摘要
本研究主要研究藏、汉族男女大学生对男性青年人和男性老年人实施“请求”言语行为的特点及藏、汉语请求策略的异同。根据Blum-Kulka(1989)等人在“跨文化言语行为研究项目(Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP))"中对请求语的分析模式,对藏、汉语“请求”语的称呼部分,请求部分及附加部分进行跨文化语用对比实证研究。根据Brown和Levinson (1987)的观点以及Takimoto (2005)的研究,压力指的是对说话者而言损伤面子的程度。将影响面子言语行为三因素(权势强弱及平等、关系亲疏和要求事物大小)综合考虑,可将压力分为较高压力和较低压力两类。本研究集中研究较高压力下藏、汉语实施“请求”言语行为的语用策略(实际语境下的意义),不涉及语音、语法层面。因此,藏语部分是在三位藏族翻译人员字对字翻译之后,由三名兰州大学博士研究生(母语是安多藏语)挑选出最好的版本并修正之后,针对语用层面进行的分析归纳。
本研究分角色扮演和问卷调查两个阶段：第一阶段聘请藏、汉族农民16人(包括老年,中年,青年,儿童四个年龄段和男女两种性别)进行“角色扮演”,并全程录像；目的在于为问卷收集半自然语料。第二阶段为问卷调查。因为资金不足等问题,改对象为藏、汉族大学生,分别为220人：说话人为男、女大学生,人数相等；“听话人”为男性青年和男性老年(含于问卷语境之内)。问卷答案的选项以第一阶段收集的青年人实施请求的话语为基础,再结合藏、汉本族大学生的访谈和开放问卷答案来确定。然后把获得的有效问卷的数据进行整理归类,用SPSS(11.5)进行统计分析。
本研究的问题是：(1)藏语和汉语同种语言内在较高压力下“说话者”的性别对“请求”策略的实施是否会产生影响?如有,是什么影响?(2)藏语和汉语同种语言内在较高压力下“听话者”的年龄对“请求”策略的实施是否会产生影响?如有,是什么影响?(3)较高压力下藏、汉语的“请求”策略有什么异同?
研究结果表明：(1a)藏族男、女在对男性实施请求时没有显著性差异：称呼部分都多用职务称呼和单称称呼；请求部分都多用疑问句式和祈使句式,使用人数基本相等,无显著性差异；而附加部分则多采用铺垫策略。(1b)汉族男、女对男性实施请求的称呼部分无显著性差异,多用职务称呼和单称称呼；但请求部分和附加部分有显著性差异：男性用疑问句式和陈述句式比女性少；而实施请求前后采用附加语做铺垫的女性明显多于男性。(2a)藏族青年对男性青年和男性老年实施请求的称呼、请求部分和附加部分有显著性差异：对男性老年的职务称呼和单称称呼的频率比对男性青年高；对男性老年使用疑问句式的频率比对男性青年的高,但使用祈使句式的频率基本相等；对男性老年实施请求的铺垫策略比对男性青年多。(2b)汉族青年对男性青年和男性老年实施请求的称呼、请求部分和附加部分有显著性差异：对男性老年的职务称呼和单称称呼的频率比对男性青年高；对男性老年使用陈述句式的频率比对男性青年的高,但使用疑问句式的频率基本相等；对男性老年人实施请求的铺垫策略比对男性青年多。(3)藏、汉族青年对男性实施请求的称呼部分多用职务称呼和单称称呼,无显著性差异；请求部分藏族青年多使用疑问句式和祈使句式,而汉族青年多使用疑问句式和陈述句式,有显著性差异；附加部分都多采用铺垫策略,无显著性差异。
针对统计分析的结果,本研究从藏、汉族男、女及青年人和老年人的社会地位,以及藏、汉语语言文化同源关系进行定性分析,分析讨论造成这种结果的原因。
尽管本研究由于资金不足将研究对象从农民转换为大学生,听话人转换为男性青年人和男性老年人(含于问卷语境之内),因此有些不足之处；但是对于藏、汉语语用对比研究可望起到抛砖引玉的作用。
The pragmatic characteristics, similarities and differences between Tibetan and Chinese requests are investigated in the present study. According to the analytical patterns of requests in the'Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP, Blum-Kulka et al.1989)', the cross-cultural empirical study on alerters, head acts and supportive moves of Tibetan and Chinese are conducted. In terms of the view by Brown and Levinson (1987) and the study by Takimoto (2005), pressure refers to the degree of a particular Face Threatening Act (FTA) which threatens speaker's face. There are two kinds of pressures with considering the three factors (social distance, relative power and absolute ranking of impositions) together:higher pressure and lower pressure. Requests performed by Tibetan and Han college students in higher pressure situations are explored in the present study. Because the present study focuses on the pragmatic facet (sentence meaning in real context) of Tibetan and Chinese without involving pronunciation and grammar, Tibetan versions of questionnaires are translated literally by three native speakers and the best ones are selected and revised by three native Amdo speakers who are doctoral graduate students of Lanzhou University.
