应用语言学期末论文
语用学期末论文

2014-2015学年第一学期语用学与英语教学课程考核(研究报告)题目:An analysis of Pragmatic Failure with Cross-cultural Communications学号(准考证号):1230100054姓名:焦凯丽专业:英语(教法方向)年级:2012级学院:外国语学院完成日期:2015年 1 月10日IntroductionThe Cross-cultural Pragmatics is a relatively young linguistic branch compared with the Traditional Linguistics and Structural Modern Linguistics. It attaches great importance to the research of cross-cultural characteristics. And the cross-cultural pragmatic failure is a common phenomenon in cross-cultural communication process. This paper focus on the analyzing of different kinds of pragmatic failures in our cross-cultural communication, at the same time, giving reflections and feedbacks on our English learning and Language teaching. Being in the rapid developed century of our human society, we should heighten the awareness of appropriating use of pragmatic language in our cross-cultural communication.Part I Theoretical basisBefore Noam Chomsky, Traditional Linguistics and Structural Modern Linguistics regarded language as a system of completely self-sufficient blocking structure, which put an emphasis on the vision field of language researches on the description of linguistic entity and put the language teaching on a cultural vacuum to conduct a rigid practice. But this failed to attach the expected research on the Social culture which affects the language how it affects the construction, comprehension and expression. As a result, linguistic theories couldn't resolve realistic problems of language. And often communicators who have learned some basic knowledge such as phonetic, lexicon and grammar still couldn't carry out proper and effective communication. The birth of sociolinguistics breaks through the research restriction of traditional linguistics and pragmatics and structural. It deepens people’s realization to linguistic social nature and construct a high qualified platform for the study of the Intercultural Communication. However, all kinds of failure still occur in the intercultural communication which influences the quality of international communication because communications cannot master enough foreign knowledge or acknowledge the culture feature of foreign nation. So the research of pragmatic failure in the cross-cultural communication has become a problem of important theoretic meaning and realistic value in the contemporary linguistic study.Cross-cultural Pragmatics is a relatively young linguistic branch, growing out of pragmatics and comparative linguistics, and introducing cultural factors into the research scope of pragmatics. It attracted great importance to the research of cross-cultural characteristics. Cross-cultural pragmatics is the study of the use of second language in cross-cultural speech communication when the pragmatic problem occurs. The conception pragmatic of pragmatic failure was formally proposed by the famous British scientist Jenny Thomas in her thesis "Cross一Cultural Pragmatic Failure" in 1983 which established a theoretical framework for the analysis of pragmatic failure and cultural transfer. She defines pragmatic failure as "inability to understand what is meant by what is said." Thus, Cross-cultural pragmatic failurecan refer to the misunderstanding and even conflict arising in the communication process because of the hearer's failure to catch discourse implication of the speaker accurately and because of his following improper output of utterances, which may be proper in his culture. The pioneer study of pragmatic failure in China goes to He Ziran and his fraternity. In 1984, they launched investigation into pragmatic differences between English and Chinese in reference to Thomas theory, and made known their results of investigation together with explanations about pragmatic failure. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure is a common phenomenon in cross-cultural communication process, in this process, the speaker disobeys the communication standard and social customs, ignores hearer's identity or status, harms the special cultural value of target language, causes the breaking off or failure of communication, makes communicating obstacles, then communication cannot achieve the expected results. Though there is no grammatical error, the wrong way of speaking or the improper performance makes the communication lose the expected effect.Part II Case studiesThere are many kinds of pragmatic failure in our cross-culture communication. First is about the phonetic pragmatic failure. A teacher who teach Chinese in England recalled that, ”My student, John is a typical English gentleman. When we walk down stairs, he always said that '请小心裸体(楼梯),下流,一起下流(下楼)吧。
有关语言学课程的论文范文

有关语言学课程的论文范文语言学是研究语言的性质、功能、结构、运用和历史发展的一门学科。
下面是店铺为大家整理的有关语言学的论文,供大家参考。
语言学的论文范文篇一:《试谈社会语言学视角下的外语教学》一、引言社会语言学是20世纪60年代在美国首先兴起的边缘性学科。
社会语言学是运用社会学和语言学等几门学科的理论和方法,从不同的社会科学角度来研究语言的社会本质及差异的学科。
社会语言学主要是注重语言的社会性,表现在:首先注重跨学科的实际应用的动态性,其次,侧重于语言的社会功能的表现。
它着重从语言与社会各种因素之间的关系来探讨和研究语言及其运用的规律,为更好地进行语言学的研究开辟了一个更广阔的崭新领域。
同时,给外语教学也带来了巨大而深刻的影响。
二、社会语言学的基本概念社会语言学主要是研究语言社会现象的一门学科。
它关注的不是语言的核心结构体系,而是语言的边缘部分,也就是说,它主要关注的是人们在日常生活中的语言表现。
研究的是语言和社会之间的关系问题,同时,考查社会语境中语言使用的现象,并且从社会语言学角度描述和解释语言使用的各种变化。
那么,根据研究的对象不同,社会语言学大致可以被分为宏观社会语言学和微观社会语言学两大类。
宏观社会语言学主要研究与全局相关的整体性问题,比如,语言规划的制定、语言政策、语言规范化问题、文字改革等等。
而微观社会语言学是研究各种社会条件下的语言变异,比如,民族或种族、阶级、性别、年龄等等社会因素对语言使用所产生的影响、人们对各种变体的态度及评价、各种语言变体的构造特点和社会功能等等。
三、我国的外语教学现状一直以来,我国外语教学重视的是语言教学,而忽视文化教学。
无论是对教师还是对学习者而言,他们都会把自己的大部分时间和大部分注意力用在学习和讲解词汇及语法上,却不注重语言应用功能在文化特征方面和社会实践方面的探究。
因此,使得学生对语言的运用能力整体都不合格,主要表现在不能用外语进行有效而流利的跨文化交际,不能将我国的传统文化真正传播出去。
应用语言学论文

