汉英拒绝策略对比研究
|
摘要
言语行为在不同的社会情境中有不同的表现形式，因此，缺少对特定文化情境中交际能力的培养会导致交际失败。拒绝言语行为是一类较为特殊的行为，来自不同文化背景的交际者不仅受不同的社会地位、亲密程度、年龄、性别等影响，在交际过程中不同的文化因素还会影响到他们交际的礼貌程度，因为拒绝会威胁交际对方的面子。因此，拒绝言语行为尤其需要运用一定的策略去降低面子威胁的程度。
从教学的角度而言，拒绝言语行为也值得研究，因为外语学习者不仅需要认识到语言形式的不同，同时更需要认识到语言社团背后的文化价值，也就是说，交际者必须能对具体的情景做出恰当的反应。拒绝言语行为是内在的威胁交际对象面子的复杂行为，通常它被称为是对请求、邀请、给予和建议作出否定反应的行为。实施拒绝言语行为需要很多技巧，不仅表达拒绝意图，而且还要把威胁面子程度降至最低。因此，拒绝策略对跨文化交际的成功也极其具有重要性。近年来一些研究者开始从言语行为理论、礼貌原则和顺应论等方面对拒绝行为进行了理论研究，但很少有研究涉及到中国英语学习者的拒绝言语行为策略。本文拟对中国人、美国人以及中国英语学习者拒绝策略的运用进行对比研究，将找出他们在使用拒绝策略方面的相似性及差异性，并对拒绝策略的选择和社会地位和社会距离的关系进行分析。
本研究的受试包括九十位中美在校大学生。他们被分为三组：在中国人受试组中受试用汉语回答问卷，英语受试组中母语为英语的美国人用英语回答问卷，第三组为中国英语学习者，他们用英语回答问卷。
本研究采用多项选择型问卷和语篇补全测试问卷(DCT)相结合的数据收集方法。数据分析包括考察拒绝策略使用的频率和偏好，以及包括社会距离、社会地位等变量在内的社会影响与拒绝的直接性程度的关系。对中国英语学习者拒绝策略的使用研究将是本文研究的一个侧重点。
通过比较三组受试的拒绝策略使用情况，主要发现了三方面的不同点。
学习者母语中的社会文化迁移不仅表现在对策略使用的频率和偏好上，还体
现在与社会地位和距离相关的直接性和间接性程度上。在对三组受试的比较
中可以看出正面迁移和负面迁移在中国英语学习者的拒绝策略使用上都有
所表现。对于特定的拒绝策略如“肯定的评价”，尽管汉语和英语的拒绝的
方式存在不同，但是英语学习者受试仍能够正确使用英语中的表达方式，这
说明了他们在一定程度上已经习得了目的语的语用能力。本研究的结果证
明，用目的语表达拒绝言语行为对语言学习者来说是一个复杂的过程。正确
地实现拒绝言语行为要求语言学习者具有较高的目的语的文化语用能力。在
语言学习中，学习者不仅要对目的语中使用较多的拒绝策略加以注意，还要
对母语文化中拒绝的方式和策略进行有意识的了解。只有当母语和目的语中
的拒绝使用规则都有全面的理解时，才能更正确地用目的语表达拒绝行为。
对语言教师来说，在组织教学计划时应该注意在教学中加入一部分有助帮助
学习者接触目的语社会文化知识的内容，并组织各种教学活动和讨论以帮助
学习者更好的掌握用目的语实施言语行为的能力。
犷
Speech acts are culture specific. There are many systematic variations in different sociocultural situations and communities. It is presumed that lack of enough social cultural communicative competence in performing the speech acts is the major cause of the communication failure. The refusals from different cultural backgrounds are not only influenced by different situational factors like social status, distance, gender and age, in the process of choosing the appropriate refusal strategies, but also by the cultural factors in which the efficiency and politeness are achieved through different ways.
From a pedagogical point of view, refusals are worth investigating because the second language learners not only need to recognize the linguistic forms necessary to produce the speech act, but also need to be aware of social culture values that characterize the target community (Kasper & Schmidt 1996); that is, to be sensitive to the target culture by communicating appropriately in any given situation. Since refusal is one of the complex speech acts that represents an inherent threat to the interlocutor's face. It is generally considered a speech act performing speaker's intention denying engaging in an action proposed (Chen, Ye, and Zhang 1995: 121). It requires a lot of techniques to convey the refusing intention as well as minimize negative effects of the FTA. Therefore, refusal strategies are highly necessary for successful communication between different cultures. In recent years, some researchers have looked into the speech act of refusal. Some have investigated the theoretical aspects of the understan
ding and operation of refusal, from the Speech Act theory, Politeness Theory, and the Adaptation Theory.
