摘要
人与人进行交际时会产生各种各样的人际关系。任何人际关系在一定的程度上都受到交际双方文化背景的影响。文化背景不同,建立、保持、深化人际关系的方法也不同。因此,具有不同文化背景的双方要进行交际时或多或少都会感到差异。我们常听中国人说他们要和日本人进行交际时感到别扭,觉得日本人不够热情、很冷淡。我们也常听日本人说他们要和中国人进行交际时感到别扭,觉得中国人不够礼貌、很随便。笔者本人刚来中国还不习惯中国的交际方式时也常感到别扭,总觉得中国人要进行交际时你我之间的距离有点太近。现在已经习惯了,但有时仍然会感到别扭。说“感到别扭”也好,说“距离如何”也罢,中国人和日本人进行交际时双方都会感到一种差异,那么产生这种差异的原因究竟是什么?此项研究就是从这个疑问出发的。
本文将基于Brown&Levinson的politeness理论,从“领域大小”、“限制多少”、“时间长短”三个观点入手对中日人际交际中的语言表达方式进行分析,以便探讨交际双方感到差异的根本原因。研究步骤大致如下。
首先,我们以日本人为对象进行一项问卷调查,观察一下他们对中国人的人际关系有什么样的看法。同时也以中国人为对象进行一项同样的问卷调查,观察一下他们对日本人的人际关系有什么样的看法。我们利用这两项调查结果找出中日之间的差异,对该差异从“心理交际距离”的角度进行分析,由此得出“领域”、“限制”、“时间”三个观点。
接着,全面介绍Brown&Levinson的politeness理论后,基于以往的研究成果重新梳理汉日两语的积极politeness和消极politeness,并分别找出属于这两种politeness的具体表达方式,总结出一个新的politeness框架。我们利用这一新的框架,以电视谈话节目中的谈话为实证材料,观察一下中日人际交际中各种politeness策略的实际运用情况。
最后,我们探讨汉日指示代词所指范围的差异,还考察中日两国人民要提出要求或请求时所使用的表达方式的差异。对于这种种差异,我们将从“领域大小”、“限制多少”、“时间长短”三个观点进行对比和分析,以便弄清人际交际中表现在言语行为上的中日“心理交际距离”的差异。
This paper will be based on Brown & Levinson's politeness theory, analyze the language expressions in interpersonal communication of Chinese and Japanese from the three perspectives of“size of the field”,“number of the limitation”and“length of the time”. So we can try to explore the root causes of the differences between the two sides.
ChapterⅠIntroduction
First we will use Schopenhauer’s "hedgehog's embarrassing" story to describe the psychological communication distance between Chinese and Japanese.
A hedgehog would like to close another hedgehog to warm itself. Because they have thorns, if they get too close the thorn will stab each other’s body; but if they keep away from each other, they will be cold. The embarrassed hedgehogs get close and far away from each other over and over again, until they find a suitable location. Chinese have the Chinese unique "thorn", Japanese also have the Japanese unique "thorn", and the length of the two“thorns”is different. Even if the length of the "thorn" is similar, they still need to do a lot works to find a comfortable psychological communication distance, the length of the "thorn" is different, then the issue becomes more complex, it will be more hard to find a comfortable distance. When Chinese people are communicating with Japanese, they believe that they can be closer at some time, but Japanese people’s "thorn" would stab them, that made them feel baffled; at the same time the Japanese also surprised and couldn’t understand how can the other party be so close to themselves. The surprise brought by the different length of the "thorn" is actually an inevitable phenomenon in the process of two sides from recognition to intimacy; it can also be called as a test. If one or both parties cannot see it as a test, it will be difficult to truly understand each other, and even blindly criticize each other.
In view of the abstraction of the psychological communication distance, in this article, we will analyze the differences of the psychological communication distance between Chinese and Japanese mainly based on the comparison of speech act of the two sides.
First we will classify communication strategy of Japanese and Chinese based on Brown & Levinson's politeness theory, and then connect all kinds of expressions with the three perspectives,“size of the field”,“number of the limitation”and“length of the time”, which we found in the pretest. Next, we will use the empirical evidence which we collected from the questionnaires, the record of talk shows and other methods, to analyze the differences of the psychological communication distance between Chinese and Japanese from the three perspectives,“size of the field”,“number of the limitation”and“length of the time”.
ChapterⅡResearch and analysis
In this chapter, we carried out three kinds of questionnaires to Japanese who live in China and Chinese who live in Japan. Then we found our three perspectives, which is“size of the field”,“number of the limitation”and“length of the time”.
