本文選題：拒絕策略 + 言語(yǔ)行為　； 參考：《長(zhǎng)春工業(yè)大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：對(duì)于語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)者來說,學(xué)習(xí)一門外語(yǔ)不僅意味著掌握目標(biāo)語(yǔ)言的語(yǔ)法,發(fā)音,詞匯,同時(shí)也意味著要禮貌,準(zhǔn)確,有效地使用語(yǔ)言,以便它可以最大限度減少跨文化交際所產(chǎn)生的誤解和尷尬。從而,提高跨文化交際的成功性。 本研究聚焦于“拒絕”言語(yǔ)行為,依據(jù)BrownLevinson的面子理論,從跨文化交際的角度對(duì)中國(guó)英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者和英語(yǔ)本族語(yǔ)使用者在實(shí)施拒絕言語(yǔ)行為時(shí)的策略進(jìn)行了研究,旨在發(fā)現(xiàn)他們之間的異同以及策略選擇背后的文化價(jià)值取向的差異。研究問題如下： 1.中國(guó)英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者和英語(yǔ)本族語(yǔ)使用者在采用拒絕策略時(shí)有差異和共性嗎? 2.對(duì)話者的社會(huì)地位是否會(huì)影響中國(guó)英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者和英語(yǔ)本族語(yǔ)使用者采用拒絕策略? 3.產(chǎn)生差異的原因有哪些? 中英文兩份問卷調(diào)查采用DCT補(bǔ)全對(duì)話的方式,引發(fā)拒絕的言語(yǔ)行為設(shè)定為：要求、邀請(qǐng)、給予和建議四類。語(yǔ)料分析過程中,主要是考慮社會(huì)地位對(duì)拒絕策略的影響。借助于SPSS13.0軟件以及百分比對(duì)各項(xiàng)數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行量化分析。 以前的研究者在問卷調(diào)查的過程中,只是進(jìn)行比較美國(guó)或是加拿大,某一個(gè)英語(yǔ)國(guó)家的受試者在“拒絕”言語(yǔ)行為上的語(yǔ)用策略差異,但是在跨文化交際中,我們不可能單純地只和美國(guó)或是加拿大一個(gè)國(guó)家的人民進(jìn)行交流,我們需要掌握了解的是中西方文化中禮貌策略的差異以及這些差異存在的文化背景原因,從而恰當(dāng)?shù)厥褂镁芙^策略。因此此次問卷的受試者,選擇了來自多個(gè)英語(yǔ)國(guó)家的英語(yǔ)本族語(yǔ)使用者。而在中國(guó)學(xué)生方面,第一次選擇了獨(dú)立學(xué)院的中國(guó)學(xué)生作為受試對(duì)象。 結(jié)果表明,兩組受試者在使用拒絕策略方面既有相同之處,同時(shí)又存在一些區(qū)別。相同之處是兩組受試者都較多地使用了間接策略。譬如：理由、歉意、選擇、說服以及回避等拒絕策略。不同之處表現(xiàn)在直接策略和間接策略的使用頻率、內(nèi)容以及對(duì)社會(huì)地位的敏感程度方面�？傮w上來說,中國(guó)學(xué)生采用的策略比英語(yǔ)國(guó)家的人多,中國(guó)學(xué)生對(duì)對(duì)方的社會(huì)地位很敏感,對(duì)比自己地位高的上級(jí)多采用道歉,理由和提供選擇等策略；對(duì)比自己地位低的下級(jí)多采用理由,說服,回避和直接拒絕。而英語(yǔ)國(guó)家的受試者多采用理由和直接拒絕,拒絕策略的選擇與社會(huì)地位無必然聯(lián)系。中國(guó)學(xué)生的拒絕理由比較具體,通常涉及父母長(zhǎng)輩及家庭,而英語(yǔ)國(guó)家受試者的理由相對(duì)模糊。通過對(duì)拒絕策略的使用特點(diǎn)進(jìn)行分析,可探究中西方文化價(jià)值觀之間的異同,中國(guó)的集體主義和西方的個(gè)人主義。 此外,在統(tǒng)計(jì)問卷調(diào)查中,還出現(xiàn)了一個(gè)現(xiàn)象：在中國(guó)學(xué)生測(cè)試中,一部分是90后的學(xué)生,在他們的答案中,可以發(fā)現(xiàn),和中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)的“卑己尊人”,對(duì)于社會(huì)地位敏感性的傳統(tǒng)禮貌原則有所不同是,這一小部分測(cè)試者,更傾向于以自我為中心,善于運(yùn)用法律(勞動(dòng)法)來為自己尋求合理的拒絕理由,以及有更多的使用直接拒絕的傾向。這些都表明,在90后的學(xué)生中,中國(guó)的傳統(tǒng)的禮貌原則發(fā)生了一些變化。
[Abstract]:For language learners, learning a foreign language means not only to master the grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary of the target language, but also to use it politely, accurately and effectively, so that it can minimize the misunderstanding and embarrassment of cross cultural communication. From the point of view, the success of intercultural communication is improved.
This study focuses on the "Refusal" speech act. Based on the face theory of BrownLevinson, the strategies of Chinese English learners and native speakers of English native speakers are studied from the perspective of cross cultural communication in order to find the differences between them and the cultural value orientation behind the choice of strategies. The following questions are as follows:
1. are there differences and similarities between Chinese EFL learners and native speakers of English in adopting refusal strategies?
2. does the social status of interlocutors affect the refusal strategies adopted by Chinese learners of English and native speakers of English?
3. what are the reasons for the difference?
