大学思辨英语教程精读Unit教师用书

U

n

i

t

3

V

< br>e

r

b

a

l

a

n

d

N

o

n

-

v

e

r

b

a

l

C

o

m

m

u

< br>n

i

c

a

t

i

o

n

Unit overview

Both Units 1 and 2 mention a key word “communication”.

As Thomas Payne points

out in Text B of Unit 2, most of us, linguists or non-linguists, have the common-sense

notion

that

“the

main

purpose

of

human

language

is

communication

”.

Thus

to

develop

a deeper understanding of the nature and function of language,

we need to

take a

close at

human

communication. This

unit examines this topic

from

a cross-

cultural

perspective,

illustrating

the

similarities

and

differences

in

verbal

and

non-

verbal communication between different cultures, which lays a foundation for further

exploration into the interface between language and culture in the following units.

Text A

People in different communities demonstrate different perceptions and rules of

both

verbal and non-verbal communication. The way they interact is culturally relative in

almost

every

aspect,

including

when

to

talk,

what

to

say,

pacing

and

pausing,

listenership,

intonation

and

prosody,

formulaicity,

indirectness,

and

coherence

and

cohesion.

Text B

Some

non-verbal

behaviors

are

practically

universal

and

have

the

same

meaning

wherever you are (e.g., smiling and facial expressions of anger, surprise, fear, sadness,

and

so

on).

But

for

cultural

and

historical

reasons,

there

have

also

developed

great

differences

and

variations

in

such

aspects

as

eye

contact,

touch,

gestures,

and

territorial space, etc. Without an awareness of respect and accommodation for people

from a different background, these differences are likely to cause misunderstandings

in cross-cultural communication.

The

two

texts

supplement

each

other

in

that

Text

A

illustrates

cross-cultural

differences

in

both

verbal

and

non-verbal

communication

while

Text

B

focuses

on

non- verbal behaviors and addressesboth differences and similarities.

Teaching objectives

This

unit

is

designed

to

help

students

develop

their

reading

skills,

communicative

competence,

critical

thinking,

intercultural

reflection

and

abilities

of

autonomous

learning in the following aspects.

Reading skills:

Use context to understand a new word

Identify cohesive devices

Predict the content of an upcoming sentence/paragraph

Communicative competence:

Develop a coherent and cohesive oral/written discourse

Use

topic

sentences,

supporting

sentences

and

concluding

sentences

in

presentations/essays

Communicate constructively in team work

Critical thinking:

Evaluate

the

strengths

and

weaknesses

of

personal

experience

as

evidence

in

argumentation

Organize the arguments using an outline

Note and reflect on the differences between academic writing and everyday writing

Intercultural reflection

Identify similarities and differences in non-verbal communication across cultures

Be aware of multiple levels of differences on which cross-cultural communication can

falter

Interpret communication behaviors from cultural and historical perspectives

Teaching strategies

Non-verbal

communication

and

cross-cultural

communication

are

both

interesting

topics in linguistics. The teacher can introduce the two texts by quoting anecdotes or

relating

to

students’

own

experiences

(question

5

in

Preparatory

work,

p.

59).

For

students who lack experience of cross-cultural communication, the topic can be led in

by discussions about inter-subcultural communication.

Text A is a research articlefrom an academic journaland its structure and writing style

are quite clear. It is recommended to

draw students’ attention to

the

author’s

logic (i.e.,

ways

of

arguing)

and

use

of

evidence

in

class.

If

well- planned,

all

the

questions

in

Preparatory Work

and

Critical reading

can be dealt with in some detail in class. The

teacher

can

follow

all

the

questions

in

Understanding

the

text

to

check

students’

comprehension

of

the

text,

while

the

tasks

in

Evaluation

and

exploration

can

be

divided and assigned to groups. For example, in Making an outline (p. 62), the teacher

can divide the students into three groups, each responsible for one topic.

For classical works in intercultural communication, please refer to:

Hall, Edward T. (1955). The Anthropology of Manners.

Scientific American

,192: 85-

89.

Hall, Edward T. (1959).

The Silent Language

. New York: Doubleday.

For more updated information, please find the following journals:

Cross-

Cultural

Communication

published by Canadian Academy of Oriental and

Occidental Culture (CAOOC)

Across Languages and Cultures

published byAkadé

miaiKiadó

Language and Intercultural Communication

published byRoutledge Journals, Taylor

& Francis Ltd.