Critical Review姓名:常首鸣班级:08级外应2班学号:2008142 专业:翻译理论及实践Article: Cohesion Is Not Coherence Author: Patricia L. Carrell1.Introduction:The author of the article is Patricia L. Carrell, a professor of linguistics at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale where she teaches in the M.A. in EFL/ESL program, and she is currently visiting Professor of ESL at the University of Hawaii. Her article, Cohesion Is Not Coherence, is published in 1982 when a tremendous attention has been paid to the field of studying text as a unit of language beyond the sentence level, and almost at the same time many researchers of first language as well as applied and second language researchers have been proposed a variety of approaches and theoretical accounts in the field, trying to explain the fundamental properties of text. These approaches are called text grammars, among which Michael Halliday and Rugaiya Hasan’s cohesion theory has been the most influential one.The purpose of the article is to criticise cohesion theory as a criterion of textual coherence from the perspective of schema-theoretical view which has taken the reader into caaount, and which has viewed both reading and writing as an interactive process involving the writer and the reader, as well as the text.Personally the article is worth writing for it has not only challenged the cohesion theroy which has been regarded as a measure of textual coherence, pointing out the weakness of the theory, but provided some penetrating points which, I think, is a insightful contribution to the ESL research, especially on writing and reading.The article is a well-origanized writing, especially the first paragraph which functions as an abstract. In terms of the elements a complete abstract should have, thisparagraph could be a model writing on the level of both structure and logic.2.Body2.1 On the Introduction Part of This Articlethe writer clearly and concisely reviews the background information that Halliday and Hasan proposed the concept of cohesion, and shows the organization of her article: the first part reviews Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion theory as a criterion of textual coherence; the scond part criticizes the cohesive view of coherence both theoretically and empirically; the third and final part relates this criticism of cohesion as a measure of coherence to the applied fiel d—the teaching of writing and reading in a second language, especially ESL.2.2On Reviewing Cohesion TheoryCarrell objectively and fairly describes cohesion theory and categorise it as the traditional text grammar. The theory treats text in the field of linguistics. After pointing out that register and cohesion, the letter of which is Halliday and Hasan’s main concern, are the combination of coherence, or texture which establishes what is the properities of texts in English, and what it is that distinguishes a text from a disconnected sequence of sentence, the author stating that cohesion concerns semantic relations rather than content of passeges or textual meaning; and then she briefly summarizes the four cohesive ties or relations—reference, substituation, conjunction and lexical cohesion—which Halliday and Hasan believe to be the resources for creating texture, or coherence.Finally Carrell concludes that Halliday and Hasan’s mian point appears to be that coherence of content alone is not enough to produce a coherent text, and there must be some additional device, such as ochesive ties, to make a text coherent.2.3On The Criticism Of The Cohesive View Of Coherence2.3.1 From the Theoretical ConsiderationsCarrell has briefly reviewed the criticism towards the cohesion view of textual coherence from different perspectives, such as that of Karen Feathers’ which arguesthat cohesion theory operates on the superfical surface structure of a text in establishing the cohesive ties.However the criticism of this article is in line with schema-theoretical views of text processing. The theoretical criticism emanates from Morgan and Sellner’s opinion. They sharply state that text grammars, including cohesion theory, talk about text analisis just for the sake of linguistic analysis for these approaches ignore a crucial and indispensable element in the text processin g—reader. Language is the reflection of the real world, and text is produced for reader.From the point of schems-theory, Morgan and sellner argue that Halliday and Hasan mistakingly take certain aspects of linguistic forms, namely cohesive ties as the cause, not the effect, of coherence. To convince the suggestion, they examine the first and simplest example in Halliday and Hasan’s book, Cohesion in English published in 1975. And then they state that Halliday and Hasan provide no reason in their notion. In the end, Carrell maintains the idea that text coheres not because the existence ofo lexical cohesive ties, but because readers have access to interpreting the schems in text. Without such a schems text will fail to cohere.2.3.2 From Empirical StudiesOn the empirical criticism part, Carrell uses three separate empirical studies to support Morgan and Sellner’s theoretical criticism of Halliday and Hasan’s notion. The first study carried out by Tierney and Mosenthal is to examine the extent to which Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion concept correlated with coherence. They find that toic or content appears to affect the writer’s choice in using cohesive ties. The study indicates that a cohesion index is causally unrelated to a text’s coherence. The second experiment by Freebody and Anderson shows the effects of three different levels of cohesion on reaers’understanding of written texts. The experiment also indicates that vocablary difficulty had a dramatic effect on understanding, but the amount of cohesion did not. The last empirical study by Steffensen who studied the interactive effects of both cohesive ties and cultural background knowledge on readers’comprehension of short prose texts. Steffensen found that causal and adversaitve cohesive elements were recalled better by readers from the text of theirown culture than the text of foreign culture. It suggests that cultural elements will cause the loss the textual cohesion. In other words, without the background schema underlying the text the cohesive ties will not produce a coherent text on the part of readers.2.4 Implications For Second Language/ESLThe critical of the paper on cohesiontheory in the light of schema-theory is to caytion those in second language teaching, especially in ESL, not to think that cohesion theory will be a panacea to solve reading and writing problem at the level of text. A coferent text will likely be coheisve, not of necessary, that is only an effect of the coherent content.Cohesion theory is worth