However, little work has been done on the EFL learners' competence of refusing in English. Are there unique features in their use of politeness strategies that are different from L1 and L2 systems? Is there any transfer of L1
sociocultural knowledge in speaking L2?
The objective of the present thesis is to investigate the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 refusal strategies, employed by Chinese, Americans and Chinese learners of English as a foreign language when performing the speech act of refusal, in three levels of social status (equal and unequal [higher and lower]) and four levels of social distance (kin, small, mid, and distant), with a little more emphasis on Chinese EFL learners. Ninety university students are included in the study. They are divided in three groups (30 subjects in each). CC group refers to the group of native speakers of Chinese responding in Chinese, AE group refers to the group of American native speakers of English responding in English, and CE group refers to the group of Chinese EFL learners responding in English.
The instrument used in collecting the data for this study is a questionnaire consisted of two parts, a multiple choice test and a Discourse Completion Test adapted from that of Beebe et al. (1990). The data of Chinese subjects were collected in Qufu Normal University, China; the American native speaker data were collected by e-mailing the questionnaire to the subjects in the University of Pennsylvania., USA. All the data were coded following the coding scheme proposed by Blum-Kulka et al (1989) and Beebe et al (1990). The analysis of the data will take into account the frequency of and preference for refusal strategies or semantic formulae and the role of social variables played in the directness level of refusal, and put a little emphasis on the EFL learners' production of refusal strategies and the influencing factors lying behind.
The strategies of refusal are classified into three kinds: direct refusal, indirect refusal, and adjunct. Direct refusals are direct denials of compliance without reservation. Indirect refusals are the strategies that the illocutionary force of refusal is uttered by means of the performance of other speech acts. Adjuncts are the preliminary remarks that could not appear alone and function as refusals. With the comparisons to
从教学的角度而言，拒绝言语行为也值得研究，因为外语学习者不仅需要认识到语言形式的不同，同时更需要认识到语言社团背后的文化价值，也就是说，交际者必须能对具体的情景做出恰当的反应。拒绝言语行为是内在的威胁交际对象面子的复杂行为，通常它被称为是对请求、邀请、给予和建议作出否定反应的行为。实施拒绝言语行为需要很多技巧，不仅表达拒绝意图，而且还要把威胁面子程度降至最低。因此，拒绝策略对跨文化交际的成功也极其具有重要性。近年来一些研究者开始从言语行为理论、礼貌原则和顺应论等方面对拒绝行为进行了理论研究，但很少有研究涉及到中国英语学习者的拒绝言语行为策略。本文拟对中国人、美国人以及中国英语学习者拒绝策略的运用进行对比研究，将找出他们在使用拒绝策略方面的相似性及差异性，并对拒绝策略的选择和社会地位和社会距离的关系进行分析。
本研究的受试包括九十位中美在校大学生。他们被分为三组：在中国人受试组中受试用汉语回答问卷，英语受试组中母语为英语的美国人用英语回答问卷，第三组为中国英语学习者，他们用英语回答问卷。
本研究采用多项选择型问卷和语篇补全测试问卷(DCT)相结合的数据收集方法。数据分析包括考察拒绝策略使用的频率和偏好，以及包括社会距离、社会地位等变量在内的社会影响与拒绝的直接性程度的关系。对中国英语学习者拒绝策略的使用研究将是本文研究的一个侧重点。
通过比较三组受试的拒绝策略使用情况，主要发现了三方面的不同点。
学习者母语中的社会文化迁移不仅表现在对策略使用的频率和偏好上，还体
现在与社会地位和距离相关的直接性和间接性程度上。在对三组受试的比较
中可以看出正面迁移和负面迁移在中国英语学习者的拒绝策略使用上都有
所表现。对于特定的拒绝策略如“肯定的评价”，尽管汉语和英语的拒绝的
方式存在不同，但是英语学习者受试仍能够正确使用英语中的表达方式，这
说明了他们在一定程度上已经习得了目的语的语用能力。本研究的结果证
明，用目的语表达拒绝言语行为对语言学习者来说是一个复杂的过程。正确
地实现拒绝言语行为要求语言学习者具有较高的目的语的文化语用能力。在
语言学习中，学习者不仅要对目的语中使用较多的拒绝策略加以注意，还要
对母语文化中拒绝的方式和策略进行有意识的了解。只有当母语和目的语中
的拒绝使用规则都有全面的理解时，才能更正确地用目的语表达拒绝行为。
对语言教师来说，在组织教学计划时应该注意在教学中加入一部分有助帮助
学习者接触目的语社会文化知识的内容，并组织各种教学活动和讨论以帮助
学习者更好的掌握用目的语实施言语行为的能力。
犷
Speech acts are culture specific. There are many systematic variations in different sociocultural situations and communities. It is presumed that lack of enough social cultural communicative competence in performing the speech acts is the major cause of the communication failure. The refusals from different cultural backgrounds are not only influenced by different situational factors like social status, distance, gender and age, in the process of choosing the appropriate refusal strategies, but also by the cultural factors in which the efficiency and politeness are achieved through different ways.
