东乡语与兰州方言致谢言语行为的语用对比研究
|
摘要
东乡族主要分布于甘肃省,其语言东乡语属于阿尔泰语系蒙古语族,只有语言没有文字。在中国国内公布的濒危语言中,东乡语就属于其中的一种。从语音、语法和词汇方面研究东乡语的论文和著作颇多,但是从语用学的角度来研究东乡语的文献却很少。本篇研究首先分析东乡族家庭成员之间实施致谢时所使用的致谢策略的异同点,然后与西部地区的兰州汉族家庭成员的致谢策略进行分析和对比。
本篇研究主要回答四个研究问题：(1)东乡族母亲对儿子与母亲对女儿实施致谢时使用的策略有何异同?(2)东乡族岳父母对女婿与婆婆对儿媳在实施致谢言语行为时使用的策略有何异同?(3)东乡族母亲与子女之间和岳母/婆婆与女婿/儿媳之间实施致谢言语行为使用的策略有何异同?(4)东乡族岳父母/婆婆—女婿/儿媳与兰州汉族岳父母/公婆—女婿/儿媳实施致谢使用的策略有何异同?为了回答以上的四个问题,本研究随机抽取了东乡县锁南坝镇和皋兰县540名村民作为被试,其中东乡族270人,皋兰汉族270人。
本研究主要包括以下六个步骤：一、访谈。二、角色扮演情景设计和角色扮演。根据访谈获得的语料设计出与东乡族村民日常生活息息相关的角色扮演情景。分别到东乡县锁南坝镇和皋兰县根据设计的情景进行角色扮演,并录音、录像。三、视频与录音转写,将角色扮演的视频和录音按照《东乡语与汉语词典》的注音,由东乡语_大学生进行转写；之后由东乡族专家陈元龙先生进行审校。四、预测。五、大规模问卷。六、问卷统计与分析。
研究结果表明：(1)东乡族中母亲对子女实施致谢言语行为,称呼多为“通用称呼”和“无称呼”；她使用的角度多为“听话者”角度,很少“说话者”角度；较多使用“间接策略”,很少使用“直接策略”；附加部分应用的言语行为多为“赞美”、“道歉”和“责备”。当母亲对儿子实施致谢行为,倾向于使用“经名”、“普通称呼”和“听话者角度”。当母亲对女儿实施致谢时,较多使用“无称呼”、“普通称呼”和“听话者角度”。(2)东乡族岳父、岳母对女婿实施致谢行为时,他们较多使用“亲戚称呼”,如“姐夫”,和“说话者”角度；他们倾向于使用“间接策略”；附加部分所应用的言语行为包括“道歉”、“赞美”和“责备”。与此不同的是,当岳父向女婿实施致谢言语行为时,比起岳母,使用更多“说话者”角度和“直接策略”。(3)东乡族女儿/儿媳对母亲/婆婆实施致谢行为时,她们都使用“亲戚称呼”如“阿娜”或“阿奶”和“说话者”角度；她们都较多使用“间接策略”,很少使用“直接策略”。但是,媳妇使用“说话者”角度的频数多于女儿；关于附加部分所使用的言语行为方面,女儿较多使用“责备”,但儿媳很少使用。(4)将东乡族岳母和兰州汉族岳母对女婿实施致谢时使用的语用策略进行对比,兰州汉族岳母较多使用“无称呼”和“听话者”角度。相反,东乡族岳母较多使用“亲戚称呼”,如“姐夫”；角度多用“说话者”角度。在附加部分使用言语行为方面,东乡族岳母使用“责备”“说明”的频数远多于兰州汉族岳母使用的频数。(5)婆婆向儿媳实施致谢时,兰州汉族婆婆倾向于使用“通用称呼”,但东乡族婆婆却很少用。比起东乡族婆婆,兰州汉族婆婆较多使用“听话者”角度。当向儿媳致谢时,兰州婆婆较多使用直接策略但是东乡族婆婆较多使用间接策略。
从不同点可看出,东乡族和兰州汉族受到不同的文化的影响,前者受到伊斯兰文化影响,后者受到中国古典文化和近现代思想的影响。相似点表明这两种文化是相互影响和相互渗透的。
The Dongxiang nationality mainly scatters over Gansu province, which belongs to Mongolian language of Altai language family. Many minority languages are endangered in China. Dongxiang minority language (DML) is one of them. There are many publications which study Dongxiang language from a perspective of phonetics, structure or lexicon, but few from a perspective of pragmatics. In this study, I investigate the similarities and differences in thanking strategies among Dongxiang family members, and the diversity of the strategy between Dongxiang Minority Language (DML) and Lanzhou dialect (LD).
