摘要
This study investigates the differences in pragmatic competence between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland university students.Participants included 19 native speakers of English,115 Chinese mainland students,divided into those who had spent time abroad in an English-speaking country(CM A)and those who had not(CM NA),and 97 Hong Kong students,divided into those from an English-medium secondary school(Hong Kong EMI)and those from a Chinese-medium school(Hong Kong CMI).Linguistic proficiency was measured by a C-test,and pragmatic competence by a Metapragmatic Knowledge Test,an Irony Test and a Monologic Role Play.Group scores were compared using ANCOVAs to control for differences in proficiency.The results point to a continuum of pragmatic competence—EMI>CMI>CM A>CM NA—reflecting the groups’access to English in real-life contexts.The differences between the Hong Kong groups and the Chinese mainland groups were clearest in those tests measuring processing capacity(i.e.,Irony Response Time and the Monologic Role Play).CM A,but not CM NA,performed as well as the Hong Kong groups on measures of metapragmatic awareness.The results are discussed in terms of Bialystok’s(1993)distinction between analyzed representation and control of processing.
本研究旨在探讨香港地区与中国内地大学生语用能力的差异。参与者包括19名以英语为母语的学生、115名中国内地学生,分为曾去过英语国家的(CM A)和未曾去过的(CM NA)以及97名香港学生,分别来自英语作为教学语言的学校(Hong Kong EMI)和中文作为教学语言的学校(Hong Kong CMI)。参与者的语言能力采用C-test进行测量,语用能力则用元语用知识测试、反讽测试和单一角色扮演测试进行测量。各组得分使用ANCOVA进行比较,以控制各能力的差异。研究结果显示,语用能力呈以下顺序——EMI>CMI>CM A>CM NA——反映了各小组在现实生活中接触英语的情况。在处理能力的测试(即反讽回应时间和单一角色扮演)中,香港组和中国内地组差异最为明显。在元语用意识的测量中,CM A而非CM NA的表现与香港组一样好。根据Bialystok(1993)对“分析表征”和“处理控制”的区分,本文对研究结果进行了讨论。
