中西文化中礼貌原则的对比分析

中西文化中礼貌原则的对比分析
［Abstract］Politeness is a universal phenomenon in all human societies. Languages differ greatly from different countries in expressing and understanding politeness. When we acknowledge the universality of politeness, we must recognize the culture characteristics of politeness. This thesis emphasizes a contrastive analysis of politeness principle in Chinese and English cultures and the culture values which caused the differences. Some implications of cross-cultural communication are proposed as well in the thesis.
［Key words］politeness principle,cultural differences,cross-cultural communication
I. Introduction
Politeness is a significant element of human communication. The understanding and use of appropriate polite behaviors play an important role in successful or unsuccessful communication. The contrastive analysis focuses on English and Chinese politeness and their cultural differences through the theories proposed by Leech, Brown and Levinson, Gu Yueguo.
Ⅱ. Studies of Politeness in English Culture
Politeness has been the focus of the study of pragmatics for decades. Leech’s politeness principle and Brown and Levinson’s face theory are the two most representative theories among many scholars in the West.
2.1 Leech’s politeness principle
Crace proposed the Cooperative Principle (CP) in 1967 which demands interlocutors cooperate with each other by observing the following four maxims: Quantity maxim, Quality maxim, Relation maxim and Manner maxim. However, Leech found the CP cannot give an elaborate explanation of why people often infringe the CP with indirect expressions. Leech (1983) believes that people in communication sometimes violate some maxims of CP to express politeness and the PP can be seen“as a necessary complement, which rescues the CP from serious troub le.”[1]80-132 Based on Crace’s CP, Leech summaries six maxims of the PP as follows:
(1)Tact Maxim
(a)Minimize cost to other
(b)Maximize benefit to other
(2)Generosity Maxim
(a)Minimize benefit to self
(b)Maximize cost to self
(3)Approbation Maxim
(a)Minimize dispraise of other
(b)Maximize praise of other
(4)Modesty Maxim
(a) p(b) Maximize sympathy between self and other[1]
2.2 Brown and Levinson’s face-saving theory
The Face-saving Theory was advanced by Brown and Levinson in 1987 based on the notion of “face” raised by Goffman in the late 1950s. Face can be divided into two aspects: positive face and negative face. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), positive face contains “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others” and also “the perennial desire that his wants should be thought of as desirable”. Negative face is “the want of every ‘competent adult member’that his actions be unimpeded by others”.[2]62-101 Some speech acts are intrinsically threaten face in daily life, such as ordering，offering，thanking，etc. So they are called face-threatening acts (FTAs). To avoid the potential threat to FTAs, people often use politeness
strategies to redress FTAs. There are five politeness strategies: (1) bald on record without redressive action (2) positive politeness (3) negative politeness (4) off-record (5) don’t do FTA.
Ⅲ. Studies of Politeness in Chinese Culture
Tracing the origin of the notion of politeness in the Chinese culture and history, Gu Yueguo proposed his own politeness principle, which is more suitable to Chinese culture. Gu advances four basic elements within the Chinese concept of politeness, they are, respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth and refinement. In addition, Gu puts forwards five politeness maxims which are consistent with Chinese culture as follows:
(1) Self-denigration Maxim: (a) denigrate self; (b) elevate other.
(2) Address Term Maxim: Address your interlocutor with an appropriate address term.
(3) Refinement Maxim: Using refined language, including the use of euphemisms and indirectness, and avoid foul language.
(4) Agreement Maxim: Maximize agreement and harmony between interlocutors, and minimize disagreement between them.
(5) Virtues-words-deeds Maxim: Minimize cost and maximize benefit to other at the motivational level, and maximize benefit received
and cost to self at the conversational level.[3]1-14
Gu (1990) believes that the Chinese concept of face is different from Brown and Levinson’s face theory. He points out some speech acts, such as “inviting”“offering” and “promising” in China don’t threaten the hearer’s negative face. For example, it is regarded as polite to invite someone to dinner in China even if invitee declines the invitation. Such an act does not pose a threat to the invitee’s negative face, as it might in an English-speaking context.[4]237-257
Ⅳ. Contractive Analysis of Politeness Principles in
English and Chinese Cultures
English and Chinese politeness principles share something in common: minimize impolite expressions and actions and maximize polite expressions and actions. They also have differences because of different cultures. Next part contrasts the differences of English and Chinese politeness principles through five maxims.
