中西方礼貌原则及其差异分析
1. Introduction
Politeness as a social phenomenon can be observed in all languages and cultures, and it has long been made an important object of study in linguistics. The really serious study of politeness in the Western linguistic circles can be traced back to the German Romantic Movement in the early 1920s. In recent years, along with the rapid movement towards pragmatics, politeness has become the central theme. The two most influential and successful theories are Brown and Levinson?s Face Theory and Le ech?s Politeness Principle.
In China, however, the real study of politeness only began in the 1980s when pragmatics was introduced into China. The most worth-mentioning figure in this area is Gu Yueguo. He puts forward his own set of politeness maxims in his “Politeness Phenomena in Modem Chinese” (1990). Later, based on traditional Chinese cultural values, Gu has formulated a different set of politeness maxims, which he thinks are more suitable to the Chinese environment.
As a common social phenomenon, politeness is not only a universally highly valued virtue, but also a widely employed strategy to realize tactful and effective communications. Despite its universality of politeness, the ways to realize politeness and the standards of judgment differ in different cultures. Being unaware of such differences would probably lead to trouble or failure in cross-cultural communication. Therefore, it is necessary and important to study different concepts and manifestations of politeness in different cultures, so as to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding between the two sides and achieve a satisfactory result.
2. Concept of Politeness
Politeness is a universal phenomenon in human society, but it is not existent until the process of socialization and civiliz ation. The English term “polite” derives from late Medieval Latin “Politus” meaning “smoothed”, “accomplished”. Therefore“polite” was usually associated with concepts such as “polished”, “refined”. However different linguists and scholars give their different interpretations of politeness.
Leech (1983: 82) sees politeness as a regulative factor in interaction in order to maintain “the social equilibrium and the friendly relation”.
Brown and Levinson view politeness as a redressive action taken to counter-balance the disruptive effect of face-threatening acts.
Yule (2000: 106) maintains that politeness is “a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human in terchange”.
For Kochman, politeness has a protective mission exercised in putting things in such a
way as to take account of the feelings of others:
Polite conversation is...a way of showing consideration for other people?s feelings, that is, not saying or doing anything that might unduly excite or arouse. The
…gentleman?s agreement? (though, hardly just confined to adult males) is and was …you
don?t do or say anything that might arouse my feelings, and I won't do or say anything
that might arouse yours?... (Kochman，1984: 204).
He Zhaoxiong, a Chinese scholar (1995), holds that politeness can be understood as a social phenomenon, a means to achieve good interpersonal relationships, and a norm imposed by social conventions, and therefore politeness is phenomenal, instrumental, and normative by nature.
Therefore, we might say politeness is showing courtesy, respect and consideration to other people, acknowledging them, and not imposing unnecessarily on them.
3. Chinese Politeness Theories-Gu Yueguo’s Politenes s Principle
Gu Yueguo is among the few who have studied Chinese politeness. He argues against Brown and Levinson?s face approach and favors Leech?s principle and maxim framework. Gu holds that there are basically four essential notions underlying the Chinese conception of limao(礼貌): respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth, and refinement. “Respectfulness” is self?s positive appearance or admiration of other concerning the latter?s face, social status and so on. It is, to a large extent, identical with t he need to maintain the hearer?s positive face. “Modesty” can be seen as another way of saying “self-denigration”. To a large extent, modesty is universal, but to interpret it as self-denigration is uniquely Chinese. “Attitudinal warmth” is self?s demonstration of kindness, consideration and hospitality to other. It bears a strong Chinese trait and according to B & L, the speaker runs the risk of infringing on the hearer?s personal freedom, thus threatening his negative face. It shows the speaker?s concern for the hearer, and is regarded as completely polite. Finally, “Refinement”refers to self?s behavior to other which meets certain standards. It represents the normative character of politeness and the social conventions that the member of the community must abide by. People should live up to the conventionally recognized social standards in order not to be accused of being rude or ill mannered (Gu Yueguo, 1990: 239). Based on traditional Chinese cultural values, Gu has formulated a different set of politeness maxims, which he thinks are more suitable to the Chinese environment:
3.1 Self-Denigration Maxim:
The maxim consists of two clauses or sub-maxims (a) denigrate self and (b) elevate other. This maxim absorbs the notions of respectfulness and modesty. For examples: A: Your boy was really great in that play!
B: Thank you, actually he needs more practices, I think your boy was amazing.
3.2 Address Term Maxim:
The maxim reads: address your interlocutor with an appropriate address term. This maxim is based on the notions of respectfulness and attitudinal warmth. For examples: A: You should think about your future now！(Uncle)
B: Yes, uncle, I have the same feeling.
3.3 Refinement Maxim:
The maxim refers to self?s behavior to other which meets certain standards. With regard to language use, it means the use of refined language and a ban on foul language. The use of euphemisms and indirectness is also covered in this maxim.
For example: when you are having a dinner party with your friends, if you want to pee, you should pay attention to your language use:
a.Excuse me, ladies; I have to answer the call of nature.
b.I have to wash my hands.
c.I have to go somewhere.
3.4 Agreement Maxim:
The maxim refers to the efforts made by both interlocutors to maximize agreement and harmony and minimize disagreement. For examples:
A: I think the movie, the dinner and the party are all great tonight! Don?t you think so, Tom?
B: Yeah! It is a fantastic night, I like the movie too, I mean it is funny, and the dinner, the yummy foods. The party is also amazing! We do have a lot of fun tonight.
3.5 Virtues-Words-Deeds Maxim:
The maxim refers to minimizing cost and maximizing benefit to other at the motivational level, and maximizing benefit received and minimizing cost to self at the conversational level. For instance, when your boss ask you to get a thing done, you should think about the cost and the benefit to your boss, then, try your best to minimize the cost and maximize the benefit to your boss when you are getting things done. After that, when you and your boss are having a conversation about the thing he told you to do .You should maximize benefit received and minimize cost to self. For example:
A: You really did a great job，Jackson！
B: Thank you, boss, I got a fair enough pay, actually I should have expanded more time doing that job.
4. Western Politeness Theories
4.1 Cooperative Principle (CP)
The cooperative principle (CP) is a principle of conversation that was proposed by Grice. According to Grice(1975：45), in ordinary conversation, speakers and hearers understand and share a cooperative principle. Speakers shape their utterances to be understood by hearers, in communicating with each other, people should obey four maxims:
1.The Maxim of Quantity：
Give the right amount of information:
a. Make your contribution as informative as is required.
b. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
(For example: A: How many courses do you have this semester? B: Five. )
2. The Maxim of Quality:
Try to make your contribution one that is true:
a. Do not say what you believe to be false.
b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
(They are genuine and sinc ere, speaking “truth” or facts.)
A: Do you think he is suitable for the job?
B: Yes, absolutely.
3.The Maxim of Relation:
Be relevant (Utterances are relative to the context of the speech.)
A: When did you hear from him?
B: Two days ago.
4.The Maxim of Manner:
Be perspicuous:
a. Avoid obscurity.
b. Avoid ambiguity.
c. Be brief.
d. Be orderly.
(Speakers try to present meaning clearly and concisely, avoiding ambiguity)
A: Let?s have a walk, shall we?
B: Lovely idea.
From above we can see these maxims specify what participants have to do in order to conduct communication in a maximally efficient, rational, cooperative way. To do so, they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information. Otherwise, the communication cannot go on smoothly.
4.2 Lakoff’s Theory of Politeness
Lakoff was among the first to deal with …politeness? as a complementary element to
Gricean Maxims of Cooperation (Grice, 1975：33). She interprets politeness as forms of behavior which have been developed in societies in order to avoid offense and reduce friction in personal interaction. Lakoff proposes two simple rules of pragmatic competence that is designed to take into accoun t “the speaker?s assumptions about his relation with his addressee, his real-world situation as he speaks, and the extent to which he wishes to change either or both, or not to reinforce them”. The two rules of pragmatic competence go like this:（1）Be clear, and（2）Be polite. The first rule, …be clear?, is in observation of Grice?s maxims in conversation, while the latter, …be polite?, explains why speakers regularly and intentionally refrain from saying what they mean, solving the problem that the Cooperative Principle (CP) cannot explain. Lakoff develops her politeness theory further into three rules of politeness as follows:
Rule 1: Don?t Impose
(used when Formal / Impersonal Politeness is required)
Rule 2: Give Options
(used when Informal Politeness is required)
Rule 3: Make One Feel Good
(used when Intimate Politeness is required)
The first rule entails the feeling of being distant. The participants are possibly not in equal social power and position, such as an employee and an employer. The second rule is applicable to the conversations between participants who are in similar social power and position but are not familiar with each other, such as two people living in the same room in a hotel. And the third is applicable to the conversations between friends, intimates and relatives. Each of these rules is oriented to make the hearer “feel good”. Lakoff suggests (1973: 301): “In fact, one might try to generalize and say that this was the purpose of all the rules of politeness. But they all do i t in different ways”.Lakoff also argues that “unlike the rules of conversation, they are to some extent mutually exclusive: different ones are applicable in different real-world situations, and applying the wrong one at the wrong time may cause as much friction as not applying any. Speakers must assess their relationship with their addressees, as well as their communicative goals and intentions, in order to determine which of the rules should take precedence in the formation of a given utterance.”
