在精读课中提高非英语专业学生的语用能力
|
摘要
外语教学的目的之一是培养学生的跨文化交际能力，外语教学中必须进行文化教学，这在当今的外语界达成了共识。根据Widdowson(1989)的观点，跨文化交际能力包括语言能力和语用能力。语言能力包括语音，词汇和语法，语用能力是指根据特定的语境正确使用语言形式的能力。中国英语教师对学生的语言能力较为重视，而忽略了语用能力的培养。有研究表明：当今中国大学生的语用能力明显落后于他们的语言能力，以致于在实际交往过程中，因为文化差异引起的语用失误而导致交际失误的事例屡见不鲜。语用失误，语用能力弱的体现，可造成相互间的误解，而且交际对方将其归因于一个人品质和人格方面的问题，把它当作一种冒犯行为。正如Wolfson所说：“在与外族人交谈时，本族人对于他们在语音和语法方面的错误往往比较宽容，与此相比，违反说话规则却被认为是不够礼貌的，因为本族人不大可能认识到社会语言学的相对性”(见戚雨村，1994：19)。精读是非英语专业学生的主要英语课之一，本文正是试图寻找一条在大学英语精读教学中提高学生语用能力的有效途径。
为了证明“有意识地改进教学方法和手段可以提高学生的语用能力”这一假设，作者以自己所任教的湖北民族学院2001级两个教学班级为研究对象，随机安排他们一个为实验组，另一个为控制组。实验之前，作者对两个班级进行了一次语用能力测试，用计算机对测试结果进行了处理。测试成绩表明两个班级的语用能力没有统计意义上的显著性差异，且学生的语用能力和语言能力发展不同步，这进一步验证了某些学者的研究结果。在测试的基础上，作者分析了语用失误产生的主要原因：不恰当的教学方法，语言本身的迁移，文化意义和情景意义的迁移。在四个月(约十七周)的实验期间，老师对两个班级进行不同的教法。对于控制组，教师只注重学生语言能力的培养，偶尔介绍一些相关的背景知识。对于实验组，教师既注重学生语言能力的培养，同时也注重语用能力的培养。鉴于目前中国大学英语教学的现状，作者提出了在精读课中
一
提高语用能力的实际做法。主要通过角色扮演等方法加强学生的语言输出，在
阅读中介绍一些语用原则，在语言教学中导入文化教学。实验结束后，两组立
即参加同一语用能力测试。结果发现，两组测试的平均分出现了较大差异，强
调并对语用能力进行了训练的实验组学生的语用能力的平均分明显高于控制
组学生的分数，而后者正是在整个实验过程中语用能力被忽视的那一组。此外，
实验组的实验前、后两次测试成绩之间有显著性差异，而控制组的则无显著性
差异。
本实验结果表明：通过改进教学有助于学生语用能力的培养。尽管在精读
课上培养学生的语用能力会占用一定的常规教学时间，影响教学进度，但它却
有助于学生说、读、写的能力的提高，从而达到成功地用英语进行交际的目的。
There is a consensus in foreign language teaching world that one of the aims of foreign language education is to develop students' cross-cultural communicative competence, and that teacher should teach culture simultaneously when teaching language itself. According to Widdowson (1989), cross-cultural communicative competence includes two aspects: linguistic competence and pragmatic competence. Linguistic competence is made up of three components-phonology, lexicon, and grammar, but pragmatic competence, another important component of communicative competence, is the ability to select a linguistic form that is appropriate for a specific situation, or to use English appropriately in social interaction. As for linguistic competence, Chinese teachers of English have paid much attention to it in teaching program, while pragmatic competence has been almost neglected in language teaching. Some researchers reveal that the pragmatic competence of the Chinese learners is much poorer than their linguistic competence, e
specially among non-English majors. It is observed that pragmatic failures caused by cultural differences often hinder effective cross-cultural communication. Pragmatic failures, the indication of lower pragmatic competence, may lead to misunderstanding, and even other participants may attribute it to one's inner quality and character, and hence regard it as an offence. As Wolfson ever says: " In interacting with foreigners, native speakers tend to be rather tolerant of errors in pronunciation or syntax, in contrast, violations of rules of speaking are often interpreted as bad manners since the native speaker is unlikely to be aware of sociolinguistic relativity"(quoted in 戚雨村. 1994:19). College English Intensive Reading is one of the major courses for non-English majors. This thesis, accordingly, attempts to explore an effective way of developing the cross-cultural pragmatic competence of non-English majors through College English Intensive Reading.
