Studies of Negative Pragmatic Transfer in Interlanguage
Pragmatics
Studies on Negative Pragmatic Transfer in Interlanguage
Pragmatics
Shaozhong Liu
Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, 541004, China
Abstract: Transfer is a pervasive term and this has led to
diverse interpretations and research practices of it. This paper
reviewed the related literature on transfer studies in second
language acquisition, linguistic studies and non-linguistic. It
also made a survey about approaches in transfer studies, native
speakers attitudes toward transfer, and transfers made by Chinese
learners of English. It was argued that transfer research evolved
from a linguistic-to- non-linguistic path, and there is a necessity
in the current trend to shift from the former to the latter.
Keywords: transfer, linguistic transfer, pragmatic transfer,
second language acquisition
What is negative pragmatic transfer?
As was mentioned in Section 1.1, transfer to pragmaticians means
difference of use due to NL influence. And to understand what is
different, a preliminary step was to sort out similarities and
differences between languages and the use of these languages. The
effort to study how non-native speakers understand and realize a
speech act in the TL has spiraled into a tradition identified as
the study of pragmatic universals. As many as 11 speech acts have
been covered to date: requests, suggestions, invitations, refusals,
expressions of disagreement, corrections, complaints, apologies,
expression of gratitude, compliments and indirect answers (Kasper,
1992).Kasper (1995) focused on pragmatic transfer and defined it as
the influence exerted by learners pragmatic knowledge of languages
and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production, and
acquisition of L2 pragmatic information (Kasper, 1992; 1995).
2.1 Role of negative pragmatic transfer in interlanguage
pragmatic studies
The study of the learner language has been a growing source of
concern also in pragmatics in recent years. The pragmatic
perspective toward the learner language led to the birth of a new
interdiscipline, interlanguage pragmatics (ILP).
As the main focus of pragmatics is to examine how an utterance
meaning is perceived, interlanguage pragmatics mainly concerns with
how non-native speakers differ from native speakers in interpreting
and producing a speech act in the TL. To find out the differences,
ILP researchers will base their studies on collected data. The
first issue they will tackle is the range of difference between
non-natives and natives in performing and comprehending a speech
act. On this basis, they will proceed to the contextual
distribution of such differences, strategies in target language
use, linguistic forms used for conveying an idea in the target
language, illocutionary meanings and politeness (Blum-Kulka et al,
1989; Kasper, 1992; Takahashi, 1990). All this is related to
transfer in one way or another.
The relatedness of transfer is also apparent in current issues
of ILP research. For instance, one of the topics of immediate
research interest in ILP nowadays is to investigate language
universals underlying cross-linguistic variation and its role in
ILP. The sorting out of language universals naturally helps us find
out what is a negative pragmatic transfer. Measuring approximation
of the learners language to TL norms is another current topic.
Placing the learner language against the TL norm also helps us to
find out the difference between the learner language and the target
language and similarity between the learner language and the
learners native language. Another current research topic in ILP is
to study NL influence on the learning of TL. This is direct topic
addressing the transfer issue (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; He
Ziran, 1996; Liu Shaozhong, 1997d). It is not hard to see the
importance of pragmatic transfer in all these research topics.
2.2 Contrastive studies of speech acts
A host of transfer-related studies have been documented. These
cross-cultural examinations were conducted with a view to find out
how non-native speakers, due to their NL influence, differ from
native speakers in understanding and realizing a particular speech
act.
Cohen & Olshtain (1981) studied how Hebrew learners of
English as L2 did things with their interlanguage of English, and
discovered that the nonnative use of apology semantic formula was
generally fewer than that of the native English speakers. By this,
the study displayed the transfer of Hebrew features into the
realization of apology making.
Olshtain (1983) also attempted at finding the degree and types
of transfer among some English and Russian speaking learners of
Hebrew as L2. Her elicitation questionnaire on apology of eight
situations showed that English learners percentage of apology
making was the highest, and next was that by the Russians, with
that by the Hebrews the lowest. She further illustrated this
tendency in another similar test among the Hebrew IL of
English-speaking learners.
Different from Olshtain, Scarcella (1983) (cited in Kasper,
1992) specifically examined the discourse accent of some
Spanish-speaking English learners. She found the communicative
style of her informants comparable to those in their native
language Spanish. Thus Scarcella claimed that Spanish learners of
English as a second language (ESL) shifted what was conceived of as
communicatively appropriate L1 styles into English.
House (1988) echoed Scarcella by executing her study among her
German students learning British English. In apology realization,
these German-speaking learners of English were observed to have
transplanted their German communicative styles, for these learners
were less inclined to use routine apology expressions such as sorry
as by the British.
Garcia (1989) replicated a study among some Venezuelan Spanish
speakers on the realization of the apology speech act. Different
from the above studies, Garcias interest was to uncover whether the
learners transfer their L1 politeness style in the role-play
situations. Her findings were that the Venezuelans used more
positive politeness strategies by saying something nice so as to
express their friendliness or good feelings, while the native
Spanish speakers applied more negative styles such as
self-effacing.
Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990) initiated a study
among the Japanese learners of English as a second language
concerning the making of refusals. The difference detected was
apparent in that Japanese ESL learners conceptualized the necessity
of stressing the status difference in interactions, while the
Americans denied the existence of such differences even if such
differences indeed existed.
In an exploration about politeness orientation among the
Japanese ESL learners, Takahashi and Beebe (1993) reported that the
Japanese turned to reject positive remarks in situation where the
Americans favored them; and that the Japanese employed formulaic
expressions, whereas the Americans denied them.
Takahashi & Beebes (1993) studied the performance of
correction by Japanese ESL learners. In their article entitled
Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction,
Takahashi & Beebe (1993:138-157) reported that the Japanese
learners shifted styles from Japanese in the selection of
strategies. In their previous studies on face-threatening acts
carried out by the same groups of native and nonnative speakers,
the authors pointed out the learners distinctive patterns of style
shifting according to interlocutor status. Focusing on the
modification of corrections by means of positive remarks and
softeners, the Japanese learners style-shifting patterns were
clearly influenced by transfer from Japanese. While Japanese
learners, reflecting native sociopragmatic norms, shifted more
styles than American respondents in performing refusing,
contracting, and disagreeing. However, this study indicated
dramatic style shifting in the American speakers use of positive
remarks. Their prevalent use of positive remarks in the high-low
condition, which was not matched by the Japanese learners or
Japanese native speakers, provided more evidence of a positive
politeness orientation in American interaction, and greater
emphasis on status congruence in Japanese conversational behavior.
The study also supported Beebe & Takahashis earlier claim that
pragmatic transfer prevailed in higher proficiency learners.
Blum-Kulka (1982; 1983) investigated request realization by
English learners of Hebrew as L2. She discovered that English
learners of Hebrew negatively transferred their pragmalinguistic
forms into the Hebrew ability (can you) questions, and in the
choice of directness levels in request realization. The former case
reflected the learners inability to convey the pragmatic force,
while the latter displayed that where the Hebrew context demanded
more directness, the learners preferred indirect strategies.
However, for imperative questions, ability questions, why not
questions and Do you mind if forms, English learners of Hebrew
successfully transferred the cross-linguistically shared
strategies. Thus, Blum-Kulka concluded that apparent similarity in
form and function across languages did not hold for all
contexts.
Olshtain (1983) repeated Blum-Kulkas study by looking into a
particular semantic formula. Like Blum-Kulka, she also took as her
informants the English learners of Hebrew. She detected that
English learners were habitual to map the English semantic formulas
into Hebrew when expressing apology and offering repairs, which was
not preferred in Hebrew under the same speech situation. This study
thus provided further evidences for her previous studies (Oshtain,
1981) and Olshtain & Cohen (1989).
By DCT (dialog completion test) technique, House & Kasper
(1987) launched a CCSARP (cross-linguistic speech acts realization
patterns) Project with a focus on mainly the German and Danish
learners of British English for the purpose of locating deviations
in the choice of directness levels in five request situations. They
discovered that, among other things, both German and Danish
learners of British English deviated from the British norm and
followed their L1 norms in the choice of directness of the request
in two of the five situations. For example, these L2 learners
turned to use direct imperatives, while the British used less
direct preparatory questions. Besides, in terms of internal and
external modifications, analyses of the data suggested that
negative pragmalinguistic transfer should be observed in that both
learners use fewer syntactic downgraders. Finally, transfer
operated differently between these two groups of learners in that
more supportive moves by the Danish learners of English were
identified in cases where the German learners of English employed
frequently consultative devices.
Trosborg (1987) conducted another study among the Danish
learners of English relative to apology realization by way of
role-play technique. In spite of the fact that he did not find any
clear cases of negative L1 pragmalinguistic transfer, yet he
discovered certain evidences showing a direction in the frequency
of apology semantic formulas identical to Danish native
speakers.
House (1988) showed that her German students of English
over-used the formal L2 equivalent of excuse me in cases which did
not entail needs for apologetic acts. This was due to the fact that
in German the high rate of using Entschuldgen (=excuse me) was
wholesome acceptable.
