Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Requests and refusals in English and Chinese

By Li Li

Abstract

In this thesis, I study the speech acts of request and refusal in Chinese and English. The aim of this study is to not only compare the results between Chinese and English in\ud the realization patterns in the two speech acts, but also between my investigation results and those of the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP)' (Blum-\ud Kulka et al. 1989). In addition, it is designed to research the extent to which these two speech acts threaten the participants' face in the two languages, and what part social variables such as relative power, social distance and some cultural factors play in the interactions.\ud \ud I performed not only a linguistic and pragmatic analysis of the data but also a sociocultural analysis. The main framework I follow for data analysis is a combination of\ud theoretical models: Brown & Levinson's (1987) model of strategies and Spencer-Oatey's (2005) framework of goals for the role-play. For the analysis of the Discourse\ud Completion Test (DCT) data, I used both CCSARP's (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989) framework of directness and Brown & Levinson's (1987) model and their framework of social variables of power and distance, except for the fake refusals. I have proposed the approach of liräng/giänräng/ciräng along with Spencer-Oatey's (2005) explanation for the fake refusal phenomenon. In the analysis of cultural influences, I draw on Kroeber\ud and Kluckholn (1952) and Triandis' (1994) research. In classifying the request data, Lee-Wong's (2000) method of classification is used. In grouping the data of refusals, I\ud have adopted Beebe et al. 's (1990) classification.\ud \ud In collecting data, the role-play method is employed, complemented by DCT investigation. In the role-play, Chinese and English subjects are divided into groups and\ud the task for each group is to discuss when, where and how they can make a trip together during a few days holiday. In the course of the discussion, there occur requests and\ud disagreements (classified as `refusals' in my research), and in the DCTs, subjects are asked to choose from a set of fixed responses, or suggest an alternative of their own.\ud The purpose is to see what differences or similarities there are between Chinese and English in the realization patterns of the two speech acts in various situations.\ud \ud The results show that, in the role-play, both Chinese and English favour the direct strategy in interaction. The frequency of the direct strategy (in requests) is much higher than that of other research such as that conducted by Zhang (1995), where participants prefer conventionally indirect strategies. However, the results of the DCTs demonstrate a less significant difference between my investigation and the CCSARP languages. The greatest difference between Chinese and English data lies in the fake refusals. Data analysis also indicates that factors (power, distance and even culture) do not have a large effect on the role-play results though they do influence the choice of strategies in the DCTs. The speech acts of requests and refusals are found to be multifunctional. In\ud the role-play, for example, they often play a more supportive and constructive than a face-threatening role, as Brown & Levinson have claimed. In the DCT data, fake\ud refusals are employed to show good manners.\ud \ud Conceptually, I have challenged those researchers who claim that Chinese face is different from English face, and who divide Chinese face into two different aspects: Tian\ud and miänzi. Wang (1993: 566) says that "the modern man has only one liän [face]" and mianzi is only one of the synonyms of lin. Therefore, the Chinese have one\ud face, just as the English do. The conceptualization of Chinese face having two aspects does not seem to be valid. This finding coincides with Leech's (2005: 27) that "despite\ud differences, there is no East-West divide in politeness"

Publisher: School of Languages Cultures and Societies (Leeds)
Year: 2008
OAI identifier: oai:etheses.whiterose.ac.uk:811

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. doi
  2. (1991). 221-247. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation Flowerdew,
  3. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories.
  4. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. doi
  5. (1991). Evaluating Brown & Levinson's politeness theory: a revised analysis of directness and face. doi
  6. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. doi
  7. (1989). Formal Forms and Discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. doi
  8. (1986). Linguistic Meaning (Vols 1 and 2). London: Routledge and Kegan
  9. (1993). Making a request and responding to it: A case study of Peruvian Spanish speakers. doi
  10. (2003). Mitigated directness in Hong Lou Meng: directive speech acts and politeness in eighteenth century Chinese. doi
  11. (2001). New Ways of Trouble Shooting in English. Tianjin:
  12. (1993). oalff A M-9-1)> .» (Hanyu Cihuishi. History of Chinese Words).
  13. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. doi
  14. (2000). Politeness and Face in Chinese Culture. Frankfurt: Peter Lang
  15. (1987). Politeness in Chinese Face-to-face Interaction.
  16. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language
  17. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: pedagogical settings. doi
  18. (1975). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts.
  19. (1998). The Analects of Confucius «iMi ». doi
  20. (2005). The Dictionary of Xiandai Hanyu Xiao Cidian « ,4 ýjýi7A». 1979. Beijing: Social Sciences of China: Language Institute Terkourafi,
  21. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.