From a pedagogical point of view, refusals are worth investigating because the second language learners not only need to recognize the linguistic forms necessary to produce the speech act, but also need to be aware of social culture values that characterize the target community (Kasper & Schmidt 1996); that is, to be sensitive to the target culture by communicating appropriately in any given situation. Since refusal is one of the complex speech acts that represents an inherent threat to the interlocutor's face. It is generally considered a speech act performing speaker's intention denying engaging in an action proposed (Chen, Ye, and Zhang 1995: 121). It requires a lot of techniques to convey the refusing intention as well as minimize negative effects of the FTA. Therefore, refusal strategies are highly necessary for successful communication between different cultures. In recent years, some researchers have looked into the speech act of refusal. Some have investigated the theoretical aspects of the understan
ding and operation of refusal, from the Speech Act theory, Politeness Theory, and the Adaptation Theory.
However, little work has been done on the EFL learners' competence of refusing in English. Are there unique features in their use of politeness strategies that are different from L1 and L2 systems? Is there any transfer of L1
sociocultural knowledge in speaking L2?
The objective of the present thesis is to investigate the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 refusal strategies, employed by Chinese, Americans and Chinese learners of English as a foreign language when performing the speech act of refusal, in three levels of social status (equal and unequal [higher and lower]) and four levels of social distance (kin, small, mid, and distant), with a little more emphasis on Chinese EFL learners. Ninety university students are included in the study. They are divided in three groups (30 subjects in each). CC group refers to the group of native speakers of Chinese responding in Chinese, AE group refers to the group of American native speakers of English responding in English, and CE group refers to the group of Chinese EFL learners responding in English.
The instrument used in collecting the data for this study is a questionnaire consisted of two parts, a multiple choice test and a Discourse Completion Test adapted from that of Beebe et al. (1990). The data of Chinese subjects were collected in Qufu Normal University, China; the American native speaker data were collected by e-mailing the questionnaire to the subjects in the University of Pennsylvania., USA. All the data were coded following the coding scheme proposed by Blum-Kulka et al (1989) and Beebe et al (1990). The analysis of the data will take into account the frequency of and preference for refusal strategies or semantic formulae and the role of social variables played in the directness level of refusal, and put a little emphasis on the EFL learners' production of refusal strategies and the influencing factors lying behind.
The strategies of refusal are classified into three kinds: direct refusal, indirect refusal, and adjunct. Direct refusals are direct denials of compliance without reservation. Indirect refusals are the strategies that the illocutionary force of refusal is uttered by means of the performance of other speech acts. Adjuncts are the preliminary remarks that could not appear alone and function as refusals. With the comparisons to
引文
Beebe, L., T. Takahashi, and R. Uliss-Weltz. 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson &S.D. Krashen (eds.) On the development of communicative competence in a second language.Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House& G. Kasper. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: ablex.
Brown, E &S, Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.Cambridge: CUP.
Chert Xing, Lei Ye and Yanyin Zhang. 1995. Refusing in Chinese. In: Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language (Technical Report#5), 119-163. Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii press.
Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Ellis, Rod. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acqnisition. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Elwood, Kate. 2003. An Exploration of Difficulties Concerning Illoeutionary Coding in Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Pragmatics Research.文化论集第23号，171-198.