4.3 Leech’s Politeness Principle (PP)
Based on the maxims of conversation proposed by Grice and the fact that there are occasions when people do not follow the Cooperative Principle (1983:104), Leech proposed the Politeness Principle to “rescue” Grice?s CP. He defines politeness as forms of behavior that are aimed at the establishment and maintenance of comity, i.e. the ability of participants in a socio-communicative interaction to engage in interaction in an atmosphere of relative harmony. In his proposal, he suggests that politeness concerns a relationship between two
participants whom we may call “self” and “other”. In conversation, “self” will normally be identified with a speaker, and “other” will typically be identified with hearer. Leech divides the PP into six maxims，each consisting of two sub-maxims:
1. Tact Maxim
a. Minimize cost to other;
b. Maximize benefit to other.
2. Generosity Maxim
a. Minimize benefit to self;
b. Maximize cost to self.
3. Approbation Maxim
a. Minimize dispraise of other;
b. Maximize praise of other.
4. Modesty Maxim
a. Minimize praise of self;
b. Maximize dispraise of self.
5. Agreement Maxim
a. Minimize disagreement between self and other;
b. Maximize agreement between self and other.
6. Sympathy Maxim
a. Minimize antipathy between self and others;
b. Maximize sympathy between self and others.
According to Leech (1983:133), not all the maxims and sub-maxims are equally important. Of all the maxims, Tact Maxim appears to be a more powerful constraint on conversational behavior than Generosity Maxim, and Approbation Maxim more powerful than Modesty Maxim, because politeness is focused more strongly on …other? than on …self?. Moreover, within each maxim, sub-maxim (b) appears to be less important than sub-maxim (a), because negative politeness (avoidance of discord) is a more weighty consideration than positive politeness (seeking concord) in English-speaking cultures.
4.3.1 The Tact Maxim
The Tact Maxim means that the speaker tries not to express beliefs that suggest or imply cost or harm to the hearer. It is the most important maxim in the PP, since it is used in impositives, which need politeness most in various speech acts. In fact, …tact? is essential in politeness, for using language politely means using language tactfully.
For example:
a. Could you shut the door?
b. Can I help you?
4.3.2 The Generosity Maxim
The Generosity Maxim, which is …self-centered?, is the other aspect of the same matter as the …other-c entered? Maxim of Tact. It conveys the idea that a speaker should try to diminish his own benefit and maximize his own cost.
For example:
a. Do have another cake, please.
b. A: “I?m going to spend my summer vacation in Shanghai.”
B: “I can lend you my key.”
4.3.3 The Approbation Maxim
Not surprisingly, saying something good about the other person is much more polite than saying something bad. A compliment like …What a marvelous meal you cooked!? is highly valued according to the Approbation Maxim. Similarly, it is polite to say:
a. You are the best coach in my mind.
b. A: “Her performance was remarkable!”
B: “Yes, wasn?t it!”
4.3.4 The Modesty Maxim
Like the Tact Maxim and the Generosity Maxim, the Modesty Maxim is also a counterpart to the Approbation Maxim. The Approbation Maxim deals with how to evaluate …other?, while the Modesty Maxim with how to evaluate …self?. The Modesty Maxim says that self-dispraise is regarded as quite benign.
For example:
a. A: “What a clever boy you are! You have done a good jo
b.”
B: “Thank you. I have a very good partner.”
b. A: “Thank you very much for what you?ve done for me.”
B: “Not at all. This is the least I could do.”
4.3.5 The Agreement Maxim
We talk in terms of the Agreement Maxim, which means that we should exaggerate agreement with other people, and to mitigate disagreement by expressing regret, partial agreement, etc. See the following examples:
a. A: “That skirt she is wearing is beautiful, don't you think?”
B: “Well, I like the color.”
b. A: “How do you like my painting?”
B: “I don?t have an eye for beauty, I'm afraid.”
c. A: “English is a difficult language to learn.”
B: “True, but the grammar is quite easy.”
4.3.6 The Sympathy Maxim
The Sympathy Maxim accounts for why congratulations and condolences are courteous speech acts, even though condolences express the beliefs that are negative with regard to the hearer. See the following examples:
a. A: “We lost the game.”
B: “Never mind. Better luck next time.”
b. A: “My father was sick last week.”
B: “Oh, I?m sorry to hear that.”
4.4 Brown and Levinson’s Face Theory
The concept of …face?, central to the theory of politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson, is claimed to be drawn primarily from the work of the noted American sociologist Erving Goffman (1967: 5), who defines face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact”. According to Goffman, face is a sacred thing for every human being, and it is an essential factor that all communicators have to pay attention to, if one wants his face cared for, he should care for other people?s face.
Based on the face notion raised by Goffman in the late 1950s, Brown and Levinson (1987: 2,216) put forward the face theory. They define face as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, which consists of two related aspects: “negative face” and “positive face”. Negative face is a person?s desire to be unimpeded by others, to be free to act without being imposed upon, while positive face is a person?s wish to be desirable to at least some other who will appreciate and approve of one?s self and one?s personality.
In the face theory, Brown and Levinson believed that keeping our face is the most important thing in social interactions. If we want to keep our face, we shall be very careful to keep others? face. Otherwise, all face is lost. (何自然,1997:102). In other words, one?s face in communication can be given and saved by the other party, so people in communication should cooperate in caring for others? face. When one?s face is under threat, he will try to save it, while saving his own face, the other?s face would be threatened. According to Brown & Levinson (1987:67-68), nearly all speech acts are face-threatening acts (FTAs), requests, orders, threats, suggestions and advice are examples of acts which represent a threat to “negative face”, because the speaker will be putting some pressure on the addressee to do. Apologing and accepting compliments are seen as FTAs to speaker?s positive face, since in the first case, the speaker will be indicating that she / he regrets doing a prior FTA and thus she / he will be damaging his / her own face; in the second case the speaker might feel that she / he has to reciprocate the compliment in one way or another. Therefore, one should employ certain strategies to try to avoid or minimize threats to face when one has to do an FTA. According to the face-threatening degree of speech acts, the five strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson are (from the least polite to the most polite): a. bald on record without
redressive action; b. positive politeness; c. negative politeness; d. off-record politeness, and e. don't do the FTA, among which positive and negative politeness are prominent .
5. Differences between Chinese and Western Politeness Principles
5.1 Differences b etween Chinese “Face” and B & L’s “Face”
In the Chinese culture, face goes beyond Brown and Levinson?s description of a “public self-image” that is satisfied, preserved, enhanced, or threatened in interactions; rather, face is social cap ital and can be either “thick” or “thin”, borrowed, given,augmented, diminished and so on. Face goes deep to the core of a Chinese person?s identity and integrity. And, since a Chinese person?s identity and integrity are entwined with others, face then becomes “collective property”. People in China are encouraged to avoid acts that stir up jealousy, affront authority or incur ill-will things that can damage face.
But in the English culture face exists only in the immediate time and place that involves the two conflict parties. Brown & Levinson?s Face-Saving Theory is for defending individual?s freedom of actions whereas Chinese politeness focuses on self-restraint. It would be difficult for Chinese to treat these acts as FTAs (Face-Threatening Acts): suggestions, offerings, expressions of admiration, self-humiliation, etc. To Chinese, these acts are just on the contrary polite and can actually be termed as “face-enhancing act” to the hearer, and they have nothing to do with face-threatening in the Chinese culture.
It?s true that Americans care for their own faces and care for whether to keep faces for themselves, while Chinese care for others? faces and care for whether to keep faces for others.
5.2 Modesty and Self-denigration
It is universally acknowledged that to show modesty is a way to be polite. English modesty is a strategy of minimizing praise of self, but in Chinese culture, modesty is the most outstanding feature of politeness, people tend to make negative answer or self-denigration to show their modesty. Modesty is reflected in every aspect of Chinese life. It has become the habit of the majority of the Chinese to belittle themselves and respect others. For instance, in Chinese culture, in order to show our modesty we often turn “I” into “fool”, “small potato”, “lonely man”（愚兄，愚弟 ,敝人，鄙人，不才，寡人）and so on. While in English most of us may have noticed that “I” is always capital, but “we”, “you”, “they”, “he” and “she” are not. From this we can infer “I” is more important than “we”, “you”, “they”, “he” or “she” in English culture.
Denying other?s praise is a proper language behavior in China. It is a Chinese convention to decline other?s invitation for at least one time to show modesty. In a word the Chinese are ready to show modesty all the time. Here is such a case:
American: You did a good job.
Chinese response:
That?s the result of joint efforts.
