【作者】 芦丽婷；

【导师】 刘永红；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 语言学及应用语言学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 “拒绝”,无论是发生在日常交际、职业交往、商务谈判还是政治协商中,都是一种需要言者谨慎处理、听者敏感释话的威胁面子的言语行为。而由于语言与文化背景的差异,在同一场景中,汉语使用者和英文使用者在实施拒绝和解译拒绝等方面会存在许多差异。关于将拒绝作为一种言语行为的研究,主要集中在语用学、跨文化交际学和二语习得等方面。然而,大部分的研究存在单纯列举语料、直白描写语料和罗列对比数据等问题,缺乏解释性的研究、系统的言语行为策略分类和高度概括性的总结等。本研究不是单一文化背景下的拒绝言语行为研究,而是从汉英对比的角度出发,试图从多个理论视角,结合抽样语料,考查和探究汉英职业交往中拒绝言语行为的解译模式、策略偏好、及物性选择对比和文化语用原因等。在开篇两章对研究目的、研究背景、基本理论和研究思路等作简要阐明之后,第三章详述了语料来源。语料的收集和取样也是本研究的特色之一,以往的研究多直接使用语篇补全测试(DCT)完成数据采集工作,本研究则不仅在问卷设计上大下功夫,更是通过一系列的情景调查、试点测试、反馈和面谈、按比例抽样等多种可控的实验方式来保证数据的真实有效,从而使其具有普遍性。另外,也利用现代职场剧中相关场景的视频转录方式,收集到另一组视频语料。为尽量避免随机采样的错误,同样将其按比例抽样,作为对第一组语料的补充,弥补DCT采集语料存在的若干弊端。接着,从四个视角,即“言之解”、“言之行”、“言之法”和“言之因”对汉英语料进行观察、描写和解释,力求在一个更立体的多维平台上研究汉英职业交往中的拒绝言语行为。视角一是从关联理论看“言之解”,关联理论指导下的明示——推理过程对间接言语行为具有很强的解释力,关联期待的满足甚至是放弃都是以言语行为得解为目的的。汉英拒绝言语行为关联意义的使用,是解译拒绝的关键。本研究中的拒绝,可以理解为职场人际交往时,会话互动中产生的针对一方提出的请求、邀请、提供和建议等给出的具有动态语境假设的选择。使用数理统计的方法观测三类关联意义在汉英拒绝释话中的使用频率,为的是对比汉语使用者和英语使用者在释义拒绝时的认知机制和心理过程,也为的是辅助解释汉英拒绝策略具有多样性和差异性的原因，更是为了印证“最佳关联”是在不同认知环境和文化环境中,想要获得交际成功而对一个语境假设集合做出的不同选择。视角二是从言语行为的实施过程看“言之行”。在实施拒绝这样有损“面子”的言语行为之时必然要使用各类语用策略,这也是以往各项研究的重点。而本研究创新性地将拒绝语用策略做了“内容”和“形式”上的分类,提供了新的分类依据,总结了两类共46种拒绝行为策略,并——作描写分析。用数据和材料实证的方法对汉英样本进行数理统计,以社会权利为变量,归纳汉英拒绝言语行为实施的过程中的共性和个性。视角三“言之法”是指使用功能语法中及物性过程的分析方式来对数据进行对比。通过对汉英拒绝语料的及物性过程标注、统计和分析,对六种及物性过程在汉英职业拒绝样本中的选择偏好和频率,以及以社会权利为变量,汉英数据变化规律等,都进行了充分的对比描写和语里解释。系统功能语言学在强调语言的功能、语境的重要、篇章的衔接等方面都与语用学理论暗相呼应。也早有学者提出两门学科之间可以互相支持的假说。本研究通过将语用学分析和及物性过程分析作用于同一研究客体——汉英拒绝言语行为,目的之一也是为了印证该假说的成立。在以实例为基础,以理论为纲要,综合分析了各方原因之后,我们得出如下结论：及物性过程的选择和语用策略的生成是“暗合”的,言者对于及物性过程的选择自动生成了其对于语用策略的使用。视角之四,被称之为“言之因”,为的是探究汉英拒绝言语行为具有差异性的深层文化原因。文化语境差异、语用策略差异、语用主体差异等是构成本研究汉英拒绝言语行为差异的“因由”。文化语境是隐含在文化内部的不可量化的隐性语境,它包括传统文化、价值观、思维方式等,它隐蔽不显现,却强有力地控制着汉英拒绝言语行为的实施；语用策略中称呼、恭维、礼貌和方式等的汉英对比可以给汉英拒绝策略差异提供最直接的解释；而语用主体的核心地位决定了它与交际意图、文化语境和语用策略之间的密切联系,语用主体的个体差异对拒绝言语行为本身具有决定性的作用。最后一章是结论部分。回顾和总结了研究内容和结论,提出了此项研究的研究价值并列举了不足之处和若干值得后续思考的问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 "Refusal" which is a kind of speech act, arising in daily communication, occupational interaction, business or political negotiation, needs to be uttered carefully by speakers and interpreted alertly by listeners. Because of the differences in languages and cultures, Chinese native speakers and English native speakers show diversities in applying refusal strategies as well as interpreting them. The previous scholars have done a limited number of refusal studies from perspectives of pragmatics, cross-culture communication and second language acquisition. Most of them, however, with the problems of simply listing language examples, describing them and sorting out some insufficient data, are short of explanatory researches, a good system for strategy classification and a generalizable summary. Conducted from a contrastive angle between Chinese and English and based on sampling data, the present study, applying multiple theories, intends to discuss and compare the two parties’ refusal interpreting pattern, the similarities and differences of refusal strategies, the choices of transitivity system and the cultural diversity.After the first two chapters which present the theoretical background, the aims of this study, the orientation of it, and the layout of it, the third chapter explains the methodology of this study. The data-collection&sampling is one of the unique features of this study. The previous researches always adopt the discourse completion test, known as DCT alone to collect data. This study, however, attempts to do some modification of the DCT as well as many manageable experiment procedures, such as scenario investigation, pilot testing, interview and proportionate sampling, in order to guarantee the authenticity of the date collected. Besides, the other group of data, obtained from TV dramas, is transcribed into texts. Processed by proportionate sampling to avoid the random errors, the second group of data is also utilized to cover the shortage of the DCT.Then, in order to provide a multi-angle platform to analyze the speech act of refusal in Chinese and English occupational interaction respectively and comparatively, this study gives a thorough and deeper insight into the following four perspectives:the interpretation of refusal, the speech act of refusal, the grammar of refusal and the cultural factors of refusal.The first perspective is the "interpretation of refusal". The relevance theory makes revolutionary contributions to inferential