In order to prove the author's hypothesis that improving teaching techniques consciously can improve students' pragmatic competence, the author conducts an experiment on her two natural classes of Grade 2001 from Hubei Institute for Nationalities, which are assigned randomly to an experimental group and a control
group. Before the experiment, the author administers a pragmatic pre-test to the two groups. Data is processed and a correlation analysis is conducted through computer. Data gained from the test shows that there is no significant difference between students' mean scores and the growth of their pragmatic competence is not in pace with that of their linguistic competence, which further confirms some researchers' findings. Based on the results of the test, the author analyzes possible causes of pragmatic failure. In her interpretation, pragmatic failure is caused by improper teaching technique, transfer of language itself, transfer of cultural meaning and transfer of situational meaning. During the experiment period of about four months (17 weeks), the two groups are treated differently by the teacher. For the control group, only linguistic knowledge is emphasized, sometimes with some background knowledge introduction. While in the experimental group, both linguistic and cultural knowledge are emphasized. Students in the experimental group have more to do in order to develop their pragmatic competence. Given the unsatisfactory aspects of teaching in nowadays' Chinese college English classroom, the author proposes some practical techniques practiced in College English Intensive Reading as follows:
1. Strengthening English output by student-talk mainly through role-play.
2. Introducing some useful pragmatic principles.
3. Integrating cultural components into language teaching in Intensive Reading.
After the experiment, two groups immediately take part in a pragmatic post-test. Data gained from the test shows that there is a significant difference between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group. The mean scor
为了证明“有意识地改进教学方法和手段可以提高学生的语用能力”这一假设，作者以自己所任教的湖北民族学院2001级两个教学班级为研究对象，随机安排他们一个为实验组，另一个为控制组。实验之前，作者对两个班级进行了一次语用能力测试，用计算机对测试结果进行了处理。测试成绩表明两个班级的语用能力没有统计意义上的显著性差异，且学生的语用能力和语言能力发展不同步，这进一步验证了某些学者的研究结果。在测试的基础上，作者分析了语用失误产生的主要原因：不恰当的教学方法，语言本身的迁移，文化意义和情景意义的迁移。在四个月(约十七周)的实验期间，老师对两个班级进行不同的教法。对于控制组，教师只注重学生语言能力的培养，偶尔介绍一些相关的背景知识。对于实验组，教师既注重学生语言能力的培养，同时也注重语用能力的培养。鉴于目前中国大学英语教学的现状，作者提出了在精读课中
一
提高语用能力的实际做法。主要通过角色扮演等方法加强学生的语言输出，在
阅读中介绍一些语用原则，在语言教学中导入文化教学。实验结束后，两组立
即参加同一语用能力测试。结果发现，两组测试的平均分出现了较大差异，强
调并对语用能力进行了训练的实验组学生的语用能力的平均分明显高于控制
组学生的分数，而后者正是在整个实验过程中语用能力被忽视的那一组。此外，
实验组的实验前、后两次测试成绩之间有显著性差异，而控制组的则无显著性
差异。
本实验结果表明：通过改进教学有助于学生语用能力的培养。尽管在精读
课上培养学生的语用能力会占用一定的常规教学时间，影响教学进度，但它却
有助于学生说、读、写的能力的提高，从而达到成功地用英语进行交际的目的。
There is a consensus in foreign language teaching world that one of the aims of foreign language education is to develop students' cross-cultural communicative competence, and that teacher should teach culture simultaneously when teaching language itself. According to Widdowson (1989), cross-cultural communicative competence includes two aspects: linguistic competence and pragmatic competence. Linguistic competence is made up of three components-phonology, lexicon, and grammar, but pragmatic competence, another important component of communicative competence, is the ability to select a linguistic form that is appropriate for a specific situation, or to use English appropriately in social interaction. As for linguistic competence, Chinese teachers of English have paid much attention to it in teaching program, while pragmatic competence has been almost neglected in language teaching. Some researchers reveal that the pragmatic competence of the Chinese learners is much poorer than their linguistic competence, e