There?s still much room for improvement.
No, no, there are many defects.
No, no, not at all. You are joking.
It is good manners in the English culture to accept a compliment by saying something like “thank you” to show acknowledgement of self-worth and achievement as well as appreciation of the praise, because this is the English convention. But it is not only polite but also a virtue in the Chinese culture to respond to a compliment by saying something like “哪里，哪里，还差得远呀。”“不，不，做得不够好。”or claiming that he (she) is not worthy of the compliment, that what he (she) has done is far from enough or that the success is merely a matter of luck, etc. That is why it tends to be hard for native speakers of English to understand many negative comments in Chinese, which are expressed out of modesty.
To sum up, “modesty” in English culture stresses other-elevating, but not necessarily and very rarely self-denigrating where as Chinese “modesty” emphasizes both self-denigrating and other-elevating, but with a more stress on self-denigrating. (He Zhaoxiong 1995: 20)
5.3 Politeness in English-speaking Cultures and Chinese Culture
The phenomenon of politeness is “not a natural entity, but one which has evolved historically, one that has been constructed historically. Concepts of politeness are thus an integral part of politeness itself, of its history, its evolution, its development and its historical implementation.”(Ehlich, 1992：32)
As discussed in Chapter three, Lakoff (1973:238) concentrates on its supportive features and says that politeness is for “reaffirming and strengthening relationships”. According to her, “Politeness is a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange”. Leech (1977: 19) goes for the protective side of politeness and proposes that it is used to “avoid strategic conflict”. From the view of Brown and Levinson, politeness can be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another person?s face. Hill (1986: 347) points out: “Politeness is one of the constraints on human interaction, whose purpose is to consider others? feelings, to establish levels of mutual comfort, and to promote rapport”. This definition indicates that politeness is seen as a constraint on human behavior, not only to “reduce friction” as Lakoff suggests, but also to enhance rapport and harmony.
The Chinese concept of politeness is different. Chinese see politeness as a virtue instead of a strategy, and the purpose of politeness is not to avoid discord but to seek harmony. In Chinese culture, politeness is an expression of a person?s moral character and the core of it is mutual respect and mutual accommodation (Bi Jiwan, 1997：55).
The most approximate equivalent of the English word “politeness”, in modern Chinese,
is “礼貌”，which morphemically means “polite appearance”. “礼貌”is believed to have evolved in history from the classical notion of “礼”，which was formulated by the ancient Chinese philosopher and thinker Confucius (511B.C. - 479 B.C.). “礼”as one measure advocated by Confucius to restore social order, didn?t mean “politeness”at that time. It referred to the social hierarchy and order of the slave society of the Zhou Dynasty (dating back to 1100 B.C.). About two hundred years after Confucius, the word “礼”seemed to have been used in a sense very close to its derivative in modern Chinese, i.e.礼貌. It was first found in a book entitled《礼记》supposed to be written by Dai Sheng sometime during the West Han Dynasty. The book opens with:“Speaking of li (礼), humble yourself but show respect to others”. It has ever since become an essential feature of the Chinese notion of politeness. Even today, denigrating self and respecting others still remain at the core of the modern conception of “礼貌”. For example, in the most authoritative Dictionary of Modern Chinese，the explanation of the word “礼貌”goes as modesty and respectfulness in speech and behavior. In short, the social function of politeness in modern Chinese is to seek harmony, mitigate contradiction, and facilitate cooperation between people.
Politeness is, in fact, strategies to establish and maintain a certain kind of relation with others, but different societies usually have different norms. With the direction of the norm, we know whether we should be polite to certain people in certain circumstances. For instance, respecting the old and caring the young is traditionally regarded as a virtue in China, in which there are special seats for the old, the weak, the sick, the disabled and the pregnant on buses. But such an expression is not welcome by English-speaking people at all. Therefore it is a good manner in China to offer your seat to an old man on the bus, but the same act may make the old man confused or even annoyed if it happens in America. For their concept of value is quite different from ours. They want to be treated as young and healthy. So even an old man over sixty would not like to be addressed “old people” or even “the elderly”. He would prefer the terms such as “senior citizen” or “golden aged”. As the result of such cultural psychology, no one would like to be classified into the old and the weak. Therefore, in western countries, they prefer to choose the term “courtesy seats” to avoid hurting the passengers? honor and self-respect. Happily as far as I noticed, in Shanghai the expression of “Offer seats to the old, the weak, the sick, the disabled and the pregnant” has been changed into “Offer seats to the people who need h elp” on the Metro.
6. Conclusion
Politeness is a very important issue of study in modem linguistics, especially in pragmatics. Despite its universality, politeness is to some extent culture-specific. Based on the analysis of cultural differences between English and Chinese, we can easily find that problems in communication between Chinese and the Westerners occur rather frequently because of the differences of basic cultural values. With the development of cross-cultural
business, communication technologies, including Internet, transportation, science and technology, and improvement in other related areas, communication between people with different cultural backgrounds are becoming more and more frequent and easier than ever before. In recent years, China has made a rapid economical development. The 2008 Olympic game has been hold in Beijing, and the 2010 EXPO will take place in Shanghai. Chinese people will have more and more chances to communicate and even to work with foreigners. Therefore we should understand and pay much attention to the differences of different politeness principles in order to avoid conflicts, misunderstandings and unhappiness in the cross-culture communication.
References
[1]Brown, P. and Levinson, S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
[2]Ehlich, K. On the Historicity of Politeness [M]. Chicago: Sharp Press, 1992.
[3] George Yule. Pragmatics[M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[4]Goffman, E. Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior [M]. New York: Garden City, 1967.
[5]Gu, Yueguo. “Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese”[J]. Journal of Pragmatics.134(1990): 33- 35.
[6]He, Zhaoxiong. Study of Politeness in Chinese and English Cultures [J]. Foreign Language.1995( 5):20-25.
[7]Hill, Beverly, “ Universals of Linguistic Politeness”[J]. Wadsworth Publishing Company.1986: 347-371.
[8]Lakoff, R. The Logic of Politeness [M].Chicago: Linguistics Society, 1973.
[9]Leech, G. Logic and Conversation [M]. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
[10]Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. New York: Longman, 1983.
[11]Leech, G. N. Language and Tact [M].London: University of Trier, 1977.
[12]毕继万.礼貌的文化特性研究[M].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社,1997.
[13]何兆雄.新编语用学概要 [M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[14]熊学亮.语言学新解 [M].上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2003.
[15]张蓓.英汉语人际称谓中的文化差异[J].汕头大学学报,1993(4):57 - 62.
[16]周筱娟.现代汉语礼貌语言研究 [M].北京：中国社会科学出版社，2008.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to all those who helped me during my writing of this thesis.
Special thanks should be given to associate Professor Qin Sufang, from whom I knew how I should write a thesis about linguistics for the first time.
Most particularly, I would like to extend my appreciation to my classmate Fan Xiaohu, who gave me many suggestions and valuable instructions through my writing. Finally, I wish to express my thanks to all the teachers in School of Foreign Languages for their encouragements and help.
