摘要
自1986年斯波伯和威尔逊在其《关联性:交际与认知》一书中提出关联理论以来,人们开始进一步从认知的角度探讨人类交际的总原则。基于关联理论,结合前人的研究成果,作者认为阅读是读者与作者进行交流的过程;阅读是读者寻求最佳关联的过程;阅读是读者在明示—推理的基础上进行推理的过程。在阅读过程中,读者依据自己的认知环境尝试从外显含义来推测内隐含义。不同的认知环境导致不同的语境假设。斯波伯和威尔逊认为我们的身体环境有可能相同,然而我们的认知环境却会因人而异。读者读到的每句话语都有可能对先前的内容渗透新的信息,因此读者的理解就会发生相应的改变。认知环境正是通过这种方式来影响阅读理解的。
为了检验关联理论对初中英语阅读教学是否具有一定的积极意义,作者提出了以下三个研究问题:第一,关联理论阅读教学模式能否提高初中生的阅读水平;第二,实验班教学实验后,不同英语阅读水平(高,中,低)学生的阅读水平是否都有所提高;第三,实验班教学实验后,不同英语阅读水平的学生对认知环境(语言知识,背景知识,推测策略)的态度是否发生改变?为此,作者对所教授的阿斯顿学校(甘肃省兰州市的一家英语培训学校)的两个班级进行教学实验。两个班级的学生都是13到15岁的初中生。研究者担任这两个班的教师,采用两种不同的阅读教学模式。控制班采用传统的阅读教学模式,实验班则采用新的关联理论指导下的阅读教学模式。
整个实验部分为期四个月,分为:教学实验前,中,后三个阶段。教学实验前,实验班和控制班的所有学生都参加了英语阅读前测。经过统计数据分析,研究者发现两个班在阅读理解水平上没有显著性差异。与此同时,研究者在实验班进行了一次调查,所有学生都参与了调查问卷的前测。
经过16周的教学实验,实验班和控制班的学生又参加了一次英语阅读的后测。经过与前测的统计对比,研究者发现两个班的阅读水平有显著性差异。虽然两个班的学生的阅读水平都有所提高,但是实验班的学生相对于控制班学生来说有更显著的提高。这意味着关联理论阅读教学模式能够提高初中生的阅读理解水平,并且此次研究中证明这种新的教学模式较传统模式更为有效。尽管经过阅读前测和后测的对比证明了这种新的教学模式的有效性,但是还需进一步证明学生阅读水平的提高和这种新的教学模式具有相关性。所以研究者对实验班的阅读测试后测和问卷后测进行了相关分析。结果显示实验班学生的阅读水平提高与这种新的教学模式显著相关。因此,经过上述论证,研究问题一得到了解决。
为了论证第二个研究问题,研究者根据实验班学生的阅读测试前测分数对其进行了分类,分为高、中、低三个不同的阅读水平。经过这三个组的配对对比,研究者发现中、低阅读水平的学生比高阅读水平的学生取得了更显著的提高。由于高水平学生经过教学实验后并没有显著性提高,所以研究者只将重点放在其他两个阅读水平学生上。中等阅读水平学生的提高和语言知识和背景知识显著相关,而低阅读水平学生的提高则和语言知识和推测策略显著相关。
通过对问卷前后测的对比,我们可以找到第三个研究问题的答案。结果显示实验班学生经过教学干预后对认知环境的三个主要方面持有更为积极的态度。高阅读水平学生对背景知识和推测策略持有更积极的态度。中等阅读水平学生对语言知识和推测策略持有更积极的态度。对低阅读水平学生而言,他们对这三个方面都持有更积极的态度。
实验结果显示关联理论阅读教学模式取得了一些成功,这意味着关联理论对初中英语阅读教学产生了一定的积极启示。尽管新的教学模式已被证明具有一定效果,但是我们也应该意识到并考虑到这种模式的一些局限性。这部分会在文章的最后一部分进行讨论。
Since Sperber and Wilson proposed the Relevance Theory (RT) in their book Relevance: Communication and Cognition in 1986, researchers began to explore the principle of human beings communication further from the cognitive perspective. Based on the key points of RT and previous studies (Tang, 2009), reading is considered as a communicative process between reader and writer; an optimal relevance– seeking process and an inference– making process on the basis of ostensive-inference. During the reading process, the reader tries to infer an implicature from an explicature based on his own cognitive environments. Different cognitive environments lead to different contextual assumptions. According to Sperber and Wilson, our physical environment may be the same. however, what they call our cognitive environment would be different for each of us. Every sentence the reader reads may add new information to the previous sentences, thus changing the interpretation. That is the way cognitive environments affect the reading comprehension.
