| Research concerning politeness phenomena has attracted agreat deal of interest in recent years and justifiab1y so, sincepol i teness is basic to socia1 interact ion and is an integra1 partoF the socio--cultural system. Inspired by a number of originalstudies on pol i teness and mot ivated by a general concern for thei ssue of pol iteness in cross--cul tural contexts, I have at temptedin this paper to make a contrastive study of linguisticpol i teness in American and Chi nese cul tures, based on ac()ns i derahle amount and varj oty of data from both languages.The study begins with a brief review of the relevantl iterature on politeness, which is presented in chapter 2.Linguistic research into pol iteness is closely associated wi thsuch names as Lakoff (l973, l975), Leech (1983), Brown andLevinson (l978, 1987) and Fraser (l990). Taking the so--cal ledGr ice--Goffman paradi gm as the common bas i s of their work, theseresearchers have approached the area of po1 iteness fromd i l'I'crent perspect ives to deri vc a number of basic theoretica1not ions and to find evidence of ' p()1 iteness in 1 inguistic forms.Arguab1y, Gu's model (l990, l993) is not among the mostinfl uential. But it is one or the few studies on Chinesep()l i teness, which fact makes i t re levant for the present study.1'herefore, his findings are al so included in this chapter.Chapter 3 involves an invest igation of the concept ion of thecorresponding terms of "po1 i teness" and "face" in both languages.The first section examines the simi larit ies and differences intbe conception of what pol iteness means both as a theoreticalnot ion and as a conunonsense term i n American and Chinese cul tures.As the findings suggest, "pol iteness" and "1insd' areconceptual l y more di fferent than identical. Pol iteness inAmerican cul ture is basical ly defi ned as consideration forothers according to expected norms aimed at smooth commun icat ion.ln contrast, the scope of 1irmo in Chinese cu1ture is relativelybroad and inclusi ve, with the common idea of showing respect andmodesty to others as a Loken of moral cu1tivation. Theexplorat ion of another central not ion, "face", demonstratesthat in spi te of its increasing interest in scholarly researches,face remains a marginal and technical term to many Americanspeakers. Consequently, the usage of face in its figurativesense is restricted and unproductive. This helps to explain theresul t of my questionnaire investigation, which suggests thata big majority of American speakers do not recognize face as asignificant consideration in their daily interaction. Inc()n trast, the correspond ing 1ian and mi8nzi are fami l iar to mostChi nese speakers, which are extens ively and product ively usedin a range of contexts. This is an obvious indicator of Chinesespeakers' conunon consideration for face as a means of enhancinginterpersona1 relationships. The prel iminary result of thischapter warns us against assumi ng the equivalence of such keyterms as "pol iteness" and "face", and consequent1y highl ightsthe need to address the issue ol' po1 i teness from comparat ive andcross--cu l tura1 perspect i ves.The differences in conception of pol iteness are naturallyreflected in the realizations of speech behavior in bothlanguages. Consequently, the mai n concerns of chapters 4 and 5focus on such speech acts as address and compl iment respect ively.Chapter 4 concentrates on the major patterns of address behaviorand the underlying social norms and values in American andChinese cul tures. The select ion and use of appropriate forms ofaddress, as an essential express ion of 1 inguistic pol iteness,are governed by di fferent soc ial dimensions in di fferentcul tures. General l y speaki ng, in Chi nese, when there are obviousor assumed status differences, the asymmetrical usage ispreferred. In American Engl ish, however, the increase in themutual use... |
PDF Full Text Request