【摘要】：跨文化語(yǔ)用學(xué)是對(duì)不同文化背景的語(yǔ)言活動(dòng)進(jìn)行跨文化對(duì)比研究。請(qǐng)求策略分為直接請(qǐng)求，規(guī)約性間接請(qǐng)求，非規(guī)約性間接請(qǐng)求。本文從跨文化語(yǔ)用學(xué)視角出發(fā)，研究中國(guó)人和英語(yǔ)國(guó)家人采取請(qǐng)求策略的差異。 研究對(duì)象為100名中國(guó)學(xué)生和100名美國(guó)學(xué)生。中文組由筆者所在教學(xué)機(jī)構(gòu)的學(xué)生組成，均是大學(xué)一年級(jí)學(xué)生，共100人；英文組由筆者在美國(guó)的朋友協(xié)助完成，選取對(duì)象和人數(shù)與中文組一致。共發(fā)出200份,有效問(wèn)卷178份。然后，根據(jù)研究目的做了定性定量分析。問(wèn)卷設(shè)計(jì)采用語(yǔ)篇補(bǔ)全測(cè)試DCT(DiscourseCompletion Test)方法。 研究表明，中英兩組受試者在相同語(yǔ)境下采取的請(qǐng)求策略不同。影響英漢請(qǐng)求策略的因素有集體主義—個(gè)人主義和權(quán)勢(shì)差距。中國(guó)人受儒家思想的影響，認(rèn)為恰當(dāng)?shù)娜穗H關(guān)系是基礎(chǔ)，傾向于在親近關(guān)系中使用直接請(qǐng)求策略；英語(yǔ)國(guó)家人認(rèn)為獨(dú)立性和自主性很重要，傾向于使用間接請(qǐng)求策略。英語(yǔ)國(guó)家人在親密朋友間更傾向于通過(guò)不施加請(qǐng)求來(lái)表示對(duì)人們行為自由的尊敬。換言之，他們更傾向于“消極”禮貌。中國(guó)人看待距離的不同方式則表現(xiàn)出了對(duì)“積極”禮貌的較高傾向。說(shuō)話者對(duì)于對(duì)方真實(shí)的個(gè)人背景信息的了解也使得直接策略的使用顯得不僅適當(dāng)，而且也是相互間所期望的一種言語(yǔ)行為。在中國(guó)社會(huì),平等關(guān)系的人們之間相互請(qǐng)求時(shí)也常常直截了當(dāng),以祈使句的結(jié)構(gòu)來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)“直接式請(qǐng)求”。因此,直接策略,尤其是祈使句請(qǐng)求語(yǔ)被很多學(xué)者認(rèn)為是最不禮貌的策略,而規(guī)約性間接策略被英語(yǔ)國(guó)家人認(rèn)為是最禮貌的。 本文共五個(gè)章節(jié)，，第一章介紹了跨文化語(yǔ)用學(xué)和英漢請(qǐng)求策略的中外研究現(xiàn)狀并指出本研究的實(shí)踐意義；第二章論述了本研究依據(jù)的3個(gè)理論框架：跨文化語(yǔ)用學(xué)、請(qǐng)求言語(yǔ)行為、請(qǐng)求策略；第三章交代研究方法；第四章分析研究結(jié)果。第五章總結(jié)和指出本研究的局限性。
[Abstract]:Cross-cultural pragmatics is a contrastive study of language activities in different cultural backgrounds. The request strategy is divided into direct request, regulatory indirect request and non-prescriptive indirect request. From the perspective of cross-cultural pragmatics, this paper studies the differences between Chinese and English-speaking countries in the use of request strategies. The subjects were 100 Chinese students and 100 American students. The Chinese group is composed of the students of my teaching institution, all of them are first-year college students, and the English group is completed with the help of my friends in the United States, and the object and the number of students are the same as those of the Chinese group. A total of 200 copies were sent out and 178 valid questionnaires were sent out. Then, the qualitative and quantitative analysis is made according to the purpose of the research. The questionnaire was designed using the DCT (DiscourseCompletion Test) method of textual complement test. The results show that Chinese and British subjects adopt different request strategies in the same context. The factors that influence English and Chinese request strategies are collectivism-individualism and power gap. Influenced by Confucianism, Chinese people think that proper interpersonal relationship is the basis and tend to use direct request strategy in close relationship. English speakers think independence and autonomy are very important and tend to use indirect request strategy. English-speaking people tend to show respect for people's freedom of conduct by not asking for it among close friends. In other words, they tend to be'negative 'politeness. The Chinese view distance in different ways, showing a higher tendency to be "positive" politeness. The understanding of the speaker's real personal background makes the use of direct strategy not only appropriate but also a kind of speech act expected by each other. In Chinese society, people in equal relations often ask for each other in a straightforward manner, using the structure of imperative sentences to realize "direct requests". Therefore, direct strategies, especially imperative requesters, are regarded by many scholars as the most impolite strategies, while prescriptive indirect strategies are regarded as the most polite strategies by English speakers. The first chapter introduces the current situation of cross-cultural pragmatics and English-Chinese request strategies and points out the practical significance of this study. The second chapter discusses the three theoretical frameworks on which this study is based: cross-cultural pragmatics, speech act of request, and strategy of request; chapter three deals with the research methods; and chapter four analyses the results of the study. Chapter five summarizes and points out the limitations of this study.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：H313;H136

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 許子艷;英漢請(qǐng)求語(yǔ)的句法差異[J];北京理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年S1期

2 李君文;東西方文化價(jià)值觀念對(duì)比與分析[J];外語(yǔ)研究;2000年01期

3 徐盛桓;禮貌原則新擬[J];外語(yǔ)學(xué)刊(黑龍江大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));1992年02期

4 曹春春;禮貌準(zhǔn)則與語(yǔ)用失誤——英漢語(yǔ)用失誤現(xiàn)象比較研究[J];外語(yǔ)學(xué)刊(黑龍江大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));1998年02期

5 劉潤(rùn)清;關(guān)于Leech的“禮貌原則”[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;1987年02期

6 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

7 劉紹忠;“請(qǐng)”字用法漢英對(duì)比與語(yǔ)用負(fù)遷移[J];外國(guó)語(yǔ)(上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2000年05期

8 曲衛(wèi)國(guó),陳流芳;也談“Please”,也談“請(qǐng)”──與劉紹忠先生商榷[J];外國(guó)語(yǔ)(上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2001年04期

9 何兆熊;Study of Politeness in Chinese and English Cultures[J];外國(guó)語(yǔ)(上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));1995年05期

10 蘇文妙;文化價(jià)值觀與交際風(fēng)格——英漢請(qǐng)求言語(yǔ)行為對(duì)比研究[J];西安外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年01期

本文編號(hào)：2295239