基于文化图式的跨文化互动分析——以藏族青少年群体为例
|
摘要
本文探讨研究特定文化群体跨文化互动的认知过程的方法,并将其应用于解读藏族青少年在内地的跨文化交际行为。首先,从文化图式的基本特征出发,在方法论层面对现有研究路径进行比较;采用认知人类学的文化图式及其动机理论,结合社会心理学的图式提取规则构架研究路径。其次,在上述理论基础上,得出如下研究程序:以田野调查和语言分析来获取特定文化群体的文化图式;基于文化成因分析图式间连接和传递的层级结构;依据图式及其连接关系,在给定跨文化情境下对群体互动(包括冲突)进行解释体系描述。最后,根据研究程序,获取本土藏族青少年的社会交往文化图式及其层级结构;对广州高校藏族学生跨文化互动典型案例加以分析,描述出藏族学生的认知解释程序;据此还对此类跨文化互动交流困难的成因加以分析,并给出解决建议。
Based on the theory of cultural schema in cognitive anthropology and the basic principles of schema in social psychology,this paper proposes a method of describing the cognitive processes in the members of a certain cultural group in a cross-cultural situation. Using this method,the author describes and interprets Tibetan youths' intercultural communicative behavior. First,Tibetan youths' cultural schema of social interaction is described on the basis of field research and language analysis. Second,the linkage and hierarchical structure of the cultural schema of Tibetan culture is demonstrated. Third,the cultural schema and its structures discussed above are applied to the analysis of the difficulties in Tibetan students' intercultural communication on the university campuses in Guangzhou. Finally,this paper gives some suggestions as to how to deal with these difficulties.
Based on the theory of cultural schema in cognitive anthropology and the basic principles of schema in social psychology,this paper proposes a method of describing the cognitive processes in the members of a certain cultural group in a cross-cultural situation. Using this method,the author describes and interprets Tibetan youths' intercultural communicative behavior. First,Tibetan youths' cultural schema of social interaction is described on the basis of field research and language analysis. Second,the linkage and hierarchical structure of the cultural schema of Tibetan culture is demonstrated. Third,the cultural schema and its structures discussed above are applied to the analysis of the difficulties in Tibetan students' intercultural communication on the university campuses in Guangzhou. Finally,this paper gives some suggestions as to how to deal with these difficulties.
引文
鞠实儿,2010,《论逻辑的文化相对性--从民族志和历史学的观点看》,载《中国社会科学》第1期,第35-47页。
李双剑、曲尼(辑译),1989,《藏族谚语集锦》,北京:中央民族学院出版社。
宋兴富(编),2004,《藏族民间谚语》,成都:四川出版集团巴蜀书社。
佟锦华、庄晶、格桑顿珠,1980,《藏族谚语》,成都:四川民族出版社。
翟学伟,2001,《中国人脸面观的同质性与异质性》,载
翟学伟:《中国人行动的逻辑》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
翟学伟,1995,《中国人的脸面观》,台北:桂冠图书股份有限公司。
Aronson,Elliot,Timothy D.Wilson,Robin M.Akert,&Samuel R.Sommers,2015,Social Psychology(9th ed),Boston,MA:MPearson.
Bartlett,Frederic,1958,Thinking:An Experimental and Social Study,New York:Basic Books.
Bartlett,Frederic,1932,Remembering:A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology,Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press.
D’Andrade,Roy G.,1995,The Development of Cognitive Anthropology,New York:Cambridge University Press.
D’Andrade,Roy G.,1992,“Schemas and Motivations,”in D’Andrade Roy G.&Claudia Strauss(eds.),Human motives and cultural models,New York:Cambridge University Press.
D’Andrade,Roy G.,1987,“A Folk Model of the Mind,”in Dorothy Holland&Naomi Quinn(eds.),Cultural Models in Language and Thought,Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,pp.112-148.
D’Andrade,Roy G.&Claudia Strauss(eds.),Human motives and cultural models,New York:Cambridge University Press.
De Munck,Victor C.,2013,“A Theory Explaining the Functional Linkage Between the Self,Identity and Cultural Models,”Journal of Cognition and Cultures,Vol.13,No.1-2,pp.179-200.
Di Maggio,Paul,1997,“Culture and Cognition,”Annual Review Sociology,Vol.23,pp.263-287.
Fiske,Susan T.&Shelly E.Taylor,1991,Social Cognition,Singapore:Mc Graw-Hill,Inc.
Gureckis,Todd M.&Robert L.Goldstone,2010,“Schema,”in Patrick C.Hogan(ed.),The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences,Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,pp.725-727.
Higgins,E Tory,1996,“Knowledge Activation:Accessibility,Applicability and Salience,”in E.Tory Higgins&Arie W.Kruglanski(eds.),Social Psychology:Handbook of Basic Principles,New York:Guilford Press,pp.133-168.