中西方管理思想的异同
中西方管理思想的异同 根据我们的所学知识可以发现，中国和西方的早期管理实践中大国的形成都是管理思想萌芽的开始，例如在秦国和古罗马帝国的历史发展过程中就给我们留下了有关管理国家、巩固政权、统帅军队、组织战争、治理经济、发展生产等方面极其丰富的经验和理论。 但由于文化背景和历史具体发展的不同，中西管理思想在管理价值观和管理哲学及其由此所决定的管理方法论和手段上都有着明显的差异。 具体来说，我们中华民族有着光辉灿烂的历史与文化，我国古代的管理思想也同样是博大精深的，其中也包括许多宝贵的管理思想和管理经验。综观中国古代诸家的管理思想及理论不外乎是儒、墨、法、农、道之说的反映和体现。中国管理思想的起源和农业密不可分，随着社会发展，特别是在以农业为基础的畜牧业、手工业等社会分工之后，中国早期的管理活动和行为得到了迅速的发展。中国古代出现了许许多多的思想家，有着极为丰富的管理思想，其中，老子、孔子、商鞅、孟子、孙子、管子的管理思想最具有代表性。中国传统的管理思想主要侧重于顺道、重人、人和、守信、利器、求实、对策、节俭和法治。这些管理思想和管理经验经过五千年的积累与提炼，至今仍在国家和企业的管理实践中发挥着重要的作用。 但中国传统管理思想是在封建的农业社会的土壤中生长起来的，它也有不可避免的缺陷：一是缺乏与近代工业生产和科学技术的有机联系，二是缺乏与市场经济的紧密联系。同时，它自身也没有形成系统的科学形态。 相比较之下，西方管理思想则是与近代大工业生产及科学技术的发展紧密联系在一起的，经历了科学管理运动之后所产生的各种管理理
论，更是直接为现代市场经济服务的，因而形成了它自身的优点。这主要是：善于运用科学技术的最新成果，在试验和逻辑分析的基础上进行严格的控制和严密的管理，注意引进竞争机制，提高整个管理活动的效率，不断根据管理实践的结果来变革管理模式和创新管理理论，重视发挥个人的能力和专长，充分利用法律和契约在管理中的作用等。当然西方的管理思想也是有一定弊端的。 中西管理思想各具自己的长处和短处，而且优劣共生、利弊相通。值得注意的是，这种长处和短处，在中西管理思想中往往具有对应和互补的关系。因此，中西管理思想的交流、移植和融合，中国传统管理思想在新的历史条件下的改造和重建，是一种必然的历史发展趋势。
跨文化交流中的中西方文化差异
跨文化交流中的中西方文化差异 由于中西方文化存在着截然不同的传统和风俗习惯，人们的生活方式，思维习惯，价值观念，语言习惯等都有很大差别，很多日常行为在日常的交际活动中也存在着明显的差异。在中西跨文化交际中，文化冲突的事屡见不鲜，这严重影响了社会的和谐和交往的顺利进行，并使交往双方处于十分尴尬的境地。人们在这种跨文化环境中相互交际之前，必须对对方的文化习俗和历史背景有所了解，才能避免在跨文化交际中产生尴尬的局面。因此，我们很有必要找出其深层次的原因，并采取一定的措施来培养跨文化交际的能力，避免文化冲突现象的发生。在全球化的背景下，不同文化的碰撞，交流和融合是势不可挡，理解中西方文化的差异及其文化冲突是进行跨文化交际和提高跨文化交际的基础，有助于中西方文化的交流与合作，有助于世界文化的发展。 由于全球经济一体化的发展，不同文化背景的人们之间的各种交流活动越来越频繁。21世纪随着中国经济的快速发展和文化影响力的日益加强，与西方国家之间的国际交流与合作更是日益频繁与广泛。同时，中国学生出国交流、深造的机会也日益增多。在这种情况下，跨国界，跨民族，跨文化的经济和社会交往与日俱增，这就为我们提供了许多与西方人接触和交往的机会，然而，这也并不是一件简单的事情，因为我们所面对的是来自陌生的文化和国家，由于历史、
政治、地理位置、宗教信仰等因素的不同，导致了各国、各地区的文化的不同，这就是所谓的文化差异。 文化差异会具体体现在各个方面，我们应意识到中西文化上的差异是不可忽视和改变的，应该接受这种差异，尊重和理解这种差异。在跨文化交流和处理实际问题过程中，避免出现文化上的冲突，从而顺利地进行跨文化交流。西方国家的思维方式，生活习惯，行为方式与我们迥然不同，在与之交往的过程中，会不可避免的会出现文化冲突的现象，因此，了解中西方文化的差异的重要性是显而易见的。一、中西方文化差异之语言表达 语言反映文化，文化影响语言的使用和发展，在以一种语言为媒介的跨文化交际中,交际者应遵守该语言的文化语用规则。 1、文化特征与用词差异 中国人向来以自我贬仰的思想作为处世经典，这便是以儒家的中庸之道作为行为的基本准则是儒家追求的理想境界，以谦虚为荣，以虚心为本，反对过分地显露自己、表现自我。因此，中国文化体现出群体性的文化特征，这种群体性的文化特征是不允许把个人价值凌驾于群体利益之上的。而在西方国家人们崇拜的是强者、英雄,有本事、有才能的强者才能得到重用,缺乏自信的弱者只能落伍或被无情地淘汰。 文化的不同带来价值观念的大不相同，如old一词,中国人历来就有“尊老敬老”的传统。“老”在中文里表达尊敬的概念,如老祖宗、老爷爷、老先生等。老张、老王、老李透着尊敬和亲热,张老、王老、
中西方礼貌原则对比分析 语言学
中西方礼貌原则对比分析 不同文化类型中的“礼貌原则”存在着差异，这些差异在礼貌用语中有充分的体现。礼貌是对比语言学中语用对比研究一个不可忽略的问题，在迥异的中西方文化中更是如此。中西方两种文化的礼貌原则有着较大的差异，了解这种差异对我们的现实生活具有指导意义。 一、中西方“礼貌原则”的理论研究 1．西方文化中的礼貌概念 西方“礼貌”理论中较有影响的理论框架当属Brown & Levinson的“面子论”及Leech的“礼貌原则”。两种理论对礼貌的内涵及外延作了较为系统深刻的研究，对不同文化领域的礼貌研究都有一定影响和借鉴意义。Brown＆Levinson的“面子”概念建立在Gofman的定义基础上。根据Gofman的理论，面子对每一个人来说是最神圣的、不可侵犯的，对每一个交际者来说是最基本的、不容忽视的。但Brown＆Levinson 的面子概念更为具体，他们认为所有理性的社会成员都具有面子。他们根据个人需要把面子分为两类：消极面子(negative face)，即个人拥有行动自由、不受干涉的权利；积极面子(Positive face)，即个人的正面形象或“个性”包括希望这种自我形象受到赞许的愿望。面子有双层性，而且构成面子的双方面是相互矛盾的。在交往时，一方面我们需要与对方有所关联，或者关注对方，并且要向对方表示出我们的关注。面子的“关联”方面就是积极面子，Levinson把它称之为积极礼貌(Positive politeness)。“积极面子”所常用的语篇方略是：恭听对方谈话，对其表示兴趣，表示与对方有共同之处，相互以名字称呼等。如：“Agree，I have always believed that，too．”另一方面，我们要维护一定的独立性，并且向对方表示我们也尊重他们的独立需求。面子的“独立”方面就是消极面子，Levinson把它称之为消极礼貌(negative politeness)。实施消极面子的方略主要有：最低限度地推测别人的需求和兴趣，不把自己的意见强加于人，给别人以充分选择的余地。比如向别人建议时，可能会说“I’d enjoy going out for coffee，but I imagine you are very busy．”实施消极面子的所用方略的关键是不强加于人，使对方享有充分的自由和独立。在现实生活中，交际行为大都是威胁面子的，有时威胁积极面子，比如对别人的观点看法表示反对，抱怨或指责他人工作干得不好，有时说不敬的话或忌讳语电是对积极面子的威胁，这是因为说话者不顾及他人的社会价值。有时一些行为会威胁消极面子，比如命令、请求等，如果对方按照命令或请求去做，就等于他自己的行为自由受到了阻碍，受到了别人的强加。为了避免或减少对面子的威胁，并使正常交际进行下去，说话者要为自己和对方的面子做出一定的努力，这就是礼貌。 2．中国文化中的礼貌概念
英汉礼貌用语对比研究
