兰州大学机构库 >外国语学院
东乡语与兰州方言邀请语用策略对比研究
Alternative TitleA Contrastive Study of Invitation between Dongxiang Minority Language and Lanzhou Dialect in China
马彩霞
Thesis Advisor张水云
2017-05-15
Degree Grantor兰州大学
Place of Conferral兰州
Degree Name硕士
Keyword邀请 东乡语 兰州方言 礼貌 言语行为 社会语用学
Abstract

邀请是维持和谐的人际关系的重要手段,是邀请双方均受益的言语行为,在语用上属于邀请行为兼具承诺性与指令性言语行为类型。本研究从社会语用学角度对比分析东乡语和兰州方言的邀请言语行为的特点,并探究年龄和社会距离对于东乡语和兰州方言邀请语用策略所产生的影响。 本研究总受试人数为696, 其中角色扮演16人(东乡语8,兰州方言8),预测问卷有效受试80人(东乡语40,兰州方言40),正式问卷有效受试600人(东乡300,兰州方言300)。所有东乡语受试均来自东乡偏远山村,兰州方言受试均来自兰州市榆中县的农村地区。根据他们的实际年龄,受试分为青年组(16-35)和老年组(55-70),每组男女均等。 本研究使用了角色扮演和问卷调查的方法来收集数据。角色扮演是最接近真实交际的收集语料的方法,它通过录音录像来收集半自然语料的同时还能有效控制各种社会变量。本研究设计了24个语境来进行角色扮演,每个语境下设计了8组对话(男青—男老,男青—女老,女青—男老,女青—女老,男老—男青,男老—女青,女老—女青,女老—男青),受试根据所设计好的语境来实施邀请,总共收集到384个有效视频(东乡语192,兰州方言192)。 然后对角色扮演所获得的语料进行转写,统计出每一种邀请策略出现的频次,根据邀请策略的出现的高低频次来设计问卷选项。预测问卷包含24个语境,共获得80份有效问卷(东乡语40,兰州方言40)。本研究分析了预测问卷的调查结果,并采纳受试的访谈意见,对问卷进行了删减和修正。正式问卷包含12个语境,最终在两地收集到600份有效问卷(东乡语300,兰州方言300)。 本研究根据Blum-Kulka 等人 1989 年的“跨文化言语行为实现研究项目”(CCSARP)的研究方法,又参照了Garcia (2008)的研究,将邀请策略划分为:主言语行为部分(直接邀请策略和间接邀请策略),直接邀请又分为语气推导、请求、命令和愿望;间接邀请又分为建议、询问和暗示。主言语行为内修饰词部分,礼貌词、轻描淡写表达、个人主观看法、寻求许可同意。附加部分,分为理由、提供选择和询问三种策略。称呼部分,亲属称呼和职业称呼。所得数据通过SPSS16.0软件进行分析。 研究结果显示:第一:东乡语的邀请策略有:(1) 东乡人倾向于采用直接邀请策略而非间接策略。附加部分使用最多的策略是说明事由和询问的策略。(2)年龄差异影响东乡人的邀请语用策略。就主言语行为而言,直接邀请是老年和青年都最常使用的语用策略。就词汇修饰策略而言,老年比青年使用礼貌词多。老年使用职业称呼比青年多。就附加策略而言,老年比青年多使用说明事由和询问的策略,而青年则是提供选择的策略多于老年。(3)社会距离远近影响东乡人实施邀请言语行为的语用策略选择。在社会距离远时,采用直接邀请,使用礼貌词较多,采用职业称呼,附加策略多用询问和提供选择,说话人礼貌程度会比较高。在社会距离近时,更多采用亲戚称呼,附加策略多使用说明事由,说话人在邀请时礼貌程度较低,语言使用则较为随意。 第二:东乡和兰州两地在实施邀请言语行为时,在观察了年龄和社会距离后发现,两地存在异同。(1)就相同点而言:在邀请时都倾向于直接邀请,都倾向于弱化,轻描淡写的词汇策略,在邀请时使用职业称呼的频次要要高于亲戚称呼,多使用说明事由的附加策略。(2)就不同点而言,东乡语比兰州方言使用直接邀请的策略多,东乡语在邀请主言语行为的策略中极少使用表达愿望的策略,使用礼貌词则少于兰州地区,东乡语使用亲戚称呼少于兰州方言。不同社会文化背景下,地区性的语言呈现其不同的特点,人们形成的语用习惯也存在差异。邀请会让说话人的积极面子高涨,同时也希望得到听话人同样的认同。这也是在邀请时大多采用直接邀请的原因。