I aim to answer four questions in this study. First, what similarities and differences are displayed in thanking strategies of DML between mother and her son/daughter? Second, what similarities and differences are displayed in thanking strategies of DML between father-in-law/mother-in-law and son-in-law/daughter-in-law? Third, what similarities and differences are displayed in thanking strategies of DML between mother and her son/daughter compared with mother-in-law and her son-in-law/daughter-in-law? Fourth, what similarities and differences are displayed in thanking strategies of mother-in-law and son-in-law/daughter-in-law between DML and LD? In order to answer these four questions,270DML speakers from Dongxiang County and270LD speakers from Gaolan County were randomly selected for the study.
This research included six procedures:(1) Interview;(2) Designing and administrating role-plays. Based on the interview, the situations and conversations in the role-play were designed, which were related to the participants'daily lives.The selected participants were asked to play the role, which were video recorded, in terms of the designed situations and conversations at the location of Dongxiang county and Gaolan County respectively.(3) Transcribing the videos and recordings. In terms of Dongxiang Minority Language and Chinese Dictionary, the videos were transcribed by Dongxiang native speakers and then were revised by DML expert Mr. Chen Yuanlong.(4) Pilot Study.(5) Large-Scale Questionnaire.(6) Data Coding and Analyzing.
Results of the analyses indicate that:(1) when DML mother performed thanking to their children, the alerters she uses include "general term" and "zero term". She favors to employ more "hearer dominance perspective" than "speaker dominance perspective". She uses more "indirect strategies" than "direct strategies". The speech acts used in supportive moves consist of "praise","apology" and "blame". When mother performs thanking to her son, she tends to use "religious names term" and "general term" and prefers using "hearer dominance perspective". Mother performs the thanking speech act to her daughter, she likes using "zero term" and "general term" and would rather employ "hearer dominance perspective" than "speaker dominance perspective"(2) When DML father-in-law/mother-in-law performs thanking to son-in-law, he/she inclines to use "kinship terms" as alerters such as "brother-in-law" and employ "speaker dominance perspective". He/she likes to use "indirect strategies". The speech acts employed in supportive moves involved "apology","praise" and "blame". However, when father-in-law performs thanking to son-in-law, he is inclined to use more "speaker dominance perspective" and "direct strategies" than mother-in-law.(3) When she performs thank speech act to her mother/mother-in-law, DML daughter/daughter-in-law favors to use "kinship term" such as "Ana (mother)" or "Grandma" and "speaker dominance perspective". They employ more "indirect strategies" than "direct strategies"; but "speaker dominance perspectives" used by daughter-in-law are more than daughter used. The speech acts used in supportive moves between daughter and mother consist of "blame", but daughter-in-law employs fewer.(4) Comparing her performing thanking to her son-in-law with DML mother-in-law, LD mother-in-law favors to use more "zero term" and "hearer dominance perspective", while DML mother-in-law employs more "kinship term" and "speaker dominance perspective". In the aspect of speech acts used in supportive moves, DML mother-in-law used more "blame" and "illustration" than LD mother-in-law.(5) When performing thanking speech act to daughter-in-law, LD mother-in-law is inclined to employ "general term" as alerter, but DML mother-in-law seldom uses it. LD Mother-in-law favors more "hearer dominance perspective" than DML mother-in-law. LD mother-in-law employs more "direct strategies" while DML mother-in-law uses more "indirect strategies" to daughters-in-law.
The differences reflect that Islamic culture has great influence on the language use of Dongxiang nationality, while the language performance of Han nationality in Gaolan, Gansu province is affected by the classic Chinese culture and modern ideology. The similarities revealed that the two types of culture have been interacting and overlapping in the long ran.