In order to find out whether RT has an positive effect on the teaching of English reading comprehension for junior middle school students, the writer proposed the following three research questions: First, can relevance-theoretic reading teaching model improve junior middle school students’reading comprehension? Second, after the teaching treatment in EC, did students in three reading levels (high, middle and low) all improve their reading comprehension? Third, after the teaching treatment in EC, did students change their attitudes towards cognitive environment (linguistic knowledge, background knowledge and inference strategy)? In order to find out the answers, the writer conducted a teaching experiment in two classes in Aston training school (an English training school in LanZhou City, GanSu Province). Students from both classes were junior middle school students aged between 13 and 15 years old. Both classes were taught by the writer in two different reading teaching models. Control class (CC) adopted the traditional reading teaching model, whereas the experimental class (EC) adopted the new relevance-theoretic reading teaching model.
The whole experiment lasted four months which consisted of three parts: before the teaching experiment, during the teaching experiment and after the teaching experiment. Before the teaching experiment, both EC and CC students took part in an English reading pre-test. After analyzing the data, the writer found out the two classes had no significant difference in reading comprehension level statistically. At the same time, the writer also conducted a survey in EC, in which all students took part in the pre-questionnaire.
After the 16-week teaching experiment, both EC and CC students took part in an English reading post-test. Compared with pre-test, the results indicated that the two classes had significant difference in reading comprehension level statistically. Both classes achieved some improvement. However, EC students achieved more improvement than CC students, which means that relevance-theoretic reading teaching model could improve junior middle school students’reading comprehension level and the new teaching model was proved to be more effective than the traditional one in the present study. Although the results showed the effectiveness of the new teaching model from the results comparision of the pre-test and post-test, we had to prove the students’improvement had something to do with the new teaching model. So a correlation analysis was conducted between post-test and post-questionnaire. The results indicated that EC students’improvement in reading comprehension level had a close correlation with the new teaching model. Thus, the first research question was answered with evidence.
In order to find evidence for the second research question, the researcher divided EC students into three different reading levels (high, middle and low) based on their pre-test scores. After pair-compared the data of the three groups, the result indicated that students in middle and low reading comprehension levels achieved more significant improvement than those in high level. Since students in high reading level didn’t make significant improvement after the teaching treatment, the researcher put the focus on the other two reading levels students. The reading improvement of students in middle reading level had a close correlation with linguistic knowledge and background knowledge, whereas, reading improvement of students in low reading level had a close correlation with linguistic knowledge and inference strategy.
The third research question was answered by the comparision of the pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire in EC. The result showed that EC students had a more positive attitude towards the three key elements of cognitive environment after the teaching treatment. For students in high reading level, they had a more positive attitude towards background knowledge and inference strategy. For students in middle reading level, they had a more positive attitude towards linguistic knowledge and inference strategy. For students in low reading level, they had a more positive attitude towards all the three elements.
The research showed that the relevance-theoretic reading teaching model gained some success, which means the RT has positive implications on the teaching of English reading comprehension for junior middle school students. Although the new model has been proved to be effective, some limitations should still be awared and considered. This was discussed in the last part of the paper.
引文
Anderson, N, J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal 75 [J], 460-472.
Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly 26 (2).
Brown, G. (1997). The Nature of Comprehension [J]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 4, 36-44.
Camnourne, B, (1979). How Important is Theory to the Reading Teacher? Australian Journal of Reading 2: 78-90.
Carrel, P. L. (1983).“Some Issues in Studing the Role of Schemata or Background Knowledge”, in Second Language Comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 1 (2): 81-92.
Carroll, D. (2000). Psychology of Language. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Brooks/Cole/Thomson Learning Asia.
Eskey, D, (1988). Holding in the Bottom. In Carrel, P. and Eskey, D. (Eds.). Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading [C]. Cambridge: CUP.
Fries, Charles C. Linguistics and Reading [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.
Ganderton, R. (1999). Interactivity in L2 Web-based Reading. In Robert Debski & Mike Levy (eds). World CALL Global Perspectives on Computer-Assisted Language Learning. PA: Swets & Zeitlinger: 49-66.
Goodman, K.S. (1970).“Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game”, in H.Singer & Ruddell, R.B. (eds.). Theoretical Models and the Process of Reading. Newark, Del: International Reading Association. 259-271.
Goodman, K, (1988). The Reading Process [M]. London: Cambridge.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly [J] 25, 3, 376-407.