ChapterⅢPoliteness
In this chapter we will describe several theories related with politeness theory, and make a comprehensive exposition of the concept of politeness. In our view, Brown & Levinson's politeness theory is suitable for analyzing the differences of the psychological communication distance between Chinese and Japanese, so we will focus on positive politeness and negative politeness of their theory.
ChapterⅣPoliteness in Chinese and Japanese
We will re-sort positive politeness and negative politeness in Chinese and Japanese based on the work of five researchers and the author’s own view, then find the specific expression belonging to these two kinds of politeness strategies, and conclude a new politeness framework at last. We will use this new framework and the empirical material we collected from TV talk shows to observe the variety of practical use of politeness strategies.
ChapterⅤPerspective of“size of the field”
From the“size of the field " point of view, Chinese people’s "field" is larger than Japanese, and Chinese people’s "field sense" is not as clear as Japanese. This difference of“size of the field”causes the differences in verbal communication. The difference of Chinese and Japanese demonstrative pronouns on their systems and apply reflects the difference of "field sense" between the two sides. In addition, positive politeness strategy 7 and 12 in Chinese include "reference point conversion (the non-standard usage of second person pronoun 'you'; the usage of‘come and go’)" and "co-oriented (special usage of 'we' and 'Let's') ", it shows that Chinese people have a tendency to expand the personal realm.
ChapterⅥPerspective of“number of the limitation”
From the perspective of“number of the limitation”, Japanese people’s sense of maintaining a distance between you and me is a very strong, the“limitation”of people should not be close is relatively large; Chinese people are relatively not so strong and large. This difference of“number of the limitation”causes the difference in verbal communication. We conducted a questionnaire of "expressions when you borrow a pen", and we found that the Japanese distinguished the expressions clearly according to the communication objects, and Chinese people are not that clear. In addition, the negative politeness strategy 1 and 5 in Japanese include "be conventionally indirect (the giving or receiving of expression)" and“give deference”, it shows that the Japanese keep the distance between you and me through "enhanced indirection" which is the expression of giving or receiving and respect each other.
ChapterⅦPerspective of“length of the time”
From the perspective of“length of the time”, Chinese people realize to start using the expression of intimacy can be expressed relatively short time; Japanese people’s time is relatively long. This difference of“length of the time”causes the difference in verbal communication. Both in Chinese and Japanese language, positive politeness strategy 4 include“use in-group identity marker (an extension usage of kinship terms)", but we found that the usage and the function of this strategy in Chinese and Japanese was totally different. Chinese people first use the kinship terms to build a seemingly close relationship and then gradually increase intimacy; Japanese people first raise their intimacy to a certain extent, and then reflect it in the kinship terms. This shows that the Chinese speech act have the tendency to get close to other person as quickly as possible, while Japanese is relatively slow.
ChapterⅧConclusion
To sum up, the differences of psychological communication distance between Chinese and Japanese reflect in“size of the field”,“number of the limitation”and“length of the time”. These differences are reflected as the differences of their speech act, and all these kinds of differences make Chinese and Japanese uncomfortable in their communication. In other words, the reason they feel different while they are communicating is because of the differences in“size of the field”,“number of the limitation”and“length of the time”of psychological communication distance between Chinese and Japanese.
We separate the three perspectives for convenience, in fact, these three perspectives do not exist independently, but overlap with each other. What kind of relationship exists between these three perspectives? Besides these three perspectives, is there any other point of view which is better to explain our point? We did not explore these questions in depth, so we still need further study on this subject.
引文
1.白琼烨、张洁.试论“距离”与会话合作原则[J].太原城市职业技术学院学报, 2006(3).147-148.
2.勉誠出版編集部.アジア遊学72日中相互認識のずれ[M].日本:勉誠出版, 2005-2.
3.毕继万.文化对比与教学[J].世界汉语教育,1996(1).
4.Brown&Levinson.Politeness Some universals in language usage[M],England:Cambridge,1987.
1.陳露.中国語の指示語から-日本語との対照をかねて[J].日本:国文学解釈と鑑賞 vol.69,至文堂,2004.188-198.
2.陳露.自称表現に見られる日中両言語の人称代名詞と親族語彙[J].日中両言語における代名詞及び親族語彙の対照研究:琉球方言との比較研究も含めて.日本:千葉大学大学院社会文化科学研究科,2003.40-55.
3.陈融.面子·留面子·丢面子[C].中国语用学研究论文精选,上海:上海外语教育出版社.2001-10.487-498.
1.董艳丽.英汉语言中礼貌表达方法的比较[J].山西商业职业技术学院报, 2002(1).61-63.