By observing the speech act realization of request, Faerch &
Kasper (1989) probed into the internal and external modifications
among Danish learners of English and German as against respectively
the English and German speakers. They reported that the Danish
learners turned to map formally the Danish modal verbs and
consultative device into their L2 of English and German. In
addition, the Danish learners were speculated to be following the
Danish negation rule in realizing requests in German.
The Japanese heavily utilized indirect strategies in their
speech. Takahashi & Dufon (1989) carried out a test just to
examine whether Japanese learners of English as L2 would negatively
transfer their pragmalinguistic features in the case of request
strategy. Role-play was used, and it was displayed that the
transfer had much association with specific goals of interaction.
In cases with a strong desire for something, the Japanese depended
on more directness strategies than the Americans do; while in cases
when a desire was implicit, they used fewer indirect request
strategies than the Americans.
DeCapua (1989) studied the choice of directness level. Her
German learners of English as L2 were assigned to do five
service-counter situational interactions concerning complaints. She
showed that the German learners often directly transferred
linguistic forms identical to their German into English.
Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990) specifically explored
into the use frequency of excuse among the Japanese learners of
English as L2. They reported that, in terms of variables such as
place, time, and parties, the Japanese, different from the
Americans, seemed less specific in pleading for an excuse. However,
in the speech act of refusals, the Japanese appeared to pose more
frequency of negative pragmalinguistic transfer. Thus it was
concluded that the chance of negatively transferring a
pragmalinguistic feature into the TL was determined by the contents
of semantic formula.
Bergman & Kasper (1993) scrutinized apology realization by
Thai learners of English by means of 20 DCT situations. The result
demonstrated that 50% of the responses cluster on the transfer
side. Among these transfer features the Thai learners mapped into
English included six situations of the Thai verbal redress.
Up till now, the following speech acts have been investigated
cross-linguistically: request (Blum-Kulka, 1982; 1983; House &
Kasper, 1987; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Takahashi & Dufon,
1989), complaint (DeCapua, 1989), and apology (Cohen &
Olshtain, 1981; Olshtain, 1983; Trosborg, 1987; House, 1988;
Garcia, 1989; Beebe et al, 1990; Bergman & Kasper, 1993),
refusal (Beebe et al, 1990), and correction (Takahashi & Beebe,
1993). Besides, some other non-linguistic factors, such as
discourse accent (Scarcella, 1983) and politeness orientation and
styles (Takahashi & Beebe, 1993) were also scrutinized.
Subjects examined ranged from the English learners of Hebrew as
TL (Blum-Kulka, 1982; 1983; Olshtain, 1983), the German learners of
English (House & Kasper, 1987; House, 1988; DeCapua, 1989), the
Danish learners of English (House & Kasper, 1987; Trosborg,
1987; Faerch & Kasper, 1989), the Japanese learners of English
as TL (Takahashi & Dufon, 1989; Beebe et al, 1990), the Hebrew
(Cohen & Olshtain, 1981), the Russian (Olshtain, 1983), the
German (House, 1988), the Spanish (Scarcella, 1983), the Venezuelan
(Garcia, 1989), and the Japanese (Beebe et al, 1990; Takahashi
& Beebe, 1993), and the Thai learners of ESL (Bergman &
Kasper, 1993). So in spite of the fact that the above studies were
but indirect studies, yet they displayed some of the negative
pragmatic transfer features in the learners language. Studies of
speech act realization have at least highlighted ILP research in
five ways: first, these reports suggested that even quite
proficient learners tended to have less control over the
conventions of forms and means used by native speakers in the
performance of linguistic action. Second, there were differences
between learners and native speakers sociopragmatic perceptions of
comparable speech events that were systematically related to
differences in their speech act performance. Third, pragmatic
transfer at the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic levels
persisted at higher levels of proficiency. Fourth, learners
produced more speech than native speakers did when the task was
less demanding on their control skills. Fifth, researchers should
pay close attention to the constraints of different data collection
instruments on learners performance (Kasper & Blum-Kulka,
1993:63).
2.3 Pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfers
Now we have some knowledge from the related studies of transfer
in speech acts. But in terms of types, what has been transferred
from his NL in interpreting and producing a speech act in the TL?
This has evolved into an attractive question.
The first attempt at a classification of negative pragmatic
transfer was attributed to Kasper (1992) who held that pragmatic
transfer manifested itself in two ways or categories, namely
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic.
Both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic are terms derived from
Leechs (1983:10~11) treatment towards the scope of pragmatics and
which Thomas (1983) picked up in classifying the types of pragmatic
failure. Pragmalinguistics, in Leechs (1983) definition, refers to
our linguistic knowledge of language use, and sociopragmatics is
related with how our sociological knowledge influences our
interaction.
Kasper (1992) saw it fit to introduce both terms to categorize
the learners pragmatic transfer, for she remarked that Leechs
(1983) distinction between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics,
applied by Thomas (1983) to identify two major types of pragmatic
failure, is equally suitable to broadly separate the two main loci
of pragmatic transfer (Kasper, 1992:208).
A pragmalinguistic transfer is the influence of the learners
knowledge about the illocutionary force or politeness value
assigned to particular linguistic form-functions in NL, which, when
mapped by learners into the perception and production of a similar
situation in TL, sounds different to native speakers. In Kaspers
words, it is the process whereby the illocutionary force or
politeness value assigned to a particular linguistic material in NL
influences learners perception and production of form-function
mappings in TL (Kasper, 1992:209).
By a sociopragmatic transfer, it is a process operative when the
social perceptions underlying language users interpretation and
performance of linguistic action in TL are influenced by their
assessment of subjectively equivalent NL contexts (Kasper,
1992:209).
Accordingly, it can be inferred from Kaspers dichotomous
division of pragmatic transfer that negative pragmatic transfer
also has two corresponding types. The first type is negative
pragmalinguistic pragmatic transfer, and the other, negative
sociopragmatic transfer.
Kaspers dichotomous treatment of pragmatic transfer, both
positive and negative, seems to have embodied two considerations.
First, by putting some of the pragmatic transfers under the
category of pragmalinguistics, a due consideration has been
attached to the internal linguistic features of a pragmatic
transfer, and similarly, an inclusion of sociopragmatic transfer
has given a due consideration to the social or communicative
feature a pragmatic transfer takes. That seems a sound treatment
and that is why her classification of pragmatic transfer, positive
and negative, has never been challenged since 1992 and in fact her
classification has been taken as a framework in pragmatic transfer
studies.
Negative pragmalinguistic transfer has been documented in a host
of studies focusing on mainly three speech acts request
(Blum-Kulka, 1982; 1983; House and Kasper, 1987; Faerch and Kasper,
1989; Takahashi and Dufon, 1989), complaint (DeCapua, 1989), and
apology (Cohen and Olshtain, 1981; Olshtain, 1983; Trosborg, 1987;
House, 1988; Beebe et al, 1990; Bergman and Kasper, 1993).
Mother tongue-based pragmalinguistic forms such as the can you
question form was also observed into the making of an ability (can
you) question, displaying the learners inability to convey the
pragmatic force (Blum-Kulka, 1982; 1983). Besides, mother tongue
directness strategies were also transferred into the making of a
request, manifesting the learners NL pragmatic preference in using
indirect strategies in situations where the Hebrew as a TL demands
more directness (Blum-Kulka, 1982; 1983). A similar observation was
made among the Danish and German learners of British English (House
and Kasper, 1987) and the direct German linguistic forms in
realizing the speech act of complaint in English (DeCapua, 1989).
Further reports showed that the level of directness or indirectness
is associated with the level of desire for something among the
Japanese (Takahashi and Dufon, 1989; Beebe et al, 1990). In cases
with a strong desire for something, the Japanese depend on more
directness strategies than the Americans do, while under cases when
a desire is implicit, they incline to less indirect request
strategies than the Americans (Takahashi and Dufon, 1989).
Then over-use of the excuse me expression was found among the
German learners, showing a high rate of German influence (House,
1988). In a cross-cultural study (Olshtain, 1983), it was found
that the frequency differences of apology making, with the English
the highest, followed by the Russians and the Hebrews the lowest.
However, the Japanese influence in the frequency of excuse me among
the Japanese learners was found to be subject to situations and
certain variables. In terms of time, place and parties, the
Japanese learners use less pleadings than the Americans, while in
making refusals, the Japanese use more pleadings (Beebe et al,
1990). All these reports display that non-native speakers negative
pragmalinguistic transfers took either a semantic form mapping or a
formal mapping.
Negative sociopragmatic transfers were also found to operate in
Venezuelan politeness styles into Spanish (Garcia, 1989) and
Japanese status difference in making refusals (Beebe et al, 1990)
were documented. The Japanese were found rejecting positive remarks
and using formulaic expressions in politeness orientation
(Takahashi and Beebe, 1993) and modifying corrections by means of
positive remarks and softeners (Takahashi and Beebe, 1993).