本篇研究主要回答四个研究问题：(1)东乡族母亲对儿子与母亲对女儿实施致谢时使用的策略有何异同?(2)东乡族岳父母对女婿与婆婆对儿媳在实施致谢言语行为时使用的策略有何异同?(3)东乡族母亲与子女之间和岳母/婆婆与女婿/儿媳之间实施致谢言语行为使用的策略有何异同?(4)东乡族岳父母/婆婆—女婿/儿媳与兰州汉族岳父母/公婆—女婿/儿媳实施致谢使用的策略有何异同?为了回答以上的四个问题,本研究随机抽取了东乡县锁南坝镇和皋兰县540名村民作为被试,其中东乡族270人,皋兰汉族270人。
本研究主要包括以下六个步骤：一、访谈。二、角色扮演情景设计和角色扮演。根据访谈获得的语料设计出与东乡族村民日常生活息息相关的角色扮演情景。分别到东乡县锁南坝镇和皋兰县根据设计的情景进行角色扮演,并录音、录像。三、视频与录音转写,将角色扮演的视频和录音按照《东乡语与汉语词典》的注音,由东乡语_大学生进行转写；之后由东乡族专家陈元龙先生进行审校。四、预测。五、大规模问卷。六、问卷统计与分析。
研究结果表明：(1)东乡族中母亲对子女实施致谢言语行为,称呼多为“通用称呼”和“无称呼”；她使用的角度多为“听话者”角度,很少“说话者”角度；较多使用“间接策略”,很少使用“直接策略”；附加部分应用的言语行为多为“赞美”、“道歉”和“责备”。当母亲对儿子实施致谢行为,倾向于使用“经名”、“普通称呼”和“听话者角度”。当母亲对女儿实施致谢时,较多使用“无称呼”、“普通称呼”和“听话者角度”。(2)东乡族岳父、岳母对女婿实施致谢行为时,他们较多使用“亲戚称呼”,如“姐夫”,和“说话者”角度；他们倾向于使用“间接策略”；附加部分所应用的言语行为包括“道歉”、“赞美”和“责备”。与此不同的是,当岳父向女婿实施致谢言语行为时,比起岳母,使用更多“说话者”角度和“直接策略”。(3)东乡族女儿/儿媳对母亲/婆婆实施致谢行为时,她们都使用“亲戚称呼”如“阿娜”或“阿奶”和“说话者”角度；她们都较多使用“间接策略”,很少使用“直接策略”。但是,媳妇使用“说话者”角度的频数多于女儿；关于附加部分所使用的言语行为方面,女儿较多使用“责备”,但儿媳很少使用。(4)将东乡族岳母和兰州汉族岳母对女婿实施致谢时使用的语用策略进行对比,兰州汉族岳母较多使用“无称呼”和“听话者”角度。相反,东乡族岳母较多使用“亲戚称呼”,如“姐夫”；角度多用“说话者”角度。在附加部分使用言语行为方面,东乡族岳母使用“责备”“说明”的频数远多于兰州汉族岳母使用的频数。(5)婆婆向儿媳实施致谢时,兰州汉族婆婆倾向于使用“通用称呼”,但东乡族婆婆却很少用。比起东乡族婆婆,兰州汉族婆婆较多使用“听话者”角度。当向儿媳致谢时,兰州婆婆较多使用直接策略但是东乡族婆婆较多使用间接策略。
从不同点可看出,东乡族和兰州汉族受到不同的文化的影响,前者受到伊斯兰文化影响,后者受到中国古典文化和近现代思想的影响。相似点表明这两种文化是相互影响和相互渗透的。
The Dongxiang nationality mainly scatters over Gansu province, which belongs to Mongolian language of Altai language family. Many minority languages are endangered in China. Dongxiang minority language (DML) is one of them. There are many publications which study Dongxiang language from a perspective of phonetics, structure or lexicon, but few from a perspective of pragmatics. In this study, I investigate the similarities and differences in thanking strategies among Dongxiang family members, and the diversity of the strategy between Dongxiang Minority Language (DML) and Lanzhou dialect (LD).
