中美外交部發(fā)言人拒絕策略使用對比研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-12-16 20:02
【摘要】：國內(nèi)外言語行為研究大多集中在對道歉、請求、恭維、感謝、建議等方面,本文試圖對中美外交部發(fā)言人使用的拒絕語進(jìn)行對比分析。前人研究拒絕語時多以禮貌原則和面子理論為理論框架,受此啟發(fā),本研究旨在驗證兩者是否亦為新聞發(fā)言人使用拒絕語的主要原因。鑒于此,本文以2012年6月至2012年10月間兩國外交部發(fā)言人答記者問為研究對象,選取其中與釣魚島和南海相關(guān)的文本資料,并建立了一個總計50000多字的中英文語料庫。以往的拒絕語研究以非正式場合的人際溝通為主,常通過對大學(xué)生進(jìn)行語篇補全測試(DCT)或問卷調(diào)查收集資料,與此不同,本研究關(guān)注的是具有廣泛參與性和真實性的正式機(jī)構(gòu)話語,且所用語料均下載白權(quán)威網(wǎng)站的完整文本,并從語言和語用角度加以分析。本文在Beebe(1990)等人提出的拒絕語分類法基礎(chǔ)上稍加修改,對所有拒絕策略的數(shù)量和類型(直接策略、間接策略和輔助語)以及分布,作了詳細(xì)的統(tǒng)計和綜合的比對,以找出兩種數(shù)據(jù)間的異同。 其次,本研究結(jié)果表明,中美兩國發(fā)言人在拒絕語使用數(shù)量、類型及分布上存在很大差異�？傮w而言,美方比中方使用了更多的拒絕語和拒絕策略。對于每個語義公式來說,兩國都使用了較少的直接策略而傾向于間接策略,其中“解釋原因”“提供選擇”和“回答不明確”等出現(xiàn)較多,而“陳述哲理”、“表達(dá)遺憾”和“延遲”等出現(xiàn)極少。誠然,兩者都表現(xiàn)出各自的特點。在輔助語中,“移情”為中方數(shù)據(jù)中唯一被使用的類型,卻為美方數(shù)據(jù)中唯一沒有出現(xiàn)的類型。最后,所有拒絕策略的分布表明,中方以“頭部”為主而美方則更多分布于“頸部”。 最后,本文對兩者間出現(xiàn)異同的根本原因進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的說明,并認(rèn)為禮貌原則、面子理論以及實踐的需要是相似性的主要原因,而文化、政治立場和背景則構(gòu)成了差異的主要因素。值得一提的是,“稱謂”的使用對闡釋兩者的異同作出了最好的例證�？傊�,禮貌原則和面子理論只是外交部發(fā)言人使用拒絕策略的原因之一。 一言以蔽之,對英漢語間拒絕策略的使用進(jìn)行對比研究不僅能夠使我們,尤其是中國的英語學(xué)習(xí)者們,了解更多表達(dá)拒絕語的方式,還拓寬了我們的國際視野。此外,外交部發(fā)言人多次使用拒絕策略也鼓勵我們要樹立文化意識,學(xué)會充分利用語用策略來避免誤解,實現(xiàn)成功的交際并保持和諧的人際關(guān)系。
[Abstract]:Most of the researches on speech acts at home and abroad focus on apology, request, compliments, thanks, suggestions and so on. This paper attempts to make a contrastive analysis of the rejection words used by Chinese and American Foreign Ministry spokesmen. Inspired by the politeness principle and the face theory, the present study aims to verify whether the two are the main reasons for news speakers to use refusal language. In view of this, from June 2012 to October 2012, the spokesman of the Foreign Ministry of the two countries answered a reporter's question, selected the texts related to the Diaoyu Islands and the South China Sea, and established a corpus of more than 50000 words in both Chinese and English. In the past, rejection studies focused on interpersonal communication in informal settings. They often collected data through text completion tests (DCT) or questionnaires for college students. This study focuses on formal agency discourse, which is widely participatory and authentic. The corpus used is to download the complete text of the White Authority website and analyze it from the perspective of language and pragmatics. Based on the classification of rejection language proposed by Beebe (1990), this paper makes detailed statistics and comprehensive comparison on the number and type (direct strategy, indirect strategy and auxiliary language) and distribution of all rejection strategies. To find out the similarities and differences between the two kinds of data. Secondly, the results show that there are significant differences in the number, type and distribution of rejected language between Chinese and American speakers. Overall, the US has used more rejection and rejection strategies than the Chinese. For each semantic formula, both countries use less direct strategies and tend to indirect strategies, in which "explain the reasons", "provide options" and "answer insufficiently" appear more, while "statement philosophy", "expressing regret" and "delay" are rare. To be sure, both show their own characteristics. In auxiliary language, "empathy" is the only type used in Chinese data, but it is the only type that does not appear in American data. Finally, the distribution of all rejection strategies shows that the Chinese are mainly "head" and the United States is more "neck". Finally, this paper explains in detail the fundamental reasons for the similarities and differences between the two, and thinks that the principle of politeness, the need of face theory and the need of practice are the main reasons for similarity. The political position and background constitute the main factor of the difference. It is worth mentioning that the use of appellation is a good example of the similarities and differences between the two. In short, the politeness principle and the face theory are only one of the reasons for the Foreign Ministry spokesman's refusal strategy. In a word, a comparative study of the use of refusal strategies between English and Chinese can not only help us, especially Chinese EFL learners, understand more ways of expressing refusal, but also broaden our international horizons. In addition, the repeated use of rejection strategies by Foreign Ministry spokesmen also encourages us to foster cultural awareness and learn to make full use of pragmatic strategies to avoid misunderstanding, achieve successful communication and maintain harmonious interpersonal relationships.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：H313;H136