studing. However it is not an measure of coherence of a text.2.5EvaluationAfter reading the article, we could gain a clear idea from the well-organized structure. Excellence of the article lies in the methodology used in it, that is, the theoretical criticism supported by the the empirical work which is carried out upon the same theoretical framework. However the limitations of the article are also its strengths. On the theoretical part, the critical opinion mainly comes from other researchers rather than Carrell herself; and on the empirical part, the three separate empirical studies are not finished by Carrell.3.ConclusionThe article criticises the concept of cohesion as a measure of the coherence, pointing out that the notion hold by Halliday and Hasan is in line with the linguistic analysis. With the orientation of schema-theory, the auhtor strongly criticises cohesion theory which fails to take the contribution of readers’into consideration in text processing, and objectively sates that cohesion theory hold by many researchers, especially in second language teaching/ESL, will not be a ultimate solution to writing and reading problem. The article has drawn some critical insight towards the second languageteaching and learning, which has been supported theoretically and empirically. The article is thought provoking.REFERENCES:Bobrow, D. G., and D. A. Norman. 1975. Some principles of memory schemata. In D.G. Bobrow and A. M. Collins ( Eds. ), Representation and understanding:Studies in cognitive science. New York: Academic Press.Carpenter, C., and J. Hunter. 1982. Functional exercises: Improving overall coherence in ESL writing. TESOL Quarterly 15, 4:425-434.Feathers, K. 1981. Text unity: A semantic perspective on mapping cohesion and coherence. Unpublished paper, Indiana University.Freebody, P., and R. C. Anderson. 1981. Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Technical Report No. 225, Center for the Study of Reading. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Fries, C. 1952. The structure of English. New York: Harcourt.Goodin, G., and K. Perkins. 1982. Discourse analysis and the art of coherence.College English 44: 57-63.Hagerup-Neilsen, A. R. 1977. Role of macrostructures and linguistic connective in comprehending familiar and unfamiliar written discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.Halliday, M. A. K., and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Harris, Z. 1970. Papers in structural and transformational linguistics. Dordrecht: D.Reidel.Hasan, R. 1978. On the notion of a text. In J. S. Petöfi (Ed.), Text vs. sentence.Hamburg: H. Buske.Kintsch, W. 1974. The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Levy, D. M. 1979. Communicative goals and strategies: Between discourse and syntax.In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.Longacre, R. 1972. Hierarchy and universality of discourse constituents in New Guinea languages. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Longacre, R. 1968. Discourse, paragraph and sentence structure in selected Philippine languages. Santa Ana, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mandler, J. M., and N. S. Johnson. 1977. Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology 9: 111-151.Menke, S. A. 1981. The noun phrase as a cohesive force in English text grammar.Unpublished paper presented at the First Midwest Regional TESOL Conference. Morgan, J. L., and M. B. Sellner. 1980. Discourse and linguistic theory. In R. J. Sp iro, B. C. Bertram, and W. F. Brewer ( Eds. ), Theoretical issues in readingcomprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Pike, K. 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mounton.Rumelhart, D. L. 1975. Notes on a schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow and A. M.Collins ( Eds. ), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science.New York: Academic Press.Steffensen, M. S. 1981. Register, cohesion, and cross-cultural reading comprehension. Technical Report No. 220, Center for the Study of Reading.Champaign, IL:University of Illinois.Stein, N. L., and C. G. Glenn. 1979. An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse processing: New directions. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Thorndyke, P. W. 1977. Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology 9: 77-110.Tierney, R. J., and J. H,. Mosenthal. 1980. Discourse comprehension and production: Analyzing text structure and cohesion. Technical Report No. 152, Center for the Study of Reading, Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Tierney, R. J., and J. H. Mosenthal. 1981. The cohesion concept’s relationship to the coherence of text. Technical Report No. 221, Center for the Study of Reading.Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.van Dijk, T. A. 1972. Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter ( Eds. ), Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and context. London: Longman.Entry 1 Analyzing Legal Texts Within the Framework of Interpersonal Metafunction in the Context of Translation It is a thesis attempting to discuss translation methods pertaining to power preservation in the English to Chinese translation of legislative text. As a matter of fact, people mainly adopt a linguistic approach to the English to Chinese translation of legislative text with other external factors neglected. As one of the most important external factors, the role of power in legal text translation is stressed by the author in this thesis. The theoretical framework of this thesis is one of Halliday’s metafunctions, the interpersonal function.When I first came across this thesis, I felt a little excited because it is where my own interest lies and the research question is attractive. But to my disappointment, it doesn’t meet my expectation. First, the abstract part is not well organized and clearly stated. After finishing reading this part, I am almost lost. Although the subject matter of the thesis is clearly stated, it lacks research findings. Besides, in the last sentence “the result of the study may provide some implications for legal translation in general’, the writer fails to give