英汉礼貌用语对比研究 学生姓名：周丽平 指导老师：王亚琼 教学单位：外国语学院 摘要：当社会文明达到一定程度，人们在相互交往时十分看重礼貌，东方和西方国家在内涵方面有所差异。这个课题以英汉礼貌用语以及双方的面子维持和礼貌策略，采用积极礼貌和消极礼貌策略、关联性与独立性等概念，就事论事的分析英汉两种语言在具体的间接言语行为方面的文化差异。本文从信件为基础，就双方的礼貌策略和面子维持策略，包括感谢、祝贺、以及其他表情性文字等进行详细的分析，并据此来分析翻译中必要的调整。 关键词：礼貌与面子策略；英汉礼貌言语行为对比和翻译 一、引言 礼貌是文明的象征，在中西国家礼貌运用广泛，但他们之间有鲜明的对比，在运用当中才能体出来。 二、礼貌与面子策略 贾玉新以Goffman(1959)，Levinson(1983)，Scollon和Scollon(1995)的有关理论为依据，认为礼貌是非对称性的，对听话人来讲是礼貌的行为(如祝贺，邀请，感谢)，对说话人来讲可能是不礼貌的，即说话人必须有所付出；反之，对说话人有礼貌的(如命令，请示，请求，建议等)，对听话人来讲可能不礼貌，构成对听话人面子的威胁。礼貌概念分为积极礼貌和消极礼貌。从言语行为来看，积极礼貌可能包括承诺性和表情性言语行为，而消极礼貌则可能包括指示性言语行为，常常涉及到对别人自由的干扰，尽量委婉或策略地表示我们对其他人的尊重。积极礼貌是“对别人表示赞许”，消极礼貌是“对强加(行为)的回避”。R．Scollon和S．W．Scollon在《跨越文化交际一话语分析法》中提到了关联面子(involvement face)和独立面子(independence face)两个原则，一方面我们要参与和别人的活动，并向别人表明我们在参与；另一方面我们要与其它参与者相区别，保持一定程度的独立性。关联面子强调“平等性”，而独立面子则强调“尊重性”。这两个方面相悖相反的，却同时发生。任何交际过程中，说话人和听话人同时面临对自己面子的威胁。 三、案例分析 3.1称呼语的使用和翻译 双方关系的协调，首先体现在双方对彼此的称呼上。般都是dear+full name。英语正式信件的称呼，一般是dear+Mr．／Ms．+full name，可是，在跨文化交际中，汉语拼音并不能象英语名字一样标志性别，甚至姓氏和名字，(除非已经融入英语文化的名人，比如Jaekie Chen，否则一般的翻译就是Cheng Long)，可能正是因为这个原因，项目方的格式，就是dear+full name。在翻译
基于礼貌原则研究的相关评述趋势探究
基于礼貌原则研究的相关评述趋势探究 资料来源：大学生教育资源 摘要：礼貌原则的研究从上世纪七十年代以来一直受到各领域学者的关注。本文概述了在语用学领域里礼貌原则的研究历史及现状，讨论礼貌原则研究中存在的问题，指出礼貌原则研究中存在的问题与研究人员的预设，语料的真实性，研究过程的布控等方面有着密切关系。本研究希望能够展示出礼貌原则研究现状，并对今后的同类研究有所帮助。 关键词：礼貌原则面子普遍适用性 早期礼貌的研究学者如Lakoff，Brown＆Levinson和Leech 主要在语用学范围内研究礼貌现象，寻找具有普遍适用性的礼貌原则。他们以言语行为理论为依据，注重说话人的意图，从普通说话人归纳出具有理性和面子的“典型人”。他们认为不同文化至少在本质上都是统一的，都对什么是礼貌有着共同的理解。因此这些学者尝试从接触到的语料中归纳礼貌原则。 后人针对早期的礼貌原则中存在的一些问题，如文化制约性、静态化、理想化等问题做了诸多实验性研究，以图突破前人的研究框架，寻求更具活力、更有普遍性适用性的礼貌原则。 一、早期的礼貌原则研究评述 (一)早期的礼貌原则研究概述
礼貌的概念源于美国社会学家Erving Goffman关于“面子”的着作《礼仪的相互作用：面对面的行为论集》。Goffman在书中说到面子是一个人在交往中按照能被其他人接受的方式有效地为自己确立的正面的社会价值，并通过自身社会属性的认可实现自我形象。它是人类行为和自我体现的指导，是一种在社会中自我保护的内在的情感支持。[1人们在日常交际活动中，为了使自己的行为有面子会去做“面子工作’：。“面子工作”是相互的，即一个人要想保全自己的面子首先必须努分保全他人的面子。[~]Goffman认为，这解释了人们在交际中为何礼貌行事。Goffman 对面子的研究激起了礼貌原则的研究浪潮。 1973年，早期研究礼貌原则的学者RobinLakoffE~提出了三个关于礼貌的基本条件1．不要强加于人。2．给他人与选择。3．与对方友善，使对方感觉良好。后人对这三个条件不断地进行质疑、验证和修改。 其中颇有影响力的是GeoffreyLeech的礼貌原则。利奇的礼貌原则包含六大准则：得体准则：慷慨准则：赞扬准则；谦虚准则：赞同准则：同情准则。Fraser认为这些准则注重使交际对象感觉良好219—236，可被视为是Lakoff三个礼貌条件的延展。 Br0wn＆Levinson认为，为了建立某种社会关系，人们必须认可并留意交际对象的面子，即他们的公众自我形象、自我感觉。他们认为交际双方必须尊重彼此对自我形象的期待，考虑对方的感受，避免“威胁面子的行为”。当威胁面子的行为无可避免时，
浅析商务英语信函中的礼貌原则分析
本科生毕业设计（论文）封面 （ 2017 届） 论文（设计）题目 作者 学院、专业 班级 指导教师（职称） 论文字数 论文完成时间 大学教务处制
英语原创毕业论文参考选题 一、论文说明 本写作团队致力于英语毕业论文写作与辅导服务，精通前沿理论研究、仿真编程、数据图表制作，专业英语本科论文3000起，具体可以找扣扣805990 0749，下列所写题目均可写作。部分题目已经写好原创。 二、原创论文参考题目 1、(英语毕业论文)浅析《恋爱中的女人》中劳伦斯的爱情观 2、(英语毕业论文)从礼貌原则分析发盘的语言技巧 3、(英语毕业论文)浅析《愤怒的葡萄》中主要人物的性格特征（开题报告+论文+文献综述） 4、(英语毕业论文)A Study of Narrative Strategies in Beloved 5、(英语毕业论文)《月亮与六便士》中查尔斯?思特里克兰德的追寻自我 6、(英语毕业论文)从奥运菜单看中式菜肴英译名规范化程度（开题报告+论文） 7、(英语毕业论文)中西饮食文化中的差异（开题报告+论文） 8、(英语毕业论文)从幽默取材看中英传统价值差异(开题报告+论文) 9、(英语毕业论文)美国情景喜剧《老友记》中幽默的翻译研究（开题报告+论文） 10、(英语毕业论文)加工层次理论指导下的商务英语词汇学习 11、(英语毕业论文)Yellow Peril–the Image of Fu Manchu in the West 12、(英语毕业论文)《月亮与六便士》中查尔斯?思特里克兰德的追寻自我 13、(英语毕业论文)互文性理论指导下的公示语汉英翻译 14、(英语毕业论文)文化负迁移对翻译的影响（开题报告+论文） 15、(英语毕业论文)奇幻作品中所反映的欧洲民族神话—以《指环王》为例（开题报告+论文+文献综述） 16、(英语毕业论文)商务谈判中的模糊语的使用 17、(英语毕业论文)论艾略特《荒原》中的宗教信仰与价值观(开题报告+论文+文献综述) 18、(英语毕业论文)分析《贵妇画像》中伊莎贝尔的个性特点（开题报告+论文+文献综述） 19、(英语毕业论文)从高校课桌文化透视当代大学生的内心压力（开题报告+论文+文献综述） 20、(英语毕业论文)公示语的功能、语言特点及翻译 21、(英语毕业论文)《呼啸山庄》中的爱与复仇(开题报告+论文) 22、(英语毕业论文)从关联理论解读《家庭战争》的幽默（开题报告+论文+文献综述+外文翻译） 23、(英语毕业论文)中西方家庭教育对比研究——从《傅雷家书》和《致儿家书》的对比(开题报告+论文) 24、(英语毕业论文)从《阿甘正传》看个人主义对美国文化的影响 25、(英语毕业论文)从归化和异化的角度对《小妇人》的两个中文译本的比较研究（开题报告+论文+文献综述） 26、(英语毕业论文)语言经济学视角下的商务英语信函写作（开题报告+论文+文献综述）
汉英礼貌用语对比研究