specially among non-English majors. It is observed that pragmatic failures caused by cultural differences often hinder effective cross-cultural communication. Pragmatic failures, the indication of lower pragmatic competence, may lead to misunderstanding, and even other participants may attribute it to one's inner quality and character, and hence regard it as an offence. As Wolfson ever says: " In interacting with foreigners, native speakers tend to be rather tolerant of errors in pronunciation or syntax, in contrast, violations of rules of speaking are often interpreted as bad manners since the native speaker is unlikely to be aware of sociolinguistic relativity"(quoted in 戚雨村. 1994:19). College English Intensive Reading is one of the major courses for non-English majors. This thesis, accordingly, attempts to explore an effective way of developing the cross-cultural pragmatic competence of non-English majors through College English Intensive Reading.
In order to prove the author's hypothesis that improving teaching techniques consciously can improve students' pragmatic competence, the author conducts an experiment on her two natural classes of Grade 2001 from Hubei Institute for Nationalities, which are assigned randomly to an experimental group and a control
group. Before the experiment, the author administers a pragmatic pre-test to the two groups. Data is processed and a correlation analysis is conducted through computer. Data gained from the test shows that there is no significant difference between students' mean scores and the growth of their pragmatic competence is not in pace with that of their linguistic competence, which further confirms some researchers' findings. Based on the results of the test, the author analyzes possible causes of pragmatic failure. In her interpretation, pragmatic failure is caused by improper teaching technique, transfer of language itself, transfer of cultural meaning and transfer of situational meaning. During the experiment period of about four months (17 weeks), the two groups are treated differently by the teacher. For the control group, only linguistic knowledge is emphasized, sometimes with some background knowledge introduction. While in the experimental group, both linguistic and cultural knowledge are emphasized. Students in the experimental group have more to do in order to develop their pragmatic competence. Given the unsatisfactory aspects of teaching in nowadays' Chinese college English classroom, the author proposes some practical techniques practiced in College English Intensive Reading as follows:
1. Strengthening English output by student-talk mainly through role-play.
2. Introducing some useful pragmatic principles.
3. Integrating cultural components into language teaching in Intensive Reading.
After the experiment, two groups immediately take part in a pragmatic post-test. Data gained from the test shows that there is a significant difference between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group. The mean scor
引文
Austin,J.L. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Mass: Harvard University Press, 1962.
Bachman,L.F. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Bachman,L.F. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing [M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
Bardovi-Harlig,K.& B.Hartford. Learning the Rules of Academic Talk: A Longitudinal Study of Pragmatic Change [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1993, (3): 279-304.
Brown,H.D. (3rd ed.) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching [M]. NY: Prentice Hall Regents, 1994.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. Universals in Language Use: Politeness Phenomena [A]. In E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978,56-289.
Canale,M. From Communication to Communicative Language Pedagogy [A]. In Richards, J.C & R.W. Schmidt (eds.). Language and Communication [C]. London: Longman Group Ltd, 1983,2-28.
Canale,M. & M.Swain. Theoretical Basis of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1980, (1): 1-47.
Chomsky,N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax [M]. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1965.