the concrete implications of the study. Thus, it leaves its readers in confusion. As for the literature review which is included in the introduction part, it is also not very satisfactory. The author just makes a list of relevant materials and fails to elaborate the basis and premises of the research.Apart from the weakness that I have discussed above, it do does well in some aspect. Take its microstructure for example, it does not only logically arranged but clearly stated as well. Furthermore, this thesis brings a fresh air to legal language studies by adopting the top-down research methodology.The author is suggested to rewrite the abstract part and amplify the literature review. Above all, she is also supposed to clarify her research findings and their implications.In conclusion, from a bird’s-eye view of the whole thesis, it is reasonably arranged and well structured. However, from a worm’s-eye, there are a lot of problems to be rectified.Entry 2 Measuring Textual Equivalence:A Functional Linguistic ApproachThis thesis seeks to explore the contribution of the cohesion theory to the building of textual equivalence in translation practice through resources of the relevant research findings. The research topic of the thesis is the textual equivalence. Under the theoretical framework of the cohesion theory, it clearly states the five variables of cohesion: thematic progression, reference system, ellipsis conjunction, and lexical cohesion. These five variables can be used to evaluate the adequacy of a translated text in terms of equivalence. Thus it provides insight into the evaluation of the translated works.This thesis has given me plenty of enlightenment and suggestions which will contribute a lot to my later study. From the reading of this thesis, I have a deep understanding of what a thesis is supposed be, what an abstract is supposed be, what an introduction is supposed be etc. It aids me to understand what I have learned in class.This thesis is so well written that I almost cannot find any problems in it. Its abstract is a quite standard one. In this part, the author includes almost all the parts that an abstract desires. Its language is concise and clear. It helps its readers have a very clear panoramic view of the whole thesis and fulfill the function of an abstract. It helps me deepen my understanding of what an abstract is supposed to be and sets a good example. Besides, the thesis itself has a sound theoretical framework. It does not only make an introduction of the cohesion theory but elaborate the relationship between the theory and the research topic and process as well. The outline of the thesis is based on the five variables that are used to evaluate the adequacy of a translated text from the perspective of equivalence.Although it is so well structured, there still exists a problem, that is, it does not clearly state the implications of the theory after the case study. I suggest the author add them in her thesis.In a word, this thesis is a good one and we can learn a lot from reading it.Entry 3 The Unit of Translation Revisited:From the perspectives of Analysis and Transference In the domain of translation studies, the study of the unit of translation (UT for short) has been a longstanding academic issue. The research of it is by no means new to us. Additionally, it ranks among the most complicated problems of translation theory and draws great attention of overseas and domestic translation scholars. Thus, it is difficult to do such kind of research. In the history of translation studies, the issue of UT has been addressed from different perspectives. In this thesis, the author makes arduous efforts to clarify the concept of UT and its function and do the research of it from the perspective of textlinguistics and systemic functional grammar which are the theoretical framework of this thesis.As I have mentioned in the introduction, this topic is an old one and a great amount of literature is desired to be made by the author. Actually the author himself is fully aware of it and does a good job. However, the literature review is not perfect because the author puts some parts, which is supposed to be included in the first chapter, in the second chapter. Therefore, it is better for the writer to make some adjustments. As far as the research question is concerned, the author states it clearly and gives a satisfactory solution to it. Although the question is old, its perspective is new and gives its readers a lot of enlightenment.There are still some problems in this thesis. It lies in the aspect of its theoretical framework. It fails to elaborate the relationship between the theory and the research topic and process. And its introduction of the theoretical framework is too briefly stated and beyond satisfaction. Besides, the author does not tell the readers why his evaluation is important and how his study is conducted. And also he does not give readers an outline of his thesis. I strongly recommend him to make one in the introduction part, for it is much easier to familiarize the readers with the structure of his thesis before get down to the body part.In a word, I gain a lot from this academic knowledge filled thesis and it gives me some enlightenment in this research field.Entry 4 The Ideational Grammatical Metaphor:A New Perspective for the Study of Poem TranslationsPublished on the Journal of Jiangnan University in April 2008, the article mainly talks about the experiential metaphor through the analysis of the three translated versions of Wang Wei’s poem “Niao Ming Jian” by Gong Jinghao, Xu Yuanchong and Y e Weilian. As we all known, the studies of Chinese poems translation is a hot issue of studies in recent years and in some universities it has even become one of the major orientation of studies in their graduate schools. That is to say, scholars and the students majoring in translation studies have paid much more attention to the study of poem translations. However, research findings in the respect are comparatively little and the findings in the study of poem translations from the perspective of the ideational grammatical metaphor are even less.After reading