30大學(xué)畢業(yè)畢業(yè)設(shè)計外文文獻翻譯成品跨文化語用失誤（中英雙語對照版本）

1、<p>　　外文標(biāo)題：Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure</p><p>　　外文作者：Fahima Nouichi</p><p>　　文獻出處:Revue Expressions ,2015,95-101</p><p>　　英文2004單詞， 11894字符，中文3405漢字。</p><p>　

2、　此文檔是外文翻譯成品，無需調(diào)整復(fù)雜的格式哦！下載之后直接可用，方便快捷！只需二十多元。</p><p>　　Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure</p><p>　　Fahima Nouichi</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　Cross-cultu

3、ral pragmatic failure refers to failure to understand a speaker’s intentions in intercultural communication. It is a common phenomenon second language learners experience because they most often rely on their linguistic

4、knowledge than on communication. As a result, they can be described as linguistically competent but pragmatically incompetent in cross-cultural communication. This paper will deal with the problem of “cross-cultural prag

5、matic failure”. It aims to improve the pragmatic </p><p>　　Key words: Pragmatic competence, pragmatic failure, cross-cultural pragmatic failure, pragmatic transfer.</p><p>　　Introduction</p&g

6、t;<p>　　Failure to choose the appropriate words to communicate meaning causes misunderstandings and communication breakdowns between interlocutors from</p><p>　　different cultural backgrounds. This fa

7、ilure is called “cross- cultural pragmatic failure”. Second language learners often fail in cross-cultural communication due to a lack of pragma- cultural knowledge. Thus, to develop second learners’ awareness of cultura

8、l differences and improve their cross-cultural communicative skills, the present paper discusses the importance of pragmatic knowledge in foreign/second language teaching, highlights the nature of pragmatic failure, its

9、types, and analyses i</p><p>　　Why Is Pragmatic Competence Important in Second and Foreign Language Teaching? </p><p>　　Communication is not only the grammatical proficiency of a language; becau

10、se, meaning cannot be conveyed with words in isolation, but needs words to be related to the socio-cultural context in which they are uttered. Therefore, pragmatic competence is very necessary in cross-cultural communica

11、tion. Thus, the present paper seeks to address the need for and importance of teaching pragmatics to second language learners.</p><p>　　The author thinks that teaching pragmatics offers second language learn

12、ers not only the opportunity to learn and discover how native speakers of the foreign language behave and act in different situations, but also enables them to understand others' culture and behaviours and avoid cros

13、s-cultural breakdowns in communication. That is, the focus on pragmatic competence in foreign language teaching is very important to second language learners; it helps in raising their pragmatic awareness and make</p&

14、gt;<p>　　Pragmatic awareness is the conscious thoughtful and obvious knowledge about the pragmatic rules and conventions that direct the appropriate use of language in different communicative situations. For that

15、reason, it is necessary for second/foreign language learners to acquire the pragmatic competence. They should know how to understand and produce appropriate language to the situations in which they communicate. If they f

16、ail to do so, they will beget a cross-cultural communication crash and will </p><p>　　2.The Difference between Pragmatic Failure and Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure Pragmatic failure is a misunderstanding

17、in communication that happens between interlocutors due to problems in the use of language, especially by foreign language speakers. Thomas (1983) argues that it is the failure to understand an utterance; whereas He Zira

18、n (1988) believes that it is the inability to achieve the wanted communicative effects in communication.</p><p>　　The concept “pragmatic failure” applies to misunderstandings between people from the same spe

19、ech community; however, the term “cross-cultural pragmatic failure” is used to describe the case of pragmatic failure between people from different speech communities (Charlebois, 2003). For example, an American speaker

20、of Japanese interprets the answer “that will be a little difficult” as an acceptance for his/ her request whereas this answer refers to a refusal in the Japanese culture (Charlebois, 2003</p><p>　　Pragmatic

21、failure is an important source of cross-cultural communication crash (Thomas, 1983) referred to as a “pragmatic error” (Salmani-Nodoushan, 2006). Thomas (1983) prefers to use the term “pragmatic failure” rather than “pra

22、gmatic error”, because an error refers to the violation of definite prescriptive rules such as “grammatical errors”; however, a failure refers to the violation of “probable rules” involved in pragmatic competence, since