1.福井啓子.“‘少量’意义表达”的礼貌功能[D].吉林大学硕士学位论文,2004.
2.古田暁[監修]石井良.異文化コミュニケーション[改訂版][M].日本:有斐閣,1996.
1.高革萍.指示語の日中対照――中国人学習者による誤用を参考に[J].早稲田日本語研究(10).日本:早稲田大学国語学会,2003-3.123-134.
2.古伟霞.指示语和心理距离的语用分析[J].南宁师范高等专科学校学报, 2006-6(2).56-59.
3.顾曰国.礼貌、语用与文化[C].中国语用学研究论文精选,上海:上海外语教育出版社.2001-10.539-554.
4.郭继懋、孔庆蓓、李宇凤.表祈使时带“吧”与不带“吧”的差异[C].似同实异.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2002-8.59-74.
5.郭俊海.日本語と中国語の第三者敬語における「親」?「疎」の働きの比較対照[J].日本語と日本文学vol.22.日本:筑波大学,1996.1-11.
1.橋本治.ちゃんと話すための敬語の本[M].日本:ちくまプリマー新書,2005.
2.橋元良明[編著].コミュニケーション学への招待[M].日本:大修館書店, 1997.
3.韩慧.中日敬语的比较[J].广西师院学报(哲学社会科学版),1999(1).70-72.
4.何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000-3(1).
5.何自然.语用学概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1988-4(1).
6.何自然、冉永平.语用学概论(修订本)[M].郑州:河南教育出版社,2002.
7.胡俊.日本語と中国語の指示詞についての対照研究[D].鹿児島大学博士論文2006-2.
8.黄伯荣、廖序东.现代汉语(增订二版)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1997-7.
9.黄东海.汉语商业信函中的积极礼貌策略[J]重庆科技学院学报,2007(1).89-91.
1.井出祥子.わきまえの語用論[M].日本:大修館書店,2006.
1.姬凤霞.略论人称代词“咱”的语用含意[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008-1(1).22-25.
2.姬凤霞.略论人称代词“咱”的语言行为情态[J].现代语文,2008-4.49-51.
3.金正昆.服务礼仪[M].北京:北京大学出版社2005-8.
4.J.V.Neustupny.敬意行動の世界[C].新世紀社会と敬意表現.日本:勉誠出版, 2001-5.109-111.
5. Jenny Thomas:田中典子、津留崎毅、鶴田康子、成瀬真理訳.語用論の入門[M].日本:研究社,1998.
1.蒲田宏.<行動に展開する表現>におけるコニュニケーション上の工夫[J].新「ことば」シリーズ.日本:国立国語研究所,2005.24-35.
2.金田一晴彦.日本語の特質[M].日本:NHKブックス,1991-2.
3.木村英樹.中国語指示詞の「遠近」対立について――「コソア」との対照を兼ねて[C].日本語と中国語の対照研究論文集.日本:くろしお出版1997.181-211.
4.木村秀樹.中国語の敬語[J].月刊言語 Vol.16,No.8.日本:大修館書店,1980.38-44.
5.久野暲.英語圏における敬語[C].岩波講座日本語4敬語.日本:岩波書店, 1977.302-331.
6.輿水優.中国語基本語ノート[M].日本:大修館書店,1980.
1.李慶祥.異文化間にみる非言語コミュニケーション[R].日本:日本言語文化教育と研究国際フォーラム,2006.
2.李善子.中国語と日本語における談話の構造分析[J].比較社会文化研究第12号.日本:九州大学,2002.101-107.
3.李寿男.“我们”和“咱们”[J].汉语学习,1980(6).23.
4.黎运汉.商务语言教程[M].广州:暨南大学出版社, 2005-6.
5.林丽琴.跨文化交际中的文化差异[J].福建行政学院福建经济管理干部学院学报,2005-11.21-22.
6.刘峰.「来る」「行く」と「来」「去」の対比研究[J].科技信息,2009(12).111-113.
7.卢万才.汉语会话的亲近表现[J].汉语学习,2001-8(4).63-66.
8.盧万才.中国語の敬語表現に関する研究[D].日本:麗沢大学博士論文,2002.
9.盧万才.中国語会話に見られる対人関係の意識―日本語との対照の観点から[J].ポリグロシアvol9.日本:立命館アジア太平洋大学言語教育センター, 2004.135-144.
10.盧万才.待遇機構の視点から見た中日の呼称[R].日本:日本言語文化教育と研究国際フォーラム,2006.