the article, I have plenty of enlightenment. It gives us a completely new perspective for better interpretation of a poem in the original and better appreciation of its various translated versions and provides us a new criterion for translation criticism. It shows that the grammatical metaphor could help translators make the most appropriate decisions on diction when they are faced with more than one synonymous choice. It also concludes that the hypothesis of grammatical metaphor has its peculiar advantages in assisting poem translations because the different incongruencies could carry different connotations. It provides insight into the translations of poems.As a whole, this article is well organized and well written, but there still exists some problems. The abstract in this article does not serve its function well because it is too detailed written and too much background knowledge is involved for an article. Besides, there is a blunder in this article, that is, in the reference part all the works cited are in a random order instead of an alphabetical one.As it is a rather new research area, it lacks the foundation of previous studies and its feasibility is to be doubted. Therefore, it is a little bit hard for us to do such kind of research. In our future studies, our greater effort is desired.。
应用语言学对外语教学的作用-应用语言学论文-语言学论文

应用语言学对外语教学的作用-应用语言学论文-语言学论文——文章均为WORD文档,下载后可直接编辑使用亦可打印——应用语言学的目标之一是通过理论语言学的知识来指导对各种实际问题的解决。
实际上,学习一种语言的目的应该是能用其进行交际,实现语言的交际功能,从而满足语言在社会各种活动中沟通、传递、宣示、传承等的需要。
语言知识基础水平的高低和语言技能掌握的熟练程度决定了交际能力的强弱,拥有坚实的语言知识基础和熟练的语言技能才能拥有较强的交际能力。
外语本身是一种语言,在外语教学活动过程中适当采用语言学的一些观点和技术,将会产生良好的实际效果。
1 应用语言学的一般性介绍应用语言学是现代产生的一门新兴交叉应用型学科,其发展推动了跨学科的研究,诞生了许多综合性的学科。
其中,在外语教学的研究中,相关学科的理论和技术应用就已经受到了高度重视。
1)应用语言学的起源和理论应用语言学这个词最早是由一位俄罗斯语言学家在1870年提出的,但是在当时,应用语言学并没有引起学术界的关注,直到20世纪它才开始被建立,并作为一门的学科得到慢慢的发展。
到了19 年,应用语言学真正的学术地位得以确立,并在法国召开的第一届国际应用语言学学会上,国际应用语言学协会正式成立。
接着各国着名的语言学家纷纷出版语言学相关作品,此后,应用语言学开始蓬勃发展起来。
直到现在,应用语言学在西方的语言学里依旧是最热门的语言学研究领域之一,并且在语言学的众多分支中,它是发展最快的一门学科。
最开始,很多研究理论的人都认为应用语言学只是一种活动,并不具有什么可研究的理论价值,只是将理论研究出的成果付诸运用而已。
但是随着时间的推移,人们对应用语言学的研究越来越深入,建立应用语言学理论逐渐被学者们所认同,并被认为是十分必要的。
根据应用语言学的发展规律,在学者们连续几年的共同努力下,已经建立起了属于应用语言学自己的理论。
一些相关学者还认为应用语言学理论主要包括了心灵主义理论、错误分析理论和行为主义理论等。
语言学导论期末论文

语言学导论期末论文任课教师:蔡基刚姓名:周蜜学号:0413101邮箱:0413101@从词缀的特点论中缀——从词缀的一般特点推想中缀的范围及特点语素是最小的语法单位,也就是最小的语音、语义结合体。
词都是由语素构成的。
而对于语素的分类,在以前学者研究中,分别依据不同的标准给予不同的分类方法。
张寿康先生在《构词法与构形法》中把语素分为实词素(语素)与虚词素。
[1]。
胡裕树先生在其书中,依据语素出现的位置是否固定,把语素分为定位语素与不定位语素。
[2]。
黄伯荣先生依据语素的性质及其组合方式的不同把语素分为词根和词缀。
[3]。
而葛本仪先生则在词根词素(语素)和附加词素的基础上,又进一步把附加词素分为词缀词素(用于构词)和词尾词素(用于构形)。
在后两位学者的分类中提到了词缀。
那么什么是词缀呢?关于词缀的概念是从印欧语言研究中来的,音问叫ephics•英语当中有大量的派生词缀,前缀和后缀加起来约近337个(魏志成,2003)如:前缀:anti-(反,抗); auto-(自己,自动); bi-(二); en-(使进入某种状态); epi-(在…周围、中间); hemi-(半); mis-(恨); micro-(微小); super-(在…上,超); sym-(共同); tele-(远,电); trans-(转移,越过,横过); uni-(一)后缀: -ist (人,者); -logy(学)中缀: -o-这些词缀衍生出来的派生词构成了英语中很大一部分词汇。
例如:advise vt. 劝告,建议“前缀ad-对、向,词根vis看,-e动词后缀;就某件事应该如何做向别人提出自己的看法”invisible a. 看不见的,无形的“前缀in-不、无,词根vis看,形容词后缀-ible可…的;不可能被看见的”cultural(文化的)---multicultural( 多种文化的)brink(边缘)-----brinkmanship(玩弄边缘政策的手法)•arm ( 武器 )---- disarm(解除武装)monition(警告)----premonition(预先警告)live(生活)-----outlive(比……活得长)balance(平衡)-----overbalance(失去平衡而倒下)等等。
我的语言学概论期末论文

我的语言学概论期末论文终于写完了,那个辛苦啊!一次又一次的修改,我体会到努力的快乐,做好一件事是不容易的,昨天刚交了,今天就发在博客上,作为一段记录一个回忆,七月继续加油。
浅谈礼貌原则与英语学习摘要:“礼貌原则”是语用学中的一个指导成功交际的重要原则,它显示了一个人的受教育程度,教养和素质。
不同的语言环境中,同样的语言有可能有礼貌和不礼貌之分别。
英语学习者掌握英语语言的礼貌原则是有必要的,这对是否能进行成功的交际起着重要的作用。
关键词:礼貌原则〈politeness principle〉英语学习〈English study〉日常交际<daily communication> 语用学〈Pragmatics〉前言:英语学习的根本目的是培养语言的交际能力。
而语言表达是否得体是衡量一个人语言交际能力高低的一项主要指标。
礼貌作为人们交际活动的基本准则之一,被认为是人类文明进步的标志。
礼貌原则的正确使用,能在交际中取得最佳效果。
本文将从礼貌原则的概念,从语用学角度的把握和在英语学习日常交流中的实际应用几方面对英语中的礼貌原则作简略的分析。
一.礼貌原则的概念和从语用学角度的把握礼貌原则是语用学所研究的内容之一。
礼貌体现出人们对他人“面子”的意识,在语用学中,“面子”被称其为自身的公众形象(public self-image)。
(Leech.1994)也就是说,作为说话人,你说的话要达到如下几个效果:既要明确清晰的表达你想表达的意思,又要让对方,即听话人听了觉得舒服痛快,还要让在场的其他人觉得你是一个有礼貌有教养有素质的人。
尤其是在一些气氛紧张严肃容易引起争执或翻脸的场合,说出去的话既能保全他人的颜面,不至于双方都下不来台,又能提升你自己的公众形象,这是一种艺术,需要在不断地与人交流中去体会和积累。
对英语中礼貌原则的分析,语言学家Leech认为:委婉的话语是建立在礼貌这一文化因素上。
(Leech.1994)在语用学的框架内,英语的礼貌原则一般可以分为如下六类:1.1得体原则(tact maxim).即少让别人吃亏,多让别人得益。
英语应用语言学论文,英文论文

An Analysis of Cohesion in Chinese and Native American’sArgumentative Writing1.Defining Key TermsCohesion and CoherenceCohesion and coherence are important terms in the study of text analysis. Halliday and Hasan view the concept of cohesion as” a semantic one” (Cohesion 4). They also define the term as “Relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text.”(Cohesion4) In their later book, Language, Context and Text, Halliday and Hasan define cohesion and coherence as “Every text is also a context for itself. A text is characterized by Coherence, An important contribution to coherence comes from cohesion: the set of linguistic resources that every language has for linking one part of a text to another.”(48).In a word, Coherence can be created by cohesion in the way of adding some implicit meaning. As for the definition of both terms, the author agrees with Halliday and Hasan’s point of view. And this paper employs Halliday’s approach in the analysis of cohesion2.Data Collection and Analysis2.1 Data collectionThis paper is based on analysis of two argumentative writings. The topic of both essays is the debate of drinking age. The first argumentation chosen as data is a FLC freshman’s homework assignment in a key normal university from Zhejiang province. And the second essay in the data is written by John M. McCardell Jr. from . Although the two texts vary from length and perspectives of arguments, they do share the same point of view on limiting drinking age, also, the priority being to compare the cohesion in data. Some deviations like grammar mistakes in texts may possibly exist but they will not affect the results and findings. The data to be analyzed in thispaper is in the appendix.The intentions of choosing and analyzing argumentative writing as data in this paper are as follows. Firstly, argumentative writing comprised a large portion of the writing part in Chinese high school English test. Secondly, correlation studies on this type of writing are rare. As a pre-service teacher, it would be beneficial for the author to study this writing type and employ the