In addition, various forms of NL-TL communicative style-mappings
were detected. Scarcella (1983) showed that learners transferred
from Spanish (NL) and German (NL) their acquainted communicative
styles into English. These communicative styles were neither
pragmalinguistic nor sociopragmatic transfers.
Hence it seems that Kaspers division of negative pragmatic
transfer needs expanding in order to incorporate those NL-based
communicative styles. After all, her division was footed on two
terms discussing the scope of pragmatics (Leech, 1983) and
pragmatic failure (Thomas, 1983), and transfer, pragmatics, and
pragmatic failure treat different entities.
2.4 Conditions of negative pragmatic transfer
2.4.1 Transferability
The condition of transfer occurrence was technically referred to
as transferability (Kasper, 1992). Takahashi (1995:11) observed
three dimensions of transferability in SLA research, namely the
study on the developmental sequence of transferability, linguistic
markedness, and non-surface form transfer. And these three
dimensions, Takahashi further indicates, are usually approached in
interlanguage pragmatics research from the perspective of
psycholinguistics (Olshtain, 1983; Olshtain and Cohen, 1983; 1989;
House and Kasper 1987; Kasper, 1981; Bodman and Eisenstein, 1988;
Robinson, 1992; cited in Takahashi, 1995, pp.46-49).
In her Transferability of indirect request strategies, Takahashi
(1992:69-124; 1993:50-83) made an explicit investigation on
transferability of five indirectness strategies realized by the
conventions of usage of Japanese indirect requests when Japanese
learners of English realized English indirect requests in four
situations. Takahashi used informants representing two proficiency
groups: beginning-intermediate level students, considered as low
ESL group, and advanced students, high ESL group. They were
presented with an acceptability judgment task for five indirect
request expressions in respectively Japanese and English for each
situation. The transferability rate was computed for each strategy
for each situation by subtracting the acceptability rate of the
English indirect request from the acceptability rate of the
corresponding Japanese indirect request. The obtained
transferability rate was considered as the psycholinguistic
markedness of each strategy, which determined its
language-specificity or neutrality. This study manifested that
contextual factors play a major role in determining transferability
at the pragmatic level. The results also displayed that some
proficiency effected on the transferability of those indirectness
strategies. Following the initial findings, further attempts were
made to explore the type of contextual factors that were most
likely to affect transferability, and to expound the relationship
between the proficiency effects on the transferability of the
indirectness strategies.
The transferability of the five indirectness strategies realized
by the Japanese learners of English was further discussed in
Takahashi (1995). The study showed that the Japanese learners
differentially transferred the Japanese indirectness strategies.
Furthermore, Takahashi detected that the transferability of each L1
request strategy was determined by the interaction between
politeness and conventionality perceived in each strategy and the
degree of mitigation required in each imposition context. In
addition, the transferability rate was influenced by the
proficiency factor. However, there was not a definite tendency for
a positive correlation or for a negative one between L1 transfer
and proficiency.
2.4.2 TL pragmatic proficiency and its relation to negative
pragmatic transfer
Concerning the function of the learners fluent TL pragmatic
knowledge in negative pragmatic transfer, two views were presented.
Takahashi and Beebe (1987; 1993) held that TL proficiency was
positively related with pragmatic transfer. In other words, the
more highly proficient learners had control over TL to express the
NL native speakers sentiments at the pragmatic level, the more
likely they would transfer their NL sociocultural norms than low
proficient learners. They claimed that their hypothesis was rested
on the observation of some proficient Japanese ESL learners who
used more typically Japanese formal tones in refusing in TL. Their
findings were supported by Maeshiba et al (1996).
An opposite view was proposed by Takahashi & Dufon (1989),
Robinson (1992) and Takahashi (1996). Takahashi & Dufon (1989)
displayed that beginning-level Japanese learners of ESL were
similar to the Japanese control group with an NL-based pattern of
bimodal distribution of indirectness. Advanced students, on the
other hand, were found not to transfer the Japanese hinting
strategies and thus posed more directness strategies in their IL
requests. Robinson (1992) made similar conclusion about her
informants realization of refusals. She reported that her lower and
higher proficient Japanese ESL learners were both aware of the
differences in appropriate American and Japanese situations of the
speech act. However, the lower proficient students were more
influenced by their NL refusal style, whereas the more proficient
learners knew how to apply the rules of English in doing the
discourse completion test (DCT) items on refusals. Another more
recent challenge for Takahashi & Beebe (1987; 1993) came from
Takahashi (1996) who reported that the distribution of negative
pragmatic transfers was conditioned by the imposition and form of
request. As for the role of TL pragmatic proficiency in negative
pragmatic transfer, it was found that a learner with advanced
pragmatic knowledge about TL would not be likely to commit more
transfers (Takahashi, 1992; 1993).
2.4.3 Sociopsychological factors and their relation to the
occurrence of negative pragmatic transfer
Sociopsychological factors are of many facets. The one that was
considered by researchers was the assessment or acceptability norm
widely held in the native language community.
Blum-Kulka (1991) (cited in Takahashi, 1995:52-53) analyzed the
relationship between length of residence and certain speech acts
among some American immigrants to Israel. Although Blum-Kulkas
study failed to bring up substantial findings regarding the effect
a sociopsychological factor had on pragmatic transfer, she claimed
that American immigrants differed significantly from both American
and Israeli speech act patterns. They created some IL-specific
cultural identity and, as a consequence, intercultural patterns of
their own. Similar reports were found in Blum-Kulka & Sheffer
(1993). Thus, research findings suggested that the
sociopsychological factor did not affect the making of negative
pragmatic transfers (Maeshiba et al, 1996).
2.4.4 Educational factors and their relationship to the
occurrence of negative pragmatic transfer
Among the educational factors, the learning-context effect in
relation to the distribution was investigated. Takahashi and Beebe
(1987) and Beebe et al (1990) respectively examined the making of
refusals by Japanese ESL and EFL learners. It was pointed out in
both studies that while transfer occurred in both ESL and EFL
learners, more evidences emerged in the context of EFL than
ESL.
2.5 Native speakers attitudes towards negative pragmatic
transfer
Potential effect of conversational styles was indicated in the
research findings by interactional sociolinguists (Erickson &
Shultz, 1982; Gumperz, 19982; Scollon & Scollon, 1983; Tannen,
1985), and a neutral attitude towards the issue of negative
pragmatic transfer was called for (Kasper, 1992:209).
Chinese learners performance data, for instance, were discussed.
Related studies first identified the learners pragmatic failure
under Thomass (1983) dichotomous framework (Yan Zhuang, 1985; Mao
Weili, 1986; Huang Cidong, 1984; He Ziran & Yan Zhuang, 1986;
He Ziran, 1988; Duan Kaicheng, 1987) or cultural shocks or
cross-cultural communicational breakdowns (Maley, 1988; Ouyang,
1988; Oatey, 1988). On this basis, native speakers attitude towards
the learners pragmatic failure was attempted.
He Ziran (1991), for example, discussed the role of empathy in
native and non-native speakers communications. He thus reported how
native speakers empathy affected their judgment on Chinese learners
pragmatic failures. Chen Feng (1992:69) also approached the
potential effect of a transferred feature of use by looking into
native speakers tolerance for pragmatic failures by Chinese
learners of English and reported that native speakers do give
empathy to Chinese learners ways of speaking.
Li Jie (1992) tackled the issue by focusing on the linguistic
deviations and how native speakers viewed these deviated linguistic
forms. He reported that native speakers hold tolerance towards some
pragmatic failures items by Chinese students at different levels
under different contexts, some can simply not be tolerated, some
can be highly tolerated while some can be tolerated to a certain
degree.
A more recent study was Chen Linhans (1996) investigation on
native speakers comprehension on certain expressions from Chinas
mostly widely read English newspaper, China Daily. The study
indicated that some very commonly-used expressions in this highly
prestige newspaper are not well understood by the English natives
or posed difficulty in understandings to various degree. Different
from the above practice, Yu Feixia (1995) made a comparison into
the politeness strategies and speech patterns between native
speakers and Chinese learners in realizing the speech acts of
request and suggestion. She reported that compared with native
speakers politeness strategies for realizing the speech act of
request and suggestion, Chinese students are more straightforward
instead of roundabout in their linguistic action, and leave an
impression of being abrupt, bossy, and domineering(Yu Feixia,
1995:54).
2.6 Summary
The reviewed limited literature so far suggests (i) that related
studies have compared or contrasted how non-native speakers
differed from native speakers due to their mother-tongue influences
in the realization of speech acts in the TL;
(ii) that the related studies attempted to discuss issues
pertaining to the identification of differences, typification of
the transferred features, conditions of transfer-occurrences, and
possible effects of such transfers.
(iii) that Kaspers attempt to divide pragmatic transfers into
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfers were helpful in
describing the learners transfer data. At the same time, the
dichotomous division was unable to account for the communicative
styles in the learners interlanguage data.
(iv) that explicit studies of negative pragmatic transfer in
interlanguage pragmatics have been few in spite of the apparent
role of negative pragmatic transfer in interlanguage
pragmatics.