In Chinese and English, two questionnaires were used to complement the DCT dialogue, and the speech acts of refusal were set up as: requirements, invitations, giving and suggestions. In the process of linguistic analysis, the influence of social status on the refusal strategy was mainly considered. SPSS13.0 software and percentage were used to quantify the data.
In the process of questionnaire survey, the former researchers only compare the pragmatic strategy differences between the American and Canadian subjects in a certain English speaking country, but in cross-cultural communication, we can not simply communicate with the people in the United States or in a larger country. We need a palmar. We know the differences in politeness strategies in Chinese and Western cultures and the cultural background of these differences, so that the refusal strategies are properly used. Therefore, the participants of this questionnaire chose English native speakers from many English speaking countries. In Chinese students, the first choice of Chinese students from independent colleges was made. For subjects.
The results showed that the two groups had similarities and differences in the use of refusal strategies. The similarities were that two groups of subjects used more indirect strategies, such as reasons, apology, choice, persuasion and avoidance. In general, Chinese students adopt more strategies than those in English speaking countries. Chinese students are sensitive to their social status. They use apology, reasons, and choice strategies to compare their higher status. The participants in the English speaking countries use reasons and direct refusal, and the choice of refusal strategies is not necessarily linked to social status. The reasons for the rejection of Chinese students are more specific, usually involving the parents' elders and families, and the reasons for the subjects of the English speaking countries are relatively vague. Explore the similarities and differences between Chinese and Western cultural values, Chinese collectivism and Western individualism.
In addition, in the questionnaire survey, there is also a phenomenon: in the Chinese student test, part of the post-90s students, in their answers, can be found, and Chinese traditional "humble people", the social status sensitivity of the traditional politeness principle is different, the small part of the tester, more inclined to be in the self. Heart, good at using law (labor law) to find reasonable reasons for refusal and the tendency to use more direct refusal. These all show that in the post-90s students, the traditional politeness principle has changed some.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：長(zhǎng)春工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：H030

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 胡壯麟;;韓禮德[J];國(guó)外語(yǔ)言學(xué);1983年02期

2 范崢,于桂玲;淺談日語(yǔ)中的拒絕表現(xiàn)[J];哈爾濱學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(教育);2002年02期

3 馬月蘭;中美“拒絕”言語(yǔ)行為比較研究[J];青海師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1998年04期

4 姚俊;從英漢拒絕策略的語(yǔ)用對(duì)比看中西文化差異[J];山東外語(yǔ)教學(xué);2003年01期

5 顧曰國(guó);禮貌、語(yǔ)用與文化[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;1992年04期

6 王愛華!610053;英漢拒絕言語(yǔ)行為表達(dá)模式調(diào)查[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;2001年03期

7 弗里德伯格;潘大渭;;評(píng)瑪莎·西費(fèi)爾特編：《大眾文化與蘇聯(lián)改革》[J];現(xiàn)代外國(guó)哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)文摘;1993年04期

8 林大津;譚學(xué)純;;跨文化言語(yǔ)交際:互動(dòng)語(yǔ)用修辭觀[J];語(yǔ)言文字應(yīng)用;2007年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1833966