of pragmatic linguisticfailures and social pragmatic failures. Pragmatic linguistic failures meanthe conflicts between the ways the second language learners use the targetlanguages and the language habits of the native speakers, which lead tothe misuse of some expressions in the target languages or copying thelanguage habits of their mother tongues in the use of target languageswhen they are not sure about the correct expression in the targetlanguages. Social pragmatic failures mean the failures in selecting thecorrect language forms due to the lack of understanding of the otherparty's cultural backgrounds, which are related to the statuses, linguisticfields and proficiencies in the language of the both parties in thecommunication and are normal in intercultural communication. Sun Yaand Dai Ling (2002) argue that, to fundamentally eradicate pragmaticfailures, efforts shall be invested into foreign language teaching, wheremost of the learners learn the foreign language.
Chapter One Literature Review
In this first chapter, at first, the author explains the communicativecompetence and pragmatic competence. Next, reviews the Englishtextbooks evaluation both at home and abroad. And then reviews theEnglish textbooks evaluation from a pragmatic perspective both at homeand abroad as follow. At last provides the research findings on requests.
1.1Communicative Competence and Pragmatic Competence
Studies have show that the pragmatic competence of learners plays asignificant role in their communication. If it is overlooking the cultivationof pragmatic competence, the learners will not communicate effectively.The explanation of communicative competence and pragmaticcompetence should be given at first.
1.1.1Communicative Competence
Chomsky (1965) introduces competence and performance to modernlinguistics, and makes the following distinctions: competence refers toinherent linguistic knowledge, or inherent grammar, which is the idealstate that the speaker and the listener have complete knowledge aboutlanguage; performance refers to the practical use of language in concretesituations. Chomsky pays more attention to inherent grammar, theidealization of language. The competence he talks about is irrelevant withthe use of language. Strictly speaking, what he cares is not language, butthe more abstract grammar. As to the abstract rules in grammar practicaluse as well as the relationships between these rules and other aspects oflanguage, he is regardless of that. The notion of his "competence" isabstract and just refers to knowledge. As Taylor said, Chomsky's"competence" is a static and absolute definition, what he cares is"product", not the use of knowledge. Nor does he consider the adoptedskills of knowledge, the knowledge of the user's use of language, or theacquisition of linguistic ability. Hymes (1972) also holds that Chomsky's"competence" does not cover the use of language or systematicallyconsider the appropriate use of language in people's socialcommunications. According to him, native users' abilities of language useare far beyond Chomsky's "linguistic competence".
Chapter Three Methodology.......... 52-70
3.1 Research Questions......... 52
3.2 Research Objects.........52-56
3.2.1 Senior One Students .........53
3.2.2 Junior English Textbooks Go for it!......... 53-56
3.3 Research Instruments .........56-65
3.3.1 Speech Act Scale......... 56-57
3.3.2 Requests Scale.........57-64
3.3.3 Pragmatic Competence Questionnaire......... 64-65
3.4 Research Procedures......... 65
3.5 Data Collection .........65-66
3.6 Data Analysis .........66-67
Summary .........67-70
Chapter Four Results and Discussion......... 70-90
4.1 Results .........70-76
4.2 Discussion .........76-85
4.3 Pragmatic Perspectives of Textbooks Compilation .........85-89
Conclusion
This thesis takes the speech act theory in pragmatics as its theoreticalfoundations, founding itself on the previous research achievements,preparing the Speech Act Scale, Requests Scale and PragmaticCompetence Questionnaire and conducting the English textbooksevaluation from a pragmatics perspective for junior middle schools. Wehave got the major findings as follow:
At first, the general distribution of speech acts is uneven andincomprehensive, and the proportion of speech acts in each volume ismuch different. The English textbooks refers to the five categories ofspeech acts proposed by Searle, but with only 16 of the 36 establishedspeech acts included, and the arrangement for speech acts in thetextbooks is insufficiently systematic, proven by the fact that somefrequently-used speech acts in our daily life, such as giving compliments, are not covered, and that some speech acts, such as inviting, are notemphasized and are provided with poor variety. Each volume of thetextbooks varies in the quantity of speech acts, for example, there are 11speech acts in the first volume for grade 8 and 7 speech acts in Volumefor grade 9; the proportions of different speech acts in the textbooks aredifferent, for instance，asking for information accounts for 31.1% andextending gratitude accounts for 1.7%.Second, as to microscopic requests, it does not refer to the wholecategory and the presentation does not follow the pecking order ofstrength. There are 33 request acts in the textbook, with two categories ofrequests, direct requests and indirect requests, are referred to, but thesubcategories including explicit perform actives, hedged performatives aswell as desire, suggestory formula and strong hints subordinate to theindirect requests are not covered in the textbooks, therefore the requestsare not reflected completely and systematically in the textbook, leading tothe students' lack of the pragmatic awareness of these regards and partialunderstanding of requests. In addition, wishes and mild hints only appearonce and twice in the textbooks respectively and are not emphasized; andthe presentation of the requests fails to follow the pecking order ofstrength.
The questionnaire on pragmatic competence proves that the studentshave infirm command of those speech acts appearing with lowfrequencies and not being emphasized and almost have no idea aboutthose who do not appear in the textbook at all. So, the proportions andrepeat rates of the pragmatic knowledge in the English textbooks shall beincreased.
Bibliograph
1Brown, H. D. 1994. Principles of Language Learning http://sblunwen.com/yylwfw/ and Teaching [M].Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
2Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Oxford; OxfordUniversity Press.
3Austin, J. L. 2002. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press.
4Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Consideration in Language Testing[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1991. Developing pragmatic awareness; closing theconversation [J]. ELTJournal, 45: 4-15.
6Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguagepragmatics: a research agenda for acqisitional pragmatics [J].Language Learning 49; 677-713.
7Beebe, L. M., T. Takahashi & R. Uliss-Weltz. 1990. Pragmatic transfer inESL refusals [A]. In R.
8C. Scarclla, E. S. Andersen & S. D. Krashen(eds.). On the Development of Communicative Competence in aSecond Language [C]. Cambridge: Newbury House.
9Blum-Kulka, S., J. House & G. Kasper. 1989. Cross-cultural Pragmatics:Requests and Apologies [M]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp.
10Brinton, D. M. 1991. The use of media in language teaching [A]. InCelce-Murcia, M (eds.). Teaching English as a Second or ForeignLanguage [C]. MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. 459-475.