Preparatory work

(1)

Academic

interests:

gender

and

language,

interactional

sociolinguistics,

conversational

interaction,

cross-cultural

communication,

frames

theory,

conversational vs. literary discourse, and new media discourse.

Main publications:

You

Just

Don't

Understand:

Women

and

Men

in

Conversation.

New

York:

Morrow, 1990.

That's

Not

What

I

Meant!:

How

Conversational

Style

Makes

or

Breaks

Relationships. NY: William Morrow, 1986.

Gender and Discourse. NY & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Note: Outside the academic world Deborah Tannen is best known as the author of?a

number of books on the

New York Times

best seller and she?is also a frequent guest

on television and radio news and information shows.

(2)

Edward

Sapir

(1884

–

:

an?American?anthropologist

who

is

widely

regarded

as

one

of

the

most

important

figures

in

the

early

development

of

modern

linguistics. His main interests are in the ways in which language and culture influence

each

other,

the

relation

between

linguistic

differences,

and

differences

in

cultural

world

views.

His

most

important

contribution

is

what

is

known

as

the

principle

of?linguistic relativity?or the

John

Joseph

Gumperz(1922

–

2013):

an

American

linguist.

His

research

interests

include the languages of India, code-switching, and conversational interaction. Well-

known

for

his

contribution

in

interactional

sociolinguistics

and

the

of

communication

Gumperz’s

research

has

benefitted

such

fields

as

sociolinguistics,

discourse analysis, and linguistic anthropology.

E.

M.

Forster

(1879

–

1970):

an

English

novelist,

short

story

writer,

essayist

and

librettist.

He

is

known

best

for

his

ironic

and

well-plotted

novels

examining

class

difference and hypocrisy in early 20th- century British society. He was nominated for

the Nobel Prize in Literature in 13 different years.

Robert

Kaplan:An

American?applied

linguist.

His

research

area

covers

applied

linguistics,

discourse

analysis,

language

policy,

language

planning,

and

ESL/EFL

Teaching. He is most famous for his contribution in Contrastive Rhetoric, a term he

first coined in 1966. Kaplan has authored or edited 32 books, more than 130 articles

in scholarly journals and chapters in books, and more than 85 book reviews and other

ephemeral

pieces

in

various

newsletters,

as

well

as

9

special

reports

to

the

U.S.

government and to governments elsewhere.

(3)

Pragmatics is the systematic study of meaning dependent on language in use.

Unlike semantics, which examines conventional meaning

pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not

only on structural

and linguistic knowledge (e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and the hearer,

but

also

on

the

context

of

the

utterance,

any

pre-existing

knowledge

about

those

participants

involved,

the

inferred

intent

of

the

speaker,

and

other

factors.

Central

topics

of

pragmatics

include

a

speaker’s

communicative

intentions,

the

use

of

language that requires such intentions, context of use, the relation between the user of

a

linguistic

form

and

the

act

of

using

the

form,

and

the

strategies

an

addressee

employs to work out what the intentions and acts are.

(4)

Cohesion refers to the use of various phonological, grammatical, and/or lexical

means to link sentences or utterances into a well- connected, larger linguistic unit such

as a paragraph or a chapter. In other words, cohesion achieves well-connectedness by

means of linguistic forms.

Example: Mary is a secretary.

She

works in a law firm. Yan (2012)

Coherence refers to the logical well-connectedness between different parts of a piece

of spoken or written language, which distinguishes it from a random assemblage of

sentences or utterances. Yan (2012)

Formly?incohesive?discourse?may?be?coheren t?through?common?sense,?cultural?ba

ckgr ound,?contextual?information,?imagination,?logical ?assumption,?etc.?

Husband:?

That’s?the?telephone

.?

Wife: ?

I’m?in?the?bath.?

Husband:?

OK.

?

(5)

Pause

is

a

temporary

and

brief

break

in

the

flow

of

speech,

which

is

often

classified

into

filled

pause

and

unfilled

or

silent

pause

.

The

former

is

taken

up

or

filled by a hesitation form like

ah, er,

and

um

. In contrast, the latter is not filled by a

hesitation form. In other words, a silent pause is one where there is no vocalization.

Critical reading

I. Understanding the text

(1)

The

main

purpose

of

this

article

is

to

illustrate

eight

levels

of

cross- cultural

differences in non-verbal aspects of communication.

(2) We can understand the nature of language by observing it in communication and

in contact with other systems of communication.

(3)

Pacing

and

pausing,

listenership.

In

deciding

when

to

talk

and

what

to

say,

the