I aim to answer four questions in this study. First, what similarities and differences are displayed in thanking strategies of DML between mother and her son/daughter? Second, what similarities and differences are displayed in thanking strategies of DML between father-in-law/mother-in-law and son-in-law/daughter-in-law? Third, what similarities and differences are displayed in thanking strategies of DML between mother and her son/daughter compared with mother-in-law and her son-in-law/daughter-in-law? Fourth, what similarities and differences are displayed in thanking strategies of mother-in-law and son-in-law/daughter-in-law between DML and LD? In order to answer these four questions,270DML speakers from Dongxiang County and270LD speakers from Gaolan County were randomly selected for the study.
This research included six procedures:(1) Interview;(2) Designing and administrating role-plays. Based on the interview, the situations and conversations in the role-play were designed, which were related to the participants'daily lives.The selected participants were asked to play the role, which were video recorded, in terms of the designed situations and conversations at the location of Dongxiang county and Gaolan County respectively.(3) Transcribing the videos and recordings. In terms of Dongxiang Minority Language and Chinese Dictionary, the videos were transcribed by Dongxiang native speakers and then were revised by DML expert Mr. Chen Yuanlong.(4) Pilot Study.(5) Large-Scale Questionnaire.(6) Data Coding and Analyzing.
Results of the analyses indicate that:(1) when DML mother performed thanking to their children, the alerters she uses include "general term" and "zero term". She favors to employ more "hearer dominance perspective" than "speaker dominance perspective". She uses more "indirect strategies" than "direct strategies". The speech acts used in supportive moves consist of "praise","apology" and "blame". When mother performs thanking to her son, she tends to use "religious names term" and "general term" and prefers using "hearer dominance perspective". Mother performs the thanking speech act to her daughter, she likes using "zero term" and "general term" and would rather employ "hearer dominance perspective" than "speaker dominance perspective"(2) When DML father-in-law/mother-in-law performs thanking to son-in-law, he/she inclines to use "kinship terms" as alerters such as "brother-in-law" and employ "speaker dominance perspective". He/she likes to use "indirect strategies". The speech acts employed in supportive moves involved "apology","praise" and "blame". However, when father-in-law performs thanking to son-in-law, he is inclined to use more "speaker dominance perspective" and "direct strategies" than mother-in-law.(3) When she performs thank speech act to her mother/mother-in-law, DML daughter/daughter-in-law favors to use "kinship term" such as "Ana (mother)" or "Grandma" and "speaker dominance perspective". They employ more "indirect strategies" than "direct strategies"; but "speaker dominance perspectives" used by daughter-in-law are more than daughter used. The speech acts used in supportive moves between daughter and mother consist of "blame", but daughter-in-law employs fewer.(4) Comparing her performing thanking to her son-in-law with DML mother-in-law, LD mother-in-law favors to use more "zero term" and "hearer dominance perspective", while DML mother-in-law employs more "kinship term" and "speaker dominance perspective". In the aspect of speech acts used in supportive moves, DML mother-in-law used more "blame" and "illustration" than LD mother-in-law.(5) When performing thanking speech act to daughter-in-law, LD mother-in-law is inclined to employ "general term" as alerter, but DML mother-in-law seldom uses it. LD Mother-in-law favors more "hearer dominance perspective" than DML mother-in-law. LD mother-in-law employs more "direct strategies" while DML mother-in-law uses more "indirect strategies" to daughters-in-law.
The differences reflect that Islamic culture has great influence on the language use of Dongxiang nationality, while the language performance of Han nationality in Gaolan, Gansu province is affected by the classic Chinese culture and modern ideology. The similarities revealed that the two types of culture have been interacting and overlapping in the long ran.
引文
Austin, J.(1962). How to Do Things with Words.London:Oxford University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S.& E. Olshtain (1984). Requests and apologies:a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics,3,196-213.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.).(1989).Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood:Ablex.
Brown, P.,& S.Levinson(1978).Universals in language usage:Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness:Strategies in social interaction (pp.56-310). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P.& S.Levinson (1978/2003).The Argument:Intuitive Bases and Derivative Definitions. In:He, Z.X. (Ed.) Selected Reading for Pragmatics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Brown, P.& S.Levinson (1987). Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gu, Yueguo. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2),237-257.