Chomsky,N. Rules and Representations [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980.
Ellis,R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
Grice,H.P. Logic and Conversation [A]. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press, 1975, 41-58.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R.Hasan. Language, Context and Text [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Harmer, J. The Practice of English Language [M]. London: Longman, 1993.
Hatch, E & H. Farhady. Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics [M].NY: Newbury House, 1982.
Hu,W.Z. Selected Reading in Intercultural Communication [C]. 长沙：湖南教育出版社，1990.
Hu,W.Z & C.Grove. Encountering the Chinese [M]. Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.24, 1991.
Hymes, D.H. On Communicative Competence [A]. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.) Sociolinguistics [C]. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972, 269-293.
Judd,E.L. Some Issues in the Teaching of Pragmatic Competence [A]. Hinkel, E. Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning[C]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001,152-166.
Kasper, G. & R. Schmidt. Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1996, (1): 149-169.
Kramsch, C. Context and Culture in Language Teaching [M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1993.
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman Group Limited, 1983.
Levinson, S.C. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Li, Li & Chen, Zhi′an. Language, Culture & TEFL [M]. 重庆：西南师范大学出版社，1997.
Littlewood,W. Communicative Language Teaching [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Li, Xiaoju. Communicative English for Chinese Learners [Z]. 广州：广州外国语学院，1984.
Lyster, P. The Effect of Functional-analytic Teaching on Aspects of French Immersion Students′ Sociolinguistic Competence [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1994, (3): 263-287.
Met, M. & M. Byram. Standards of Foreign Language Learning and the Teaching of Culture [J]. Language Learning, 1999, (2): 61-66.
Nattinger, J. R. & J. S. DeCarrico. Lexical Phrase and Language Teaching [M].上海：上海外语教育出版社， 2000.
Pearce,W.B. Interpersonal Communication [M]. Harperollines College Publishers, 1994.
Richards, J.C. & M. Sukwiwat. Language Transfer and Conversational Competence [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1983, (2): 113-126.
Samovar, L.A. & R.E. Porter. Communication between Cultures [MI. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing House, 1995.
Samovar, L.A.& R.E.Porter. Communication between Cultures [M]. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2000.
Seelye, H.N. Teaching Culture [MI. Illinois: National Textbook Company, 1985.
Stern, H.H. Issues and Options in Language Teaching [M]. P. Allen & B. Harley (eds.). 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
Thomas, J. Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1983,(2): 91-107.
Traugott, E.C. & M.L.Pratt. Linguistics for Students of Literature [M]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.
Wardhaugh,R. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics [M]. 北京：世界出版社，1991.
Widdowson,H.G. Explorations in Applied Linguistics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Widdowson,H.G. Knowledge of Language and Ability for Use [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1989, (2): 128-137.
Wolfson, N. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL [M]. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, 1989.
Yalden, J. Principles of Culture Design for Language Teaching [M]. 北京：外语外语教学与研究出版社，2000.
Yan, Z. & He, Z.R. Pragmatic Failure of the Chinese Learners in Communication with English Native Speakers [A]. In ELT in China Papers Presented at the International Symposium on Teaching English in the Chinese Context (ISTEC)[C]. Guangzhou, China, 1985. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1998,185-197.