23、a pragmatic force cannot be judged as wrong but as</p><p>　　2.Types of Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure</p><p>　　Thomas (1983) categorizes the cross-cultural pragmatic failure into two types, p

24、ragma-linguistic failure and socio-pragmatic failure.</p><p>　　2.1. Pragma-linguistic Failure</p><p>　　Pragma-linguistic failure is a linguistic failure occurred due to dissimilarities in expres

25、sing a pragmatic force (Thomas, 1983). That is, it is the failure to choose the appropriate linguistic means to express pragmatic objectives.</p><p>　　Thomas (1983) affirms that pragma-linguistic failure occ

26、urs when speech act strategies are transferred from the first language and applied in the second language resulting in inappropriate effects in the target language. So that “the pragmatic force mapped by speakers onto a

27、given utterance is systematically different from the force most frequently assigned to by native speakers of the target language” (Thomas, 1983, p. 99).</p><p>　　2.2. Socio-pragmatic Failure</p><p

28、>　　Concerning socio-pragmatic failure, it is the failure to choose what to say under certain circumstances and social factors. Leech (1983, p.10) states that it is “the sociological interface of pragmatics”.</p>

29、<p>　　Riley (1989, p. 234) asserts that socio-pragmatic failure is the outcome of applying the social rules of one culture in a communicative situation where the social rules of another culture should be applied.

30、Thus, misunderstandings may occur in communication.</p><p>　　Unawareness of cross-cultural differences between people speaking different languages further causes socio-pragmatic failure in cross-cultural com

31、munication (Thomas, 1983). That is, what is considered an appropriate linguistic behaviour in one culture may not be so in another culture.</p><p>　　3.Causes of Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure</p>&

32、lt;p>　　Based on a comparative pragmatic study between Algerian Arabic and English speech acts of thanking and greeting, the author finds that pragmatic failure may occur mainly due to the following sources: Pragmatic

33、transfer, different cultural values, and teachers and teaching materials.</p><p>　　3.1. Pragmatic Transfer</p><p>　　Pragmatic transfer is one source of the inappropriate use of a second or forei

34、gn language in communication (Wannaruk, 2008). Richards and Schmidt (2002) claim that pragmatic transfer is the transmission of first language strategies of performing speech acts into a second language. This transfer ma

35、y be inappropriate either at the level of form and words or at the level of politeness and indirectness in the second language.</p><p>　　Pragmatic transfer can be positive or negative. Positive when it helps

36、 second language learners in their communication in the target language. And negative when it leads to misunderstandings and pragmatic failure.</p><p>　　Kasper (1992) states that there are two types of pragm

37、atic transfer: Pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic. Pragmalinguistic transfer is the use of first language forms and strategies in the interlanguage; however, sociopragmatic transfer is the transference of first language

38、 cultural perceptions of internal and external context variables into a second language (Barron, 2003). Möllering (2004) claims that pragmalinguistic transfer is a recurrent cause of pragmalinguistic failure. It is

39、the use of </p><p>　　3.2. Different Cultural Values</p><p>　　Culture is all the practices, codes and values that are specific to a particular community. The combination of culture and language g

40、ives what is called “discourse”. This latter refers to the social identity of the person through the ways of talking, thinking, and behaving. (Richards & Schmidt, 2002).</p><p>　　Furthermore, “culture is

41、 communication” (Tannen, 1984, p. 194). Thereby, cultural competence is very important in cross-cultural communication. It “involves knowing culture (in native or target language, social structure, traditions, taboos, be

42、liefs) and the ways in which the things are done" (Erton, 2007, p. 62). Consequently, language understanding is affected by cultural and social factors. Thus, knowing the target culture leads to successful cross-cul

43、tural communication and its ignorance cau</p><p>　　For that reason, the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic rules that organize the realization of speech acts are cultural specific. So, the ignorance or lack

44、 of knowledge on the differences between cultures of the first and the target languages may cause cross-cultural pragmatic failure (House, 2008). Because, in this case, one may make inappropriate choices of what to say i

45、n a given situation to a given person.</p><p>　　3.3. Teachers and Teaching Materials</p><p>　　In the teaching process, second language teachers are not only responsible for explaining the lingui