2. 7 Aims of the present study and hypotheses
In spite of the above findings, our knowledge about negative
pragmatic transfer is limited in that almost all cited literature
under review based their finding claims on the survey of a single
speech act. In addition, all the conclusions of comparison and
contrasting were not explicit studies of negative pragmatic
transfer. The related findings were mostly by-the-way claims of
studies in speech acts, thus they provided us but an incomplete
scene of the landscape of negative pragmatic transfer. As a result,
we are not clear about what has been transferred, how the transfer
takes place and how native speakers view our students negative
pragmatic transfers (Kasper, 1992).
In terms of the contents of negative pragmatic transfer, we
displayed in Section 1.2.4 that Kaspers dichotomous division was
inadequate because it was unable to describe certain data.
With regards to how transfer takes place, we observed in Section
2.4 the significance in looking into those factors, social,
psychological and educational. However we think it even more basic,
for the sake of theory and practice, to look into the relationships
between the learners levels, length of TL learning and negative
pragmatic transfer.
Concerning the communicative effect of the learner language,
relevant studies were driving at how native speakers perceive
pragmatic failures and deviations. There has been no explicit
studies exploring negative pragmatic transfer.
The limited related literature of negative pragmatic transfer
and the availability for the study of transfer thus provided the
rationale for this study which specifically aimed to investigate
the classification, distribution and communicative effects of the
negative pragmatic transfers committed by Chinese learners.
By classification, we mean the grouping up of negative pragmatic
transfers according to their features (Longman Dictionary of
Contemparary English, LDCE, 191). By adult Chinese EFL learners, we
mean the learners above 18 years of age, of a 4-year university
program, and majoring in English as a foreign language.
By distribution, we mean the way in which the negative pragmatic
transfers of a group are distributed (LDCE: 318).
Effect, according to LDCE (350), refers to the result produced
on the mind or feelings. Hence, we are interested in finding out
how negative pragmatic transfers by Chinese students of English
will affect the minds and feelings of English native speakers.
Accordingly, we hold three hypotheses for the three research
questions:
(1) We believe Chinese students of English display more than two
types of negative pragmatic transfers. By this, we imply that
Kaspers dichotomous division of negative pragmatic transfer is not
able to account for all the data of negative pragmatic transfer by
Chinese learners.
(2) Negative pragmatic transfers may be reduced along with the
improvement of the students TL pragmatic knowledge. By pragmatic
knowledge, we mean the formal classroom teaching and advice on how
TL linguistic items are used. This does not imply any special
treatment to the classes of different levels of the students.
(3) Since negative pragmatic transfers are divergent uses of a
linguistic item in comparable situations from the TL norm, we
hypothesize that native speakers may accept our learners negative
pragmatic transfers.
References
Ajiboye, T., (1993): Learners error in French: aspects of
Nigerian evidence, in ITL: 101-1-2, 1993, pp.23-39.
Alim El-Sayed (1987): Variation of todays English: Implicatures
for teaching EFL in the Arabs world, in ITL: 76, pp. 63-96.
Bansal, R.K., (1966): The intelligibility of Indian English,
unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of London.
Beebe, L.M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R., (1990):
Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals, in Scarcella, R. C., Andersen,
E., & Krashen, S. C., (eds.)(1990): Developing Communicative
Competence in a Second Language, New York: Newbury House,
55-73.
Bergman, M., & Kasper, G., (1993): Perception and
Performance in Native and Nonnative Apology, in G. Kasper & S.
Blum-Kulka (eds.)(1993): Interlanguage Pragmatics, 82-107, Oxford:
OUP.
Berman, R. A., & Olshtain, E., (1983): Features of first
language transfer in second language attrition, in Applied
Linguistics, vol.4, no.3, Autumn, 1983.
Bialistock, E., (1993): Symbolic representation and attentional
control in pragmatic competence, in G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka
(eds.): Interlanguage pragmatics, 43-59. New York: OUP.
Bialystok, E., & Frohlich, M., (1980): Oral
communication-strategies for lexical difficulties, in Interlanguage
Studies Bulletin, 5, 3-10.
Bialystok, E., (1990a): Communication-strategies: A
psychological analysis of second-language use. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Bialystok, E., (1990b): The dangers of dichotomy: A reply to
Hulstijn, in Applied Language, 11 (1), 46-51.
Biskup, D., (1992): L1 influence on learners renderings of
English collocations: a Polish/German empirical study, in P.J.L.
Arnaud & H. Bejoint (eds.): Vocabulary and applied linguistics,
85-93. Houndmills: Macmillan.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Levenston, E.A., (1983): Universals of
lexical simplification, in C. Faerch, C., & G. Kasper (eds.)
(1983): Strategies in interlanguage communication, 119-139. London:
Longman.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Sheffer, H., (1993): The metapragmatic
discourse of American-Israel families at dinner, in G. Kasper,
& S. Blum-Kulka (eds.)(1993): Interlanguage Pragmatics,
196-223. Oxford: OUP.
Blum-Kulka, S., (1982): Learning how to say what you mean in a
second language: a study of speech act performance of learners of
Hebrew as a second language, in Applied Linguistics 3, 29~59.
Blum-Kulka, S., (1983): Interpreting and performing speech acts
in a second language: a cross-cultural study of Hebrew and English,
in N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.)(1983): Sociolinguistics and
Language Acquisition, 36~55. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Blum-Kulka, S., (1989): Playing it safe: The role of
conventionality in indirect requests, in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House,
& G. Kasper (eds.)(1989): Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests
and Apologies, 37~70. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., (1990): You dont touch lettuce with your
fingers: parental politeness in family discourse, in Journal of
Pragmatics 14, 259-88.
Blum-Kulka, S., (1991): Interlanguage Pragmatics: The Case of
Requests, in R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood
Smith, & M. Swain (eds.)(1991): Foreign/Second Language
Pedagogy Research, 255-272. NY: Springer-Verlag.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G., (eds.)(1989):
Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, 37~70. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, J., (1989):
Cross-cultural pragmatics. NY: Ablex.
Chen Feng (1992): A Study of Linguistic Deviation by Chinese
Speakers of English in Inter-Cultural Communication, Unpublished MA
thesis, Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languages.
Cheng Chichuan (1982): Chinese varieties of English, in B.
Kachru (ed.)(1982): The other tongue: Introduction.
Christina Paulston (1988): Linguistic interaction, intercultural
communication and communicative competence, in Hu Wenzhong (ed.)
(1988).
Clyne, M., Giannicos, C., & Neil, D., (1994): Cross-cultural
responses to cross-cultural communication, in ITL 9: 103-104,
pp.1-17.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E., (1981): Developing a measure
of sociocultural competence: a case study, in Language Learning 31,
113~134.
Cohen, A. D., (1996a): Developing the ability to perform speech
acts, in Studies of Second Language Acquisition 18, 2, 253~267.
Cohen, A.D., & Olshtain, E., (1993): The production of
speech acts by EFL learners, in TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 33-56.
Cohen, A.D., (1984): Studying language learner strategies: How
do we get the information? in A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin
(eds.)(1984): Learner strategies in language learning, 31-40.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Cohen, A.D., (1996b): Verbal reports as a source of insight into
second-language learner strategies, in Applied Language Learner, 7
(1).
Connor, Ulla, & McCagg, P., (1983): Cross-cultural
differences and perceived quality in written paraphrase of English
expository prose, in Applied Linguistics, vol 4, no.3, Autumn,
1983.
Corder, P., (1971): The significance of learners errors, in J.
Richards (ed.) (1974): Error Analysis, London: Longman.
Corder, P., (1981): Error Analysis and Interlanguage, Oxford:
CUP.
Corrales, O., & Call, M.E., (1989): At a loss of words: The
use of communicative strategies to convey lexical meaning, in
Foreign Language Annals, 22, 227-240.
DeCapua, A., (1989): An analysis of pragmatic transfer in the
speech act of complaints as produced by native speakers of German
and English, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia
University.
Deng Yanchang & Liu Runqing (1988; 1991): Language and
Culture Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Dickerson, C.J., (1975): The learners language as a system of
variable rules, in TESOL Quarterly, vol. 9, no.4, 401-407.
Duan Kaicheng (1987): On Illocutionary ForceA Contrastive Study
of English and Chinese, unpublished MA thesis of Guangzhou
Institute of Foreign Languages, Guangzhou.
Dulay, Heidi C. & Mary K. Burt (1974): You cant learn with
goofing, in Richards, J. (1974) (ed.), 95-123.
Eisenstein & Bodman (1993): Expressing gratitude in American
English, in G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.)(1993):
Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.
Ellis, R., (1986): Understanding second language acquisition,
Oxford: OUP.
Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Sharwood Smith, M., (eds.)
