中国礼貌理论浅析

陈伟红 董 静 徐 芬

【摘要】怎样诠释礼貌?在日常交流中,常常需要考虑礼貌因素,因此许多学者从纷纷从不同角度来分析它。许多西方和中国的语言学家从语用学和文化交流的角度对礼貌进行了不懈的研究。本文重点阐述中国语言学家顾曰国的礼貌准则和L.R., Mao等的礼貌研究,以分析东西方学者在礼貌研究方面的异同。

【关键词】礼貌;语用学;礼貌准则;礼貌研究

1.Introduction

He Zhaoxiong, who explained it from communicative perspective,believed that “politeness can be understood as a social phenomenon, a means to achieve good interpersonal relationships, and a norm imposed by social conventions”. Politeness is familiar both to common people and to linguists, which is used and applied in everyday interaction. Such becomes the foundation for the linguists research.

2.1 Chinese scholars research into politeness

In China, the study of politeness began in recent years. More recently, some scholars, such as Gu (1990, 1992), Xu (1992), and Mao (1994) have strived to build their own framework of politeness characteristic of Chinese culture and context.

2.1 Gus View

Gu Yueguo (1990, 1992) has spared no efforts to develop and improve politeness in Chinese culture and context. Gus two articles, one in English and the other in Chinese (1990, 1992), well present the framework and notion of politeness in Chinese context.

“Moralized” is the word Gu uses to describe the characteristics of the Chinese concept of politeness, which he believes is “more appropriate “to analyze politeness in terms of maxims” (1990:243). Such is the reason for his adoption of Leechs norm approach as the basis of his construct.

First, he proposes four notions as the basis of politeness in Chinese cluture: respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth, and refinement, all of which underlie the Chinese conception of limao(礼貌). ‘Respectfulness means selfs positive appreciation or admiration of the other concerning the latters face, social status, and so on. ‘Modesty can be referred to as an alternative way of saying ‘self-denigration. ‘Attitudinal warmth is selfs demonstration of kindness, consideration, and hospitality to others and ‘Refinement refers to selfs behavior to others which accords to certain standards (Gu, 1990).

Based on the above summery, Gu(1990) then makes some change in Leechs PP and concludes five maxims on Chinese politeness, which is claimed to be more Chinese. They are the Self-denigration Maxim(贬己尊人准则), the Address Maxim(称呼准则), the Tact Maxim (文雅准则)and the Generosity Maxim(求同准则) and the Virtues-Words-Deeds Maxim (德、言、行准则).

Here, the first maxim seems to a general politeness rule in Chinese culture, while the second maxim of address form reflects that the relational aspect of the Chinese self is further defined by prescribed roles in a hierarchical structure.

2.2 Maos View

Mao challenges B&Ls claim for the universality of their basic conceptualization of face. He holds that there do exist connotative differences between Chinese face and English face, and that Chinese face has a much broader scope than English face, for Chinese face consists oflian(脸) and mianzi(面子) while English face only centers on certain aspects of the Chinese notion face (Mao, 1994:457).

Mao (1994) defines face as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself”. Here, he focuses on ‘public-image, while B&L emphasize ‘self-image over face theory. B&L (1987:61) also contends that face needs to take others face into consideration, which make their face theory tinged with public trait. As for them, the self-image, including negative and positive aspects, is constant and predetermined, which is not susceptible to external pressure and which gives priority over selfs wants and interest.

It is obvious that Chinese face depends much on the participation of others, for it is a public image. Mao concludes (1994:460), “to maintain ones Chinese face is, then, to perform a communal act in the context of the immediate dyadic relationships in which we are inevitably circumscribed”. Chinese face, to quote Goffman, is “on loan to individuals from society” (Goffman, 1967:10). It belongs to the individual or to the self only to the extent that the individual acts are in full compliance with that face, and it is earned through an interactional process.

The content of face is another difference between Chinese and English politeness. B&L divide face into negative face and positive face. Negative face concerns and focuses on an individuals need to be exempt of external press. But mianzi consists of something different: it manifests Chinese intention to make sure that the public can admire or pay attention to ones prestige or reputation. Therefore, mianzi in Chinese is not equivalent to negative face. (Mao, 1994)

In contrast, Chinese mianzi emphasizes on ones dependence on society, which makes it necessary to pay priority over face of the other and the community.

While mianzi clearly differs from negative face, Mar argues, lian seems similar to positive face. In varying degrees, both lian and positive face identify an individuals desire to be liked and to be approved of by the others. But their resemblance goes no further than that.

Therefore, it is clear that lian is more social than positive face, for it revolves around the recognition of the society rather than the interests of another individual. Similarly, lian can not be negotiated generally and usually based on a person-to-person interaction, while mianzi generally is.

3. Conclusion

This paper aims to analyze politeness studies in China, to see how it can be interpreted appropriately in Chinas cultural context. Since lots of scholars have made various observation and conclusion on politeness, there does exist some kind of difference. Through the above analysis and review, a clear picture of the politeness study in China is then unveiled and may contribute to the following research on it.

【References】

[1]Gu, Yueguo, 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinses. Journal of Pragmatics. 14(2): 237-257.

[2]Mao, LuMing Robert, 1994. Beyond politeness theory: ‘face revisited and renewed, Journal of Pragmatics 21:451-486.