46、stic knowledge of the target language, but also for describing its appropriate use, to improve the learners' linguistic and pragmatic communicative competence. But, there is a lack of teachers who are competent in th

47、e culture of the target language community, and this causes learners' pragmatic failure. If teachers themselves fail in cross-cultural communication, how can they help the students to </p><p>　　Thomas (1

48、983) affirms that some teaching techniques or “teaching-induced errors” as they are referred to by Kasper (1981), help in the increase of pragmatic failure. For example; in classroom discourse, the use of complete senten

49、ce responses, breaks the textual pragmatic principle of economy. That is, students get used to make full answers in their communication.</p><p>　　Besides, emphasizing too much on “the metalinguistic Knowledg

50、e” by teachers may also lead to pragmatic failure, as the example of the imperative where students believe that there is an isomorphism between the grammatical category of “imperative” and the speech act of “ordering” wh

51、ile the imperative can also be used to command or to request in formal spoken English. (Thomas, 1983). For example, the statement “bring me the customers’ files” is in the imperative, but it represents a request from a &

52、lt;/p><p>　　Cutting, J. (2005).Pragmatic and discourse: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. Erton, I. (2007). Applied pragmatics and competence relations in language learning and teaching.</p>

53、;<p>　　Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 3(1), 59-71.</p><p>　　He Ziran. (1988). A Survey of Pragmatics. Changsha: Hunan Education Press.</p><p>　　House, J. (2008). Intercultura

54、l language use and language learning. Spain: Springer.Kasper, G.</p><p>　　(1992). Pragmatic Transfer, Second Language Research 8:3, 203- 231.</p><p>　　Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics

55、. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second</p><p>　　languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 183- 208). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.</p><p>　　Leec

56、h, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.</p><p>　　Kasper, G., (1981): Pragmatische Aspecte in der interinsprache. Tubinger: Narr.</p><p>　　Möllering, M. (2004). The acquisit

57、ion of German modal particles: A corpus based approach.</p><p>　　Germany: Peter Lang AG.</p><p>　　Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., & El Bakary, W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics:

58、Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23, 163-189.</p><p>　　Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied</p&

59、gt;<p>　　linguistics (3rd ed.). London: Longman.</p><p>　　Riley, P. (1989). Well don't blame me! - On the interpretation of pragmatic errors. In W. Oleksy (Ed.), Contrastive pragmatics (pp. 231-24

60、9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing</p><p><b>　　Company.</b></p><p>　　Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2006). A sociopragmatic comparative study of ostensible invitations</p>&l

61、t;p>　　in English and Farsi. (Unpublished M.A. thesis). University of Isfahan, India.</p><p>　　Tannen, D. (1984). The Pragmatics of Cross-Cultural Communication. Applied Linguistics,</p><p>　　

62、53,189-195.</p><p>　　Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.</p><p>　　Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC Journal, 39,

63、 318-337. Doi:</p><p>　　10.1177/0033688208096844</p><p>　　Yueke, M. (n.d.). The Development of pragmatic and communicative competence of non-English</p><p>　　major postgraduates. Zh

64、engzhou University.</p><p><b>　　跨文化語用失誤</b></p><p>　　Fahima Nouichi</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　跨文化語用失誤是指在跨文化交際中不能理解說話者的說話意圖。 由于說話者通常是依賴于他們的語言知識

65、而不是基于溝通，所以這在第二語言學(xué)習(xí)者中是常見的現(xiàn)象。其結(jié)果是他們只掌握了語言能力，而在跨文化交際中卻無語用能力。 在本文中，將聚焦“跨文化語用失誤”的問題。 意在通過分析語用失誤的根源和培養(yǎng)跨文化語用意識來提高第二語言學(xué)習(xí)者的語用和交際能力。</p><p><b>　　關(guān)鍵詞</b></p><p>　　語用能力，語用失誤，跨文化語用失誤，語用遷移</p&g

66、t;<p><b>　　引言</b></p><p>　　如果說話者沒有選擇合適的詞匯來傳達其所要表達的意思，那么在不同的文化背景下就會引起對話者之間的誤解和溝通障礙。這種失誤被稱為“跨文化語用失誤”。 由于缺乏語用知識，第二語言學(xué)習(xí)者往往因跨文化交際而失誤。 因此，為了提升第二語言學(xué)習(xí)者的文化差異意識并發(fā)展跨文化交際能力，本文探討了語用知識在外語/第二語言教學(xué)中的重要性，突出

