亚洲免费av电影一区二区三区,日韩爱爱视频,51精品视频一区二区三区,91视频爱爱,日韩欧美在线播放视频,中文字幕少妇AV,亚洲电影中文字幕,久久久久亚洲av成人网址,久久综合视频网站,国产在线不卡免费播放

        ?

        THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS'PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE IN BELF COMMUNICATION

        2021-12-31 08:37:46GENGWenwen

        GENG Wen-wen

        Department of Foreign Languages,Harbin University of Science and Technology,Rongcheng,China

        Email:hustrc2012@163.com

        DAI Jing-yan

        Department of Foreign Languages,Harbin University of Science and Technology,Rongcheng,China

        Email:daisyswallow@163.com

        [Abstract] Since pragmatic competence is crucial to the success of BELF communication,it is necessary and significant to probe into its development in language learning.To fulfill the task,by adopting a mixed-method approach the current research focuses on the students'attitudes to pragmatic competence and the development of their ILP competence.It is found that learners haven't fully realized the importance of pragmatic competence.Moreover,though progress has been made in their overall performance in BELF communication,communicative failures,especially in the construction of identity and politeness,remain at a high level.

        [Keywords] pragmatic competence;interlanguage;business English as a lingua franca (BELF);multimodal semiotics

        Introduction

        To learn a language is by no means equal to the acquisition of pronunciation or vocabulary,but associated with the appropriate and efficient use of the language in various contexts.In Hymes's words "a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences,not only as grammatical,but also as appropriate"(1972,p.277).Although considered to be indispensable to communicative competence (Chomsky,1980;Bachman,1990),pragmatic competence seems to ob?tain less attention than linguistic competence in language learning (Beltrán-Planques &Querol-Julián,2018).In this respect,what distinguishes nonnative speakers from native ones turns out to be their level of pragmatic compe?tence rather than that of grammatical competence (Bardovi-Harlig &Hartford,1990).Therefore,the necessity and effects of instruction of pragmatic competence in language teaching and second language acquisition (SLA) have been repeatedly testified and confirmed (e.g.,Schmidt,1993,2001;Kasper,2001;Jung,2002).Turning to the con?text of business English as a lingua franca(BELF),the current study aims to depict the development of the students'pragmatic competence at the first year of their university life.

        Theoretical Backgrounds

        In the process of learning a new language,interlanguage serves as a bridge between the learners'native lan?guage and the new one.Such a dynamic language system has its own rules,linguistic and pragmatic,which may re?sult in pragmatic failures in fulfilling their communicative tasks.Meanwhile,BELF communication is not confined to utterances but the combination of a series of semiotic modes like intonation,gestures,and smell.In what follows,the?oretical backgrounds on the notion of interlanguage pragmatic competence and the nature of BELF communication are presented.

        Interlanguage pragmatic(ILP)competence

        ILP competence refers to foreign language learners'ability to comprehend and develop pragmatic knowledge(Kasper &Blum-Kulka,1993).While the performance of such speech acts as request (e.g.,Ren,2019),apology (e.g.,Masaeed et al.,2018)and refusal(e.g.,Chang,2009)are among the most popular topics.Roever(2011,p.467)ar?gued that those were merely "isolated aspects of language learners'pragmatic competence" and much attention should be paid to their"ability for use in social interaction".In Roever's construct,ILP competence covers four com?ponents:extended monolog,participation in interaction,routine formulae and implicature.Furthermore,Li (2019)supplemented paralinguistic interaction into the frame,which facilitates a more comprehensive description of ILP competence.Now that pragmatic competence constitutes communicative competence,ILP contributes to the foreign language learners'communicative ability.

        ILP competence is supposed to be correlated with language proficiency in a positive way (Hoffman-Hicks,1992;Su,2021).However,some researchers(e.g.,Youn,2014)are skeptical of the assertion and declare that the re?lationships between the two are of great complexity.Language proficiency is thus perceived as"a necessary but not a sufficient condition"for ILP competence(Bardovi-Harlig,1999,p.686).Besides the differences in participants and procedures,various instruments adopted in measuring ILP account for the discrepancies in their conclusion to a great extent.Although Discourse Completion Test(DCT)is among the most popular ones and still widely used nowa?days (e.g.,Chang,2009;Masaeed et al.2018),it has many limitations in comparison with role play,which is more likely to elicit natural,interactive performances in the defined context,thus"particularly suitable for assessment pur?poses" (Roever,2011,p.473).What's more,only by role play can paralinguistic interaction be realized and exam?ined.