Harkness, J.A., Van de Vijver & Mahler. (2003). Cross-Cultural Survey Method. New Jersey:John Wiley&sons.
Helen Oatey. (1987). The Customs and Language of Social Interaction in English. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews:An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Beverly Hills:Sage.
Kasper, G.(1999).Interlanguage Pragmatics.In Learning Foreign and Second Language (pp.183-208).New York:Modern Language.
Kenneth, L.F.(1997).A Grammatical Overview of Santa Mongolian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Santa Barbara:University of California.
King, A. Y.,& M. H. Bond (1985). The Confucian paradigm of man:A socio-logical view. In:Tseng, W. S.& Wu, D. H. (Ed.) Chinese culture and mental health (pp. 29-45). Orlando:Academic Press, Inc.
Krauss, Michael,1992, The World's Languages in Crisis, Language 68(1),4-10.
Kuribayashi, H. (1989). Comparative Basic Vocabularies for Mongolian (Chakhar,) Dagur, Shera-Yogur, Monguor, Bao-an and Dungshang. Study of Linguistic and Cultural Contacts,1,153-383.
Lee-Wong, S. M. (1994). Imperatives in requests:direct or impolite---observations from Chinese. Pragmatics,4(4),491-515.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London:Longman.
Levinson, S. (1983/2001). Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Liu, Si. (2004). Pragmatic Strategies and Power Relations in Disagreement:Chinese Culture in Higher Education. New York:Universal Publishers.
Schegloff, E. A.& H. Sacks, (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica,8,289-327.
Schegloff, (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70:1075-1095.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Act. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and Meaning Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
Stephen, S. K. (1998). Dongxiang Yucifa Yanjiu (A Study of Dongxiang Morphology). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Beijing:the Central University for Nationalities.
Sunburst. (1959). Summary of Dongxiang Minority Language. Read in the first Mongolia society.
Tokimoto, M. (2005). Effects of Deductive and Inductive on Japanese Learner's Pragmatic Competence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Temple.
Tor Da leva.(1961).Dongxiang Minority Language.Moscow:Moscow Press.
Trogborg, A.(1987).Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of pragmatics, 11,147-167.
Trogborg, A.(1995).Interlanguage pragmatics:Requests, Compliments, and Apologies. Berlin:Mouton,
Walters, J.(1979).Strategies for requesting in Spanish and English:Structural similarities and pragmatic difference. Language Learning,29,277-293.
Weizman, E. (1993). Interlanguage Requestive Hints. In:Kasper, G.& Blum-Kulda, S. (Ed.) Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York:Oxford University Press.
Yeung, L. N. T. (1997). Polite requests in English and Chinese Business Correspondence in Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics,27,505-522.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York:Oxford University Press.
Zhang, Yanyin. (1995). Indirectness in Chinese Teaching. Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language (pp.69-118).Honolulu:University of Hawaill Press.