11.罗国忠.现代中日敬语比较[J].四川外语学院学报(重庆),1998(2).54-59.
12.吕叔湘.近代汉语指示词[M].上海:学林出版社,1985-7.
13.吕叔湘主编.现代汉语八百词增订本[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999-1.
1.三輪正.人称詞と敬語[M].日本:人文書院,2000.
2.森山卓郎.コミュニケーションの日本語[M].日本:岩波書店,2004.
3.村上嘉英.中国語における命令表現の形式について[J].中国文化研究(20).日本:2003年.107-118.
4.南不二男.岩波講座日本語4敬語[C].日本:岩波書店,1977.3-41.
1.中川正之.漢語からみえる世界と世間[M].日本:岩波書店,2005.
2.中山晶子.親しさのコミュニケーション[M].日本:くろしお出版,2003.
3.新村出[編].広辞苑（第5版)[M].日本:岩波書店,1998-11.
4.野元菊雄.敬語を使いこなす[M].日本:講談社,1987.
1.小田希望.呼び掛け語のコミュニケーション機能[D].日本:大阪市立大学修士論文,2004.
2.荻野綱男.日本人と中国人の敬語行動の対照言語学的研究[R].日本:文部省科学研究費補助金研究報告書,1986-3.
3.太田辰夫.中国語における敬語の問題[J].言語生活6月号.日本:筑摩書房, 1972.44-49.
4.岡本真一郎.ことばの心理学[M].日本:ナカニシ出版,2000.
1.彭飞.日本語の「配慮表現」に関する研究[M].日本:和泉書院,2004.
2.彭广陆.从翻译看日汉移动动词「来る/行く」和“来/去”的差异[J].日语学习与研究,2008(4).7-14.
3.彭国躍.近代中国の敬語システム[M].日本:白帝社,2000年.
4.彭国躍.中国語に敬語が少ないのはなぜ?[J].月刊言語.日本:大修館書店,1997-11.60-63.
5.彭国躍.文革中における中国語絶対敬語の復活とその社会的背景[J].人文研究.日本:神奈川大学人文学会,1999-9.1-20.
6.彭增安.语用·修辞·文化[M].上海:学林出版社,1998-12.
7.平静.日中のポジティブ?ポライトネスの対照研究[J].比較社会文化研究第
20号.日本:九州大学,2006.1-19.
1.真田信治、渋谷勝己、陣内正敬、杉戸清樹.社会言語学[M].日本:おうふう, 1992.
2.真田信治、ダニエル?ロング.社会言語学図集[M].日本:秋山書店,1997.
3.沈志刚.人称代词意义在语境中的变化[J].汉语学习,1993(5).25-27.
4.渋谷昌三.人と人との快適距離[M].日本:日本放送出版協会,1990.
5.施暉.日中両国における「あいさつ」言語行動についての比較研究[D].日本:広島市立大学博士論文,2005.
6.石锡书.心理造成的“移花接木”――漫谈心理距离对指示语用法的影响[J].山东外语教学,2004(1).50-57.
7.蘇徳昌.人間関係と敬語――日中の比較的視点から[R].日本:日本文化研究所研究報告第23集,1987.
8.蘇徳昌.揺れる中国語の敬語[J].『月刊言語』Vol.8 No6.日本:大修館書店, 1979.62-66.
9.蘇徳昌.中国語―日中の呼称[J].講座日本語学12外国語との対照Ⅲ.日本:明治書院,1982.241-251.
10.苏德昌.日汉敬语的比较与翻译[J].日语学习与研究,1981(3).15-21.
11.索振羽.语用学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2000-5.
12.孙红艳.北方方言中的人称代词“咱”[J].辽宁医学院学报(社会科学版), 2008-5(2).98-100.
13.孙维张、吕明臣.社会交际语言学[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1996-12.
14.鈴木孝夫.ことばと文化[M].日本:岩波書店,1973.
1.滝浦真人.日本の敬語論[M].日本:大修館書店,2005.
2.滝浦真人.ポライトネス入門[M].日本:研究社,2008.
3.田中晴美、田中幸子.社会言語学への招待[M].日本:ミネルヴァ書房,1996.
4.陶琳.日本語、中国語、英語における丁寧表現の比較研究[D].日本:金沢大学博士論文,2002.
5.辻周吾.中国日系企業に従事する日本人と中国人とのコミュニケーションに関する調査研究[C].日中対照言語学研究論文集.日本:和泉書院,2005.453-482.
6.辻村敏樹.敬語の歴史学[C].敬語論考.日本:明治書院,1992.48-58.