汉英礼貌用语对比研究 一、引言 礼貌是各种文化普遍存在的一种社会现象。礼貌用语是人们日常语言交际过程中的重要手段，不同的文化背景下有着不同的礼貌用语。恰当使用礼貌用语，对调和及融洽人际关系起到了意想不到的作用。 二、本论 (一)“礼貌”概念的不同渊源 1．汉文化中的“礼貌”概念的历史渊源 .汉文化中“礼貌”概念的历史渊源礼貌具有普遍性，但不同文化在实现礼貌的方法以及在礼貌的判断标准上存在着差异。这些差异是在社会、历史、人文、地理等多种因素的长期影响下逐步形成的。首先，汉英文化中礼貌概念的渊源有所不同。汉文化中现代的“礼貌”概念有着悠久的历史渊源，它起源于古代的“礼”，即礼制。众所周知，礼是中国古代哲学思想的一个重要组成部分，也是儒家思想的重要概念之一。孔子生活的春秋末期，诸侯争霸，统治者内部矛盾重重，战争不断，社会动荡。孔子为了适应当时的社会生活的要求，致力于恢复“礼制”，以便使社会平稳地过渡到一个新的“天下有道”的社会。孔子的“礼”并不指“礼貌”，而是指自奴隶社会时期的周朝（公元前1100年）以来的社会等级秩序。通过“正名”，“礼”规定了社会成员之间的等级差别，要求每个社会成员按照自己的社会地位来说话、做事。在《论语·子路》中，孔子指出：“名不正则言不顺，言不顺则事不成，事不成则礼乐不兴，礼乐不兴则刑罚不中，刑罚不中则民无所措手足”。因此，“正名”就是要维护君君、臣臣、父父、子子等的等级关系，这种关系在某种程度上是通过语言来实现的。《荀子·礼论》也谈到了礼的起源（当然说的是礼制）：“人生而有欲，欲而不得，则不能无求；求而无度量分界，则不能不争；争则乱，乱则穷。先王恶其乱也，故制礼义以分之，以养人之欲，给人之求，使欲不穷乎物，物必不屈于欲，两者相持而长，是礼之所起也”，“也就是说，礼起源于人类欲望与欲望的难以满足之间的不平衡”［1］，因此，无论是孔子还是荀子，都把“礼”看成是维护现行社会等差的行为法则，只要人人遵守“礼”，既定的社会秩序就不会打乱；相反，若违反“礼”，就会受到惩罚。 在孔子之后的二、三百年，礼制已完全建立起来。但后来孔子的“礼”的概念发生了变化，已接近现代意义的“礼貌”概念。西汉戴申所编《礼记》中的重要论述：“勿不敬。夫礼者，自卑而尊人”，表明那时“礼”的概念已包含“尊敬”、“敬意”这些现代“礼貌”概念的要素。而且《礼记》中所表述的贬己尊人，正是汉文化中礼貌的一大特点。因此，汉文化中现代“礼貌”概念的悠久的历史渊源决定着它与英语文化中“礼貌”概念在内涵上完全不同。 2．英语文化中的“礼貌”概念的历史渊源 2.英语文化中“礼貌”概念的渊源礼貌作为一种各社会各群体共有的普遍现象，在英语文化中也能找到其渊源。英语文化中“礼貌”概念的产生和演变，也经历了不断的变化。在英语中“礼貌”（politeness）是和“宫廷”（court）及“城市”（city）联系在一起的。首先，从词源上说，“politeness”和“polite”都与词根“polis，polit”有直接联系，这两个词根由希腊词根“polis”和“politeia”派生而来，而这两个希腊词根就指城市或城市的管理（city or government of city）。其次，英语中polite的同义词有courteous，urbane和civil。这些词原本都用来指宫廷中或城市中人们良好的言行举止。何兆熊指出：“不少学者的研究结果已证明礼貌和宫廷及城市之间的词汇上的联系。历史上某个时期城市中人们的行为被认为是礼貌的，而另一个时期宫廷中人们的行为被认为是礼貌的。”［2］如上所述，汉英两种文化中，“礼貌”的渊源迥然不同，这种差异必将导致“礼貌”的内涵
中西方管理学差异
中西方管理学差异 管理思想主要有两种类型：一种是渊源于古希腊文化传统的西方管理思想，它在近代资本主义的条件下演变为具有一定科学形态的管理理论，对现代人类的经济社会发展产生了重大影响；另一种是渊源于中华文化传统的中国管理思想，它具有鲜明的东方文化色彩。但由于社会历史条件的限制，中国管理思想在近代没有能够与产业革命及资本主义企业经营相结合，以至今天一般人认为科学管理的观念和方法都来自西方。直到上个世纪80年代，由于日本及“亚洲四小龙”经济的飞速发展，才使人们的眼光重新从西方转向东方，开始研究中国古代管理思想在当代社会中的重大意义。 管理是文化的结晶，特定的管理思想是寓于特定的文化传统中，并受特定的文化传统支配和影响，从而带有特定文化传统的特征和烙印。从中西方文化传统的差异，可以看出中西方管理思想的区别。 说起中西方的文化差异，可以从四个方面进行比较。 （一）对事物的评价方面中国偏重社会，以人为本，从人出发，将自然对象人格化、人际化、伦理化、社会化，注重于强调“天人合一”表现为政治伦理思想的兴盛。西方偏重自然，将人物化，早期西方核心的管理思想是以管物的方式管人，将人际关系自然化，强调人是自然的一个部分，表现为自然科学的发达。 （二）对效用的评价方中国重整体、群众意识，政治伦理表现为集权至上，个人的忍让、服从和牺牲，自我意识淡薄。西方重个人，强调自我，伦理上表现为自私、竞争、进取心和强烈的自我意识。 （三）在对利益的态度方面中国重视轻功，整体的伦理标准代替了利益欲望，祖宗与宗族的教训礼法，比任何实际利益都重要。西方则把欲望看做是人的自然本质与合理要求，把它看作是推动历史的动力，从而将功利作为评价历史的标准。 （四）在认识论的理解方面中国重直觉，重内省，重先验理性。西方重实验，重事实，重逻辑理性。 中西方文化的差异，导致了管理思想上的差异。 西方重唯理、思辩，中方重经验、直觉。希腊哲学是西方哲学的源头，古希腊对自然有着浓厚的兴趣，他们关心世界本源、主客体关系、事物如何发展变化等。虽然他们在简单仪器下的观察和实践缺乏逻辑连贯性，理性的方式并不系统，但人们的这种直接观察总是弥漫着理性思维的色彩，抽象思辩是西方思维的特征。而作为东方民族典型代表的中国传统思维方式，则以直觉和经验为特征。 中国古代科学和哲学的各种范畴是靠向内思维得到的，是将各种经验现象酝酿体会、豁然贯通而提出的概念的。这些概念的理解与西方向外思维逻辑演绎所得到的不同，理解只能意会而难以言传，如对中医医理和气功的理解，又如对一幅书法作品、一幅国画的欣赏，只能向内领会，才能领略作者的神韵的起伏。 西方的细节分析与中方的整体综合西方文化结构以细节分析居优，东方文化结构则以整体综合见长。 中西方管理思想的差别，又导致中西方管理学体系出现了明显的差异。可以从以下几个方面说起。 （一）对管理核心的认识上 中国：重视人的力量，认为人是管理的核心。在中国古代管理思想中，民本
用合作原则和礼貌原则分析《士兵突击》选段'
用合作原则和礼貌原则分析《士兵突击》选段 摘要：本文使用语用学上的合作原则和礼貌原则，对《士兵突击》中的选段进行简要的语用分析，揭示该作品语言中的语用特点在烘托人物性格方面的作用。 关键词：合作原则；礼貌原则；士兵突击 一. 合作原则和礼貌原则 合作原则最初是由Grice提出的。Grice认为人们在交际过程中必须要遵循一般的原则——合作原则，即根据目前交际的目的或方向，使谈话始终符合交际的需要（何自然，陈新仁，2004：32）。在合作原则之下，Grcie 细分出了体现合作交际的四条准则，共九条次则,即：（1）质的准则：努力使你说的话真实。A. 不要说你认为是假的话。B不要说你认为缺少足够证据的话。（2）量的准则：A话语应包含有满足交际所需的信息。B话语不应包含超过交际所需的信息。（3）关系准则：要有关联。（4）方式准则：说话要清楚明白。A避免晦涩B避免歧义C要简练D要有条理。 根据Grice的理论，这四条准则是合作原则的基本准则。然而，在日常交际中，很多时候说话人并不完全遵循合作原则的这四条基本的准则，却照样可以顺利地完成交际，建立和谐的人际关系。这是因为人们在违反合作原则时为了达到礼貌的目的遵循了另一种原则，使自己的话语带有一种特殊的含义，实现特殊的交际目的。这就是 Leech 在后来的研究中从修辞学和语体学的角度提出的礼貌原则。 根据Leech 的理论，礼貌原则是对合作原则的补充。礼貌是人类文明的标志，是人类社会活动的一条重要准则。作为一种社会活动，语言活动也同样受到这条准绳的约束。因此礼貌原则是增加和维护交际双方和睦关系的一种原则。Leech提出了制约人们言语交际的六
英汉语用礼貌原则跨文化交际运用探析
英汉语用礼貌原则跨文化交际运用探析 礼貌是不同文化背景的人都必须遵守和维护的准则，但不同文化背景的社会具有不同的礼貌准则。本文通过对比利奇和顾曰国分别提出的礼貌原则，分析两者的差异及成因，指出在跨文化交际中应遵循文化认同的原则。 标签：跨文化交际礼貌原则语用失误文化认同 作为一种普遍的社会现象，礼貌是各民族广泛使用的文明手段，是一种约定俗成的行为规范，它是不同文化背景的人都要遵守的一种社会行为准则。从这层意义上讲，礼貌具有普遍性。但是，不同文化背景的社会阶层具有不同的礼貌准则，所以，礼貌又具有文化差异性。我们有必要了解英汉两种不同文化体系下的语用礼貌差异，这是进行积极有效的跨文化交际的前提。 一、中英文化礼貌准则比较 （一）英语文化礼貌准则及应用 在西方学者有关礼貌准则的论述中，人们较为熟知的是格莱斯（Grice，1975）的合作原则，利奇（Leech，1983）的礼貌原则，布朗和列文森（Brown&Levinson，1978/1987）的面子保全论以及Lakoff（1973）的礼貌准则。 1.格莱斯指出，所有的谈话者都要遵循“合作原则”（cooperative principle）它包括四项准则： 1）数量准则：所提供的信息量要符合谈话的要求。 2）质量准则：所说的话要真实。 3）相关准则；所说的话要与前面的内容相关。 4）方式准则：说话要简洁、清楚，有条不紊，不含糊其辞。[1] 2.利奇（1983）在格莱斯的理论基础上从修辞学、语体学的角度出发，提出了“礼貌原则”（politeness principle），以弥补合作原则的不足。 利奇认为，合作原则只能要求我们遵循合作原则下的质量关联方式准则，约束我们在交际中说什么和如何理解对方有意违反某项准则而获得言外之意，但不能解释人们为何要拐弯抹角地说话，即为什么有如此大量的间接语言行为。利奇的礼貌原则共有六条准则，每条准则又包含两条次准则：[2] 1）得体准则（tact maxim）：a.尽量使他人少吃亏；b.尽量使他人多受益。电话铃响了，人们往往说“Could you possibly answer the phone？”而不是“Answer the