67、了語用失誤的本質(zhì)及其類型，分析了造成失誤的可能原因，并提出一些有效的文化教學(xué)策略。</p><p>　　1.為什么第二語言和外語教學(xué)中的語用能力至關(guān)重要？</p><p>　　由于說話者所要表達的意思不能孤立地用文字去表達，語言交流不僅僅是對語言語法掌握熟練，還需要熟悉與他們社會文化環(huán)境相關(guān)的詞匯。因此，語用能力在跨文化交際中是非常必要的。有鑒于此本文試圖解決對第二語言學(xué)習(xí)者的語用教學(xué)的需

68、要。</p><p>　　本文作者認(rèn)為語用教學(xué)不僅為第二語言學(xué)習(xí)者提供了學(xué)習(xí)和發(fā)現(xiàn)外語母語人士在不同情境下行為方式的機會，而且還使他們能夠了解他人的文化和行為，這就避免了跨文化交流的障礙。也就是說，注重外語教學(xué)中的語用能力對二語言學(xué)習(xí)者來說非常重要;這有助于提高他們的語用意識，并使他們成功地進行跨文化交流。因此學(xué)生不應(yīng)該只關(guān)注語言知識，而忽視了語用和交際的一面。為此Boxer（2003：51）說道：“學(xué)生不僅要擴

69、展他們的語言能力，還要利用所有的領(lǐng)域來發(fā)展他們的交際能力”。</p><p>　　語用意識是關(guān)于語用規(guī)則和語用慣例的有意識的經(jīng)過深思熟慮的知識，而這些規(guī)則和慣例是直接指導(dǎo)在不同交際情境中恰當(dāng)?shù)厥褂谜Z言的。出于這個原因，第二/外語學(xué)習(xí)者必須獲得語用能力。 他們應(yīng)該知道如何理解并為他們的交流情景提供恰當(dāng)?shù)恼Z言。正如尼爾遜、卡森、阿爾巴塔爾、艾爾巴克利（2002）等人所表達的那樣如果不這樣做，他們將會產(chǎn)生跨文化交際的沖

70、突，并且會被目標(biāo)語言的母語人士認(rèn)為是不禮貌和粗魯?shù)?，他們會因為語用錯誤而不太太可能被原諒。</p><p>　　2. 語用失誤與跨文化語用失誤之間的區(qū)別在于語用失誤是交際中由于語言使用問題，尤其是外語使用者出現(xiàn)的問題而發(fā)生的溝通誤解。 托馬斯（Thomas）（1983）認(rèn)為這是對說話者的意思不能理解; 而何自然（1988）則認(rèn)為這是在溝通中無法實現(xiàn)所期望的交際效應(yīng)。</p><p>　　“

71、實用失誤”這個概念適用于來自同一個言語族群的人之間的誤解; 然而，“跨文化語用失誤”這個術(shù)語被用來描述來自不同言語族群的人之間的語用失誤（Charlebois，2003）。 例如，來自日本的美國說話人會將答語“這會有點困難”理解為對他/她的請求的接受，而這個答語在日本文化中可以理解為對某人請求的拒絕（Charlebois，2003）。</p><p>　　語用失誤是跨文化交際沖突的重要原因（托馬斯，1983），這

72、被稱為“語用錯誤”（Salmani-Nodoushan，2006）。 托馬斯（1983）傾向于使用“語用失誤”而不是“語用錯誤”這個詞，因為語用錯誤是指對明確的語言法定性規(guī)則的違反，比如“語法錯誤”等。 然而，失誤是指違反語用能力中涉及的“可能的規(guī)則”，而這種違反是因為對語用規(guī)則判斷的錯誤而導(dǎo)致不能表達說話者的說話意圖。</p><p>　　2.跨文化語用失誤類型</p><p>　　托馬

73、斯（1983）將跨文化語用失誤分為兩類：語用――語言失誤 和社交--語用失誤。</p><p>　　2.1語用――語言失誤 </p><p>　　語用――語言失誤 是由于表達語用用意的不同所導(dǎo)致的語言失誤（Thomas，1983）。 也就是說，沒有選擇適當(dāng)?shù)恼Z言意思來表達語用意圖。</p><p>　　托馬斯（Thomas，1983）明

