学位论文 > 优秀研究生学位论文题录展示

A Contrastive study on the Speech Act of Apologies

作　者: 纪凌云
导　师: 王得杏
学　校: 北京语言文化大学
专　业: 外国语言学与应用语言学
关键词: Chinese meaning more researched context Questionnaire Leech method speaking only
分类号: H0-05
类　型: 硕士论文
年　份: 2000年
下　载: 357次
引　用: 0次
阅　读: 论文下载

内容摘要

The research of speech acts is a main field in pragmatics and is an intriguing topic which attracts a lot of attention. The speech act of apologies is one of the most frequently discussed area, for the multifarious issues and problems displayed in theutterances. Linguists have researched apologies in a lot of languages, of which the Cross- Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) may be one of the most authoritative. Before the CCSARP project, the study of speech acts is based primarily on intuitive data of isolated utterances. The CCSARP group approaches the issue from empirical perspective, holding that theoretical research should be complemented by empirical studies. The project investigated the two speech acts of requests and apologies across eight languages, and aimed at investigating the similarities and differences in the realization patterns of speech acts across different languages, and discerning the effect of the socio- pragmatic factors on the utterances. Unfortunately, Chinese is not included in this project. Therefore, this paper chooses the topic of Chinese apologies, hoping that the research can serve as a complement to the CCSARP project. The research of Chinese apologies should be meaningful. This research may help us form a general picture about Chinese apologies, which were seldom systematically researched in the past. Moreover, in this research, a cross-cultural contrast of the realization patterns is carried out across Chinese and the Endo-European and Hemito- Semitic languages studied by the CCSARP group, and the contrast displays the consistency and discrepancy across languages that belong to different families. One more -point, linguists, when investigating speech acts, focus much on a most important issue: indirectness, yet few researches have examined indirectness displayed in apologies. This paper has investigated indirect apologies and put forward a different relationship between indirectness and politeness in apologies. All these account for my choice of the research topic of Chinese apologies. This paper studies the speech act of apologies as displayed in Chinese. The research is to a large extent following that of the CCSARP group so that my findings are comparable to those of the CCSARP project. Two hundred questionnaires are collected with the method of Discourse-Completion Test (DCT). The data contain 1200 pieces of utterances falling into six situations, with 200 pieces in each.