Yule, G. Pragmatics [M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
《大学英语教学大纲》修订工作组，大学英语教学大纲(修订本)[Z]．北京：高等教育出版社，上海外语教育出版社，1999．
邓炎昌、刘润清．语言与文化[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1989．
桂诗春、宁春岩．语言学方法论[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1997．
韩宝成．外语教学科研中的统计方法[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2000．
何兆熊．语用、意义和语境[J]．外国语，1987，(5)：8-12．
何自然、阎庄．中国学生在英语交际中的语用失误[J]．外语教学与研究，1986，(3)：52-57．
何自然．语用学概论[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1988．
洪岗．英语语用能力调查及其对外语教学的启示[J]．外语教学与研究，1991，(4)：56-60．
侯维瑞．英语语体[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999．
胡文仲．不同文化之间的交际与外语教学[J]．外语教学与研究，1985，(4)：43-48．
胡文仲．跨文化交际与英语学习[M]．上海：上海译文出版社，1988．
胡文仲．英语教学中为什么要涉及文化[A]．胡文仲．文化与交际[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1994，126-137．
胡文仲．文化教学与文化研究[A]．胡文仲．文化与交际[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1994，27-38．
胡文仲．英美文化词典[Z]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1995．
胡文仲、高一虹．外语教学与文化[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1997．
贾玉新．跨文化交际学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997．
林纪诚、俞青海．语言与文化综论[A]．王福祥、吴汉英．文化与语言[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2000,77-90．
戚雨村．语言．文化．对比[M]．胡文仲．文化与交际[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1994：13-26．
钱满素．爱默生和中国—对人文主义的反思[M]．北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1996．
束定芳．语言与文化关系以及外语基础阶段教学中的文化导入问题[J]．外语界，1996，(1)：11-17．
王得杏．跨文化交际的语用问题[J]．外语教学与研究，1990,(4)：7-11．
王振亚．社会文化测试分析[A]．胡文仲．文化与交际[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1994，108-125．
吴国华．论知识文化和交际文化[A]．胡文仲．文化与交际[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1994，177-186．
瞿象俊．大学英语(精读第1-3册)[Z]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997．
张德鑫．中外语言文化漫议[M]．北京：华语教育出版社，1996．
Bachman,L.F. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Bachman,L.F. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing [M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
Bardovi-Harlig,K.& B.Hartford. Learning the Rules of Academic Talk: A Longitudinal Study of Pragmatic Change [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1993, (3): 279-304.
Brown,H.D. (3rd ed.) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching [M]. NY: Prentice Hall Regents, 1994.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. Universals in Language Use: Politeness Phenomena [A]. In E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978,56-289.
Canale,M. From Communication to Communicative Language Pedagogy [A]. In Richards, J.C & R.W. Schmidt (eds.). Language and Communication [C]. London: Longman Group Ltd, 1983,2-28.
Canale,M. & M.Swain. Theoretical Basis of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1980, (1): 1-47.
Chomsky,N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax [M]. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1965.
Chomsky,N. Rules and Representations [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980.
Ellis,R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
Grice,H.P. Logic and Conversation [A]. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press, 1975, 41-58.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R.Hasan. Language, Context and Text [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Harmer, J. The Practice of English Language [M]. London: Longman, 1993.
Hatch, E & H. Farhady. Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics [M].NY: Newbury House, 1982.
Hu,W.Z. Selected Reading in Intercultural Communication [C]. 长沙：湖南教育出版社，1990.
Hu,W.Z & C.Grove. Encountering the Chinese [M]. Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.24, 1991.
Hymes, D.H. On Communicative Competence [A]. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.) Sociolinguistics [C]. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972, 269-293.
Judd,E.L. Some Issues in the Teaching of Pragmatic Competence [A]. Hinkel, E. Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning[C]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001,152-166.
Kasper, G. & R. Schmidt. Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1996, (1): 149-169.
Kramsch, C. Context and Culture in Language Teaching [M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1993.
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman Group Limited, 1983.
Levinson, S.C. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Li, Li & Chen, Zhi′an. Language, Culture & TEFL [M]. 重庆：西南师范大学出版社，1997.
Littlewood,W. Communicative Language Teaching [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Li, Xiaoju. Communicative English for Chinese Learners [Z]. 广州：广州外国语学院，1984.
Lyster, P. The Effect of Functional-analytic Teaching on Aspects of French Immersion Students′ Sociolinguistic Competence [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1994, (3): 263-287.
Met, M. & M. Byram. Standards of Foreign Language Learning and the Teaching of Culture [J]. Language Learning, 1999, (2): 61-66.
