中美新闻发言人拒绝言语行为之对比研究

发布时间：2018-12-26 10:59

【摘要】：拒绝言语行为因为其面子威胁本质和对语用能力的高要求成为跨文化研究领域的热点话题。不同的文化在实施这一拒绝言语行为时有其惯有的规范和模式,如果不了解这些规范和模式,不必要的冲突和摩擦就会出现,从而有损人际交往的和谐。因此,在跨文化交际越来越多的背景下,对拒绝言语行为的跨文化对比研究显得尤为必须和重要。 本研究选取历时两年的国际热点问题——朝鲜半岛和伊朗核问题,对中美两国新闻发言人在例行记者招待会上的拒绝言语行为进行对比研究,以期解决以下三个研究问题：1.中美新闻发言人直接拒绝和间接拒绝的比例对比有何异同?2.中美双方所使用的直接拒绝和间接拒绝的具体策略有何异同?3.哪些潜在的文化模式带来两国新闻发言人拒绝言语行为的异同? 本文基于言语行为理论,会话原则和礼貌原则从中美发言人的回答中仔细筛选出166项中国拒绝数据和329项美国拒绝数据,再以稍作修改的Beebe et al (1990)的拒绝策略分类框架为基础,将收集到的拒绝数据分为两大类：直接拒绝和间接拒绝,直接拒绝中包含三类拒绝策略,间接拒绝中包含八大类策略十四类子策略。对比分析直接和间接拒绝的比例,具体策略后,应用礼貌的普遍性,文化模式的三个维度(高语境和低语境,个人主义和集体主义,正式和非正式)来解释两国新闻发言人拒绝言语行为的异同。 研究发现：1.中国的间接拒绝比例是96%,直接拒绝4%,美国间接拒绝68%,直接拒绝32%,两国的间接拒绝比例都远远超过直接拒绝。但相比较而言,中国的间接拒绝比例又远高于美国。2.美国新闻发言人采用更多的拒绝策略,涵盖确定的总策略中所有子策略而中国相对来说使用的拒绝策略类型较少些,未使用直接拒绝中的“No”,间接拒绝中的“反问”,“幽默”,“评价提问”,拒绝话语较短。在具体策略使用上,中国发言人倾向使用“表达愿望和态度”,“回避”,“模糊回答”,而美国发言人偏爱“回避”,“说明原因”,“表达愿望和态度”,“提供他法”。(按比例从高到低)在高于平均比例的策略中,中方的“模糊回答”,“表达愿望和态度”比例显著高于美方。而美方的“推迟回答”,“提供他法”相对较高。另外,诸如“停顿”,“称呼语”这样的拒绝附属语频繁出现在美方数据中但中方数据中未出现。3.礼貌的普遍性使得双方呈现出相同性即都偏爱间接拒绝。但因为中国文化是典型的集体主义,高语境交流方式的正式文化,新闻发言人拒绝策略的使用更间接含蓄,而美国的个人主义,低语境交流方式的非正式文化使其新闻发言人在策略使用上更直接,明确。 本研究跨越出非正式场景,分析正式机构场景中的自然拒绝言语行为,有助于启发未来拒绝言语行为研究采取更广泛的研究视角,同时也有助于记者,新闻发言人更好的了解实施跨文化交往中的拒绝言语行为。
[Abstract]:The rejection of speech acts is a topic in the field of cross-cultural research because of its face-threatening nature and the high demand for pragmatic competence. Different cultures have their customary norms and patterns in the implementation of this rejection speech act, and if they do not understand these norms and patterns, unnecessary conflicts and friction can occur, thus compromising the harmony of human communication. Therefore, in the context of more and more cross-cultural communication, the cross-cultural comparative study on the rejection of speech acts is especially important and important. In this study, two years of international hot-time issues, the Korean Peninsula and the Iranian nuclear issue, were selected, and a comparative study was made on the rejection of speech at a regular press conference by a two-state press spokesman in China, with a view to resolving the following three research issues: 1. What is the difference between the direct refusal and the indirect rejection of the United States press spokesman The same? 2. What is the specific strategy of direct rejection and indirect rejection used by both the Chinese and the United States The same? 3. What potential cultural patterns bring about the rejection of verbal behaviour by a two-State press spokesman This paper, based on the theory of speech act, the principle of speech and the principle of politeness, has carefully selected 166 Chinese rejection data and 329 United States refusal data, and then classified the framework with a slightly modified refusal policy of Beehe et al (1990). Based on the base, the collected rejected data is divided into two categories: direct rejection and indirect rejection, and the direct rejection contains three types of rejection policies, and the indirect rejection contains eight categories of policy 14 A comparative analysis of the proportion of direct and indirect rejection, the application of politeness, the three dimensions of cultural mode (high context and low context, individualism and collectivism, formal and informal) to explain the rejection of speech by a two-state press spokesman after a specific strategy. The similarities and differences of the research The study found: 1. The indirect rejection ratio of China is 96%, the direct rejection of 4%, the indirect rejection by the United States of 68%, the direct rejection of 32%, and the indirect rejection ratio of both countries is far too high In contrast, China's indirect rejection ratio is far higher in the US. 2. A U.S. press spokesman used more rejection strategies to cover all the substrategies in the overall strategy identified and the relatively small type of rejection policy in China, without the use of direct or indirect 鈥淣o鈥，

本文编号：2392023