Hirschfeld,Lawrence A.&Susan A.Gelman,1994,“Toward A Topography of Mind:An Introduction to Domain
Specificity,”in Lawrence A.Hirschfeld&Susan A.Gelman(eds.),Mapping the Mind,New York:Cambridge University Press,pp.3-35.
Hu,Hsien Chin,1944,“The Chinese Concept of Face,”American Anthropologist,Vol.46,No.1,pp.45-64.
Mao,Lu Ming Robert,1994,“Beyond Politeness Theory:‘Face’Revisited and Renewed,”Journal of Pragmatics,Vol.21,No.5,pp.451-486.
Piaget,Jean,1952,The Origins of Intelligence in Children,New York,NY:International University Press.
Quinn,Naomi,2005,“How to Reconstruct Schemas People Share,from What They Say,”in Naomi Quinn(ed.),Finding Culture in Talk:A Collection of Methods,NewYork:Palgrave Macmillan,pp.35-82.
Quinn,Naomi,1992,“The Directive Force of Self-understanding:Evidence from wives inner conflicts,”in Roy G.D’Andrade&Claudia Strauss(eds.),Human Motives and Cultural Models,New York:Cambridge University Press,pp.90-126.
Quinn,Naomi&Dorothy Holland,1987,“Culture and Cognition,”in Dorothy Holland&Naomi Quinn(eds.),Cultural Models in Language and Thought,New York:Cambridge University Press,pp.3-42.
Rumelhart,David.E.,1980,“Schemata:The Building Blocks of Cognition,”in Rand J.Spiro et al.(eds.),Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension:Persepectives from Cognitive Psychology,Liguistics,Artificial Intelligence and Education,Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum,pp.33-58.
Rumelhart,David.E.,James L.Mcclelland,&the PDPResearch Group,1986,Parallel Distributed Processing:Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition VolumeⅠ:Foundations,Cambridge Massachusetts:the MITPress.
Shore Brad,1996,Culture in Mind:Cognition,Culture and the Problem of Meaning,Oxford University Press。
Strauss,Claudia,2005,“Analyzing Discourse for Cultural Complexity,”in Naomi Quinn(ed.),Finding Culture in Talk:A Collection of Methods,New York:Palgrave Macmillan,pp.203-242.
Strauss,Claudia,1992,“What Makes Tony Run?Schemas as Motives Reconsidered,”in Roy G.D’Andrade&Claudia Strauss(eds.),Human Motives and Cultural Models,New York:Cambridge University Press,pp.191-224.
Wyer,Robert S.&Thomas K.Srull,1989,Memory and Cognition in Its Social Context,Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
(1)“认知社会科学”的提法见Mark Turner,Cognitive Dimensions of Social Science,Oxford University Press,2001;Omar Lizardo,“Beyond the Comtean Schema:The Sociology of Culture and Cognition Versus Cognitive Social Science,”Sociological Forum,Vol.29,No.4(2014),pp.983-989。
(2)“schemas”和“schemata”分别为“schema”的英语和拉丁语复数写法。
(3)“■”意为同甘共苦,是藏族社会里一种以个人或家庭为基础的稳定的互助互惠友好关系。这种关系可以是从家庭继承的,也可以是自己发展的新关系。
(4)“■”和“■”的意思一样,均意为同甘共苦,二者的区别仅仅在于“■”的末尾增加了根据书写规范在单独作短语时附加的后加字符。
(5)关于藏族青少年面子观的阐述,详见陈小青:《“面子”背后的地方性知识——从文化与认知的视角看西藏藏族青少年的“面子”观》,载《开放时代》2015年第3期,第193—204页。
(6)这是从在拉萨和内地访谈的藏族学生口中多次印证的事实:藏族学生极少从心理上适应没有人陪伴孤身去吃饭。
李双剑、曲尼(辑译),1989,《藏族谚语集锦》,北京:中央民族学院出版社。
宋兴富(编),2004,《藏族民间谚语》,成都:四川出版集团巴蜀书社。
佟锦华、庄晶、格桑顿珠,1980,《藏族谚语》,成都:四川民族出版社。
翟学伟,2001,《中国人脸面观的同质性与异质性》,载
翟学伟:《中国人行动的逻辑》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
翟学伟,1995,《中国人的脸面观》,台北:桂冠图书股份有限公司。
Aronson,Elliot,Timothy D.Wilson,Robin M.Akert,&Samuel R.Sommers,2015,Social Psychology(9th ed),Boston,MA:MPearson.
Bartlett,Frederic,1958,Thinking:An Experimental and Social Study,New York:Basic Books.
Bartlett,Frederic,1932,Remembering:A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology,Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press.
D’Andrade,Roy G.,1995,The Development of Cognitive Anthropology,New York:Cambridge University Press.
D’Andrade,Roy G.,1992,“Schemas and Motivations,”in D’Andrade Roy G.&Claudia Strauss(eds.),Human motives and cultural models,New York:Cambridge University Press.