F(?)lix-Brasdefer, J.C(?)sar. 2001. Refusals in Spanish.and English: A Cross-Cultural Study of Politeness Strategies Among Speakers of Mexican Spanish and American English, and American Learners of Spanish as a Foreign Language. NEXO, vol.7: 1-3.
F(?)lix-Brasdefer, J, C(?)sar. 2003. Declining an invitation: A Cross-Cultural. Study of Pragmatic Strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua 22: 225-255.
Fukuya, Yoshinori J. & Yao Zhang. 2002. Effects of Recasts on EFL Learners' Acquisition of Pragmalinguistic Conventions of Request. Second Language Studies, 21(1), Fall 2002: 1-47.
Gass, S. & Noel, Houck. 1999. Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-Cultural Study of Japanese-English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 2: 237-257.
Guidetti, M. 2000. Pragmatic Study of Agreement and Refusal Messages in Young French Children. Journal of Pragmatics 5:569-5821
Haugh, M. &C, Hinze. 2003.A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concepts of 'face' and 'politeness' in Chinese, English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 35:1581-1611
Hymes, D.H. 1972.On Communicative Competence. In Pride and Holmes
Ide,S. et al 1992. The Concept of Politeness: An Empirical Study of American English & Japanese: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice, Berlin,Mouto de Gruyter
Kasper, G and Richard, Schmidt. 1996. Developmental Issues in haterlanguage Pragmatics. SSLA 18:149-169
Kasper, G. (1997). Can Pragmatic Competence Be Taught? (Network #6) [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved [2004-1-26] from the World Wide Web:http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/
Kasper, G.2000. Four Perspectives on L2 Pragmatic Development (NFLRC Net Work #19) [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/Net Works/NW19/[access: 2004-2-1]
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Ltd.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Liao, C. & M, Bresnahan. 1996. A Contrastive Pragmatic Study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Sciences 4:703-727.
Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mey, Jacob. 2003.Introduction: "About Face". Journal of Pragmatics 35:1.
Nelson, G, Joan Carson, Mahmound Al Bated& Waguida El Bakary. 2002a. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Strategy Use in Egyptian Arabic and American English Refusals. Applied Linguistics 2:163-189.
Nelson, G, Mahmoutmd Al Batal& Waguida El Bakary. 2002b. Directness vs.Indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English Communication Style.International Joumal of Intercultural Relations 1:39-57.
Nida, E. Language, Culture, and Translating. 1993. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Oatey, H. S. & Jiang, W. 2003. Explaining Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Findings:Moving from Politeness Maxims to Sociopragmatic Interactional Principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics 35:1633-1650.
Samovar, L.A & Poter, R. E. & Stefani, L.A. 2000.Communication Between Cultures. Brooks/Cole/Thomson Learning Asia.
Sasaki, M., 2000,Investigating EFL Students' Production of Speech Acts: A Comparison of Production Questionnaire and Role Plays. Journal of Pragmatics 4:569-582.
Wang Yang. 2003. Refusal Strategies in American and Chinese Cultures: A Comparative Study. Midwest conference on Asian history and culture, the Ohio state university, may 16-17.
Wishnoff, J. 2000.Hedging your bets: L2 Learners' Acquisition of Pragmatic Devices in Academic Writing and Computer-Mediated Discourse. Second Language Studies, 19(1), pp. 119-148.
Wong-Song Mei Lee. 2000. Politeness and face in Chinese culture. Frankfuit am Main
Yamagashira, H. 2001. Pragmatic Transfer in Japanese ESL Refusals. 《鹿儿岛纯心女子短期大学研究纪要》，第31号，259-275
Zhang Xinhong. 2000. The Pragrnatics of Chinese Refusals: An Adaptation-Based Approach. Unpublished PhD Thesis presented to Guangzhong Foreign Languages University.
