A Correlation Study On English Majors’ Pragmatic Competence And Their Learning Motivations In A New Learning Environment

Pragmatic competence is the ability to use language to communicate appropriately. Leech(1983) proposed that pragmatic competence can be divided into pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence. Pragmatic competence as an important component of communicative competence has attracted extensive attention of scholars.Since 1980 s, scholars from home and abroad have conducted extensive research on the pragmatic competence, especially the studies on the pragmatic competence of foreign language learners, in the perspective of the Interlanguage Pragmatics(ILP).In recent years, with the extensive studies on foreign language learners’ individual differences, more and more scholars(Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Kasper & Rose, 2002; Kuriscak, 2010) began to pay more attention to the influence of foreign language learners’ individual differences on pragmatic development. Learning motivation, one of the most dynamic factor in individual differences, influences the effect of foreign language learning to a great extent(Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Deci & Ryan, 1985; D?rnyei, 1994). Therefore, studies on the foreign language learning motivation in the development of pragmatic competence naturally become an important research topic.Today, with the rapid development of science and technology, technologies have been widely applied to the forefront of education. At the historic moment, complex interactive learning environment arises. But Jean and Helen(2007) think that “new learning environment”(NLE) includes not only the interactive learning environment, but also the new teaching modes. Under the background of NLEs and the globalization, the learners’ learning methods and the attitudes towards learning may vary from the past decades, so the learners’ language learning motivation may necessarily change. It is worth paying attention to the changes. In addition, some scholars believe that the role of the learning environment in the development of pragmatic competence is particularly important(Kasper, 1992; Levinson, 1983; Thomas, 1983, 1995). Therefore, to investigate in the NLEs how does pragmatic competence develop is meaningful.So far, many domestic and foreign studies(Dufon, 1999; Cook, 2001; Kasper & Rose, 2002; Locastro, 2003; Liu Runqing & Liu Si, 2005; Takahashi, 2005, 2012, 2013, 2014; Taguchi, 2012, Wei Ran, 2013) show that motivation is one of the important factors affecting the development of pragmatic competence. But to date, the research on relations between pragmatic competence and learners’ motivation in China is mainly focused on the subjects of non-English-majors or postgraduates. There is seldom investigation exploring the relationship between English majors’ motivation and their pragmatic competence, especially on the English majors in Science and Engineering Universities(SEUs) and in Agricultural and Forestry Universities(AFUs).Therefore, the present study intends to explore the following questions:(1) In the NLEs, which level have English majors’ sociopragmatic competence and pragmalinguistic competence reached, especially the English majors from SEUs and AFUs?(2) What is the dominant motivation type the English majors from SEUs and AFUs possess in the NLEs?(3) In the NLEs, how high is English majors’ motivational intensity from SEUs and AFUs?(4) In the NLEs, is there any correlation between English majors’ learning motivation and their sociopragmatic competence and pragmalinguistic competence?The subjects chosen in the current study are 183 senior students in English majors from Zhejiang Agricultural and Forestry University(ZAFU), Zhejiang Sci-Tech University(ZSTU), and Zhejiang University of Technology(ZJUT). Data are collected through two questionnaires — the Questionnaire of Pragmatic Competence and the Questionnaire of Learning Motivation. In the end, 176 out of 183 subjects finished the two research questionnaires. SPSS Version 16.0 and Excel are used to analyze the data. The major findings are as follows:Firstly, as to the general pragmatic competence, most of the English majors from SEUs and AFUs are at the middle to lower level; even near half of the English majors are at the poor level. Students with strong pragmatic competence are rare. The results reflect the current English learning situation among the English majors from SEUs and AFUs: excellent students are few, students at intermediate level accounted for the vast majority and a small number of poor students lag behind. As far as the general pragmatic competence is concerned, the students from the countryside are better than those students from towns and cities. As to the pragmalingustic competence, the subjects from countryside outperform the subjects from the towns and cities; in terms of the sociopragmatic competence, the subjects from towns and cities outperform the subjects from the countryside. But these differences are not statistically significant.Secondly, a majority of English majors from SEUs and AFUs are equipped with high instrumental motivation for learning English. And their cultural motivation and the situational motivation are relatively weak. The English majors with high language proficiency have stronger cultural motivation than low or intermediate proficient students, but these differences are not significant in the statistical sense. The main motivation types of students from countryside are instrumental motivation; and the main motivation types of students from towns and cities are instrumental motivation and situational motivation. In current study, the different original locations do not exert significant influence on the choice of motivation types among the English majors from SEUs and AFUs.Thirdly, in general, the English majors’ motivation intensity is at an average level. The lower language proficiency the students have the weaker the students’ motivation intensity are, and vice versa. There is no significant difference in motivational intensity in terms of different original locations among the English majors from SEUs and AFUs.Lastly, there are significant correlations between English majors’ motivational intensity and their sociopragmatic competence, pragmalingustic competence and pragmatic competence. Correlation between cultural motivation and social pragmatic competence is also recognized. The results of present study also show that the cultural motivation is beneficial to the development of students’ pragmatic competence.Based on the findings, some implications are set forth to promote English teaching in China, especially the teaching for English majors in universities of science and engineering and agricultural and forestry. Firstly, English teachers should pay attention to stimulate and keep the English majors’ learning interest in English, to cultivate their cultural learning motivation, so that the English majors can enlarge their English cultural background knowledge to promote their pragmatic competence. English teachers should guide students to find the learning interest in target language learning, carry out some interesting activities to make learning more enjoyable, and make the course content more attractive. Secondly, English teachers should pay attention to the combination of pragmatics teaching and daily teaching in the NLEs. That is English teachers should explicitly teach pragmalingustic and sociopragmatic knowledge in class with the help of abundant pragmatic teaching materials on the Internet. Thirdly, English teachers should provide social context, and encourage English majors to participate actively in language activities to improve their pragmatic awareness and to gain a wealth of pragmatic knowledge in practical use. At last, English teachers also should pay attention to maintaining a high level of pragmatic teaching enthusiasm to improve their pragmatic competence level.