D’Andrade,Roy G.,1987,“A Folk Model of the Mind,”in Dorothy Holland&Naomi Quinn(eds.),Cultural Models in Language and Thought,Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,pp.112-148.
D’Andrade,Roy G.&Claudia Strauss(eds.),Human motives and cultural models,New York:Cambridge University Press.
De Munck,Victor C.,2013,“A Theory Explaining the Functional Linkage Between the Self,Identity and Cultural Models,”Journal of Cognition and Cultures,Vol.13,No.1-2,pp.179-200.
Di Maggio,Paul,1997,“Culture and Cognition,”Annual Review Sociology,Vol.23,pp.263-287.
Fiske,Susan T.&Shelly E.Taylor,1991,Social Cognition,Singapore:Mc Graw-Hill,Inc.
Gureckis,Todd M.&Robert L.Goldstone,2010,“Schema,”in Patrick C.Hogan(ed.),The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences,Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,pp.725-727.
Higgins,E Tory,1996,“Knowledge Activation:Accessibility,Applicability and Salience,”in E.Tory Higgins&Arie W.Kruglanski(eds.),Social Psychology:Handbook of Basic Principles,New York:Guilford Press,pp.133-168.
Hirschfeld,Lawrence A.&Susan A.Gelman,1994,“Toward A Topography of Mind:An Introduction to Domain
Specificity,”in Lawrence A.Hirschfeld&Susan A.Gelman(eds.),Mapping the Mind,New York:Cambridge University Press,pp.3-35.
Hu,Hsien Chin,1944,“The Chinese Concept of Face,”American Anthropologist,Vol.46,No.1,pp.45-64.
Mao,Lu Ming Robert,1994,“Beyond Politeness Theory:‘Face’Revisited and Renewed,”Journal of Pragmatics,Vol.21,No.5,pp.451-486.
Piaget,Jean,1952,The Origins of Intelligence in Children,New York,NY:International University Press.
Quinn,Naomi,2005,“How to Reconstruct Schemas People Share,from What They Say,”in Naomi Quinn(ed.),Finding Culture in Talk:A Collection of Methods,NewYork:Palgrave Macmillan,pp.35-82.
Quinn,Naomi,1992,“The Directive Force of Self-understanding:Evidence from wives inner conflicts,”in Roy G.D’Andrade&Claudia Strauss(eds.),Human Motives and Cultural Models,New York:Cambridge University Press,pp.90-126.
Quinn,Naomi&Dorothy Holland,1987,“Culture and Cognition,”in Dorothy Holland&Naomi Quinn(eds.),Cultural Models in Language and Thought,New York:Cambridge University Press,pp.3-42.
Rumelhart,David.E.,1980,“Schemata:The Building Blocks of Cognition,”in Rand J.Spiro et al.(eds.),Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension:Persepectives from Cognitive Psychology,Liguistics,Artificial Intelligence and Education,Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum,pp.33-58.
Rumelhart,David.E.,James L.Mcclelland,&the PDPResearch Group,1986,Parallel Distributed Processing:Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition VolumeⅠ:Foundations,Cambridge Massachusetts:the MITPress.
Shore Brad,1996,Culture in Mind:Cognition,Culture and the Problem of Meaning,Oxford University Press。
Strauss,Claudia,2005,“Analyzing Discourse for Cultural Complexity,”in Naomi Quinn(ed.),Finding Culture in Talk:A Collection of Methods,New York:Palgrave Macmillan,pp.203-242.
Strauss,Claudia,1992,“What Makes Tony Run?Schemas as Motives Reconsidered,”in Roy G.D’Andrade&Claudia Strauss(eds.),Human Motives and Cultural Models,New York:Cambridge University Press,pp.191-224.
Wyer,Robert S.&Thomas K.Srull,1989,Memory and Cognition in Its Social Context,Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
(1)“认知社会科学”的提法见Mark Turner,Cognitive Dimensions of Social Science,Oxford University Press,2001;Omar Lizardo,“Beyond the Comtean Schema:The Sociology of Culture and Cognition Versus Cognitive Social Science,”Sociological Forum,Vol.29,No.4(2014),pp.983-989。
(2)“schemas”和“schemata”分别为“schema”的英语和拉丁语复数写法。
(3)“■”意为同甘共苦,是藏族社会里一种以个人或家庭为基础的稳定的互助互惠友好关系。这种关系可以是从家庭继承的,也可以是自己发展的新关系。
(4)“■”和“■”的意思一样,均意为同甘共苦,二者的区别仅仅在于“■”的末尾增加了根据书写规范在单独作短语时附加的后加字符。
(5)关于藏族青少年面子观的阐述,详见陈小青:《“面子”背后的地方性知识——从文化与认知的视角看西藏藏族青少年的“面子”观》,载《开放时代》2015年第3期,第193—204页。
(6)这是从在拉萨和内地访谈的藏族学生口中多次印证的事实:藏族学生极少从心理上适应没有人陪伴孤身去吃饭。