(英语毕业论文)英汉礼貌用语的对比研究
最新专业原创毕业论文，都是近期写作 1 A Study on Differences of Family Education between China and America－－A Case Study of The Joy Luck Club 2论简奥斯丁在《傲慢和偏见》中的女性意识和婚姻观 3对林语堂的《吾国和吾民》几种中译本比较研究 4生态哲人约翰斯坦贝克 5从家庭伦理关系视角解读《儿子和情人》的女性主义 6论报刊语言翻译中的译者主体性 7凯特肖邦作品中女性自我意识觉醒的主题研究 8商务英语信函中的礼貌原则 9《紫色》中“家”的解读 10从电影《七宗罪》看‘七宗罪’和基督教传统的关系 11基于微博（推特）文化的新型营销模式 12Bertha Is Jane:A Psychological Analysis of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre 13爵士时代下的狂欢化精神——分析豪华宴会在《了不起的盖茨比》中的写作手法以及作用 14外来词的翻译方法初探 15中文古诗词叠词的研究和翻译 16文类、历史和受众心态——论小说《红字》的电影改编 17电影名称的翻译特点 18浅析中美商务谈判中的文化冲突 19中西方鬼怪比较研究 20汉英“眼”概念隐喻的对比研究 21从僵尸和吸血鬼比较中西方文化的异同 22法律英语翻译中的动态对等理论分析 23浅论《汤姆琼斯》的现实主义特征 24从《法国中尉的女人》看约翰福尔斯的女性主义思想及其局限性 25从功能对等理论谈中国小吃名英译 26简奥斯丁的女权主义在《理智和情感》中的体现 27海明威短篇小说的叙述艺术－－以《一个明亮干净的地方》为例 28从叔本华的哲学思想角度简析《德伯家的苔丝》中苔丝的悲剧 29中英文颜色词的非对应翻译 30英语抽象名词和物质名词的数概念分析 31《雾都孤儿》中的批判现实主义 32女性主义解读《傲慢和偏见》中的柯林斯 33《玻璃动物园》中的逃避主义解读 34论高中英语文化教学 35论翻译的艺术 36英汉职业委婉语中“礼貌原则”之对比分析 37《王尔德童话故事》的翻译美学探析 38《了不起的盖茨比》和《太阳照常升起》中时髦女郎的对比 39Elements on the Growth of Mary in The Secret Garden 40不做房间里的天使——解读《爱玛》中的女性主体意识 41纳博科夫小说《洛丽塔》的爱情讽刺
不礼貌原则综述
不礼貌原则综述 不礼貌现象，和礼貌现象一样，也是我们沟通的一种非常重要的语用现象。尽管与礼貌现象相比，之前的研究忽略了不礼貌现象。在某种程度上，无论在国外还是国内仍然有不少相关的研究发现，并且当今关于不礼貌现象的研究越来越受到重视。本文是一篇关于不礼貌现象研究的文献综述，作者旨在从以下几部分展示一个关于不礼貌现象研究清晰的轮廓：不礼貌的定义，不礼貌策略及其回应策略，国内外不礼貌研究的领域。同时，从该文献综述中可以看出，目前国内外对该话题的研究已取得不少成果，但仍有进一步研究的空间。 不礼貌是日常言语交际中普遍存在的现象，被认为是交际策略之一。像礼貌原则一样，不礼貌原则也在我们的生活中扮演着重要的角色。由于不礼貌原则的重要性，本文将对国内外不礼貌原则的研究进行回顾并提出进一步的发展空间。 1不礼貌的定义 对“不礼貌”定义并不容易，研究者之间也没有统一的定义。这是因为不礼貌本身与许多因素密切相关，如社会基本准则、社会阶层、社会权力、不同的文化背景等。Watts（2003：9）指出，“...不礼貌是过去、目前乃至将来都有争议的术语。”Culpeper（1996）结合了Goffman（1967）和Brown & Levinson（1987）的观点，试图将“礼貌”的反面“不礼貌”定义为“使用旨在产生相反效果的策略，即社会中断的策略”。随后，Culpeper（2003）将不礼貌定义为“一种旨在攻击面子，从而导致社会冲突和不和谐的交际策略”。此后学者对不礼貌提出了不同的定义。 Mills（2005）提出，在一些谈话中，不礼貌行为是违反社会行为规范的。Bousfield（2008）提出，“不礼貌是礼貌的对立面，而不是试图减轻面子威胁行为，不礼貌是一种故意进行的口头威胁行为。” 在中国，关于不礼貌的研究尚且不多。主要有以下学者试图定义“不礼貌”。杨子和于国栋（2007）把言语不礼貌的话语定义为直接或间接损害了他人面子的话语，在交际中会引起受话人以及第三者尴尬、不愉快等。李元胜（2006）把不礼貌解释为在一定条件下违背了语言规范下的话语，从而产生正面和负面的交际价值”。丁崇明（2001）以反复的形式分析了不礼貌的话语。他指出，重申不同于重复，有其自身的特点。重申并不总是带来不礼貌的语用效果，因为它们与提问者的心理期望和社会因素密切相关。 从以上的研究者们的定义来看，近二十年来，中外学者对“不礼貌”的研究越来越重视。 2不礼貌策略 随着对不礼貌研究的深入，学者们提出了与布朗和莱文森的礼貌策略相平行
中西文化的差异以及管理文化的比较
中西文化的差异以及管理文化的比较 不同的文化没有优劣，但是相互之间必有差异。中西文化的基本差异就是在人与自然的关系问题上，中国文化比较重视人与自然的和谐统一，即天人合一，以人为本。而西方文化强调人要征服自然，改造自然，求得自己的生存和发展。中国文化重和谐统一，西方文化重分别和对抗。 中国文化中以人为本的精神，激励人们尊重人的价值和尊严，努力在现实生活中去发现人实现人的价值。中国文化中天人合一、以和为贵的精神，激励人们维护整体利益，坚持集体主义的价值取向。中国长期统一与中华文化中刚健自强、以和为贵的基本精神是分不开的。这种精神，在两千多年的历史中，一直激励着人们奋发向上，不断前进，坚持与内部的恶劣势力和外来的侵略压迫作不屈不挠的斗争。 但是，我们传统文化中的人本主义明显重人伦轻自然，重群体轻个体，只强调个人义务和道德人格的独立性，而不重视个人的权利和自由，也带来许多消极的影响，表现在教育领域，只有身份较低的人才去学习自然科学；表现在中国科技领域是导致中国科技的落后。 高度的中央集权制度使得中国管理文化注重讲集中，求统一，以
整体性的宏观管理为主。同时，地理的阻隔，封闭的状态造成了思想上的保守，缺乏挑战意识。但是，疆土的封闭也造就了中国人强大的“向心力”，中国人强烈的民族意识与眷恋国土的情怀，使得我国今日的管理文化也体现出管理文化中的团队精神。 西方经济发达国家多数为三面或两面临海型，再加上人们对原始土地的开发，使得西方国家对外交通和对内交通都很发达。这样的地理环境下使其更加崇尚管理的精打细作，即所谓的微观管理而不太重视宏观管理。西方国家从其建立之初就有强烈的对外扩张的欲望以及在原始的土地开发上彼此强烈的竞争意识。 以农耕经济为主的中华文明是一种主张和平自守的内敛型文化。这种农业文化心态体现在管理文化上有以下特点：首先，等级制度与以民为本相结合。尽管今天的社会制度已发生了极大的变化，但是专制主义的管理体制在今天的组织中体现尤为明显，强调绝对服从，抹煞个性、强调统一，忽视下级向上级的反馈。同时，中国农业社会的统治者也较早的认识到了“水能载舟亦能覆舟”，“民贵君轻”等民本主义对中国管理的重要性。这种等级制度与以民为本的制度相互对立又相互补充，构成了中国管理思想的基础。其次，狭义的中庸之道。周而复始的农业生产，自给自足的自然经济，形成了中国人力求稳定、少走极端、和反对冒险的中庸精神。表现在管理上则力求使事物保持稳定、协调、平衡，这就构成了中国管理文化的标准和规范。
中国谈判与西方谈判差异性