Nattinger, J. R. & J. S. DeCarrico. Lexical Phrase and Language Teaching [M].上海：上海外语教育出版社， 2000.
Pearce,W.B. Interpersonal Communication [M]. Harperollines College Publishers, 1994.
Richards, J.C. & M. Sukwiwat. Language Transfer and Conversational Competence [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1983, (2): 113-126.
Samovar, L.A. & R.E. Porter. Communication between Cultures [MI. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing House, 1995.
Samovar, L.A.& R.E.Porter. Communication between Cultures [M]. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2000.
Seelye, H.N. Teaching Culture [MI. Illinois: National Textbook Company, 1985.
Stern, H.H. Issues and Options in Language Teaching [M]. P. Allen & B. Harley (eds.). 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
Thomas, J. Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1983,(2): 91-107.
Traugott, E.C. & M.L.Pratt. Linguistics for Students of Literature [M]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.
Wardhaugh,R. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics [M]. 北京：世界出版社，1991.
Widdowson,H.G. Explorations in Applied Linguistics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Widdowson,H.G. Knowledge of Language and Ability for Use [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1989, (2): 128-137.
Wolfson, N. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL [M]. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, 1989.
Yalden, J. Principles of Culture Design for Language Teaching [M]. 北京：外语外语教学与研究出版社，2000.
Yan, Z. & He, Z.R. Pragmatic Failure of the Chinese Learners in Communication with English Native Speakers [A]. In ELT in China Papers Presented at the International Symposium on Teaching English in the Chinese Context (ISTEC)[C]. Guangzhou, China, 1985. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1998,185-197.
Yule, G. Pragmatics [M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
《大学英语教学大纲》修订工作组，大学英语教学大纲(修订本)[Z]．北京：高等教育出版社，上海外语教育出版社，1999．
邓炎昌、刘润清．语言与文化[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1989．
桂诗春、宁春岩．语言学方法论[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1997．
韩宝成．外语教学科研中的统计方法[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2000．
何兆熊．语用、意义和语境[J]．外国语，1987，(5)：8-12．
何自然、阎庄．中国学生在英语交际中的语用失误[J]．外语教学与研究，1986，(3)：52-57．
何自然．语用学概论[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1988．
洪岗．英语语用能力调查及其对外语教学的启示[J]．外语教学与研究，1991，(4)：56-60．
侯维瑞．英语语体[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999．
胡文仲．不同文化之间的交际与外语教学[J]．外语教学与研究，1985，(4)：43-48．
胡文仲．跨文化交际与英语学习[M]．上海：上海译文出版社，1988．
胡文仲．英语教学中为什么要涉及文化[A]．胡文仲．文化与交际[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1994，126-137．
胡文仲．文化教学与文化研究[A]．胡文仲．文化与交际[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1994，27-38．
胡文仲．英美文化词典[Z]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1995．
胡文仲、高一虹．外语教学与文化[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1997．
贾玉新．跨文化交际学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997．
林纪诚、俞青海．语言与文化综论[A]．王福祥、吴汉英．文化与语言[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2000,77-90．
戚雨村．语言．文化．对比[M]．胡文仲．文化与交际[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1994：13-26．
钱满素．爱默生和中国—对人文主义的反思[M]．北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1996．
束定芳．语言与文化关系以及外语基础阶段教学中的文化导入问题[J]．外语界，1996，(1)：11-17．
王得杏．跨文化交际的语用问题[J]．外语教学与研究，1990,(4)：7-11．
王振亚．社会文化测试分析[A]．胡文仲．文化与交际[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1994，108-125．
吴国华．论知识文化和交际文化[A]．胡文仲．文化与交际[C]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1994，177-186．
瞿象俊．大学英语(精读第1-3册)[Z]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997．
张德鑫．中外语言文化漫议[M]．北京：华语教育出版社，1996．