(1995): The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of
William Rutherford. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G., (1986): One-learner two languages:
Investigating types of interlanguage knowledge, in J. House &
S. Blum-Kulka (eds.)(1986): Interlingual and intercultural
communication, 211-227. Tuebingen: Gunter Narr.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G., (1983): Strategies in
interlanguage communication, London: Longman.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G., (1984): Pragmatic knowledge: rules
and procedures, in Applied Linguistics 4, 3, 214~225.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G., (1989a): On identifying
communication strategies in interlanguage production, in C. Faerch
& G. Kasper (eds.)(1989): Strategies in interlanguage
Communication, 210~238. London: Longman.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G., (1989b): Internal and external
modification in interlanguage request realization, in Blum-Kulka,
S., House, J., & Kasper, G., (eds.)(1989): Cross-cultural
Pragmatics, 221-47. Norwood, NI: Ablex.
Flege, J.E. & Davidian, R., (1977): Transfer and speech
production, in Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 323-347.
Garcia, C., (1989): Apologizing in English: politeness
strategies used by native and non-native speakers, in Multilingual,
8, 3-20.
Gass, S. (1979): Language transfer and universal grammatical
relations, in Language Learning, 29, 327-344.
Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L.,
(eds.)(1988): Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse
and pragmatics (Vol.1) and Psycholinguistic issues (vol.2). The
Multilingual Matters.
Grice, P., (1975): Logic and conversation, in P. Cole and J.
Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41~58. AP: New
York.
Grotjahn, R., (1983): On the use of quantitative methods in the
study of interlanguage, in Applied linguistics, vol.4, no.3,
Autumn, 1983.
Hakuta, K., (1974): Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of
structure in second language acquisition, in Language Learning, 24
(2), 287-297.
Hammerly, H., (1991): Fluency and accuracy, Multilingual Matters
Ltd.
Ho Meilian (1993): Variability of BE realization in the
Singaporean English speech continuum, in ITL:101-102, 1993,
pp.141-165.
House, J., & Blum-Kulka, S., (1986): Interlingual and
intercultural communication: Discourse on cognition in translation
and second language acquisition studies. Gunter Narr Verlag.
House, J., & Kasper, G., (1987): Interlanguage pragmatics:
requesting in a foreign language, in Loerscher, W., & Schulze,
R., (eds.): Perspectives on Language in Performance, 150~88.
Tuebingen: Narr.
House, J., (1988): Oh excuse me please: apologizing in a foreign
language, in Kettemann, B., Bierbaumer, P., Fill, A., & Karpf,
A., (eds.): Englisch als Zweitsprasche, 303-27. Tuebingen:
Narr.
Hu Wenzhong (ed.) (1988): Intercultural communicationwhat it
means to Chinese learners of English? Shanghai: Shanghai
Translation Press.
Hultfors, P., (1986): Reactions to non-nativenative speakers
assessments of errors in the use of English made by non-native
users of the language Part I: Acceptability and intelligibility;
Part II: Foreigner role and interpretation. (Studies in English
LXVII)
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S.H. (eds.) (1987): Interlanguage
phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system.
Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Jain, M. P., (1974): Error analysis: source, cause and
significance, in Richards, J. (ed.) (1974), p.189.
James, C., (1974): Linguist measures for error gravity, in AVLA
Journal, vol. 12, no.1, 3-9.
Kachru, B., (1982a): Models for non-native Englishes, in Braj
Kachru (ed.) (1982): The other tongue: Introduction.
Kachru, B., (1982b): Meaning in deviation, in Kachru (1982): The
other tongue: Introduction.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M., (1991): Research methods in
interlanguage pragmatics, in Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 13, 213-247.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R., (1996): Developmental issues in
interlanguage pragmatics, in Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18, 2: 151-169.
Kasper, G., (1981): Pragmatische Aspecte in der interinsprache.
Tubinger: Narr.
Kasper, G., (1989:13): Variation in interlanguage speech act
realization, in Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., and Selinker,
L., (eds.)(1989): Variation in second language acquisition:
discourse and pragmatics, 27~58. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Kasper, G., (1992): Pragmatic transfer, in Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 8, 3, 203~231.
Kasper, G., (1995a): Routine and indirectness in interlanguage
pragmatics, in Bouton, L.F.& Y. Kachru (eds.): Pragmatics and
Language Learning 5, Urbana: University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Division of English as an International
Language.
Kasper, G., (1995b): Interlanguage Pragmatics, in J.
Verschueren, Jan-Ola (stman & Jan Blommaert (eds.): Handbook of
Pragmatics 1995, 1-17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ. Co.
Kasper, G., (1996a): Introduction: Interlanguage pragmatics in
SLA, in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18. 2:145~148.
Kasper, G., (1996b): Interlanguage Pragmatic in SLA, in Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 2:145-148.
Kasper, G., (1996c): Interlanguage Pragmatics, in ROLIG-papier
56, 84~104.
Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M., (1986):
Cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition, Oxford:
Pergamon.
Kellerman, E., (1977): Towards the characterization of the
strategy of transfer in second language learning, in Interlanguage
Studies Bulletin, vol., no.1, 58-146. Kontra, M., (1993):
Communication interference and failure: a study of Hungarian
Americanisms, in ITL: 101-102, 1993, pp.77-88.
Krashen, S. & Scarcella, R., (1978): On routines and
patterns in language acquisition and performance, in Language
Learning, 9(4), 409-419.
Lado, R., (1960): Linguistics across culture. Ann Arbor, MI: the
University of Michigan Press.
Langford, D., (1994): Analysing Talkinvestigating verbal
interaction in English. Macmillan.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H., (1991): An introduction to
second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D., (1975): The acquisition of grammatical
morphemes by adult ESL students, in TESOL Quarterly, 9(4),
409-419.
Larson-Freeman, D., & M. Long, (1994): An Introduction to
Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman.
Leech, G., (1983): Principles of Pragmatics. London:
Longman.
Levenston, E.A. & Blum-Kulka, S., (1977): Aspects of lexical
simplification in the speech and writing of advanced adult
learners, in S. P. Corder & E. Roulet (eds.)(1977): Acte du
seme colloque de linguistique appliquee de Neuchtale, 51-71.
Geneve: Librairie Droz.
Levenston, E.A., (1971): Overindulgence and
under-representationaspects of mother tongue interference, in
Nickel (1971).
Li Jie (1992): The Tolerance of Native Speakers for Pragmatic
Failures Committed by Chinese Learners of English in Intercultural
Communication, unpublished MA thesis, Guangzhou Institute of
Foreign Languages.
Littlewood, William T., (1983): Contrastive pragmatics and the
foreign language learners personality, in Applied Linguistics,
vol.4, no.3, Autumn, 1983.
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S., (1996):
Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage pragmatics, in J. Neu
& S. Gass (eds.): Speech Acts across Cultures, 155~187. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Maley, A., (1988): The sad fate of good intentions, in Hu
Wenzhong (ed.): Intercultural Communication and What It Means to
Us, Shanghai Translation Press, 63-71.
Mao Weili (1986): Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure by Chinese
Learners in Speech Acts Realization, unpublished MA thesis of
Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languages, Guangzhou.
McGurn, J., (1991): Comparing languages. Cambridge: CUP.
Meara, P., (1984): The study of lexis in interlanguage, in A.
Davies, C. Criper & A.P.R.Howatt (eds.)(1984): Interlanguage:
Papers in honor of S. Pit Corder, 225-235. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University.
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L., (1991): From correction to
appropriatenessreview and comments on Authority in language. Second
edition.
Milton, J., & Meara, P., (1995): How periods abroad effect
vocabulary growth in a foreign language? in ITL: 107-108,
pp.17-34.
Nelson, C., (1982): Intelligibility and non-native Englishes, in
B. Kachru (ed.) (1982): The other tongue: Introduction.
Newser, W., (1971): Approximative systems of foreign language
learners, in IRAL, vol.9, no.2, 115-123.
Nicjel, G., (1985): How native can (or) should) a non-native
speaker be? in ITL: 67-68, 1985, pp.141-160.
Nihalani, P., (1988): Communication: RP and the third world, in
ITL: 79-80, 1988, pp.61-75.
Nsakala, L., (1994): Code-mixing as a communication strategy in
the speech of Zairean students, in ITL: 103-104, 1994.
Nunan, D.& Michael-Long, (1992): Research Methods in
Language Learning, Cambridge Language Teaching Library.
Nyhus, S.E., (1994): Attitudes of non-native speakers of English
toward the use of verbal report to elicit their reading
comprehension strategies. Plan B Paper, M.A. in English as a second
language. Minneaplis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Oatey, H., S., (1988): Chinese and western interpersonal
relationships, in Hu Wenzhong (ed.): Intercultural Communication
and What It Means to Us, 42-62. Shanghai Translation Press.
Odlin, T., (1989a): Word-order transfer, metalinguistic
awareness & constraints on EFL learning, in Second Language
acquisitionforeign language learning. Multilingual Matters.
Odlin, T., (1989b): Language transfer, Cambridge: CUP.
Olshtain, E., (1983): Sociocultural competence and language
transfer: the case of apology, in Gass, S., & Selinker, L.,
(eds.)(1983): Language Transfer in language Learning, 232~51.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Olshtain, E., (1987): The acquisition of new word formation
processes in second language acquisition, in Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 9(2), 221-231.