        Business English as a lingual franca(BELF)

        BELF refers to English used as"a neutral and shared communication code"(Louhiala-Salminen et al.2005,p.403).To achieve their goal in business communication,BELF users need not only to learn to appreciate different English variants,but also to adopt appropriate pragmatic strategies to build rapport with the other party.The success and efficiency of BELF communication seems to lie more in the grasp of "business-related issues" than "grammati?cal and idiomatic correctness"(Kankaanranta&Louhiala-Salminen,2010,p.207).In contrast,failures are attribut?ed to the following three aspects,namely,"lack of comprehensibility,cultural differences and stereotyped associa?tions"(Gerritsen&Nickerson,2009,p.182).In terms of research scope,BELF covers"a rich area"via"a variety of different methodological approaches" (ibid.,p.181).Research on BELF joins with that concerning ILP competence in that both emphasize communicative competence and witness a discursive turn in recent decades.

        With the continuous deepening of the opening-up policy,China has been witnessing a dramatic increase in in?ternational trade,which casts high demands on the quantity and quality of practitioners who are by and large gradu?ates of economic management or business English.They are supposed to be equipped with the ability to construct meaning,identity and politeness with their counterparts from different culture backgrounds (Li &Li,2018).Corre?sponding adjustments should be made in language teaching so as to meet the requirements.To address this realistic problem,the current research aims to obtain a comprehensive view of students'pragmatic competence in BELF com?munication during their first year at university.

        Research Design

        According to the research purpose mentioned above,we put forward three questions and take 43 freshmen ma?joring in business English at a university located in the north of China as the subjects.In this section,what would be specified includes the research questions,the collection of data and the methods adopted in the process.

        Research questions

        The two questions to be answered in this research are:1)What are the language learners'attitudes to pragmatic competence?2)How does their ILP competence develop over time?

        Data collection

        To answer the above questions,two types of data have been collected twice at the interval of one semester(Dec.2020-Jul.2021).The first type is about questionnaires which are distributed to find out the respondents'opinions about pragmatic competence at the beginning and end of the semester.The second one pertains to video recordings of students'role plays,transcribed and annotated,so as to detect the overall development of the students'ILP compe?tence in BELF communication.All the data have been double checked by the two authors of the paper.

        Procedure

        The whole procedure consists of four steps:First,the designed questionnaire is piloted and modified before for?mal release.The results of reliability analysis (Cronbachα=.886,p.=.007)and validity analysis(KMO=.833,p.=.000)indicate that the questionnaire is acceptable.Next,specific tasks for the participants in pairs are described in detail,covering ten scenarios of business communication including business negotiation,banquet,offer and coun?ter-offer,etc.Third,the two sets of recordings are transcribed following Recktenwald's (2017) transcription conven?tions and then scored by two sophisticated teachers(with no significant differences as p.=.879 and.604 respectively),who would further annotate and double-check the pragmatic failures committed by the students.Finally,the scores of the students'performances are compared and specific examples would be analyzed to illustrate the development of their ILP competence within a semester.

        Results and Discussion

        The results of the questionnaires show that over 80% of the respondents perceive pragmatic competence as an important part of language learning,which doesn't see great changes during the period.Furthermore,as Figure 1 il?lustrates,in spite of the increase in the number of respondents who rate their pragmatic competence as"above moder?ate",from 4.76%to 14.28%,those who describe their use of language as"moderate"account for 64%of the total at the end of the semester compared to 80.95%at the beginning,thus a falling trend in general.Meanwhile,the end of the semester sees a rise in the number of students who describe their use of language as"not good"and"very bad",rising from 4 and 2 to 6 and 3 students respectively.Last but not least,compared with pronunciation,grammar,and vocabulary,about one third of the students consider that great efforts should be made in language use at first,which maintained at a similar level half a year later.

        Figure 1:Self-assessment of pragmatic competence

        Therefore,the answer to our first research question could be put in the following way.On the one hand,an over?whelming majority of students are aware of the significance of pragmatic competence and the necessity to improve that in the process of language learning.On the other hand,for most respondents,their self-assessment of pragmatic competence does not necessarily get higher,but instead declines slightly in general as they proceed with their study.

        Then,is their self-assessment accurate? How does their ILP competence develop? The following statistics and examples drawing from the elicited data may give us a clue to the second research question.