陈融，1986，面子、留面子、丢面子，《外国语》，4。
陈融，1989，英语的礼貌语言，《现代外语》，3。
范峥，于桂玲，2002，浅谈日语中的拒绝表现，哈尔滨学院学报，2：94-98。
顾曰国，1992，礼貌、语用与文化，《外语教学与研究》，4。
何兆熊，1988，英语中的间接请求及其分类，
何兆熊，1997，90年代看语用，《外国语》，4。
何自然、阎庄，1986，中国学生在英语交际中的语用失误：汉英语用失误调查，《外语教学与研究》，4。
黄次栋，1984，语用学与语用错误，《外国语》，1。
黄永红，2001，对言语行为“道歉”的跨文化研究，《解放军外国语学院学报》，9。
胡壮麟，1980，语用学，《国外语言学》，3。
贾玉新，1997，《跨文化交际学》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
李阮娥和范宏雅，2000，《话语分析》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
刘绍忠，1997，国外语际语用学研究现状与我国语际语用学研究的思考，《外国语》，4。
刘绍忠，2000，“请”字用法汉英对比和语用负迁移，《外国语》，5。
马月兰，1998，中美“拒绝”言语行为比较研究，青海师范大学学报(社会科学版)，4：81-87。
马月兰，1999，从语篇表层谈中、美拒绝策略，《齐齐哈尔大学学报》，4：74-77。马月兰，2000，中美拒绝语策略共性比较研究，《西安外国语学院学报》，2：46-49。沈家煊，1996，我国的语用学研究，《外语教学与研究》，1。
束定芳主编，2001，中国语用学研究论文精选，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
孙勉志，2001，汉语环境与英语学习，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王爱华，2001，英汉拒绝言语行为表达模式调查，《外语教学与研究》，3：178-185。
王得杏，1990，跨文化交际的语用问题，《外语教学与研究》，4。
王建华，1998，礼貌的相对性，《外国语》，3。
王玉环，梁红梅，张金翠，2002，基于语料库对英语学习者致谢言语行为习
得情况的调查分析，《莱阳农学院学报》(社会科学版)，4：84-88。
杨春红，2001，中国英语学习者拒绝言语行为的实验研究，未发表的硕士论文。
徐晓燕，夏伟蓉，2003，英语“拒绝”言语行为语用策略对比研究，《西南民族学院学报哲学社会科学版》，2：250-255。
姚俊，2003，从英汉拒绝策略的语用对比看中西文化差异，《山东外语教学》，1：12-17。
张绍杰、王晓彤，1997，“请求”言语行为的对比研究，《现代外语》，3。
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House& G. Kasper. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: ablex.
Brown, E &S, Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.Cambridge: CUP.
Chert Xing, Lei Ye and Yanyin Zhang. 1995. Refusing in Chinese. In: Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language (Technical Report#5), 119-163. Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii press.
Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Ellis, Rod. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acqnisition. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Elwood, Kate. 2003. An Exploration of Difficulties Concerning Illoeutionary Coding in Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Pragmatics Research.文化论集第23号，171-198.
F(?)lix-Brasdefer, J.C(?)sar. 2001. Refusals in Spanish.and English: A Cross-Cultural Study of Politeness Strategies Among Speakers of Mexican Spanish and American English, and American Learners of Spanish as a Foreign Language. NEXO, vol.7: 1-3.
F(?)lix-Brasdefer, J, C(?)sar. 2003. Declining an invitation: A Cross-Cultural. Study of Pragmatic Strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua 22: 225-255.
Fukuya, Yoshinori J. & Yao Zhang. 2002. Effects of Recasts on EFL Learners' Acquisition of Pragmalinguistic Conventions of Request. Second Language Studies, 21(1), Fall 2002: 1-47.
Gass, S. & Noel, Houck. 1999. Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-Cultural Study of Japanese-English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 2: 237-257.
Guidetti, M. 2000. Pragmatic Study of Agreement and Refusal Messages in Young French Children. Journal of Pragmatics 5:569-5821
Haugh, M. &C, Hinze. 2003.A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concepts of 'face' and 'politeness' in Chinese, English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 35:1581-1611
Hymes, D.H. 1972.On Communicative Competence. In Pride and Holmes
Ide,S. et al 1992. The Concept of Politeness: An Empirical Study of American English & Japanese: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice, Berlin,Mouto de Gruyter
Kasper, G and Richard, Schmidt. 1996. Developmental Issues in haterlanguage Pragmatics. SSLA 18:149-169
Kasper, G. (1997). Can Pragmatic Competence Be Taught? (Network #6) [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved [2004-1-26] from the World Wide Web:http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/
Kasper, G.2000. Four Perspectives on L2 Pragmatic Development (NFLRC Net Work #19) [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/Net Works/NW19/[access: 2004-2-1]
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Ltd.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Liao, C. & M, Bresnahan. 1996. A Contrastive Pragmatic Study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Sciences 4:703-727.
Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mey, Jacob. 2003.Introduction: "About Face". Journal of Pragmatics 35:1.