Omoniyi, T., (1994): English and the other tongue in official
communicative interaction in Nigeria, in ITL: 103-104, 1994,
pp.57-75.
Ouyang, F., (1988): Some typical cultural mistakes made by
Chinese learners of English, in Hu Wenzhong (ed.) Intercultural
Communication and What It Means to Us, 31-41. Shanghai: Shanghai
Translation Press.
Palmberg, R., (1985): How much English vocabulary do
Swedish-speaking primary-school pupils know before starting to
learn at school? in H. Ringbom (ed.): Foreign language learning and
bilingualism, 89-97. ABO: ABO Akademi.
Platt, J., & Weber, H., (1980): English in Singapore and
Malaysia: status, features and function, Kuala Lumpur: OUP.
Politzer, R.L., (1978): Errors of English speakers of German as
perceived and evaluated by German natives, in Modern Language
Journal, 62, 253-261.
Qin Xiubai (1988): EFL learning and culture acquisition, in Hu
Wenzhong (ed.) (1988), Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Press.
Ravem, Roar (1974a): Language acquisition in second language
environment, in Richards, J. (1974) (ed.), pp. 124-133.
Ravem, Roar (1974b): The development of wh-questions in first
and second language learners, in Richards, J. (1974) (ed.), pp.
134-157.
Richard, J. & Sukiwiwat, M. (1983): Language transfer and
conversational competence, in Applied Linguistics, vol 4. no.3,
Autumn, 1983.
Richards, J. & Gloria P. Sampson, (1974): The study of
learner language, in Richards, J. (1974) (ed.), pp.3-18.
Richards, J. & Sukiwiwat, M., (1983): Language transfer and
conversational competence, in Applied Linguistics vol. 4. no.3,
Autumn, 1983, pp.113-125.
Richards, J., & Sampson, G., (1974): The study of learner
language, in J. Richards (ed.) (1974).
Richards, J., (1971): Error analysis and second language
strategies, in Language Science, vol.17, 12-22.
Richards, J., (1974a) (ed.): Error Analysis: perspectives on
second language acquisition, London: Longman.
Richards, J., (1974b): Social factors, interlanguage and
language learning, in Richards (ed.) (1982).
Richards, J., (1982): Singapore English: Rhetorical and
communicative styles, in B. Kachru (ed.) (1982): The other tongue:
Introduction.
Ringbom & Hakan, (1983): Borrowing and lexical transfer, in
Applied Linguistics, vol.4, no.3, Autumn 1983.
Robinson, M. S., (1992): Introspective methodology in
interlanguage pragmatics research, in G. Kasper (ed.) Pragmatics of
Japanese as Native and Target Language (technical report # 3, pp.
27~82), Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University
of Hawaii at Manoa.
Sayed, El, A., (1990): Politeness formulas in English &
Arabi: A contrastive study, in ITL: 89-90, pp.1-23.
Schmidt, R., (1993): Consciousness, learning and interlanguage
pragmatics, in G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.) (1993):
Interlanguage pragmatics, Cambridge: CUP.
Selinker, L., (1969): Language transfer, in General Linguistics,
vol.9, no.2, 67-92.
Selinker, L., (1972): Interlanguage, in J. Richards (ed.)
(1974).
Selinker, L., (eds.)(1983): Language Transfer in Language
Learning, 137-74. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sharwood-Smith, M., (1983): Cross-linguistic aspects of second
language acquisition, in Applied Linguistics, vol.4, no.3, Summer,
1983.
Sharwood-Smith, M., (1994): Second Language Learning:
Theoretical Foundations, 3-21. London: Longman.
Skehan, P., (1989): Individual differences in second-language
learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Smith, L., (1985: EIL vs ESL/EFL: Whats the difference &
what difference does the difference make? in Forum, vol.23:4,
pp.226.
Smith, Larry (1988): Some thought on the teaching and learning
of English as an international language in China, in Hu Wenzhong
(ed.) (1988).
Stanlaw, J., (1982): English in Japanese communicative
strategies, in B. Kachru (ed.) (1982): The other tongue:
Introduction.
Svanes, B., (1988): Attitudes and cultural distance in second
language acquisition, in Applied Linguistics, vol.9/4, Dec.
1988.
Swan, M., & Smith, B., (ed.) (1987): Learner English: a
teachers guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge:
CUP.
Takahashi, S., & DuFon, M.A., (1989): Cross-linguistic
influence in indirectness: the case of English directives performed
by native Japanese speakers, unpublished paper, University of
Hawaii at Monoa.
Takahashi, S., (1992): Transferability of indirect request
strategies, in University Working of Hawaii Working Paper in ESL,
11, 1, 69-124.
Takahashi, S., (1995): Pragmatic transferability of L1 indirect
request strategies perceived by Japanese learners of English,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at
Manoa.
Takahashi, S., (1996): Pragmatic Transferability, in Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 18, 2: 189-223.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M., (1987): The development of
pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English, in JALT
Journals 8, 131~55.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M., (1992): Cross-linguistic
influence in the speech act of correction, in Kasper, G., &
Blum-Kulka, S., (eds.): Interlanguage Pragmatics, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, M. L., (1993): Cross-linguistic
influence in the speech act of correction, in Kasper, G., &
Blum-Kulka, S., (1993) (eds.): Interlanguage Pragmatics, Oxford:
OUP, 138-158.
Tarone, E., (1976): Some influences on interlanguage phonology,
in Working Papers in Bilingualism, 8, 87-111.
Tarone, E., (1977): Conscious communication strategies in
interlanguage, in H.D Brown, C.A.Yorio, & R.C. Crymco
(eds.)(1977): On TESOL 77, 194-203. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Tarone, E., (1978): The phonology of interlanguage, in J. C.
Richards (ed.)(1978): Understanding second and foreign language
learning: Issues and approach. 15-33. Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Publishers, Inc.
Tarone, E., (1983): On the variability of interlanguage system,
in Applied Linguistics, vol.4, no.3, Autumn, 1983.
Taylor, B., (1975): The use of overgeneralization and transfer
learning strategies by elementary and intermediate students in ESL,
in Language Learning, vol.25, no.1, 73-107.
Thomas, J., (1983): Cross-cultural pragmatic failure, in Applied
Linguistics 4, 91-122.
Tiffen, B. 1974): The intelligibility of Nigerian English,
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London.
Trosborg, A., (1987): Apology strategies in natives/non-natives,
in Journal of Pragmatics 11, 147-67.
Varadi, T. (1973): Strategies of target language communications:
message adjustment, in Paper given at the sixth Conference on
Romania-English Project, Timisoara.
Varadi, T., (1980): Strategies of target language learner
communication: Message adjustment, in International Review of
Applied Linguistics, 18 (17, 59-72).
Websters Third New World International Dictionary (WNW,
1986:2427), New Haven: The Merriam Webster, Inc.
Weinert, R., (1995): The role of formulaic language in second
language acquisition: A review, in Applied Linguistics, vol.16,
no.2, 1995.
Whinnom, K., (1971): Linguistic hybridization, in Hymes (ed.)
(1971).
Wolfson, N., (1981): Compliments in cross-cultural perspective,
in TESOL Quarterly 15, 117~24.
Xu Guozhang (1988): Culturally loaded words and English
teaching, in Hu Wenzhong (ed.) (1988).
Yan Zhuang (1985): Pragmatics, Pragmatic Failure, and English
Language Teaching, unpublished MA thesis of Guangzhou Institute of
Foreign Languages, Guangzhou.
Yu Feixia (1995): Request and Suggestion: A Pragmatic Study of
Native Speakers of English and Chinese Speakers of English
Politeness Strategies and Speech Patterns, unpublished MA thesis,
Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languages.
Zuengler, J., (1993:184): Explaining NNS interactional behavior:
The effect of conversational topic, in G. Kasper & S.
Blum-Kulka (1993): Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.
Zuo Huanqi (1988): Verbal interactions of compliment in American
English and Chinese, in Hu Wenzhong (ed.) (1988).
1992 19921996144~461985198519871
1991My views of C-E translation of political writings339~431993
31982 3-41992, 4
(1995), 95 ()1990 ()1993 1993
1991419913 1978 11996 11-6
1986352~5719881991411~15199321~71988361~651988
1984113~181994119864199121992self3 198861996
1993 418~241992(Communicative English for Chinese Learners)
199211997a313~191997b314~191997c126~321997d373~801997e1997f121997g41~61997h324~31199611~6
199111~81981
1994 1199021994 134~38199031990 11995
1995 3 1994
1994199419941996Contrastive study of E & C personal pronouns
1996185-200Ajiboye, T.. Learners error in French: aspects of
Nigerian evidence [J]., In ITL: 101-1-2, 1993:23-39.
Alim El-Sayed. Variation of todays English: Implicatures for
teaching EFL in the Arabs world [J]. In ITL: 76, 1987: 63-96.
Bansal, R.K.. The intelligibility of Indian English [D].
Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of London, 1966.
