论文部分内容阅读
While some believe that speakers choose certain grammar structures is to keep pace with the meaning they want to express, Larsen-Freeman holds the view that it is not the only intention. In fact, speakers face socially or discursively motivated grammatical choice even when the expressions stay the same meaning. This article mainly talks about social factors relating to the grammar of choice.
In the first part, “The One Right Answer Myth”, the author points out that there is not always one right way to convey a particular meaning, she suggests that we should break “the myth of one right answer” in order to establish the grammar of choice. Actually, under the influence of prescriptive grammar and discrete point grammar tests, teachers know that there is often more than one right answer to a question about grammar. Teacher Meg’s experience is a good example which reflects an important understanding of the contingent and complex intersection of grammar and context. Thus, to a large extent, the context and the purpose for language use influences the choice of grammar structure, what can we do with this fact is that let the students know that grammar is much more flexible rather than a linguistic straitjacket, and there is a lot of latitude in the forms that we use.
The second part, “Basing Choices on Social-interactional Factors”, laying down the author’s proposal that our choices based on the social-interactional factors which have to do with the interpersonal relationships we establish and nurture. Taking the rudeness of the international students as a example, the author suggest that a simple lesson on using the modal form such as “would like” or “please” would have made a big difference in the impression they made before. That is to say, as students, when they are learning a language or doing thing with the language, they need to know in what situation they should make which linguistic choice for achieving their intentions, they need to decide how they wish to position themselves as speakers of a given language, they need to be able to draw inferences about the intention of others, they need to know how to use social factors and also need to have knowledge about cultural background. As teachers, they should help the students understand the linguistic choices available.
Then, we come to the part of “Caveats to Teaching Pragmatically Appropriate Choices”. In this part, the author gives three caveats about teaching pragmatically appropriate choices. First of all, teaching cannot be in a decontextualized manner. Teachers should give students information about how they might be perceived if they exercise particular linguistic choices in particular contexts, and ensure that students have knowledge of social convention in such a context. Secondly, teachers should help students to become sensitive to differences among forms in general as a way to make them aware of the possible implications of their choices and make them understand how to interpret what is said or written by others. Finally, it is always possible to alter the meaning and the pragmatics through paralinguistic or extralinguistic means. If one has not mastered the interactional norm of maintaining eye contact with his interlocutors, even he is fluent and accurate in the language, he may be misjudged all the same. In the forth part, “Pragmatic Factors Signaled by a Chance in Form”, the author mainly elaborates her viewpoint from three aspects, attitude, power, and identity. From the aspect of attitude, she points out “one pragmatic effect of grammatical choice is that we convey a particular attitude depending on the grammatical forms that we choose to use(Larsen-Freeman,2005)”. By comparison of past tense and present tense, she illustrates that different choices on forms can clearly have a different impact on one’s listeners and can reflect one’s standpoint as well. From the aspect of power, the author reminds us of that the conscious choices which speakers face in exploiting the potential of the grammatical code can hinge on issues of power. When it comes to the grammar of choice, we should always remember that appropriateness is relative to a particular time, place, the social status and relationship of the interlocutors, and so forth. As language teachers, we cannot neglect that issues of power and language are intimately connected, and we need to decide which norms to teach and to accept. From the aspect of identity, the author mainly calls our attention to how we use language to establish and maintain personal identity. Through a series of researches, she illustrates that there are a number of contributing factors to identity development that may influence the patterns of grammar use, such as age, personal charactors, origin, social status and group membership.
All in all, as language speakers, we actually are not free to choose grammatical forms in communication. There are reasons for our choices, and social-interactional factors are basis for these choices. For different purposes, in different situation, facing with different people, we choose various expressions. So, it is disadvantaged to isolate social factors of language in language teaching. As teachers, we need to teach students in a contextualized manner, let them know that there are a lot of choices for expression and understand that in what situation they should make which choice. Only in this way, can the students be perceived by others and also achieve their intentions more appropriately in communication.
In the first part, “The One Right Answer Myth”, the author points out that there is not always one right way to convey a particular meaning, she suggests that we should break “the myth of one right answer” in order to establish the grammar of choice. Actually, under the influence of prescriptive grammar and discrete point grammar tests, teachers know that there is often more than one right answer to a question about grammar. Teacher Meg’s experience is a good example which reflects an important understanding of the contingent and complex intersection of grammar and context. Thus, to a large extent, the context and the purpose for language use influences the choice of grammar structure, what can we do with this fact is that let the students know that grammar is much more flexible rather than a linguistic straitjacket, and there is a lot of latitude in the forms that we use.
The second part, “Basing Choices on Social-interactional Factors”, laying down the author’s proposal that our choices based on the social-interactional factors which have to do with the interpersonal relationships we establish and nurture. Taking the rudeness of the international students as a example, the author suggest that a simple lesson on using the modal form such as “would like” or “please” would have made a big difference in the impression they made before. That is to say, as students, when they are learning a language or doing thing with the language, they need to know in what situation they should make which linguistic choice for achieving their intentions, they need to decide how they wish to position themselves as speakers of a given language, they need to be able to draw inferences about the intention of others, they need to know how to use social factors and also need to have knowledge about cultural background. As teachers, they should help the students understand the linguistic choices available.
Then, we come to the part of “Caveats to Teaching Pragmatically Appropriate Choices”. In this part, the author gives three caveats about teaching pragmatically appropriate choices. First of all, teaching cannot be in a decontextualized manner. Teachers should give students information about how they might be perceived if they exercise particular linguistic choices in particular contexts, and ensure that students have knowledge of social convention in such a context. Secondly, teachers should help students to become sensitive to differences among forms in general as a way to make them aware of the possible implications of their choices and make them understand how to interpret what is said or written by others. Finally, it is always possible to alter the meaning and the pragmatics through paralinguistic or extralinguistic means. If one has not mastered the interactional norm of maintaining eye contact with his interlocutors, even he is fluent and accurate in the language, he may be misjudged all the same. In the forth part, “Pragmatic Factors Signaled by a Chance in Form”, the author mainly elaborates her viewpoint from three aspects, attitude, power, and identity. From the aspect of attitude, she points out “one pragmatic effect of grammatical choice is that we convey a particular attitude depending on the grammatical forms that we choose to use(Larsen-Freeman,2005)”. By comparison of past tense and present tense, she illustrates that different choices on forms can clearly have a different impact on one’s listeners and can reflect one’s standpoint as well. From the aspect of power, the author reminds us of that the conscious choices which speakers face in exploiting the potential of the grammatical code can hinge on issues of power. When it comes to the grammar of choice, we should always remember that appropriateness is relative to a particular time, place, the social status and relationship of the interlocutors, and so forth. As language teachers, we cannot neglect that issues of power and language are intimately connected, and we need to decide which norms to teach and to accept. From the aspect of identity, the author mainly calls our attention to how we use language to establish and maintain personal identity. Through a series of researches, she illustrates that there are a number of contributing factors to identity development that may influence the patterns of grammar use, such as age, personal charactors, origin, social status and group membership.
All in all, as language speakers, we actually are not free to choose grammatical forms in communication. There are reasons for our choices, and social-interactional factors are basis for these choices. For different purposes, in different situation, facing with different people, we choose various expressions. So, it is disadvantaged to isolate social factors of language in language teaching. As teachers, we need to teach students in a contextualized manner, let them know that there are a lot of choices for expression and understand that in what situation they should make which choice. Only in this way, can the students be perceived by others and also achieve their intentions more appropriately in communication.