Nelson, G, Joan Carson, Mahmound Al Bated& Waguida El Bakary. 2002a. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Strategy Use in Egyptian Arabic and American English Refusals. Applied Linguistics 2:163-189.
Nelson, G, Mahmoutmd Al Batal& Waguida El Bakary. 2002b. Directness vs.Indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English Communication Style.International Joumal of Intercultural Relations 1:39-57.
Nida, E. Language, Culture, and Translating. 1993. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Oatey, H. S. & Jiang, W. 2003. Explaining Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Findings:Moving from Politeness Maxims to Sociopragmatic Interactional Principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics 35:1633-1650.
Samovar, L.A & Poter, R. E. & Stefani, L.A. 2000.Communication Between Cultures. Brooks/Cole/Thomson Learning Asia.
Sasaki, M., 2000,Investigating EFL Students' Production of Speech Acts: A Comparison of Production Questionnaire and Role Plays. Journal of Pragmatics 4:569-582.
Wang Yang. 2003. Refusal Strategies in American and Chinese Cultures: A Comparative Study. Midwest conference on Asian history and culture, the Ohio state university, may 16-17.
Wishnoff, J. 2000.Hedging your bets: L2 Learners' Acquisition of Pragmatic Devices in Academic Writing and Computer-Mediated Discourse. Second Language Studies, 19(1), pp. 119-148.
Wong-Song Mei Lee. 2000. Politeness and face in Chinese culture. Frankfuit am Main
Yamagashira, H. 2001. Pragmatic Transfer in Japanese ESL Refusals. 《鹿儿岛纯心女子短期大学研究纪要》，第31号，259-275
Zhang Xinhong. 2000. The Pragrnatics of Chinese Refusals: An Adaptation-Based Approach. Unpublished PhD Thesis presented to Guangzhong Foreign Languages University.
陈融，1986，面子、留面子、丢面子，《外国语》，4。
陈融，1989，英语的礼貌语言，《现代外语》，3。
范峥，于桂玲，2002，浅谈日语中的拒绝表现，哈尔滨学院学报，2：94-98。
顾曰国，1992，礼貌、语用与文化，《外语教学与研究》，4。
何兆熊，1988，英语中的间接请求及其分类，
何兆熊，1997，90年代看语用，《外国语》，4。
何自然、阎庄，1986，中国学生在英语交际中的语用失误：汉英语用失误调查，《外语教学与研究》，4。
黄次栋，1984，语用学与语用错误，《外国语》，1。
黄永红，2001，对言语行为“道歉”的跨文化研究，《解放军外国语学院学报》，9。
胡壮麟，1980，语用学，《国外语言学》，3。
贾玉新，1997，《跨文化交际学》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
李阮娥和范宏雅，2000，《话语分析》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
刘绍忠，1997，国外语际语用学研究现状与我国语际语用学研究的思考，《外国语》，4。
刘绍忠，2000，“请”字用法汉英对比和语用负迁移，《外国语》，5。
马月兰，1998，中美“拒绝”言语行为比较研究，青海师范大学学报(社会科学版)，4：81-87。
马月兰，1999，从语篇表层谈中、美拒绝策略，《齐齐哈尔大学学报》，4：74-77。马月兰，2000，中美拒绝语策略共性比较研究，《西安外国语学院学报》，2：46-49。沈家煊，1996，我国的语用学研究，《外语教学与研究》，1。
束定芳主编，2001，中国语用学研究论文精选，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
孙勉志，2001，汉语环境与英语学习，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王爱华，2001，英汉拒绝言语行为表达模式调查，《外语教学与研究》，3：178-185。
王得杏，1990，跨文化交际的语用问题，《外语教学与研究》，4。
王建华，1998，礼貌的相对性，《外国语》，3。
王玉环，梁红梅，张金翠，2002，基于语料库对英语学习者致谢言语行为习
得情况的调查分析，《莱阳农学院学报》(社会科学版)，4：84-88。
杨春红，2001，中国英语学习者拒绝言语行为的实验研究，未发表的硕士论文。
徐晓燕，夏伟蓉，2003，英语“拒绝”言语行为语用策略对比研究，《西南民族学院学报哲学社会科学版》，2：250-255。
姚俊，2003，从英汉拒绝策略的语用对比看中西文化差异，《山东外语教学》，1：12-17。
张绍杰、王晓彤，1997，“请求”言语行为的对比研究，《现代外语》，3。