Beebe, L.M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R.. Pragmatic
transfer in ESL refusals [C]. In Scarcella, R. C., Andersen, E.,
& Krashen, S. C., (eds.). Developing Communicative Competence
in a Second Language [A]. New York: Newbury House, 1990:55-73.
Bergman, M., & Kasper, G.. Perception and Performance in
Native and Nonnative Apology [C]. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka
(eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [A]. Oxford: OUP, 1993:82-107.
Bialistock, E.. Symbolic representation and attentional control
in pragmatic competence [C]. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka
(eds.): Interlanguage pragmatics [A]. New York: OUP,
1993:43-59.
Bialystok, E., & Frohlich, M.. Oral communication-strategies
for lexical difficulties [C]. In Interlanguage Studies Bulletin,
1980 (5): 3-10.
Bialystok, E.. Communication-strategies: A psychological
analysis of second-language use [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1990.
Biskup, D.. L1 influence on learners renderings of English
collocations: a Polish/German empirical study [C]. Iin P.J.L.
Arnaud & H. Bejoint (eds.): Vocabulary and applied linguistics
[A]. Houndmills: Macmillan, 1992:85-93.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Levenston, E.A.. Universals of lexical
simplification [C]. In C. Faerch, C., & G. Kasper (eds.).
Strategies in interlanguage communication [A]. London: Longman,
1983:119-139.
Blum-Kulka, S.. Learning how to say what you mean in a second
language: a study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew
as a second language [J]. In Applied Linguistics 3, 1982:29~59.
Chen Feng. A Study of Linguistic Deviation by Chinese Speakers
of English in Inter-Cultural Communication [D]. Unpublished MA
thesis, Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languages, 1992.
Clyne, M., Giannicos, C., & Neil, D.. Cross-cultural
responses to cross-cultural communication [J]. In ITL 9: 103-104,
1994:1-17.
Cohen, A.D.. Verbal reports as a source of insight into
second-language learner strategies [J]. In Applied Language
Learner, 7, 1996 (1).
Connor, Ulla, & McCagg, P.. Cross-cultural differences and
perceived quality in written paraphrase of English expository prose
[J]. In Applied Linguistics 4, 1983 (3).
Corder, P.. The significance of learners errors [C]. In J.
Richards (ed.). Error Analysis [A]. London: Longman, 1971.
Corder, P.. Error Analysis and Interlanguag [M]. Oxford: CUP,
1981.
Corrales, O., & Call, M.E.. At a loss of words: The use of
communicative strategies to convey lexical meaning [J]. In Foreign
Language Annals 22, 1989:227-240.
Deng Yanchang & Liu Runqing. Language and Culture [M].
Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1989.
Deng Yanchang & Liu Runqing. Language and Culture [M].
Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1991.
Dickerson, C.J.. The learners language as a system of variable
rules [J]. In TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 9, 1975 (4):401-407.
Duan Kaicheng. On Illocutionary ForceA Contrastive Study of
English and Chinese [D]. Unpublished MA thesis of Guangzhou
Institute of Foreign Languages, Guangzhou, 1987.
Dulay, Heidi C. & Mary K. Burt. You cant learn with goofing
[C]. In Richards, J. (ed.). [A].1974: 95-123.
Ellis, R.. Understanding second language acquisition [M].
Oxford: OUP, 1986.Grotjahn, R.. On the use of quantitative methods
in the study of interlanguage [J]. In Applied linguistics, Vol.4,
1983 (3).
Hakuta, K.. Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of
structure in second language acquisition [J]. In Language Learning
24, 1974 (2): 287-297.
Hammerly, H.. Fluency and accuracy [M]. Multilingual Matters
Ltd., 1991.
Ho Meilian. Variability of BE realization in the Singaporean
English speech continuum [J]. In ITL: 101-102, 1993,
1993:141-165.
House, J., & Blum-Kulka, S.. Interlingual and intercultural
communication: Discourse on cognition in translation and second
language acquisition studies [M]. Gunter Narr Verlag, 1986.
House, J., & Kasper, G.. Interlanguage pragmatics:
requesting in a foreign language C]. In Loerscher, W., &
Schulze, R., (eds.): Perspectives on Language in Performance [A].
Tuebingen: Narr., 1987:150~88
Hu Wenzhong (ed.).Intercultural communicationwhat it means to
Chinese learners of English? [A].Shanghai: Shanghai Translation
Press, 1988.
Hultfors, P.. Reactions to non-nativenative speakers assessments
of errors in the use of English made by non-native users of the
language Part I: Acceptability and intelligibility; Part II:
Foreigner role and interpretation. (Studies in English LXVII) [M],
1986.
Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S.H. (eds.).Interlanguage phonology:
The acquisition of a second language sound system [A]. Cambridge,
MA: Newbury House Publishers, 1987.
Jain, M. P.. Error analysis: source, cause and significance [C].
In Richards, J. (ed.) [A]. 1974:189.
James, C.. Linguist measures for error gravity [J]. In AVLA
Journal, Vol. 12, 1974 (1):3-9.
Kachru, B. B. (ed.). The Other Tongue [A], Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1982.Kasper, G.. Pragmatische Aspecte in der
interinsprache [M]. Tubinger: Narr., 1981
Kasper, G.. Pragmatic transfer [J]. In Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 8, 3, 1992:203~231.
Kasper, G.. Interlanguage Pragmatics [C]. In J. Verschueren,
Jan-Ola (stman & Jan Blommaert (eds.): Handbook of Pragmatics
1995 [A]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ. Co, 1995:1-17.
Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M.. Cross-linguistic
influence in second language acquisition [M]. Oxford: Pergamon,
1986.
Kellerman, E.. Towards the characterization of the strategy of
transfer in second language learning [J]. In Interlanguage Studies
Bulletin, 1977 (1):58-146. Kontra, M.. Communication interference
and failure: a study of Hungarian Americanisms [J]. In ITL:101-102,
1993:77-88.
Krashen, S. & Scarcella, R.. On routines and patterns in
language acquisition and performance [J]. In Language Learning 9,
1978(4):409-419.
Lado, R.. Linguistics across culture [M]. Ann Arbor, MI: the
University of Michigan Press, 1960.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H.. An introduction to second
language acquisition research [M]. London: Longman, 1991.
Larsen-Freeman, D.. The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by
adult ESL students [J]. In TESOL Quarterly 9, 1975(4):409-419.
Leech, G.. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman,
1983.
Levenston, E.A. & Blum-Kulka, S.. Aspects of lexical
simplification in the speech and writing of advanced adult learners
[C]. In S. P. Corder & E. Roulet (eds.). Acte du seme colloque
de linguistique appliquee de Neuchtale [A]. Geneve: Librairie Droz,
1977:51-71.
Levenston, E.A., (1971): Overindulgence and
under-representationaspects of mother tongue interference, in
Li Jie. The Tolerance of Native Speakers for Pragmatic Failures
Committed by Chinese Learners of English in Intercultural
Communication [D]. Unpublished MA thesis, Guangzhou Institute of
Foreign Languages, 1992.
Maley, A.. The sad fate of good intentions [C]. In Hu Wenzhong
(ed.): Intercultural Communication and What It Means to Us [A].
Shanghai Translation Press, 1988:63-71.
McGurn, J.. Comparing languages [M]. Cambridge: CUP, 1991.
Meara, P.. The study of lexis in interlanguage [C]. In A.
Davies, C. Criper & A.P.R.Howatt (eds.). Interlanguage: Papers
in honor of S. Pit Corder [A]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University,
1984:225-235.
Nelson, C.. Intelligibility and non-native Englishes [C]. In B.
Kachru (ed.) (1982): The other tongue: Introduction [A]., 1982.
Newser, W.. Approximative systems of foreign language learners
[J]. In IRAL, Vol.9, 1971 (2):115-123.
Nicjel, G.. How native can (or) should) a non-native speaker be?
[J]. In ITL:67-68, 1985:141-160.
Nihalani, P.. Communication: RP and the third world [J]. In
ITL:79-80, 1988:61-75.
Nsakala, L.. Code-mixing as a communication strategy in the
speech of Zairean students [J]. In ITL:103-104, 1994.
Nunan, D.& Michael-Long. Research Methods in Language
Learningi [M]. Cambridge Language Teaching Library, 1992.
Nyhus, S.E.. Attitudes of non-native speakers of English toward
the use of verbal report to elicit their reading comprehension
strategies [D]. Plan B Paper, M.A. in English as a second language.
Minneaplis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1994.
Oatey, H., S.. Chinese and western interpersonal relationships
[C]. In Hu Wenzhong (ed.): Intercultural Communication and What It
Means to Us [M]. Shanghai Translation Press, 1988:42-62.
Odlin, T.. Language transfer [M]. Cambridge: CUP, 1989.
Olshtain, E.. Sociocultural competence and language transfer:
the case of apology [C]. In Gass, S., & Selinker, L.,
(eds.)(1983): Language Transfer in language Learning [A]. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House, 1983:232~51.
Olshtain, E.. The acquisition of new word formation processes in
second language acquisition [J]. In Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 9, 1987 (2):221-231.