studies. The concept of "ostensive-inferential" exhibits great advancement through expounding various indirect speech acts. The expectation of relevance which will be either satisfied or abandoned is produced for the sake of the interpretation of refusal speech act. The data in this study is classified into three broad categories in light of the meaning distinction in relevance theory which is the key leading to the comprehension on refusals. The purpose of this classification and statistical research is to describe and compare the generating mechanism, the understanding mechanism and the cognitive process between Chinese speakers and English speakers when they say "No" in occupational interaction. The refusal, in this study, can be seen as a choice in a dynamic context in response to a request, an invitation, an offer and a suggestion in an occupational interactive communication process. The whole process which applies a variety of refusal strategies can be regarded as an optimal relevance choice from a series of assumptions of context.The second perspective is the "speech act of refusal". It makes use of speech act theory and indirect speech act in explaining how people apply pragmatic strategies in the scenarios of refusals. This study innovatively classifies the refusal strategies into two groups:strategies in content and strategies in form. At the meantime, it gives the clear definitions of the classification standard. Then, the46refusal strategies are fallen into those two categories with20in content and26in form. The contrastive descriptions of the similarities and differences of Chinese and English refusal strategies are followed. Under the conditions set in this study, our experiment data, with the variable of power held constant, shows a very diverse tendency between Chinese and English.The third perspective which is called "the grammar of refusal" is based on the functional grammar approach. The data analysis is done under the theoretical guide of ideational function. It hopes to make a probe into the transitivity system by marking the transitivity processes in scenarios of refusals and doing statistic analysis after which come the measurable conclusions. The preference of choices from six types of transitivity processes in Chinese and English respectively and the regular pattern of the data changed with the variable of power held constant are fully discussed. Systemic functional linguistics is proved by some researchers to be supportive to Pragmatics in many ways. They both share the similarities like emphasizing the importance of function, the context and the discourse itself. This study attempts to testify this presumption by using both the pragmatics framework and a part of functional grammar theory to analyze the same two group subjects. This study is a combination of theoretical and experimental analysis which leads to the conclusion summarized as:the choice of transitivity processes works in cooperation with the generating of pragmatic strategies; the speaker’s choice of transitivity processes automatically generates the existence of pragmatic strategies.The last but not the least, the fourth perspective is "the cultural factors of refusal". Adopting the cross-cultural pragmatics approach is to study how people from different cultural backgrounds say "No" in the occupational interactive communication and to give the explanations based on the intercultural factors. The pragmatic environment, the pragmatic strategies and the pragmatic subject are three key aspects discussed to explicate the reasons why there are differences between Chinese and English in speech act of refusals. The pragmatic environment, including traditional culture, moral values, thinking mode, is a kind of invisible context in culture. It does not appear to catch, but it dominates the speech act in a strong way. The pragmatic strategies in address, compliment, politeness and patterns can provide the most direct explanation to the different refusal strategies between two languages. As for the pragmatic subject, it is in the core position in communication. So it is closely connected with other factors and is of decisive importance in strategy selection.In the conclusion part of this study, it summarizes the full text. Then it points out the main achievements we have got here as well as the innovation of this study. With the shortcomings discussed, the further research topics are given to be a research reminder.更多还原