        First,the result of the paired sample test indicates that there are significant differences between their scores be?fore and after the semester(p.=.001<.05,df=42,t=3.473).In other words,progress has been made in their role-play of business scenarios as the average score rises from 63.48 to 68.49,yet with a greater standard deviation,9.228 com?pared to 5.529.Thus,in spite of a larger gap emerges among the students,it can be noticed that their overall perfor?mance has been improved after half a year.

        Second,a closer look at their performance(as shown in Table 1)reveals that although there are less meaning-re?lated failures after one semester's study,communication failures concerning the participants'identity and politeness don't see any decrease:while the proportion of the former doubles in the post-test,that of the latter remains at the same level as in the pre-test.

        Table 1 :The proportion of meaning-related,identity-related and politeness-related failures

        Third,a wide range of grammatical and phonological mistakes result in meaning-related failures,whereas iden?tity-related failures are generally on account of the confusion of their role with their partner(s) in the task.In terms of politeness-related failure,improper body language is among the most common problems.Take the following turn as an example.

        (Scenario:A,the Chinese supervisor of the sales department,is introducing their work to a new comer,B who comes from India.)

        A:...WORK often put a lot of(..)plea-sure on us{look at elsewhere}(..)but lei-sure can re-lease us(..)from the pleasure[of work=]

        B:[Oh,I] DON'T agree with you {leaning forward}.(..) In my opinion (..) I er (..) I (..) think (..) we SHOULD learn to...

        In this context,what A intends to say is the"pressure"rather than"pleasure"of work,thus committing a gram?matical mistake that is meaning-related.Besides,neither B's way of expressing disagreement nor A's eye contact with B seems to be polite based on their relationship.Meanwhile,B appears not to be clear about his/her identity as it is not advisable for a new comer and subordinate to talk to the supervisor in such a direct and aggressive way.

        In brief,the students'self-assessment of pragmatic competence is reasonable but not comprehensive since in comparison with their progress in meaning-related problems,communication failures that are not grammatically-re?lated remain at a high level after a semester's study.

        Conclusion

        From the above results and discussion,it can be concluded that despite of their serious attitude towards prag?matic competence,most Chinese learners still lay more emphasis on grammatical competence in language learning.Consequently,with continuous study,pragmatic failures concerning grammatical mistakes diminish in business com?munication,whereas those not grammatically-related keep steady or even increasing,which influences the extent of improvement on their overall performance.Meanwhile,the polarization of their self-assessment about pragmatic com?petence gets more serious along the time.

        Acknowledgements

        This work was supported by Heilongjiang Philosophy and Social Science Program:Pragmatic Research on Vio?lent Language in Online Interaction[grant number 20YYB021].

        Appendix:Transcription conventions adapted from Recktenwald(2017).

        TEXT Emphasis or Higher Volume

        . Falling Final Intonation

        - Word Cut Off

        {} Physical Actions by the Streamer

        (..) Brief Pauses within an Intonation Unit

        = Latching

        [] Overlap in Speech

        日韩成人大屁股内射喷水| 午夜蜜桃视频在线观看| 激情五月婷婷一区二区| 爽爽精品dvd蜜桃成熟时电影院| 福利一区在线观看| 国产av一区二区凹凸精品| 成人大片免费在线观看视频| 国产乱妇无码大片在线观看 | 午夜一区二区三区在线视频| 亚洲一区二区三区在线看| 亚洲国产精品无码久久久| 小12萝8禁在线喷水观看| 欧美人与动牲交片免费| av在线播放中文专区| 久久久久久久久毛片精品| 免费人成视频在线观看视频| 亚洲AV专区一专区二专区三| 在线观看午夜视频国产| 欧美性色黄大片手机版| 日韩中文网| 久草视频在线视频手机在线观看| 高级会所技师自拍视频在线| 中文字幕一区二区三区人妻少妇| 99热成人精品国产免国语的| 欧美人妻日韩精品| 亚洲国产精品美女久久久| 国产视频一区二区三区在线免费| 曰本大码熟中文字幕| 国产成人美女AV| 少妇高潮精品正在线播放| 亚洲欧美v国产一区二区| 国产精品免费久久久久影院| 喷潮出白浆视频在线观看| 国产不卡在线视频观看| 少妇饥渴偷公乱a级无码| 亚洲一区二区欧美色妞影院| 国产亚洲3p一区二区| 国产偷久久久精品专区| 天天狠狠综合精品视频一二三区| 亚洲av自偷自拍亚洲一区| 欧美丰满熟妇xxxx性ppx人交|