n 假使語言與語境密切相關，在某些語境中，非典型的、不合語法規範的用法反而能明確顯示出說話者有特殊訊息要表達，那關於中文「諷刺」的此類語境該如何有效地教學？
In response to your first question
of how to effectively teach “irony” in Chinese pragmatic contexts, I address
few dimensions as follows:
1.
Definition
of irony:
Literally “irony”
represents the opposite of the surface meaning of utterances or thoughts which
intentionally created by the speaker to the hearer in certain settings.
Further, Wilson (2006, p1723) also stressed that irony is utterances with
figurative meanings which strengthen from literal meanings and simultaneously
depends on context as well.
2.
Types
of irony:
Wilson (2006, p1726)
stated that the term irony has been applied to wild fields and classified from
Socratic irony, situational irony, dramatic irony, romantic irony, cosmic
irony, verbal irony, various forms of parody, wit and humor. [According to your question, I infer that you
refer to verbal irony.]
3.
Theories
relevant to irony:
According to Wilson,
Grice’s interpretation of irony orientates on the hearer’s ability to recognize
the discrepancy between the speaker, the referent and reality. Similarly,
Sperber and Wilson treat irony as expressions of the speaker’s dissociative
attitude to a tacitly attributed utterance or thought instead of pretense.
Taken together, both approaches seem somewhat overlapping and having vague
boundaries.
4.
Classroom
practice in film-contextual rehearsals combining with authentic-contextual
rehearsals:
Based on the theoretical
understanding above, providing CFL/CSL learners rich contextual material is
needed. Since ironic styles connote complex messages underlying literal
meanings, interacting with emergent context as well, this makes CFL/CSL
learners effortful and time-consuming in strategies making in responses to the
addressers or inferring the entailments from the contradiction and counterparts.
Thus, cultural diversity contrasting may demonstrate explicit identification
for the discrepancy between L1 and L2, deepening their understanding.
Illustrating film clips in L1 and L2, explaining strategies utilized among
speakers and hears, elaborating particles, facial expressions, body languages,
dressings, the third parties, and the environment. Further, offering options or
paraphrasing choices are also critical points. Taken together, irony itself
does not just a single linguistic element but a blending dynamic asymmetrical attribute.
For CFL/CSL advanced learners are essential if they would like to immerse in
many social occasions in our society. So, this question deed offers us a
practical research orientation.
References:
Ø
从关联理论看幽默话语的关联特质王燕
- 哈尔滨学院学报, 2005 -
cqvip.com
Ø Relevance Theory. Retrieving
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_theory
Ø Wilson, D. (2006). The pragmatics of verbal irony: echo or
pretense. Lingua, 116, p. 1722-1743.
Utsumi, A. (2000). Verbal irony as implicit display of ironic
environment: distinguishing ironic utterances form nonirony. Journal of
Pragmatics, 32, p.1777-1806.
n 中文的「拒絕」語境相對於英文，該如何有效教學？是使用對比？演示？
Refuse may be considered to be
sub-categories in pragmatic politeness research fields, playing an important
role in linguistics. Similarly, having a grounded understanding is not only needed
but offering somewhat background knowledge for instructors to CFL/CSL advanced
learners.
A
study done by Hsie (2010) shed a light on strategies applied in Chinese
refusals in authentic conversational requests by phones and e-mails. The results
indicates that refusals tend to be explicit, accompanying with gratitude,
apology or both. Her findings offers me positive clues in response to the
second questions.
In
my opinions, L1 cultural diversity draws individual attention to the depth of
comprehension in refusals in L2 context. It seems to me that directness of
refusals in Chinese society which is considered to be impolite. In other words,
indirectness appears to be a more of high frequent techniques that are adapted
in verbal conversation while denying requests in either phone context or
replying e-mails according to Hsie (2010). Thus, designing tasks such as
different “missions impossible”, and then filming their reaction for discussion
might be effective; subsequently, contrasting L1 and L2 cultures in order to
increase understanding and decrease discrepancy. Still, draw attention to peripheral
influential verbal cues such as tone and voice particles. Altogether, we might
be able to lead CFL/CSL learners close to authentic language use.
References:
Ø
謝佳玲 (2010)。華語拒絕請求策略分析。台灣華語教學研究，1(1)，111-137。
Ø Politeness
theory & FTA
Retrieve
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory
Ø
Politeness maxims
Retrieve from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_maxims
沒有留言:
張貼留言