Omoniyi, T.. English and the other tongue in official
communicative interaction in Nigeria [J]. In ITL:103-104,
1994:57-75.
Ouyang, F.. Some typical cultural mistakes made by Chinese
learners of English [C]. In Hu Wenzhong (ed.) Intercultural
Communication and What It Means to Us [A]. Shanghai: Shanghai
Translation Press, 1988:31-41.
Palmberg, R.. How much English vocabulary do Swedish-speaking
primary-school pupils know before starting to learn at school? [C].
In H. Ringbom (ed.): Foreign language learning and bilingualism
[A]. ABO: ABO Akademi, 1985:89-97.
Platt, J., & Weber, H.. English in Singapore and Malaysia:
status, features and function [M]. Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1980.
Politzer, R.L.. Errors of English speakers of German as
perceived and evaluated by German natives [J]. In Modern Language
Journal 62, 1978:253-261.
Qin Xiubai. EFL learning and culture acquisition [C]. In Hu
Wenzhong (ed.). [A]. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Press,
1988.
Richard, J. & Sukiwiwat, M.. Language transfer and
conversational competence [J]. In Applied Linguistics, Vol 4. 1983
(3).
Richards, J. & Gloria P. Sampson. The study of learner
language [J]. In Richards, J.(ed.). [A]. 1974:3-18.
Richards, J. & Sukiwiwat, M.. Language transfer and
conversational competence [J]. In Applied Linguistics Vol. 4, 1983
(3):113-125.
Richards, J., & Sampson, G.. The study of learner language
[C]. In J. Richards (ed.). [A]. 1974.
Richards, J.. Error analysis and second language strategies [J].
In Language Science, Vol.17, 1971:12-22.
Richards, J.. Error Analysis: perspectives on second language
acquisition [A]. London: Longman, 1974.
Richards, J.. Singapore English: Rhetorical and communicative
styles [C]. In B. Kachru (ed.). The other tongue: Introduction
[A].1982.
Robinson, M. S.. Introspective methodology in interlanguage
pragmatics research [C]. In G. Kasper (ed.). Pragmatics of Japanese
as Native and Target Language (technical report # 3) [A]. Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at
Manoa, 1992:27-82.
Schmidt, R.. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage
pragmatics [C]. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.).
Interlanguage pragmatics [A]. Cambridge: CUP, 1993.
Selinker, L. Language transfer [J]. In General Linguistics,
Vol.9, 1969 (2):67-92.
Selinker, L.. Interlanguage [C]. In J. Richards (ed.). [A].
1974.
Selinker, L.. Language Transfer in Language Learning [M].
Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983:137-174.
Sharwood-Smith, M.. Cross-linguistic aspects of second language
acquisition [J]. In Applied Linguistics, Vol.4, 1983 (3).
Sharwood-Smith, M.. Second Language Learning: Theoretical
Foundations [M]. London: Longman, 1994:3-21.
Skehan, P.. Individual differences in second-language learning
[M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1989.
Smith, Larry. Some thought on the teaching and learning of
English as an international language in China [C]. In Hu Wenzhong
(ed.). [A]. 1988.
Stanlaw, J.. English in Japanese communicative strategies [C].
In B. Kachru (ed.). The other tongue: Introduction [A]. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1982.
Svanes, B.. Attitudes and cultural distance in second language
acquisition [J]. In Applied Linguistics, Vol.9, 1988 (4).
Swan, M., & Smith, B. (ed.). Learner English: a teachers
guide to interference and other problems [A]. Cambridge: CUP,
1987.
Takahashi, S.. Transferability of indirect request strategies
[C]. In University Working of Hawaii Working Paper in ESL 11 [A],
1992 (1):69-124.
Takahashi, S.. Pragmatic transferability of L1 indirect request
strategies perceived by Japanese learners of English [D].
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
1995.
Takahashi, S.. Pragmatic Transferability [J]. In Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 18, 1996 (2):189-223.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M.. The development of pragmatic
competence by Japanese learners of English [J]. In JALT Journals 8,
1987:131-55.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M.. Cross-linguistic influence in
the speech act of correction [C]. In Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka,
S., (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [A]. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, M. L.. Cross-linguistic influence in
the speech act of correction [C]. In Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka,
S. (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [A]. Oxford: OUP,
1993:138-158.
Tarone, E.. Some influences on interlanguage phonology [J]. In
Working Papers in Bilingualism, 8, 1976:87-111.
Tarone, E.. Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage
[C]. In H.D Brown, C.A.Yorio, & R.C. Crymco (eds.). On TESOL 77
[A]. Washington, D.C.: TESOL, 1977:194-203.
Tarone, E.. The phonology of interlanguage [C]. In J. C.
Richards (ed.). Understanding second and foreign language learning:
Issues and approach [A]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc,
1978:15-33.
Tarone, E.. On the variability of interlanguage system [J]. In
Applied Linguistics, Vol.4, 1983 (3).
Taylor, B.. The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning
strategies by elementary and intermediate students in ESL [J]. In
Language Learning, Vol.25, 1975 (1):73-107.
Thomas, J.. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure [J]. In Applied
Linguistics 4, 1983:91-122.
Tiffen, B.. The intelligibility of Nigerian English [D].
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1974.
Varadi, T.. Strategies of target language communications:
message adjustment [C]. In Paper given at the sixth Conference on
Romania-English Project [A]. Timisoara, 1973.
Varadi, T.. Strategies of target language learner communication:
Message adjustment [J]. In International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 18, 1980 (17):59-72.
Websters Third New World International Dictionary (WNW) [Z]. New
Haven: The Merriam Webster, Inc, 1986.
Weinert, R.. The role of formulaic language in second language
acquisition: A review [J]. In Applied Linguistics, Vol.16, 1995
(2).
Whinnom, K.. Linguistic hybridization [C]. In Hymes, D. (ed.).
[A]. 1971.
Wolfson, N.. Compliments in cross-cultural perspective [J]. In
TESOL Quarterly 15, 1981:117-24.
Xu Guozhang. Culturally loaded words and English teaching [C].
In Hu Wenzhong (ed.). [A]. 1988.
Yu Feixia. Request and Suggestion: A Pragmatic Study of Native
Speakers of English and Chinese Speakers of English Politeness
Strategies and Speech Patterns [D]. Unpublished MA thesis,
Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languages, 1995.
Zuo Huanqi. Verbal interactions of compliment in American
English and Chinese [C]. In Hu Wenzhong (ed.). [A]. 1988.
Chen Jianping (). [C]. . [A]. : , 1992.
Chen Ping (). [C]. [A]. , 1985.
Chen Ying (). [J]. , 1987 (1).Cheng Zhenqiu (). My views of C-E
translation of political writings [J]. , 1991 (3):39-43.
Ding Ren (). [J]. , 1993 (3).
Fan Cunzhong (). [J]. , 1982(3-4).
Ge Xiaoqin (). [J]. , 1991 (4).
Gong Kajia (). [J]. , 1991 (3).
Gui Cankun (). [J]. , 1978 (1).
He Ziran (). [M]. , 1988.
He Ziran (). [J]. , 1991 (4):11-15.
He Ziran (). [J]. , 1993 (2):1-7.
Jia Yande (). [J]. , 1994 (1).
Jin Dingyuan (). [J]. , 1986 (4).
Jin Jiling (). [J]. , 1991 (2).
Jin Jiling (). self [J]. , 1996 (3).
Li Dong (). [J]. , 1988 (6).
Li Ruihua (). [A]. : , 1996.Li Wenzhong (). [J]. , 1993
(4):18-24.
Liu Miqing (). [J]. , 1992 (1).
Liu Shaozhong (). [J]. , 2000 (5).
Rong Pei, Wang ( ). [J]. , 1991 (1):1-8.
Shao Zhihong (). [J]. , 1994 (1).
Tang Tingchi (). [J]. , 1990 (2).
Wan Changsheng (). [J]. , 1994 (1):34-38.
Wang Guizhen (). [J]. , 1990 (1).
Xia Jimei (). : [M]. :, 1995.Xie Zhijun (). : [J]. , 1995
(3).
Zhang Weizu (). [M]. : , 1994.Zhang Xianglin (). [M]. ,
1994.
Zhang Yanchang & Zhang Erli (). [C]. . [A]. , 1994.
Zhao Shikai (). Contrastive study of E & C personal pronouns
[C]. . [A]. , 1996:185-200.
About the author: Shaozhong Liu (1963-), earned his Ph.D in 1997
in linguistics and applied linguistics, with a focus on pragmatics,
at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. He has lectured widely,
including being a 2-year visiting professor at Wake Forest
University. He is now Professor of Linguistics and Dean of Foreign
Languages Department, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, China. His
research interests include linguistics and applied linguistics in
general, and pragmatics in particular. He has been looking at
issues in cognitive pragmatics (the Relevance Theory) and
interlanguage pragmatics, especially cross-cultural production and
comprehension of speech acts, and pragmatic transfers.
(Guangxi Normal University Journal, 2002/3)
1246