本文研究中国以英语为外语的语言学习者的语用意识和语用产出。语用能力是交际能力的必要构成部分，但是语言学者往往牺牲语用能力去发展语法能力。大量研究对中介语语用进行了研究，但这些研究大多只是对比英语为母语者和英语为非母语者之间语用能力的差异，并没有把英语非母语者作为语言学习者。此外，大部分已有研究关注单一言语行为，以请求言语行为研究最多。虽然越来越多的研究聚焦于语用能力，研究语用意识的研究并不多，而且那些研究及其结果不能完全适用于中国语境。为了更好地了解中国以英语为外语的学习者的语用意识和产出，本研究选取北京师范大学大一大二英语专业各60名学生作为研究对象，以语篇评价任务问卷和语篇补全任务问卷为研究工具。语篇评价任务问卷需要120名研究对象对20个不同情境中语用和语法错误进行辨认并对错误的严重程度进行评定，然后提供他们辨认和评定的理由。语篇补全问卷需要120名研究对象对20个不同情境做出回答，20个情境中包括四个不同言语行为：请求、道歉、拒绝和建议，采用多言语行为情境可以更好地反映研究对象的语用意识和产出。研究结果显示，中国以英语为外语的语言学习者对语用错误的正确辨认显著低于对语法错误的辨认，而且认为语用错误的严重程度显著低于语法错误的严重程度。语用产出方面，中国以英语为外语的语言学习者也存在多方面的问题：较少使用降级语，有开启谈话功能的表达很少使用，同一言语行为情境中倾向于使用单一语言形式，缺少表达语用意图的语言形式。这一现状存在多方面的原因：语言教学内容和方法、语用和语法能力的相互作用、语用输入和学习者的注意力选择等都是可能的影响因素。基于研究结果和可能的影响因素，研究者提出了语用教学方面的教学启示，也对进一步研究提出了建议。

This paper investigates Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness and pragmatic production. Although pragmatic competence is an indispensible component of communicative competence, language learners tend to develop their grammatical competence at the cost of pragmatic competence. Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate interlanguage pragmatics, but many of them just compare the pragmatic competence of native speakers and nonnative speakers without treating the nonnative speakers as second or foreign language learners. In addition, the majority of these studies focus on one specific speech act, which cannot fully present learners’ pragmatic competence. Moreover, although an increasing number of studies center around pragmatic competence, few studies are conducted to research pragmatic awareness in particular. And most importantly, those studies and their results cannot apply to Chinese context. With an attempt to get a better understanding of Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic condition, the present study was carried out to investigate their pragmatic awareness and production, with grammatical awareness serving as a counterpoint. As regards to pragmatic awareness, 60 sophomore learners and 60 freshman learners of English majors were required to fulfill a discourse evaluation task questionnaire which was aimed to explore their identification and rating of pragmatic errors in various scenarios. In terms of pragmatic production, a discourse completion task questionnaire was completed by the same participants and was used to elicit their responses to different scenarios. The same 20 scenarios were included in the two questionnaires with four different speech acts of request, apology, refusal and suggestion involved, which could render more insight into language learners’ pragmatic awareness and production. The results of the study illustrate that Chinese EFL learners identify significantly more grammatical errors than pragmatic errors and rate grammatical errors as significantly more severe than pragmatic ones, which confirms that Chinese EFL learners are significantly less aware of pragmatic errors than grammatical errors. Furthermore, Chinese EFL learners better justify their identification and severity rating of grammatical errors than pragmatic errors. In terms of pragmatic production, Chinese EFL learners show such problems as few uses of downgraders, expressions with opening a conversation function and tendency of employing single form in their pragmatic production. After that, such possible reasons as instruction, input and noticing are discussed and moreover, pedagogical implications are proposed for pragmatic teaching in foreign language class. Suggestions for further research are also provided.