findings into future teaching career.2.2 Methods on data analysisThis paper employed Halliday’s categories of cohesion (Cohesion 333-339) to analyze data. The methodology of analysis is as follows:1.Identify the cohesive items in each sentence.2.Figure out the cohesion typepare the results in two texts and find differencesThe types of cohesion in data are showed in two tables in the part of results of analysis.3.Results and Discussion3.1 Results of analysisAfter the analysis of two texts, the author found that differences of cohesive items and types are obvious.Firstly, the cohesive items in text 1 are relatively diversified as different words and expressions like “it” and “that” are used to create text coherence. However, the cohesive items in text 2 are severely repeated, the items “you”and “I”make up a large part in total cohesive items of this text. Secondly, the richness in types of cohesion is different in two texts. The types are almost totally different in text 1 while the result is opposite in text 2. The monotonicity of cohesion types in text 2 may partly be related to the cohesive items. However, in text 2, the bonded sentences are mostly adjacent pairs and simple lexical repetition is used most frequently; in text 1, the bonded sentences for certain cohesive items are not adjacent. Thirdly, there is a significant difference between the two text s’ rate of using paraphrases. Expressions like “The statement” and “the answer” are used in text 1 in order to refer to longer sentences or the phrases in different parts of the text. However, text 2 lacks ofrichness in the usage of paraphrase.3.2 Reasons of cohesive distinctions between two essaysThe distinction of cohesive items and types are obvious after comparing the two tables. Reasons for the variation are to be discussed in following passages.Firstly, the cohesive items in two texts are varied. After close reading of text 2, the author found the defect is totally avoidable by replacing repeated words for cohesive items or lengthening sentences in the way of combining short sentences into longer ones. The monotonous of cohesive items and types are partly due to the Chinese ways of thinking as Chinese people view repetition as an aesthetic object of language. In addition, it is universal for an English word to have inflections and derivatives, which might contribute to the variation of cohesive items in text 1(native writer). However, Chinese writer (nonnative writer) may have troubles in dealing with that. The limitedness of vocabulary for Chinese writers affected their choice of words deeply.Secondly, the richness in types of cohesion is varied in two texts. Native speakers are skilled in making connections between what they are currently saying and what they said before and use different cohesive items to attain the aim, regardless of the distance of two bonded items. However, Chinese writer may lack the ability in doing that. He or she tends to think the whole passage in Chinese, and then interpret it into English when writing it down. It’s not easy for nonnative speakers to command the English way of logical thinking, still, thinking in English is essential for English learners to advance their English language ability.Thirdly, there is a significant difference between the two text s’ rate of usingparaphrases. The problem of monotonicity in cohesive items in text 2 can be avoided if writer use some paraphrases to replace the items like “I” and “you”. The reasons for this problem may come from the influence of mother tongue Chinese. It may also have something to do with writer’s vocabulary learning habits.3.2 Implications for teaching of EFL argumentative writingArgumentative writing is an important writing style for high school students to command and comprise a large proportion of writing tests. Generally speaking, there are three factors that influence students' writing ability: Logic thinking, language knowledge and writing skill. The results and analysis of cohesive problems accrued in Chinese student’s writing can be applied to argumentative writing teaching in high school. The implications for argumentative writing teaching are as follows.Firstly, it can be seen from the analysis that native writer tend to use far more complex cohesive items and fewer simple lexical repetition than Chinese student writings. This is caused by people's logical thinking, which is a very complicated factor. It mainly refers to student's life and studying background. Mostly, Chinese students are likely to translate their ideas from Chinese into English in the process of writing unconsciously. As a result, they tend to use the same words over and over again without the awareness of different cohesive devices. Therefore the number of cohesive items used in argumentative writing is limited. And most cohesive items used are of a monotonous type and lacking variety. Wherefore it’s important for teachers to focus on the coherence of discourse when teaching English writing. Some suggestions may be helpful: Teachers should pay attention to the coherence of passages in text books when giving reading classes. Reading and writing complement each other as the former emphasizes input and latter one focuses on output; Teachers can expose students to western cultures and try to train students the western ways of logical thinking if time permits. These trainings will also enhance students’ reading speed.Secondly, language knowledge is also a crucial fact for students to improve their argumentative writing. It mainly concerns about English vocabulary and grammar. Argumentative essay is relatively academic compared with other forms of writing as the words and phrases are mainly illustrative, not descriptive. In order to improve students’writing ability, teachers can hold debate competitions in class to enlarge students’ vocabulary for argumentative writing.Finally, writing skills or so called “the ability of d iscourse”is of great importance in teaching writing. Coherence ability determines whether students' writing is a good one. Consequently, in teaching writing skills, teachers should develop students' writing ability. Teachers can analyze the coherence of texts when explaining reading comprehensions and it can attract students’attention on the coherence of texts and focus on the issue when they write essays.For Chinese high school students, English cohesion is hard to attain as they are easily affected by mother tongue Chinese. So teachers should play an important role in constructing their knowledge in coherence and cohesion. (1653 words)ReferencesHalliday, M.A.K. & Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Limited, 1976Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Melbourne: Deakin University Press, 1985 Johnstone, B. Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell, 2008Nicholas, R. “Lexical cohesion in academic writing.”Modern English teacher23.1 (2014): 59-62胡壮麟.“有关语篇衔接理论多层次模式的思考”,《上海外国语大学学报》1996年第1期,第1-8页。