Grice, P. (2000). Studies in the way of words [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Grellet, F. (2000). Developing Reading Skills [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Gutt, (2000). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context [M ]1Manchester: St1Jerome He Ziran, (1996). Pragmatics in Translation. FLT 2.
Irwin, Judith Westphal (1986). Teaching Reading Comprehension Process. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Klein, M. L, Peterson, S, and Simington, L. (1991). Teaching Reading in the Elementary Grades. NeedhamHeights, Mass: Allyn and Bacon.
Kenneth Beare. (2010). Improve Reading Skills. [W]. From http://esl.about.com/od/englishreadingskills/a/readingskills.htm
Legge, G.E., Mansfield, J.S., & Chung, S.T.L.C. (2001). Psychophysics of reading. XX. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision. Vision Research, 41, 725-743.
McLaughlin, B, Rossman, T. & McLeod, B. (1983). Second Language Learning: An information- processing perspective. Language Learning, 33:135-158.
Nunan, D. (2001). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Heinle &Heinle/ Thomson Learning Asia.
Rumelhart, D.E, (1997). Toward and Interactive Model of Reading [A]. In Dorinie, S. (Ed). Attention and performances [C]. Vol 6. New York: Academic Press.
Seifert, C. M. (1985). Types of Inferences Generated During Reading [J]. In Journal of Memory and Language 24, 405-422.
Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1949).The Mathematical Theory of Communication [M]. The University of Illinois Press.
Sperber, D & Willson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Harvard University Press.
Sperber, D & Willson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D & Willson, D. (2001). Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
Wilson, D. (2004)“Relevance, Word Meaning and Communication: the Past, Present and Ruture Lexical Pragmatics.”In Modern Foreign Language, 27.
Widdowson, H.D. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wikipedia.(2010).Reading (process). [W]. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(process)#Overview
程晓堂,2006,关于英语教学与评价的关系的若干问题[R]。
胡壮麟,姜望琪,2002,《语言学高级教程》[M],北京大学出版社。
黄燕梅,2008,关联理论对大学英语阅读教学的启示[MA],厦门大学。
何自然,1996,翻译要译什么?--翻译中的语用学[J],《外语与翻译》,第2期,P: 17-20。
何自然,1997,语用学说与关联理论[J],《外语教学与研究》第4期,P: 11-14。
何自然,冉永平,2001,《语用与关联—关联理论研究》[M],外语教学与研究出版社。
何自然,冉永平,1999,话语联系语的语用制约性[J],《外语教学与研究》,第3期,P: 13-16。
何兆熊,2000,新编语用学概要[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
金杰,2006,阅读理解教学中的关联原则[J],《外语与外语教学》,第3期,P:31-35。
凌燕,2006,初中生英语课外阅读状况调查[J],《基础英语教育》,第4期,P: 39-41。
卢植,2003,论认知语言学对意义与认知的研究[J],《外语研究》,第4期,P:24-27。
刘杰伟,2008,关联理论与大学英语阅读理解教学[MA],西南大学。
吕茂丽,孔昭莉,2009,关联理论指导下的英语阅读研究[J],《外语教学与研究》,第3期,P:21-24。
缪庭,2009,英语阅读中的互动式教学[J],《基础英语教育》,第4期,P: 35-39。
宁静,2006,关联理论与大学英语阅读教学[MA],广西师范大学。
唐晓慧,2009,关联理论在商务英语阅读教学中的应用[MA],山东师范大学。
王冬兰,黄雪祥,2009,初中英语阅读策略指导的缺失及建议[J],《基础英语教育》,第3期,P: 53-57。
吴丽云,2006,关联理论及其在英语阅读中的运用[MA],浙江大学。
俞芳,2009,基于关联理论的高职英语阅读教学[MA],山东大学。
杨群英,2006,关联理论在高中英语阅读教学中的应用研究[MA],江西师范大学。
祖瑞,2008,关于初中英语阅读教学的现状调查[J],《基础英语教育》,第10卷,P: 90-93。
中华人民共和国教育部,2001,全日制义务教育普通高级中学英语课程标准(实验稿)[S],北京:北京师范大学出版社。
朱慧芳,2003,研读《英语课程标准》调整阅读教学策略[EB/OL]. http: // www. wljy. cn / cms/ app / info / doc / index php / 26312 -35k.
宗兆宏,2010,英语阅读教学中培养文化意识的过程与方法[J],《基础英语教育》,第5期,P: 50-54。
张向阳,2008,关联理论与用语英语阅读教学研究综述[J],《考试周刊》,第42期,P: 116-118。