全文目录

Acknowledgements  7-8
Abstract （English）  8-12
1． Introduction  12-17
  1．1 Research Topic  12-14
  1．2 The Definition of an Apology  14-16
  1．3 General Organization  16-17
2． Literature Review  17-52
  2．1 The Development of the Study of the Speech Act of Apologies  17-23
    2．1．1 The Broaching of the Theory of Speech Acts  17-18
    2．1．2 The Importance of the Study of Speech Acts  18-20
    2．1．3 The Importance of the Study of the Speech Act of Apologies  20-21
    2．1．4 The Study of Apologies  21-23
  2．2 Theories and Concepts  23-28
  2．3 Results of the Studies of Apologies  28-39
    2．3．1 The Definition of an Apology  28-30
    2．3．2 Apologies and Face  30
    2．3．3 Apology Strategies  30-34
    2．3．4 Apologies and Socio-pragmatic Factors  34
    2．3．4．1 Socio-pragmatic Factors  34-36
    2．3．4．2 The Correlation between Apologies Strategies and Socio-pragmatic Factors  36-37
    2．3．5 Cross-cultural comparison  37-39
  2．4 Studies of Linguistic Politeness and Indirectness  39-44
    2．4．1 Indirectness  39
    2．4．1．1 The Relationship between IFIDs and Indirectness  39-40
    2．4．1．2 Different Dimensions of Illocutionary Forces of the Utterance  40-41
    2．4．2 Politeness: A Device for the Explanation of Indirectness  41-42
    2．4．3 Chinese Perception of Politeness  42-44
  2．5 Methodological issues  44-52
    2．5．1 The Ethnographic Method  44-45
    2．5．2 Role-play  45
    2．5．3 Multiple Choice Questionnaire （MCQ）  45-46
    2．5．4 DCTs  46
    2．5．4．1 The Disadvantages of DCTs  46
    2．5．4．2 The Advantages of DCTs  46-47
    2．5．4．3 The Validity of DCTs as Proved by the CCSARP Group  47-49
    2．5．4．4 Some Discussions about DCTs  49-50
    2．5．5 Some Concluding Remarks  50-52
3． Research Methodology and Research Procedure  52-64
  3．1 Research Methodology  52-53
  3．2 Research Procedure  53-64
    3．2．1 Subjects  53-54
    3．2．2 Data  54
    3．2．2．1 DCT-Questionnaire  54-56
    3．2．2．2 Pilot Test  56-58
    3．2．2．3 Data Collection  58-59
    3．2．2．4 Description of Data  59-60
    3．2．2．5 Situation Assessment Questionnaire  60-64
4． Data Analysis  64-126
  4．1 Data coding  64-67
    4．1．1 The Coding Scheme in the CCSARP Project  64
    4．1．2 The Coding Scheme of My Data  64-67
  4．2 Analysis of the Data  67-126
    4．2．1． Alerters  67
    4．2．1．1 Forms of Alerters in Apologies in Chinese  67-73
    4．2．1．2 Contrast of the Use of Alerters across Situations  73-74
    4．2．1．3 Contrast of alerters in Chinese and English Apologies  74-75
    4．2．2 Strategies in Chinese Apologies  75
    4．2．2．1 IFIDs  75-76
    A． IFIDs in Chinese Apologies  76-87
    B． Intensifiers in IFIDs in Chinese Apologies  87-93
    4．2．2．2 Taking on responsibility  93-101
    4．2．2．3 Explanation  101-103
    4．2．2．4 Offer of repair  103-106
    4．2．2．5 Promise of forbearance  106-107
    4．2．2．6 Distracting from the offence  107-110
    4．2．2．7 Show of concern  110-111
    4．2．2．8 Some Concluding Remarks  111-112
    4．2．3 Roles of the Strategies  112
    4．2．3．1 Head-acts  112-116
    4．2．3．2 Supportive Moves  116-124
    4．2．4 Modifying the Apology  124
    4．2．4．1 Intensifying the Apology  124-125
    4．2．4．2 Mitigating the Apology  125-126
5． Cross-Situational and Cross-Cultural Contrasts in Apologizing Behavior  126-150
  5．1 A Cross-Situational Contrast in Apologizing Behavior  126-137
    5．1．1 Distribution of Apology Strategies across Situations  126-128
    5．1．2 The Situation Assessment Questionnaire  128-129
    5．1．3 Social Factors and Strategy Selection  129
    5．1．3．1 Social Factors and IFIDs  129-130
    5．1．3．2 Social Factors and Taking on responsibility  130-133
    5．1．3．3 Social Factors and Explanation  133
    5．1．3．4 Social Factors and Distracting from the offence  133
    5．1．3．5 Social Factors and Intensifiers  133-134
    5．1．3．6 Other Strategies  134
    5．1．3．7 Contrast of the Length of the Utterance across Situations  134-136
    5．1．4 Some Concluding Remarks  136-137
  5．2 A Cross-Cultural Contrast in Apologizing Behavior  137-150
    5．2．1 A General Comparison  137-138
    5．2．2 IFID across Five Languages  138-140
    5．2．2．1 Similarities across Languages  140
    5．2．2．2 The Difference across Languages  140-141
    5．2．2．3 Difference of the Preference of IFIDs in Chinese and Hebrew with Respect to Cultural Perception  141-143
    5．2．2．4 Difference between Chinese and the Other Four Languages as a Whole  143-145
    5．2．3 Responsibility across the Five Languages  145
    5．2．3．1 The Strategy of Taking on responsibility in General  145-146
    5．2．3．2 The Substrategy of Explicit Self-blame  146-148
    5．2．4 Intensifiers across Languages  148-149
    5．2．5 Some Concluding Remarks  149-150
6． Discussions  150-174
  6．1 Indirectness in Chinese Apologies  150-158
    6．1．1 Indirectness and its Classification  150-151
    6．1．2 Indirectness in the Speech Act of Apologies  151-152
    6．1．3 Representation of Indirectness in Apologies in Chinese  152-155
    6．1．4 The Correlation between Indirectness in Apologies and Socio-Pragmatic Factors  155-156
    6．1．5 The Function of Indirectness in Chinese Apologies  156-158
  6．2 Politeness in Chinese Apologies  158-162
    6．2．1 Different Perception of Politeness between Chinese and Western Cultures  158
    6．2．2 Chinese Perception of Politeness  158-159
    6．2．3 What is Considered as Polite in Chinese Apologies  159-162
  6．3 The Relationship between Indirectness and Politeness  162-167
    6．3．1 The Problems of Brown & Levinson's and Leech's Views  162-163
    6．3．2 Why the Relationship between Indirectness and Politeness is Different between Speech Acts like Apologies and those like Requests  163-164
    6．3．3 Explain Indirectness in the Speech Act of Apologies by Using Face  164-165
    6．3．4 In Apologies: Indirectness is a Way to Solve a Contradiction  165-167
  6．4 Difference in the Perception of Offences between Chinese and Western Cultures  167-169
    6．4．1 The Categories of Offences  167-168
    6．4．2 Seriousness of Offence  168-169
  6．5 On Bulge Theory  169-172
    6．5．1 IFIDs  169-170
    6．5．2 Taking on responsibility  170-172
  6．6 Methodology  172-174
7． Conclusion  174-181
Appendixes  181-186
Bibliography  186-188

A Contrastive study on the Speech Act of Apologies

内容摘要

全文目录

相似论文