毕继万,1996,汉英感谢语的差异[J],《语文建设》第7期,38-40页。
蔡志纯、范玉梅,1999,蒙古、东乡、土、保安、达翰尔族文化志[M],上海：上海人民出版社。
陈建民,1991,汉语的道谢用语[J],《语文建设》第12期,23-26页。
陈文祥,2007,东乡族研究现状及其前景展望[J],《黑龙江民族丛刊》第4期,146-149页。
戴庆夏,2006,濒危语言研究在语言学中的地位[J], 《长江学术》第1期,97-101页。
戴庆夏、邓佑玲,2001,濒危语言研究中定性定位问题的初步思考[J],《中央民族大学学报(人文社会科学版)》第2期,120-125页。
戴庆厦、邓佑玲,2004,《中国濒危语言个案研究》[M],北京：人民民族出版社。
甘肃省编辑组,1986,《甘肃省风俗志》[M],兰州：甘肃文化出版社。
东乡族自治县地方史志编纂委员会,1996,《东乡族自治县志》[M],兰州：甘肃文化出版社。
范俊军,2005,我国语言生态危机的若干问题[J], 《兰州大学学报(社会科学版)》第6期,42-47页。
范俊军,2006,关于濒危语言研究的几点思考[J],《南京社会科学》第4期,140-143页。
高葆泰,1985,《兰州方言音系》[M],兰州：甘肃人民出版社。
顾曰国,1992,礼貌、语用与文化[J],《外语教学与研究》第4期,10-17页。
何兆雄,2000,《新编语用学概要》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
何自然,1997,《当代语用学与英语学习》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
洪岗,2005,《跨文化语用学语料收集方法研究》[M],北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
胡文仲,2005,论跨文化交际的实证研究[J],《外语教学与研究》第5期,323-327页。
黄伯荣、赵浚等,1960,兰州方言概说[J],《西北师大学报(社会科学版)》第1期,71-122页。
贾玉新,1997,《跨文化交际学》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
兰州大学中文系语言研究小组,1963,兰州方言[J],兰州大学学报：社会科学
廖杨,2002,东乡族宗法文化论[J],《民族研究》第4期,37-46页。
兰立鹏,2012,东乡语与兰州方言实施请求的语用对比研究[D],兰州大学。
李锦芳,2005,中国濒危语言研究及保护策略[J],《中央民族大学学报》第3期,113-119页。
李猛,1999,当代西方社会学理论[M],北京：北京大学出版社。
刘海涛,2006,国外濒危语言研究概述[J],《长江学术》第3期,46-51页。
刘虹,2004,会话结构分析[M],北京：北京大学出版社。
刘思,1995,浅谈please的语用问题[J],《现代汉语》第4期,47-50页。
刘思,2010,回族实施“请求”的语用特点,未发表。
刘照雄,1981,《东乡语简志》[M],北京：民族出版社。
马国忠、陈元龙,2000,《东乡语汉语词典》[D],兰州：甘肃民族出版社。
马自祥、马兆熙,2000,《东乡族文化形态与古籍保存》[M],兰州：甘肃人民出版社。
马志勇,2006,《东乡史话》[M],兰州：甘肃文化出版社。
帕默尔,1983,《语言学概论》[M],北京：商务印书馆。
彭清深、张祖煦,2000,西北地区汉语方言之纵向考察[J],《西北民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》第4期,95-106页。
秦晓晴,2003,《外语教学研究中的定量数据分析》[M],武汉：华中科技大学出版社
钱冠连,2005,《语言：人类最后的家园》[M],北京：商务印书馆。
曲卫国、陈流芳,2001,上海话间接感谢言语行为研究[J],《暨南大学华文学院学报》第3期,31-36页。
孙宏开,2001,关于濒危语言问题[J],《语言教学与研究》第1期,1-7页。
王福祥,1992,对比语言学论文集[C],北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
王建华,2003,跨文化语用学研究刍论[J],《浙江教育学院学报》第6期,55-61页。
王得杏,1998,《英语话语分析与跨文化交际》[M],北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
文英,2003,论蒙古族亲属称谓所反映的民族文化现象[J],《西北民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》第1期,27-31页。
吴铮、闻静,2006,近二十年我国濒危语言研究评述[J],《长江学术》第3期,52-59页
徐世漩,1992,第十五届国际语言学家大会在加拿大举行[J],《民族语文》第6期,79页。
徐世漩,2000,《濒危语言研究》[M],北京：中央民族大学出版社。
杨国柱,1943,兰州人口语中常见之“合音”[J],《新西北月刊》第6卷8期。
姚亚平,1995,现代汉语称谓系统变化的两大基本趋势[J], 《语言文字应用》第三期,94-99页。
张邵杰、王晓彤,1997,“请求”言语行为的对比研究[J],《现代外语》第3期,63-72页。
张淑敏,1997,兰州话量词的用法[J],《中国语文》第2期,128-130页。
张文轩、莫超,2009,兰州方言字典[D],北京：中国社会科学出版社。
祝畹瑾,1990,汉语称呼研究—一张社会语言学称呼系统图[J],《北京大学学报》,第5期,25-30页。
Blum-Kulka, S.& E. Olshtain (1984). Requests and apologies:a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics,3,196-213.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.).(1989).Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood:Ablex.