中国谈判与西方谈判差异性 摘要：国际商务谈判是商务活动的重要组成部分, 国际商务谈判不可避免的会遇到中西谈判差异问题，来自不同文化背景的谈判者有着不同的价值观和思维方式，因而也就决定了不同的谈判方式。这就意味着在国际商务谈判中了解各国的不同文化，熟悉商业活动的文化差异是十分重要的。随着我国与国外贸易活动的活跃，相应的对外商务也逐渐频繁。作为国际商务活动的重要构成，谈判不仅是经济领域合作的途径，也是国与国之间文化交流的渠道。在国际商务谈判过程中，各国的政治﹑经济﹑文化等多种因素都会对其产生一定的影响，在这些因素之中，最难把握的因素是文化方面。由于文化差异，许多国际商务谈判中的存在不可避免的碰撞乃至冲突，许多谈判甚至受此影响而失败，大大的影响了国际商务活动的进展。为促进国际商务活动的开展，应当对不同国家文化背景差异进行了解，在此基础上，确定合理的谈判策略，从而在国际商务活动中避免失误，取得成功。本文深入剖析中西谈判差异对商务谈判的影响，本文就以中西方谈判差异展开论述。 一、影响国际商务谈判的文化因素分析 （一）中西方价值观差异 价值观是文化的核心因素，它包括世界观、人生观，人与自然关系，宗教信仰，道德标准等，表现为某些符合社会文化,具有持久性、稳定性，为社会成员所普遍接受的信念。中国以仁为核心的儒学，倡导一种人自身、人际间、人与社会的和谐主义，也就是集体主义。集体主义强调团队目标，团队精神。国外学者把中国传统文化的这种特质称之为集体主义文化，认为集体主义文化的成员愿意为了群体的利益牺牲个人的利益、需求和目标。正因为如此，中国人在进行交流时，强调个人利益应当服从社会整体利益，只有整个社会得到发展，个人才能得到最大利益。而西方国家则是个人主义占据其文化的核心位置。西方文化突出个人价值、个人意志、个人尊严、个人自由、个人情感、个人权利及个人利益。整个社会极力推崇个人主义,十分强调自我价值实现,并以个人成功来衡量人生价值。物质至上受到极度重视是西方文化个人价值至上论的主要特征。因此，他们在交流中总以自己为中心，即以传者为中心，交流语言直截了当，即以结果为导向。为了达到自己的目的，不惜使用各种说服技巧。 （二）中西方语言及非语言表达的差异 1、语言文化对中西方商务谈判的影响 语言是人类进行交流的工具,是信息传递的媒介商务谈判的过程实际上就是谈判者运用语言进行协调磋商谋求一致的过程。语言直接反映一个民族的文化特征,在国际商务谈判过程中中西方谈判者由于各自的语言文化的差异性谈判,双
浅析语用学中的礼貌原则
浅析语用学中的礼貌原则 摘要：本文主要从语用学的角度对语言交际中的礼貌现象进行了研讨，以旨更全面地向读者展示语用礼貌观。本文共分四部分：（1）礼原则的由来；（2）礼貌原则的解析；（3）礼貌策略；（4）礼貌原则的应用。加深对礼貌原则的理解可以有助于提升自身的语用能力。 关键词：语用学礼貌原则教学应用 一.礼貌原则的由来 (一)礼貌的界定。 在众多关于礼貌的各种文献中，围绕“礼貌”一词进行的研究主要有五个方面，具体如下： (1)礼貌是人们在交际中的一种现实目的(Politeness as areal-world goa1)。人们在说话过程中运用礼貌原则的目的就是取悦他人。 (2)礼貌是一种敬重(Politeness as the deference)。 (3)礼貌是一种语体(Politeness as the register)。语体是指“与社交语境有关的系统化变体”(Lyons，1977)。或者指在一定场合下人们说话或写作时的语言变化(Holliday，1978)。 (4)礼貌是一种话语表层现象(Politeness as an utterancelevel phenomenon)。该观点认为，礼貌是一种表层语法编码，该观点主要是离开语言运用的实际环境去研究礼貌问题。 (5)礼貌是一种语用现象(Politeness as a pragmatic phi—nominee)。该观点在语用学界已经成为人们的一种共识(Thomas，1995)。总之．在语用学领域，人们关心的不是说话人是否真正对他人友善，而是他说了什么，以及他的话语对听话人产生了什么影响。把礼貌看成敬重、语体，是一种社会语言学现象，不属于语用学的范围，而把礼貌看成一种话语表层现象，就是脱离了语境去谈礼貌，这是一种超理想化的理论，因为语言形式是和语境、说话人和听话人之间的关系紧密联系的。（二）)礼貌原则提出的必要性。 在英语语用学习领域中，提及言语行为理论(Speech ActTheory)．人们会很自然地联想到美国语言哲学家格赖斯(H．P．Grieve)的会话含义学说(Convocational Implicate)，即为了保证会话的顺利进行，谈话双方必须共同遵守一些基本原则，尤其是用来解释会话结构的“合作原则”(Cooperative Principle)。合作原则和四项有关质量、数量、相关、方式的次准则(Quantity，Relation，Manner)用以指导说话人和听话人如何成功地进行会话。不论他们遵循或是违背这项原则，都会产生会话含义，也就是一种特殊的非自然意义。 在合作原则中．Grieve指出谈话的双方必须怀着一个相同的愿望，且双方的话语能相互理解，共同配合。然而，谈话的一方若未能遵守“合作原则”，并非为了说谎或是出于故意，有时他可能由于礼貌或语境的需要。说了一些违反合作原则的话。当另一方觉察到对方的话没有遵守合作原则时，他就迫使自己越过对方话语的表面意义去设法领会说话人话语中的弦外之音。寻求说话人在什么地方体现着合作原则，由此产生会话含义，也就是一种特殊的非自然意义。后来学者们注意到．谈话双方不遵守合作原则有时是出于礼貌上的需要．所以在讨论合作原则的同时，应充分考虑礼貌原则(Politeness Principle)。语言学家利奇(G．N．Leech)曾指出，礼貌原则完善了会话含义学说，解释了合作原则无法解释的现象，因此，礼貌原则和合作原则是互为益补的关系，用Leech的话说，礼
汉英礼貌用语对比与分析
汉英礼貌用语对比与分析 06秋专升本学员张先存学号z06205604001 礼貌作为一种社会现象,普遍存在于各国语言中,但由于语用文化价值差异和语用习惯特点的不同,人们对礼貌的理解、处理和运用方式则各不相同.中西方由于受到不同文化、民族心理和价值观的影响,会用不同的方式来表达自己的礼貌言行.而这种差异往往会影响我们进行有效的跨文化交际,因此在英语学习中我们有必要了解汉英礼貌语用方面的差异. 一。汉英礼貌用语的对比： 例1：问候语 以什么样的方式与别人见面打招呼，分手告别，也因东西方文化传统和风俗习惯的不同而不同。西方人则注重逻辑，他们讲究科学，追求准确、系统的分析和实证，西方形式逻辑中有三大定律，即同一律、矛盾律、排中律；在演绎推理中有三段论，即大前提、小前提和结论。在语言上表现为重视语言的形式，人称要一致、单复数有讲究、时态有要求，主语和谓语要配合，介词讲究搭配等等，每个细节都不能马虎。 例如：中文说“你吃了吗？”可以表示字面意义，也可以表示问候，这里的“吃”字后面的“饭”可以省略，不论早饭、中饭、晚饭都可以这样说，也不管什么时候吃的。而英语中可能要说三句不同的话“Have you had your lunch/super/dinner?” 而且他们并不能用来表示问候，除了字面意义，这三句话可能用来暗示一种邀请，但说话人至少要考虑到两个问题：吃的是哪一餐饭，用什么时态，这些问题不清楚，这句话就没法说。 所以，中国人见面时常用的客套话是：“吃过饭了吗？”“你去哪儿？”而与英美人打招呼，不要说“Have you had your meal?”或者“Where are you going?”他们会以为你想邀请他一起外出用餐或你在打听他的私事呢。而当他们正等着听你的下文时，你却谈起旁的事情。这样往往会使对方觉得莫名其妙。他们会想，不请我吃饭，干吗问我吃过饭没有？即使你见他正在用餐，一般也不能说“Are you having meal?”（你在吃饭？）或者“You are going to the dinning room?”（你去吃饭吗？）他们认为这简直是无用的话，明知故问，你不是看见我正在吃饭吗？ 又如你正巧遇见一个美国人在修理他的汽车，你走过去说声“Hello. ”或者“Hi.”就行了。但是不能这样打招呼：“You are repairing your car?”（你在修车吗？）你这样一问，他会莫名其妙地瞪着你，不明白你是什么用意。 英美人互相打招呼时，一般只需说“Hello.” “Good morning!” “How are you?”等。如果遇上熟人，需要与对方多说几句，那么可以谈谈天气情况，或者说说即将来临的考试等。 英美人很尊重别人的隐私（privacy），他们一般不打听对方的私事，更忌讳问别人的年龄和收入。中国人路见时常问，“你去哪里？”，英美人则认为这是自己的私事。 别人邀请你到他家吃饭，当然不能吃完就走，总要再等半小时左右。主人谈兴正浓，你如果没有什么特别要紧的事，也就不好意思打断他的话锋；主人显得疲倦，缺乏谈话兴趣了，或主人还有别的事要做，那么就该早些告别。关于这些礼貌与习惯，中外都是一样的。例2：告别语