语言学论文

语言学论文
语言学是一门研究语言的学科,涉及词汇、语法、语音、语义等方面。
本论文将探讨语言学的一些重要内容。
首先,语言学研究的一个重要方面是词汇。
词汇是语言中最基本的单位,是人们用来表示和交流意义的最小组成部分。
语言学家通过研究词汇的形成、组织和使用来了解语言的结构和功能。
词汇的研究还包括词汇表达的语音特点、词义变化和词汇的分类等。
其次,语法是语言学的另一个重要研究领域。
语法研究语言中的句子构造和词语之间的关系。
语法包括句法学、词法学和语用学等方面。
句法学研究句子的结构和语序规则,词法学则研究词语的形态变化和构词法等。
语用学则研究语言在实际使用中的交际功能和目的。
此外,语音学是语言学的一个重要分支,研究人类语音系统的属性和规律。
语音学家研究语音的产生、传播和接受过程,包括声音的产生器官、语音的声学特征和语音的知觉过程。
语音学的研究对于了解语言的声音表现形式和语音的书写系统有重要的意义。
最后,语义学是语言学的一个关键领域,研究语言的意义和表达方式。
语义学家研究语言中的词义、句义和篇章义。
他们研究词的意义、词义的扩展和限制、句子的真值和含义以及语篇的语用功能。
总之,语言学作为一门学科涵盖了词汇、语法、语音和语义等方面的研究。
通过对语言的研究,我们可以更好地理解人类语言的结构和功能,从而更好地掌握和运用语言。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
1. Introduction1.1 Research BackgroundIn recent years,second language vocabulary acquisition has become an increasingly interesting topic of discussion for researchers,teachers,curriculum designers,theorists and others involved in second language learning.Both learners and researchers see vocabulary as being a very important,if not the most important,element in language learning.Acquisition of vocabulary has assumed a more important role,and as some would argue,the central role in learning a second language. No matter how well a student learns grammar, no matter how successfully the sounds of L2 are mastered,without words to express a wider range of meanings,communication in a L2 just cannot happen in any meaningful way.Therefore,we can safely draw a conclusion that lexicon may be the most important component for learners.However, present lexical teaching and learning do not have a rosy picture.In practice,there are two misconceptions about vocabulary learning.Firstly, some English students follow the traditional pattern of rote retention,ignoring the fact that vocabulary is easier to learn in context than in isolated word lists,and the fact that knowing a word is more than knowing its meaning.In practice,they merely memorize as many words as they can.Students,as a result,put accumulation of English vocabulary above everything in the learning process,Holding such a notion,they adopt whatever methods they believe to be effective to expand their vocabulary size,Some students resort to word lists for rote retention,memorizing the words letter by letter.Some students memorize the words in a dictionary according to the alphabetical order.Others rely on their mother tongue in learning English,putting every English word(even very simple lexical items),into Chinese and the other way round.Though for a short period they might achieve a rapid vocabulary growth,the words are “easy come easy go” and only stay at the recognition level.Consequently, they can neither be long retained nor correctly used.Moreover,because they hold the wrong idea that learning English is just memorizing the vocabulary,students will not grow to appreciate the beauty of English and the way it conveys the ideas and emotions,As a result,despite the great effort they have spent on memorizing the words,they become more frustrated than ever before,for eventually they come to realize that the English words have nothing to do with thereal life.For example,it is usually the case that a certain student has passed the TOFFL exam with flying colors,but when he goes to the English-speaking country, he is still at a loss what to do,because he couldn’t understand what native-speakers have said,nor can he speak with them.Secondly, a number of students,in spite of being aware of the great role of context and incidental learning in vocabulary acquisition,ignore the importance of another instructional technique:intentional learning.However, in fact,there are several prerequisites for vocabulary acquisition through reading incidentally.For example,one of the prerequisites is that students have to read extensively.But it is usually the case that students are not diligent enough to read all the reading passages in the textbook,let alone the reading materials which are supposed to be finished outside of the classroom.Furthermore,learners’ proficiency is another prerequisite.In order to acquire vocabulary incidentally through extensive reading, a student has to know at least 98%of the lexical items in a reading passage,which implies knowing about 5000 word families or about 8000 lexical items.However,it is sobering to note that most of the students in China have a vocabulary of much less than 1 800 words,which is the requirement by high schools,and those from the remote areas even fewer. Therefore,if we really want to acquire the practical ability to use English as a means to exchange information,we must begin to apply new ways of learning .2.Definition of VocabularyA word(also called a base word or a word family)is defined as including the base form and its inflections and derivatives.Although this definition of a word is convenient and commonly used in vocabulary research,it should be remembered that vocabulary learning is more than the study of individual words. It has been observed that a significant amount of the English language is made up of lexical phrases,which range from phrasal verbs to longer institutionalized expressions.Basically,vocabulary knowledge consists of receptive vocabulary knowledge and productive vocabulary knowledge,so learning a word involves receptive learning and productive learning.Receptive learning refers to being able to recognize a word when it is met.Productive learning involves what is needed for receptive teaming plus the ability to speakor write vocabulary at the appropriate time.It may therefore be most useful to see vocabulary knowledge as a scale running from recognition of a word at one end to automatic production at the other.3. Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading3.1 Vocabulary Acquisition through ReadingReading aids vocabulary acquisition,and vocabulary is predictive of comprehension.It has been consistently demonstrated that reading comprehension is strongly related to vocabulary knowledge,more strongly than to other components of reading.It is argued that we can acquire many words through reading extensively. Through reading,we can not only get the meaning of the target words,but also the knowledge about different aspects of the vocabulary, such as the register, grammatical patterns and collocation and etc.On the other hand,the word variable is more highly predictive of comprehension than of sentence variables,and improvement in reading comprehension can be attributed to an increase in vocabulary knowledge. Conversely, all insufficient vocabulary in English may hinder successful comprehension and the most significant handicap for L2 readers is not lack of reading strategies but failure to achieve automated recognition of L2 word form.3.2. The Role of Context in L2 Vocabulary Acquisitionsome researches that demonstrate the need of context in L2 vocabulary acquisition.For example,long-term results from meaning-focused L2 instructional programs such as immersion indicate that aspects of new vocabulary knowledge can be gained through pedagogy that emphasizes the global comprehension of meaning.What’s more,Hulstijn(1 992)points out that L2 word acquisition does need context.However, the process by which incidental vocabulary learning takes place is quite slow and the amount of vocabulary-acquired through this kind of learning is relatively small. Despite the simple reason that native speakers of English use contexts which they must have fully understood to infer, but making such connections is probably much harder for readers in a foreign language for whom many words in the context may be unknown or only partially known.Therefore,second-language learners will be less effective than native speakers at using context,at least until they achieve a fairlyhigh level of L2 proficiency,that is,successful and efficient incidental vocabulary learning just through reading alone cannot be expected.And an explicit instruction plays a relatively greater role in the vocabulary growth of second—language learners,compared with context.4. Incidental Learning and Intentional Learning4.1 Definition of Incidental Learning and Intentional LearningIn both LI and L2 lexical teaching and learning,there are two types of vocabulary learning:incidental learning and intentional learning.Incidental is defined as the type of learning that is a byproduct of doing or learning something else,whereas intentional learning is defined as being designed,or intended by teacher or students.4.2 Advantages of Incidental LearningIncidental learning,which occurs without the specific intent to focus on vocabulary, has been shown to be an effective way of learning word meanings from context.In the psychological literature,numerous experiments have been conducted to verify the fact that incidental learning plays an important role in L2 vocabulary acquisition of students.For example,Nagy, Herman,and Anderson(1985),using 1000 word passages and 57 eighth—grade students,have shown that incidental learning accounts for a large proportion of vocabulary growth by school age children. And Anderson(1995)also conclude from their own experimental study that children indeed do learn large numbers of words by means of incidental learning from written context.4.3Limitations of Incidental LearningAcquiring vocabulary incidentally through reading in context fosters an elaborate processing of the word and therefore facilitates its retention in memory. However, guessing from context is a complex and often difficult strategy to carry out successfully.As many linguists put it,acquiring the vocabulary incidentally through reading has the following limitations.Firstly, students have less vocabulary than sufficient for successful incidental learning.Nation and Coady argue that successful guessing in context occurs when about 95%of the lexical items in a text are already known.They point out that this implies knowing about3000 word families or about 5000 lexical items.Presumably the reader would then be an independent learner capable of learning words through context in the same manner as L1 learners.But it is sobering to note that although grasping 1 800 words was the requirement by high schools,when they graduate from the senior middle school,most of the students in China have a vocabulary of much less than this number when they enroll in university.In practice,most students complain that the passages they are asked to read have so high a coverage of unfamiliar words that they have to stop from time to time to look them up in the dictionary,and thus gradually lose the interest of reading.If one does not know enough of the words on a page or have comprehension of what is being read,he cannot easily learn the vocabulary from context.Secondly, inferring word meaning is an error-prone process.Even if one knows 98%of the words in a text,that “unless the context is very constrained,which is a relatively rare occurrence,or unless there is a relationship with a known word identifiable on the basis of form and supposed by context,there is little chance of guessing the correct meaning”(Kelly,1990).What’s more,recent studies have verified the fact that repeated exposure positively influenced vocabulary learning,but that the relationship was considerably complicated by other factors,such as meaningfulness of the context, similarity of other words in the L1 and incompatibility between the reader’ schem a and the text content.The presence of clues was mainly responsible for students’failure to guess the word meaning successfully from the context.Thirdly, inferring word meaning is likely to be a very slow process。