Brown, P.,& S.Levinson(1978).Universals in language usage:Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness:Strategies in social interaction (pp.56-310). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P.& S.Levinson (1978/2003).The Argument:Intuitive Bases and Derivative Definitions. In:He, Z.X. (Ed.) Selected Reading for Pragmatics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Brown, P.& S.Levinson (1987). Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gu, Yueguo. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2),237-257.
Harkness, J.A., Van de Vijver & Mahler. (2003). Cross-Cultural Survey Method. New Jersey:John Wiley&sons.
Helen Oatey. (1987). The Customs and Language of Social Interaction in English. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews:An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Beverly Hills:Sage.
Kasper, G.(1999).Interlanguage Pragmatics.In Learning Foreign and Second Language (pp.183-208).New York:Modern Language.
Kenneth, L.F.(1997).A Grammatical Overview of Santa Mongolian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Santa Barbara:University of California.
King, A. Y.,& M. H. Bond (1985). The Confucian paradigm of man:A socio-logical view. In:Tseng, W. S.& Wu, D. H. (Ed.) Chinese culture and mental health (pp. 29-45). Orlando:Academic Press, Inc.
Krauss, Michael,1992, The World's Languages in Crisis, Language 68(1),4-10.
Kuribayashi, H. (1989). Comparative Basic Vocabularies for Mongolian (Chakhar,) Dagur, Shera-Yogur, Monguor, Bao-an and Dungshang. Study of Linguistic and Cultural Contacts,1,153-383.
Lee-Wong, S. M. (1994). Imperatives in requests:direct or impolite---observations from Chinese. Pragmatics,4(4),491-515.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London:Longman.
Levinson, S. (1983/2001). Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Liu, Si. (2004). Pragmatic Strategies and Power Relations in Disagreement:Chinese Culture in Higher Education. New York:Universal Publishers.
Schegloff, E. A.& H. Sacks, (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica,8,289-327.
Schegloff, (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70:1075-1095.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Act. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and Meaning Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
Stephen, S. K. (1998). Dongxiang Yucifa Yanjiu (A Study of Dongxiang Morphology). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Beijing:the Central University for Nationalities.
Sunburst. (1959). Summary of Dongxiang Minority Language. Read in the first Mongolia society.
Tokimoto, M. (2005). Effects of Deductive and Inductive on Japanese Learner's Pragmatic Competence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Temple.
Tor Da leva.(1961).Dongxiang Minority Language.Moscow:Moscow Press.
Trogborg, A.(1987).Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of pragmatics, 11,147-167.
Trogborg, A.(1995).Interlanguage pragmatics:Requests, Compliments, and Apologies. Berlin:Mouton,
Walters, J.(1979).Strategies for requesting in Spanish and English:Structural similarities and pragmatic difference. Language Learning,29,277-293.
Weizman, E. (1993). Interlanguage Requestive Hints. In:Kasper, G.& Blum-Kulda, S. (Ed.) Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York:Oxford University Press.
Yeung, L. N. T. (1997). Polite requests in English and Chinese Business Correspondence in Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics,27,505-522.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York:Oxford University Press.
Zhang, Yanyin. (1995). Indirectness in Chinese Teaching. Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language (pp.69-118).Honolulu:University of Hawaill Press.