Other Abstract

Invitation is an important speech act to maintain harmonious interpersonal relationships, it is benefit for both the speaker and the hearer and it belongs to the commissive and directive speech acts. This study is aimed to make a contrastive analysis to the characteristics of invitation strategies in DML and LD from social pragmatic perspective, moreover, this study probes into how age and social distance affect the choice of pragmatics strategies in DML and LD. The total number of participants involved in this study is 696. For role play, there were 16 participants (DML 8, LD 8); as for pilot study, there were 80 participants (DML 40, LD 40); for the questionnaire, there were 600 participants (DML 300, LD 300). The participants of DML were selected randomly from remote villages in Dongxiang, while the LD participants were native speakers at village in Yuzhong County, Lanzhou. The age of participants ranged from 16 to 70 in the investigation. According to their true age, the participants were divided into the younger group (16-35) and the elder group (55-70) with same gender ratio in each group. Role play and questionnaire were adopted to elicit data in this study. Role play was the closest to real-life interactions, in which the participants performed the role according to the designed situations. It was available to control the social variables and at the same time obtain semi-natural language materials in role play. In role play, there were 24 situations and each situation contained 8 dialogues (young male-old male, young male-old female, young female-old male, young female-old female, old male-young male, old male-young female, old female-young female, old female-young male). The participants made an invitation according to each situation. At last, I collected 384 valid videos (DML 192, LD 192). The language materials elicited from the role play videos were transcribed and used for designing the questionnaire. The pilot study included 24 questions and I collected 80 valid questionnaires (DML 40, LD 40). The analysis of pilot study results proved that the questionnaires were valid and feasible. At the same time, I also adopted the suggestions from the participants in interview, made a revision and deletion to the 24 questionnaires. At last, the formal questionnaire included 12 questions and I collected600 valid questionnaires (DML 300, LD 300). According to the study of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Garcia (2008), the taxonomy of invitation speech act strategies were segmented into head acts, internal modification of head acts, alerters and supportive moves. The head acts were classified into direct invitation (mood derivable, explicit perfomative, order and wish) and indirect (suggestion, query and hint). The internal modification of head acts were classified into politeness marker, understater, subjectiviser and conditional. The alerters are classified into professional address and relative address. The supportive moves are classified into explanation, alternative and query. The data were analyzed by SPSS16.0. The result of data analysis revealed that: when the DML speakers make an invitation, (1) they prefer to make a direct invitation. As for supportive moves, explanation and query are the most frequently used strategies.(2) The younger and the elder are different in their choices of invitation strategies, as age differences affected the realization of the invitation strategies in DML. Both groups adopt direct invitation in head acts. The elder tend to use more professional address than the younger. In supportive moves, the strategies of explanation and query are preferred by the elder, the younger tend to provide more reasons than the elder. (3) Social distance affected on DML speakers’ choices of invitation strategies. When social distance is longer, DML speakers employ more direct invitation and provide more alternative and query in supportive moves. In addition, they use more politeness vocabulary professional address. When social distance is shorter, the politeness degree is reduced and the language choice is in causal style. The contrastive analysis of invitation strategies adopted by the speakers of DML and LD revealed that there exist similarities and differences. (1) Concerning the similarities, they all employ more direct invitation as head acts and use explanation the most frequently in supportive moves. Both speakers in the two regions adopt more professional addresses than relative addresses. (2)The differences are proved from these three aspects. The DML speakers seldom use wish strategy in making an invitation. The DML speakers adopt more direct invitation and less politeness vocabulary than the LD speakers. It is happy for the interlocutor to be invited. The speakers expresses endorse and intimacy to the interlocutor by making an invitation. Making an invitation would embolden the positive face of the speaker and at the same time, the speaker wants to be approved by the hearer. It is the reason that the speaker adopts direct invitation strategy.

URL查看原文
Language中文
Document Type学位论文
Identifierhttps://ir.lzu.edu.cn/handle/262010/226875
Collection外国语学院
Recommended Citation
GB/T 7714
马彩霞. 东乡语与兰州方言邀请语用策略对比研究[D]. 兰州. 兰州大学,2017.
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Related Services
Recommend this item
Bookmark
Usage statistics
Export to Endnote
Altmetrics Score
Google Scholar
Similar articles in Google Scholar
[马彩霞]'s Articles
Baidu academic
Similar articles in Baidu academic
[马彩霞]'s Articles
Bing Scholar
Similar articles in Bing Scholar
[马彩霞]'s Articles
Terms of Use
No data!
Social Bookmark/Share
No comment.
Items in the repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.