7.藤堂明保.中国語の敬語[C].敬語講座第8巻世界の敬語.日本:明治書院, 1974.139-162.
8.中日辞典[M].日本:小学馆,1992. U
1.宇佐美まゆみ.談話のポライトネス[C].日本:第7回国立国語研究所シンポジウム,2001.9-58.
2.宇佐美まゆみ.ディスコース?ポライトネス理論構想[J].月刊言語 1-12.日本:大修館書店,2002.每本6. V
1.V.P.リッチモンド、J.C.マクロスキー[山下耕二編訳].非言語行動の心理学[M].日本:北大路書房,2006. W
1.王红梅.第二人称代词“你”的临时指代功能[J].汉语学习,2008-8(4).59-62.
2.王建华.话语礼貌与语用距离[J].外国语,2001(5).25-31.
3.王建华.礼貌的语用距离原则[J].东华大学学报(社会科学版),2002-12(4).29-33.
4.王志英.命令、依頼表現における中国語と日本語の対照研究[D].日本:京都大学博士論文,2001.
5.王燕.日本語教育の立場から見た授受表現:中国語母語話者を対象とする場合[D].日本:東京大学博士論文,2006.
6.渡辺正数.教師のための口語文法[M].日本:右文書院,1983.
7.吴春相、金基石.略论心理距离与书面语、口语的关系[J].汉语学习,2008-8 (4).63-68.
8.毋育新.高等教育機関で学ぶ中国人日本語学習者に対する待遇表現の指導に関する研究[D].日本:麗沢大学博士論文,2002.
1.现代汉语词典(第五版)[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
2.薛鳴.親族名称と呼称から見る人間関係――日本語と中国語の比較[C].講座社会言語科学1異文化とコミュニケーション.日本:ひつじ書房，2005.170-195.
3.熊学亮.认知语用学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999-6.
4.徐晓燕.浅析汉语直接言语交际风格[J].安阳工学院学报2006-12(6).128-130.
5.徐学平.顺应论与语用距离[J].外国语言文学,2005(2).91-95.
6.许余龙.对比语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002-3.
1.杨春红.称呼语与语用距离[J].西南民族大学学报人文社科版第26卷, 2005(10).283-285.
2.杨德峰.汉语与文化交际[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1999-3.
3.杨松波.中日敬语比较[J].日语知识,1998-2.19-23.
4.袁晓凌.谈谈中日文敬语的差异[J].日语知识,2002-6.21-22.
5.山田眞一.中国語と日本語の人称代名詞の使用状況[J].日本:高岡大学紀要第4巻,1994-3.43-53.
6.山口和代.日本語習得における人間関係の認知と文化的要因に関する考察-中国人及び台湾人留学生を対象として[D].日本:名古屋大学博士論文, 2002.
1.张春泉.第一人称代词的虚指及其心理动因[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005-5(3).106-112.
2.張麒声.日本語教育のための誤用分析[M].日本:スリーエーネットワーク, 2001.
3.张宁.代词产生的心理空间转换与礼貌原则[J].湖南第一师范学报,2005-12 (4).92-95.
4.張佩霞.中国語、日本語における人称代名詞の使用とそこに窺われる文化の違い[J].日本:語文論叢第23号,1996.70-88.
5.张秋娥.语言活动中人称代词的非常规用法[J].殷都学刊,1995(4).87-91.
6.张学军、张明辉.人称代词活用的修辞效果[J].语文知识,2005(8).34.
7.张占杰.“咱们”的语义变异[M].咬文嚼字,1995(8).
8.詹开第.The Strategies of Politeness in the Chinese Language[M]. U.S.A.:The Regents of the University of California 1992
9.赵毅、钱为钢.言语交际学[M].上海:上海三够书店,2003-8.
10.鄭麗芸.日中比較文化論[M].日本:駿河台出版社,1999.
11.周雷、牛忠光.从语用距离角度诠释第一人称指示现象[J].重庆工学院学报, 2007-1(1).168-170.
12.朱荔芳.指示语透视的心理距离之语用解释[J].西安外国语学院学报, 2003-3(1).34-36.
13.祝畹瑾.社会语言学概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1992-8.
14.陣内正敬.ぼかし表現の二面性」[C].言語行動における「配慮」の諸相.日本:くろしお出版,2006.115-131.
1.村上春樹『１Q84』新潮社2009年5月
2.海棠尊『ナイチンゲールの沈黙』宝島社2008年9月
3.『上海タイフーン』NHK,2008年9月20日播放
4.『徹子の部屋』テレビ朝日
5.《艺术人生》中国中央电视台