74、確了當(dāng)語言行為策略從第一語言轉(zhuǎn)換到第二語言并在第二語言中應(yīng)用導(dǎo)致目標(biāo)語言中的不恰當(dāng)?shù)男Ч麜r，語用――語言失誤 就會發(fā)生。因此，“語用用意是通過說話人就某一特定的語言用語映射出來，而這一語言用語與目標(biāo)語說母語人士最常用的表達用意完全不同”（Thomas，1983，p99）。</p><p><b>　　2.2社交語用失誤</b></p><p>　　關(guān)于社交

75、- 語用失敗是指在某些情況和社會因素下在選擇說什么方面的失誤。 Leech（1983，p.10）稱呼它是“語用學(xué)的社會學(xué)界面”。</p><p>　　Riley（1989，p234）認(rèn)定社交語用失誤是在交際情景中，將一種文化的社會規(guī)則應(yīng)用到另一種文化的社會規(guī)則的結(jié)果。因此，在溝通中可能會產(chǎn)生誤解。</p><p>　　不同語言的人之間的跨文化差異的無意識導(dǎo)致跨文化交際中的社交 - 語用失誤

76、（Thomas，1983）。也就是說，在一種文化中被認(rèn)為是適當(dāng)?shù)恼Z言行為而在另一種文化中可能并非如此。</p><p>　　3.造成跨文化語用失誤的原因</p><p>　　基于對阿爾及利亞阿拉伯語和英語中就感謝和問候用語的比較語用研究，筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)語用失誤可能主要源于以下幾個原因：語用遷移、不同文化價值觀、教師和教材。</p><p><b>　　3.1 語

77、用遷移</b></p><p>　　語用轉(zhuǎn)移是造成交際中不恰當(dāng)?shù)厥褂玫诙庹Z的一個重要原因（Wannaruk，2008）。 Richards和Schmidt（2002）表示語用轉(zhuǎn)移是將第一語言策略中的言語行為轉(zhuǎn)化為第二語言行為。 這種轉(zhuǎn)移可能不適用于語言形式和詞語的層面，或者在第二語言的禮貌和間接層面也不適用。</p><p>　　語用轉(zhuǎn)移可以是積極的，也可以是消極的。積極的一

78、面是幫助第二語言學(xué)習(xí)者用目標(biāo)語進行交流。而消極的一面是它會導(dǎo)致誤解和語用失誤。</p><p>　　卡斯柏（Kasper，1992）指出語用遷移有兩種類型：語用語言學(xué)和社交語用學(xué)。語用語言學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)移是指在中介語中使用第一語言的形式和策略;然而，社交語用轉(zhuǎn)移是通過對第一語言文化內(nèi)部和外部語境變量的認(rèn)知來轉(zhuǎn)化為第二語言（Barron，2003）。 Möllering（2004）表示語用轉(zhuǎn)移是語用失誤反復(fù)出現(xiàn)的原

79、因。它是在與來自不同語言族群的人互動時，使用的是第一語言言語行為策略和方法（Cutting，2005）。也就是說，在與來自不同文化背景的人進行跨文化交流時，他們的言語表達行為方式與第一種語言表達行為方式一樣。</p><p>　　3.2 不同的文化價值觀</p><p>　　文化是在特定族群里特有的所有行為、規(guī)范和價值觀。 文化與語言的結(jié)合產(chǎn)生了所謂的“話語”。 后者是指通過說話、思考和行

80、為的方式來表達人的社會身份。 （理查茲和斯密特，2002）。</p><p>　　此外，“文化就是交流”（Tannen，1984，第194頁）。 因此，文化能力在跨文化交際中非常重要。 它“涉及認(rèn)知文化（本土或目標(biāo)語言、社會結(jié)構(gòu)、傳統(tǒng)，禁忌、信仰等方面）以及行事的方式”（Erton，2007，p.62）。所以對語言的理解受文化和社會因素的影響。因此，了解目標(biāo)文化會帶來跨文化交際的成功，對目標(biāo)文化的忽視會導(dǎo)致跨文化

