中美外交部发言人拒绝策略使用对比研究
发布时间：2018-12-16 20:02
【摘要】：国内外言语行为研究大多集中在对道歉、请求、恭维、感谢、建议等方面,本文试图对中美外交部发言人使用的拒绝语进行对比分析。前人研究拒绝语时多以礼貌原则和面子理论为理论框架,受此启发,本研究旨在验证两者是否亦为新闻发言人使用拒绝语的主要原因。鉴于此,本文以2012年6月至2012年10月间两国外交部发言人答记者问为研究对象,选取其中与钓鱼岛和南海相关的文本资料,并建立了一个总计50000多字的中英文语料库。以往的拒绝语研究以非正式场合的人际沟通为主,常通过对大学生进行语篇补全测试(DCT)或问卷调查收集资料,与此不同,本研究关注的是具有广泛参与性和真实性的正式机构话语,且所用语料均下载白权威网站的完整文本,并从语言和语用角度加以分析。本文在Beebe(1990)等人提出的拒绝语分类法基础上稍加修改,对所有拒绝策略的数量和类型(直接策略、间接策略和辅助语)以及分布,作了详细的统计和综合的比对,以找出两种数据间的异同。 其次,本研究结果表明,中美两国发言人在拒绝语使用数量、类型及分布上存在很大差异。总体而言,美方比中方使用了更多的拒绝语和拒绝策略。对于每个语义公式来说,两国都使用了较少的直接策略而倾向于间接策略,其中“解释原因”“提供选择”和“回答不明确”等出现较多,而“陈述哲理”、“表达遗憾”和“延迟”等出现极少。诚然,两者都表现出各自的特点。在辅助语中,“移情”为中方数据中唯一被使用的类型,却为美方数据中唯一没有出现的类型。最后,所有拒绝策略的分布表明,中方以“头部”为主而美方则更多分布于“颈部”。 最后,本文对两者间出现异同的根本原因进行了详细的说明,并认为礼貌原则、面子理论以及实践的需要是相似性的主要原因,而文化、政治立场和背景则构成了差异的主要因素。值得一提的是,“称谓”的使用对阐释两者的异同作出了最好的例证。总之,礼貌原则和面子理论只是外交部发言人使用拒绝策略的原因之一。 一言以蔽之,对英汉语间拒绝策略的使用进行对比研究不仅能够使我们,尤其是中国的英语学习者们,了解更多表达拒绝语的方式,还拓宽了我们的国际视野。此外,外交部发言人多次使用拒绝策略也鼓励我们要树立文化意识,学会充分利用语用策略来避免误解,实现成功的交际并保持和谐的人际关系。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：华中师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：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.
【学位授予单位】：华中师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：H313;H136
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 刘一;;外交部发言人是如何“炼”成的?[J];东西南北;2014年04期
2 ;我对美国提出第四百次严重警告[J];文史博览;2014年04期
3 邹建华;;外交部发言人揭秘[J];书摘;2005年08期
4 邹建华;;外交部发言人揭密[J];时代文学;2007年04期
5 ;外交部发言人就有关海湾战争中不少平民遭到轰炸问题答记者问[J];中华人民共和国国务院公报;1991年06期
6 ;我国外交部发言人就日本人嫖娼问题等答记者问[J];报告文学;2004年01期
7 邹建华;;走近外交部发言人[J];报刊荟萃;2005年09期
8 郭e，
本文编号：2382973
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenyilunwen/yuyanxuelw/2382973.html