The present study includes two phases:oral role play and questionnaire. The first phase is oral role play which aims to collect semi-natural utterances in both languages by Tibetan and Han peasants (including all age groups and both genders) performing in the situations designed by the researcher. The second phase aims to collect data from college students of both nationalities for quantitative analysis. Because of fund shortage, subjects who involve in the second stage change into college students. Two kinds of questionnaires (in which "hearers" are young and old males) are designed according to semi-natural utterances of young Tibetan and Han peasants, interviews and discourse completion test (DCT) for Tibetan and Han college students and done by220Tibetan and220Han college students with equal number of males and females. Then the valid data is classified and processed by SPSS11.5.
There are three research questions of the present study.(1) Do speakers' genders affect speakers'request strategies in the same language? If they do, explain them in detail.(2) Do hearers'ages affect speakers'request strategies in the same language? If they do, explain them in detail.(3) Are there any significant differences between Tibetan and Chinese requests? If there are, explain them in detail.
Results of the present study are concluded here.(la) There is no significant difference between Tibetan male and female speakers'request strategies:most speakers prefer to use titles and one-way addresses to start conversations; most speakers use interrogatives and imperatives; most speakers use supportive moves before or after head acts to give reasons as grounders.(1b) There are significant differences between Chinese male and female speakers'requests except alerters: Chinese speakers also prefer to use titles and one-way addresses to start conversations; more female speakers use imperatives and declaratives and supportive moves to give reasons as grounders.(2a) Ages of Tibetan "hearers" do affect requests:more titles and one-way addresses used by most speakers to old males; most speakers use interrogatives and imperatives to young and old males with almost equal interrogatives and more imperatives to the old; more supportive moves as grounders to old males.(2b) Ages of Chinese "hearers" do affect requests:more titles and one-way addresses used by most speakers to old males; most speakers use imperatives and declaratives to young and old males with almost equal imperatives and more declaratives to old males; more supportive moves as grounders to old males.(3) There is significant difference of syntactic strategies between Tibetan and Chinese:most Tibetan young speakers use imperatives and interrogatives while Chinese speakers use imperatives and declaratives; there is no significant difference of alerters and external modifications between Tibetan and Chinese.
Then social reasons which cause the results such as status of Tibetan and Chinese males and females, the young and the old and the homological relationship of cultures and languages of Tibetan and Chinese are analyzed and discussed in detail.
Although there are limitations such as subjects changing and just involving two age groups (the young and the old) in questionnaires, the present study could give some contributions to further pragmatic cross-cultural study between Tibetan and Chinese.
引文
Austin, J.1. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:The Clarendon Press.
Bach, Kent (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. USA:The Massachusetts of Technology.
Benedict Paul K. (1972). Sino-Tibetan:A Conspectus. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P.& Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness:Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies:a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics,196-213.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House & G. Kasper. (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics:Requests and Apologies. Norwood NJ:Ablex.
Cao Lei (2002). Chinese telephone conversation analysis. Unpublished master's thesis, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, Shandong, China.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Fill, A. (2000). Language and ecology:Ecolinguistic perspectives for 2000 and beyond. AILA Review,2001b, (14):60-75.
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. In Anwar S. Dil (ed.) The Ecology of Language:Essays by Einar Haugen. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London:Longman.