81、語用失誤。</p><p>　　考慮到這個原因，社交語用學(xué)和語用語言規(guī)則掌控著特定文化中話語行為的實現(xiàn)。因此，對第一語言和目標(biāo)語言文化差異的忽視或缺乏認(rèn)識可能會導(dǎo)致跨文化語用失誤（House，2008）。因為在這種情況下，人們可能會在特定的情況下對特定的人在語言上做出不恰當(dāng)?shù)倪x擇。</p><p><b>　　3.3教師和教材</b></p><p

82、>　　在教學(xué)過程中，第二語言教師不僅負(fù)責(zé)解釋目標(biāo)語言的語言知識，還要負(fù)責(zé)描述其適當(dāng)?shù)挠梅ǎ蕴岣邔W(xué)習(xí)者的語言和語用交際能力。但是，能夠勝任目標(biāo)語言族群文化教學(xué)的教師很缺少，這會導(dǎo)致學(xué)習(xí)者的語用失誤。如果教師自己在跨文化交際中失誤，他們又如何幫助學(xué)生去避免語用失誤呢！因此，第二語言教師往往忽視語用學(xué)，并將注意力放在語法上，導(dǎo)致學(xué)生陷入語用失誤和交際失誤（Amaya，2008）。</p><p>　　托馬斯（1

83、983）肯定了卡斯帕（1981）提到的一些教學(xué)技巧或“教學(xué)引導(dǎo)中的錯誤”，這加劇了語用失誤。例如;在課堂話語中，使用完整的句子去回應(yīng)破壞了語用規(guī)則。也就是說，學(xué)生習(xí)慣于在溝通中做??出完整的答語。</p><p>　　此外，過分強調(diào)教師的“元語言知識”也可能導(dǎo)致語用失誤。舉個祈使句的例子，學(xué)生認(rèn)為“祈使句”的語法范疇與語言行為中的“命令”之間存在同構(gòu)關(guān)系，而在正式的英語口語中，祈使句也是用于表示命令或請求（托馬斯

84、，1983）。例如，“給我把客戶檔案帶過來”這句話是祈使的 ，但它代表了經(jīng)理對他/她秘書的請求，而不是一個命令。因此，學(xué)生們在正式的請求中避免使用祈使的話語，即使在正式的情況下要求人們完成某一請求也會被認(rèn)為是不禮貌的。</p><p>　　Cutting, J. (2005).Pragmatic and discourse: A resource book for students. London: Routle

85、dge. Erton, I. (2007). Applied pragmatics and competence relations in language learning and teaching.</p><p>　　Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 3(1), 59-71.</p><p>　　He Ziran. (1988).

86、 A Survey of Pragmatics. Changsha: Hunan Education Press.</p><p>　　House, J. (2008). Intercultural language use and language learning. Spain: Springer.Kasper, G.</p><p>　　(1992). Pragmatic Trans

87、fer, Second Language Research 8:3, 203- 231.</p><p>　　Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second</p><p>　　languages: Perspectives in research an

88、d scholarship (pp. 183- 208). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.</p><p>　　Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.</p><p>　　Kasper, G., (1981): Pragmatisch

89、e Aspecte in der interinsprache. Tubinger: Narr.</p><p>　　Möllering, M. (2004). The acquisition of German modal particles: A corpus based approach.</p><p>　　Germany: Peter Lang AG.</p>

90、;<p>　　Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., & El Bakary, W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23, 163-189.</p>&l

91、t;p>　　Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied</p><p>　　linguistics (3rd ed.). London: Longman.</p><p>　　Riley, P. (1989). Well don't

92、 blame me! - On the interpretation of pragmatic errors. In W. Oleksy (Ed.), Contrastive pragmatics (pp. 231-249). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing</p><p><b>　　Company.</b></p><p>

93、;　　Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2006). A sociopragmatic comparative study of ostensible invitations</p><p>　　in English and Farsi. (Unpublished M.A. thesis). University of Isfahan, India.</p><p>　　

94、Tannen, D. (1984). The Pragmatics of Cross-Cultural Communication. Applied Linguistics,</p><p>　　53,189-195.</p><p>　　Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4,

95、 91-112.</p><p>　　Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC Journal, 39, 318-337. Doi:</p><p>　　10.1177/0033688208096844</p><p>　　Yueke, M. (n.d.). The Deve