毕继万,1996,汉英感谢语的差异[J],《语文建设》第7期,38-40页。
蔡志纯、范玉梅,1999,蒙古、东乡、土、保安、达翰尔族文化志[M],上海：上海人民出版社。
陈建民,1991,汉语的道谢用语[J],《语文建设》第12期,23-26页。
陈文祥,2007,东乡族研究现状及其前景展望[J],《黑龙江民族丛刊》第4期,146-149页。
戴庆夏,2006,濒危语言研究在语言学中的地位[J], 《长江学术》第1期,97-101页。
戴庆夏、邓佑玲,2001,濒危语言研究中定性定位问题的初步思考[J],《中央民族大学学报(人文社会科学版)》第2期,120-125页。
戴庆厦、邓佑玲,2004,《中国濒危语言个案研究》[M],北京：人民民族出版社。
甘肃省编辑组,1986,《甘肃省风俗志》[M],兰州：甘肃文化出版社。
东乡族自治县地方史志编纂委员会,1996,《东乡族自治县志》[M],兰州：甘肃文化出版社。
范俊军,2005,我国语言生态危机的若干问题[J], 《兰州大学学报(社会科学版)》第6期,42-47页。
范俊军,2006,关于濒危语言研究的几点思考[J],《南京社会科学》第4期,140-143页。
高葆泰,1985,《兰州方言音系》[M],兰州：甘肃人民出版社。
顾曰国,1992,礼貌、语用与文化[J],《外语教学与研究》第4期,10-17页。
何兆雄,2000,《新编语用学概要》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
何自然,1997,《当代语用学与英语学习》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
洪岗,2005,《跨文化语用学语料收集方法研究》[M],北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
胡文仲,2005,论跨文化交际的实证研究[J],《外语教学与研究》第5期,323-327页。
黄伯荣、赵浚等,1960,兰州方言概说[J],《西北师大学报(社会科学版)》第1期,71-122页。
贾玉新,1997,《跨文化交际学》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
兰州大学中文系语言研究小组,1963,兰州方言[J],兰州大学学报：社会科学
廖杨,2002,东乡族宗法文化论[J],《民族研究》第4期,37-46页。
兰立鹏,2012,东乡语与兰州方言实施请求的语用对比研究[D],兰州大学。
李锦芳,2005,中国濒危语言研究及保护策略[J],《中央民族大学学报》第3期,113-119页。
李猛,1999,当代西方社会学理论[M],北京：北京大学出版社。
刘海涛,2006,国外濒危语言研究概述[J],《长江学术》第3期,46-51页。
刘虹,2004,会话结构分析[M],北京：北京大学出版社。
刘思,1995,浅谈please的语用问题[J],《现代汉语》第4期,47-50页。
刘思,2010,回族实施“请求”的语用特点,未发表。
刘照雄,1981,《东乡语简志》[M],北京：民族出版社。
马国忠、陈元龙,2000,《东乡语汉语词典》[D],兰州：甘肃民族出版社。
马自祥、马兆熙,2000,《东乡族文化形态与古籍保存》[M],兰州：甘肃人民出版社。
马志勇,2006,《东乡史话》[M],兰州：甘肃文化出版社。
帕默尔,1983,《语言学概论》[M],北京：商务印书馆。
彭清深、张祖煦,2000,西北地区汉语方言之纵向考察[J],《西北民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》第4期,95-106页。
秦晓晴,2003,《外语教学研究中的定量数据分析》[M],武汉：华中科技大学出版社
钱冠连,2005,《语言：人类最后的家园》[M],北京：商务印书馆。
曲卫国、陈流芳,2001,上海话间接感谢言语行为研究[J],《暨南大学华文学院学报》第3期,31-36页。
孙宏开,2001,关于濒危语言问题[J],《语言教学与研究》第1期,1-7页。
王福祥,1992,对比语言学论文集[C],北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
王建华,2003,跨文化语用学研究刍论[J],《浙江教育学院学报》第6期,55-61页。
王得杏,1998,《英语话语分析与跨文化交际》[M],北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
文英,2003,论蒙古族亲属称谓所反映的民族文化现象[J],《西北民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》第1期,27-31页。
吴铮、闻静,2006,近二十年我国濒危语言研究评述[J],《长江学术》第3期,52-59页
徐世漩,1992,第十五届国际语言学家大会在加拿大举行[J],《民族语文》第6期,79页。
徐世漩,2000,《濒危语言研究》[M],北京：中央民族大学出版社。
杨国柱,1943,兰州人口语中常见之“合音”[J],《新西北月刊》第6卷8期。
姚亚平,1995,现代汉语称谓系统变化的两大基本趋势[J], 《语言文字应用》第三期,94-99页。
张邵杰、王晓彤,1997,“请求”言语行为的对比研究[J],《现代外语》第3期,63-72页。
张淑敏,1997,兰州话量词的用法[J],《中国语文》第2期,128-130页。
张文轩、莫超,2009,兰州方言字典[D],北京：中国社会科学出版社。
祝畹瑾,1990,汉语称呼研究—一张社会语言学称呼系统图[J],《北京大学学报》,第5期,25-30页。