Liu Guohui (2003). A contrastive study of request strategies in English and Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Miihlhausler, Peter (1996). Linguistic ecology:Language change and linguistic imperialism in the Pacific region. London & New York:Poutledge.
Moerman, M. (1977). The preference for self-correction in a Tai conversational corpus. In language, Vol.53, No.4:872-82.
Obeng, S. G. (1992). A phonetic description of some repair sequences in Akan conversation. In Text, Vol.12, No.1:59-80.
Peccei, Jean Stilwell (1999). Pragmatics. London & New York:Poutledge.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Vols.1-2. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A.& Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. In Language:696-735.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts:An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning:Studies in the theory of speech acts. London:Cambridge University Press.
Si Liu (2004). Pragmatic strategies and power relations in disagreement:Chinese culture in higher education. USA:The University of Arizona.
Takimoto, M. (2005). Effects of Deductive and Inductive Instruction on Japanese Learners'Pragmatic Competence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Temple, Temple, Japan.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics, Vols.4, No.2: 91-112.
Wang Qing (2009). A conversation-analytic understanding of job interviews. Unpublished master's thesis, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Zhao Linlin (2007). Pragmatic study of Chinese requests. Unpublished master's thesis, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China.
戴庆厦,1979,我国藏缅语族松紧元音来源初探[J]。《民族语文》,31-39页。
戴庆厦,1998,藏缅语族语言研究[M]。云南：云南民族出版社。
戴庆厦,2006,语言竞争与语言和谐[J]。《语言教学与研究》第2期,1-6页。
戴庆厦,张景霓,2006,濒危语言与衰变语言—毛南语语言活力的类型分析[J]。中央民族大学学报(社会科学版),第33卷第1期,112-117页。
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33卷第6期,42-47页。
何兆熊,2000,新编语用学概要[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
何自然,,1997,语用学与外语教学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡文仲,1988,跨文化交际与英语学习[M]。上海：译文出版社。
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,323-400页。
胡裕树,1981,《现代汉语》增订本[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
胡裕树,范晓,1985,试论语法研究的三个平面[J]。新疆师范大学学报第31卷第2期,1-16页。
姜望琪,2003,当代语用学[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
李方桂,2005,汉藏语论文集[M]。北京：清华大学出版社。
李永遂,1994,汉语藏缅语人称代词探源[J]。《中国语言学报》卷二,20-25页。
刘思,1995,浅析please的语用问题[J]。《现代外语》第4期(总第70期),48-50页。
刘思,刘润清,2005,对“道歉语”的语用定量研究[J]。《外国语》第5期(总第159期),17-23页。
南嘉才让,1997,藏语书面语和各方言的关系[J]。《西北民族研究》第2期,63-66页。
钱冠连,1999,对比语言学者的一个历史任务[J]。《外语研究》第3期,5-10页。
孙宏开,1994,藏缅语量词用法比较—兼论量词发展的阶段层次[J](1988载于《中国语言学报》第3期),载于《藏缅语新论》。北京：中央民族学院出版社。
孙宏开,1995,藏缅语疑问方式试析—兼论汉语藏缅语特指问句的构成和来源[J]。《民族语文》第5期,1-11页。
孙宏开,1998,关于汉藏语分类研究的回顾与存在问题[J]。《民族语文》第3期,42-46页。
工飞华,2003,关于汉语语法三个平面理论的思考[J]。四川师范大学学报第2期,112-118页。
王小盾,1997,汉藏语猴族深化的谱系[J]。《中国社会科学》第6期,147-161页。
王晋军,2007,生态语言学：语言学研究的新领域[J]。天津外国语学报第14卷第1期,53-57页。
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3期,94-99页。
吴安其,1996,黄河长江流域的古代文明与汉藏语的渊源[J]。《民族研究》第6期,31-39页。
邢公畹,2001,原始汉藏人的宗教与原始汉藏语[J]。《中国语文》第2期(总第281期),112-121页。
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3期(总第15期),94-99页。
张绍杰,王晓彤,1997,“请求”言语行为的对比研究[J]。《现代外语》第3期(总第77期),63-72页。