4.1 Self-denigrating and other-respecting
“Self-denigrating and other-respecting” is the core of Chinese limao and the polite manner in Chinese culture. If Chinese speakers are complimented, they customarily try to deny the fact of the praise or
claiming that they aren’t worthy appreciating to show modesty. Modesty maxim is also included in Leech’politeness principle, however, comprises a different connotation. English speakers respect others but not denigrate selves. They accept the compliment directly, saying “Thank you” to show their recognition of achievement and their appreciation of the compliment. For example:
— Your son’s handwriting is so beautiful!
— Nali, nali.
When English people hear Chinese people deny the compliment or achievement, they consider Chinese people as rude and speaking insincerely, whereas Chinese people regard English people as conceited and self- important.
4.2 Addressing
The use of address terms plays an important role in both Chinese and English cultures. But the form of them varies greatly in different cultures. Gu Yueguo (1992) argues that people should address others with appropriate vocatives.[4] People address others with respect and have many kinship terms in China, but kinship terms are seldom used in English culture. In America and Britain, people usually use first name to address their relatives besides their lineal relatives, such as, their parents
and grandparents to show intimacy. However, in China, this situation never happens because of impoliteness. Moreover, English people often use Mr. /Mrs. / Miss. with last name to address older people or with higher status, whereas, Chinese use last name with their status to address, such as 王老师，赵经理.
4.3 Refinement maxim
Refinement maxim refers to the use of refined language, containing the use of euphemisms and indirectness, and avoids foul language. Martin Joos proposes five styles of taking, they are: frozen, formal, consultative, casual and intimate. The five styles can not only used in English culture, but also used in Chinese culture. However, it works differently in contexts. For example, people use gaoshou or guigeng to ask elder people about their age to show their politeness and respect in Chinese culture. On the contrary, English people use “age” or “old” as a general term to ask for age in communication.
4.4 Agreement maxim
The interlocutors’face wants are concerned in agreement maxim. Brown and Levinson argue that nearly all speech acts threaten the interlocutors’face, such as inviting, offering and ordering, etc. But there are differences of face concept in Chinese and English cultures. Mianzi
and lian are the component of Chinese face concept. According to Li Yi (2001), mianzi and lian are “associated with reputable images that individuals can appreciate from their communities.”[5]18-19 Chinese face is closely connected with the community or the society, focusing on harmonious relationships between the personal identities and integrated with others. While English concept of face concerns with individual’s public-image, it only emphasizes individual want and desire, focusing on individual freedom and independence.
4.5 Virtues-words-deeds maxim
Solidarity-oriented relationship is the major social relationship in English culture because they insist on equality and independence. We always hear a child calling older people, even his/her parents or grandparents by their first names. This is not a sign of disrespect or rudeness, but a signal to display intimacy and solidarity in English culture.
In contrast, power-oriented or status-marked relationship is the main interpersonal relationship in Chinese culture, because Chinese people value power and authority and emphasize status and age differences. For example, nin is often used by people to those with higher status or older generations to show respect.
Ⅴ. Conclusion
In conclusion, politeness can be considered as a common phenomenon in all cultures; however, politeness is culture-specific. People from one culture cannot impose their standards of politeness on people from another culture; otherwise it will lead to misunderstanding or even breakdown of cross-cultural communication. As a result, for communicating effectively and successfully in cross-cultural communication, people should tolerate people from other cultures, respect their value systems, and develop cross-cultural awareness. 【References 】
［1］Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics［M］.London: Longman.
[2] Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage［M］.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] 顾口国.礼貌、语用与文化［J］.外语教学与研究，1992(4).
[4] Gu Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomenon in Modern Chinese ［J］.Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2).
[5] Li Yi. 2001. The Dynamics of Politeness［M］.Tianjin People
Press.
［摘要］礼貌是人类社会共有的普遍现象。

由于不同文化背景，各民族对礼貌的理解也各不相同。

因此在承认礼貌普遍性的同时，我们还必须认识到礼貌的文化特性。

本文通过对中西方礼貌原则差异的对比分析，指出造成礼貌用语差异的文化因素，并提出其对跨文化交际的启示。

［关键词］礼貌原则；文化差异；跨文化交际。