兰州大学机构库 >外国语学院
中英文书评中的礼貌策略对比研究
Alternative TitleA Contrastive Study on the Politeness Strategies in English and Chinese Book Reviews
吴越
Thesis Advisor梁晓鹏
2004-06-08
Degree Grantor兰州大学
Place of Conferral兰州
Degree Name硕士
Keyword礼貌 礼貌策略 书评
Abstract"本文以现有的理论框架为基础,采用描述性和实证性相结合的方法,对比分析了英汉书评中礼貌策略的异同。 礼貌现象研究是近几年来语用学领域的一个热点问题。然而,大多数研究仅仅涉及口语表达中的礼貌现象,鲜见从跨文化视角探讨文本语料中礼貌策略问题。此外,书评的写作及评价问题已引起越来越多专家学者的关注,在语用层面对英汉书评进行对比研究显得尤为重要,因此,本文在书评学研究方面同时具有实用价值。 本文采用系统抽样法随机抽取英汉书评各50篇作为样本语料。描述性研究表明英汉书评中所使用相同的积极礼貌策略整体上相同,包括恭维语、带感情色彩词语的使用、先褒后贬法等。同时,两类书评所使用相同的消极礼貌策略包括表示认知的模糊限制语、非人称结构、人称限定语、条件句或虚拟语气的使用。此外,两类书评中均出现了公开实施面子威胁行为的现象。定量分析表明英汉书评中礼貌策略的使用存在着差异。首先,表认知的模糊限制语在英文书评中的使用频率远高于中文书评。其次,先褒后贬法在中文书评中出现频率高于英文书评。再次,提及所评书籍的不足时,中文书评的措辞更为委婉。另外,英文书评中公开实施面子威胁行为现象出现的频率远高于中文书评。 全文共分为七部分。第一部分介绍本研究的背景及意义。第二部分为文献回顾及理论综述。第三部分阐述了本文的研究方法。第四、五部分具体分析英汉书评中所使用礼貌策略的异同。第六部分从跨文化视角简要讨论研究结果。第七部分为结束语。 通过对样本语料描述性与实证性相结合的分析,本文对比研究了英汉书评中礼貌策略的异同之处。最后,本研究还从跨文化视角初步探讨了造成上述差异的原因。此外,本文尝试以分析结果为基础为中文书评写作提供借鉴。 "
Other Abstract"This thesis presents a contrastive study on the politeness strategies employed in a corpus of 50 English book reviews and 50 their Chinese counterparts by descriptive as well as empirical approaches. Despite a large number of studies of linguistic politeness, few focus on the politeness strategies in a given genre of written discourse. What’s more, little attention has been paid to the pragmatic problems in book reviews. Therefore, it is of theoretical and realistic significance to make a contrastive analysis on the politeness devices in book reviews from a cross-cultural perspective. The thesis attempts to investigate the similarities and differences in the politeness devices in English and Chinese review articles. It proves that the positive politeness strategies employed in both English and Chinese review articles include complimenting, the use of emotional responses to indicate solidarity, and the good news/bad news paring strategy. Epistemic lexical hedging, impersonal constructions, personal attribution and conditional as well as subjunctives are the common negative strategies used in the corpus. Besides, it is found that both English and Chinese reviewers also perform FTAs baldly without any redress. This thesis analyzes the differences in the politeness strategies in English and Chinese review articles mainly by a quantitative method. First, the epistemic lexical hedging occurs in much larger number in the English review articles than that in the Chinese ones. Second, the good news/bad news paring strategy is employed more frequently in the corpus of Chinese review articles than in that of English ones. Third, the phrasing of criticism in the Chinese reviews is more implicit and tactful than that in their English counterparts in making reference to the weaknesses of the reviewed books. Besides, the FTAs without any redress are performed much more frequently by the English reviewers than the Chinese reviewing writers in the corpus of the research. The thesis consists of seven chapters. Chapter I introduces the background and the significance of the present research. Chapter II is concerned with the literature review on the linguistic politeness study. Methodology comes in Chapter III. Chapter IV and Chapter V respectively explore the similarities and differences of the politeness devices in both English and Chinese review articles. Chapter VI is a discussion. Concluding remarks come in Chapter VII. Besides, the thesis provides some general...
URL查看原文
Language中文
Document Type学位论文
Identifierhttps://ir.lzu.edu.cn/handle/262010/226904
Collection外国语学院
Recommended Citation
GB/T 7714
吴越. 中英文书评中的礼貌策略对比研究[D]. 兰州. 兰州大学,2004.
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
[吴越]'s Articles
Baidu academic
Similar articles in Baidu academic
[吴越]'s Articles
Bing Scholar
Similar articles in Bing Scholar
[吴越]'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.