[Abstract]:Most of the researches on speech acts at home and abroad focus on apology, request, compliments, thanks, suggestions and so on. This paper attempts to make a contrastive analysis of the rejection words used by Chinese and American Foreign Ministry spokesmen. Inspired by the politeness principle and the face theory, the present study aims to verify whether the two are the main reasons for news speakers to use refusal language. In view of this, from June 2012 to October 2012, the spokesman of the Foreign Ministry of the two countries answered a reporter's question, selected the texts related to the Diaoyu Islands and the South China Sea, and established a corpus of more than 50000 words in both Chinese and English. In the past, rejection studies focused on interpersonal communication in informal settings. They often collected data through text completion tests (DCT) or questionnaires for college students. This study focuses on formal agency discourse, which is widely participatory and authentic. The corpus used is to download the complete text of the White Authority website and analyze it from the perspective of language and pragmatics. Based on the classification of rejection language proposed by Beebe (1990), this paper makes detailed statistics and comprehensive comparison on the number and type (direct strategy, indirect strategy and auxiliary language) and distribution of all rejection strategies. To find out the similarities and differences between the two kinds of data. Secondly, the results show that there are significant differences in the number, type and distribution of rejected language between Chinese and American speakers. Overall, the US has used more rejection and rejection strategies than the Chinese. For each semantic formula, both countries use less direct strategies and tend to indirect strategies, in which "explain the reasons", "provide options" and "answer insufficiently" appear more, while "statement philosophy", "expressing regret" and "delay" are rare. To be sure, both show their own characteristics. In auxiliary language, "empathy" is the only type used in Chinese data, but it is the only type that does not appear in American data. Finally, the distribution of all rejection strategies shows that the Chinese are mainly "head" and the United States is more "neck". Finally, this paper explains in detail the fundamental reasons for the similarities and differences between the two, and thinks that the principle of politeness, the need of face theory and the need of practice are the main reasons for similarity. The political position and background constitute the main factor of the difference. It is worth mentioning that the use of appellation is a good example of the similarities and differences between the two. In short, the politeness principle and the face theory are only one of the reasons for the Foreign Ministry spokesman's refusal strategy. In a word, a comparative study of the use of refusal strategies between English and Chinese can not only help us, especially Chinese EFL learners, understand more ways of expressing refusal, but also broaden our international horizons. In addition, the repeated use of rejection strategies by Foreign Ministry spokesmen also encourages us to foster cultural awareness and learn to make full use of pragmatic strategies to avoid misunderstanding, achieve successful communication and maintain harmonious interpersonal relationships.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：H313;H136
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 劉一;;外交部發(fā)言人是如何“煉”成的?[J];東西南北;2014年04期
2 ;我對美國提出第四百次嚴(yán)重警告[J];文史博覽;2014年04期
3 鄒建華;;外交部發(fā)言人揭秘[J];書摘;2005年08期
4 鄒建華;;外交部發(fā)言人揭密[J];時代文學(xué);2007年04期
5 ;外交部發(fā)言人就有關(guān)海灣戰(zhàn)爭中不少平民遭到轟炸問題答記者問[J];中華人民共和國國務(wù)院公報;1991年06期
6 ;我國外交部發(fā)言人就日本人嫖娼問題等答記者問[J];報告文學(xué);2004年01期
7 鄒建華;;走近外交部發(fā)言人[J];報刊薈萃;2005年09期
8 郭e，
本文編號：2382973
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/wenyilunwen/yuyanxuelw/2382973.html
最近更新
教材專著
