《东乡语与兰州方言实施道歉之语用对比研究》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在学术论文-天天文库。
分类号：密级研究生学位论文论文题目(中文)东乡语与兰州方言实施道歉之语用对比研究论文题目(外文)丨研究生姓名刘丽姝学科、专业外国语言文学外国语言学及应用语言学研究方向语用学学位级别硕士导师姓名、职称刘思教授论文工作起止年月年月至年月论文提交曰期年月论文答辩曰期年月学位授予曰期校址：甘肃省兰州市 硕士学位论文东乡语与兰州方言实施道歉之语用对比研究刘丽姝 原创性声明本人郑重声明：本人所呈交的学位论文,是在导师的指导下独立进行研究所取得的成果。学位论文中凡引用他人已经发表或未发表的成果、数据、观点等,均已明确注明出处。除文中已经注明引用的内容外,不包含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写过的科研成果。对本文的研究成果做出重要贡献的个人和集体,均已在文中以明确方式标明。本声明的法律责任由本人承担。论文作者签名：崎期：少从■关于学位论文使用授权的声明本人在导师指导下所完成的论文及相关的职务作品,知识产权归属兰州大学。本人完全了解兰州大学有关保存、使用学位论文的规定,同意学校保存或向国家有关部门或机构送交论文的纸质版和电子版,允许论文被查阅和借阅；本人授权兰州大学可以将本学位论文的全部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索,可以采用任何复制手段保存和汇编本学位论文。本人离校后发表、使用学位论文或与该论文直接相关的学术论文或成果时,第一署名单位仍然为兰州大学。本学位论文研究内容：□可以公幵口不宜公开,已在学位办公室办理保密申请,解密后适用本授权书。请在以上选项内选择其中一项打“”)论文作者签名：导师签名：！日期：円期： DeclarationofOriginalityIdeclarethatthisthesisrepresentsmyownworkandthatithasnotbeenpreviouslyincludedinathesisorreportsubmittedtothisUniversityoranyotherinstitutionforanacademicdegree,diplomaoranyotherqualifications.Name:LiuLishuSignature:^Date:June3,2013 DeclarationofWord-countIdeclarethattheword-countmeetstheregulationsfortheM.A.Degreethatthethesisshouldconsistof18,000EnglishwordsorChinesecharactersasaminimumexclusiveoffootnotes,tables,appendices,references(bibliography),photographs,anddiagrams.Word-count:[18.451]Name:LiuLishuSignature:Date:June3,2013 东乡语与兰州方言实施道歉之语用对比研究摘要结合等人(在“跨文化言语行为实现研究项目”中的相关研究,本研究重点考查东乡语道歉策略,并将其同兰州方言中道歉语语用策略进行对比,挖掘两者之间的异同。历数国内外跨文化语用学的相关研究成果,关于东乡语和兰州方言中道歉策略的对比研究几乎没有。因此,在一定程度上,本研究具有丰富和发展跨文化语用学研究的意义。另外,东乡语是世界濒危语言之一；本研究记录、分析东乡语中道歉语的使用情况,对东乡语的保护及拯救工作具有一定的作用；并可望为濒危语言保护及拯救工作尽绵薄之力。本研究的方法涉及定量与定性研究两种。调研步骤包括：采访、录音录像、角色扮演及问卷调查。调查对象是分别从东乡自治县锁南坝镇、甘肃皋兰县石洞镇随机选择出的本族语使用者,即东乡语本族语者和操兰州方言的汉族人。最终参加大规模问卷调查的共有人,其中东乡族青年男性人,青年女性人；汉族青年男性人,青年女性人,年龄均在岁之间。最终各组得到份有效问卷,共份。本研究考查在不同情境下东乡语本族语使用者选择道歉策略的情况,并将其与兰州方言的道歉策略进行对比。研究内容包括三个方面：性别因素对东乡语本族语使用者选择道歉策略的影响；冒犯程度大小对东乡语本族语使用者选择道歉策略的影响；东乡语与兰州方言道歉策略的对比。研究结果表明：(性别因素和冒犯程度的大小对东乡语道歉策略产生影响。比如,东乡青年男性选择“给予”策略比青年女性更为频繁,而青年女性选择“解释”策略比男性频繁；(在某些情境下,胃犯程度大小这一因素会对东乡语道歉策略产生影响。例如,在冒犯程度相对较低时,东乡语使用者倾向于选择“解 释”策略；而在选用“给予”策略方面,冒犯程度大小不会产生影响,这是因为“给予”策略更多地受到了具体情境的影响,这样的情境主要指道歉者对被道歉者造成了可以给予补偿的损失,如将他人的贵重物品丢失等。(东乡语和兰州方言在选用道歉策略时既存在相似之处,又存在不同之处。相似点主要是对“间接道歉”策略的使用。这一策略不管是东乡语还是兰州方言,都被普遍地使用。不同之处则体现在两种语言道歉策略的具体频率和排列顺序方面。如,东乡族女青年比兰州女青年选择“解释”策略较多,而兰州女青年选用给予”策略比东乡女青年频繁。两种语言选用道歉策略存在异同的原因从社会、文化等因素进行了逐一仔细地分析讨论。关键词：跨文化语用学,濒危语言,言语行为,道歉,东乡语,兰州方言 ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyAbstractThepresentstudyexaminedapologystrategiesinDongxiangminoritylanguage(DML)andLanzhoudialect(LD)basedontheCross-CulturalSpeechActRealizationProject(CCSARP)conductedbyBlum-Kulkaetal.(1989).Thisstudyispotentiallysignificantbecauseitenrichesthefieldofcross-culturalpragmaticsstudysincethereisrelativelylittleinformationavailableaboutculturaldiferencesinapologybetweenDMLandLD.Besides,thesignificanceoriginatesfromthefactthatDMLisoneoftheendangeredlanguagesallovertheworld.Thisresearchinvolvedquantitativeandqualitativeanalysesintermsofapologystrategies.Interviews,videorecordings,roleplaysandquestionnairesconstitutedthewholeresearch.TheparticipantswererandomlyselectedfromthelocalDongxiangnativesandLanzhoudialectspeakersresidingrespectivelyinDongxiangAutonomousCountyandinGaolanCountyinGansuProvince,China.BothDMLandLDparticipantsformedthetwogroupsofthestudy.Thefinalstageofthequestionnairesurveyinvolved260participantsagedfrom18to30ineachgroup.ThestudyinvestigatestheapologystrategiesemployedinvarioussocialsituationsbythespeakersofDMLandLD.Itshedslightontheculturaldiferencesthataffectlanguageusers'atempttoperformspeechacts.Thethreespecificaspectsofthestudyincludes:theeffectsofgenderdiferenceonDongxiangspeakers'apologystrategies,theeffectsoftheseverityofoffenceonDongxiangspeakers'apologystrategies,andtheapologystrategycontrastbetweenDMLandLDspeakers.ThestudyfindingsrevealthatgenderdifferenceandtheseverityofoffenceaffectedtheapologystrategiesofDongxiangparticipants.Forinstance,Dongxiangyoungmalesemploythestrategyof“”“”“”, Similaritiesinvolvesthemostcommonstrategy一“”“’’“”,, TableofContentsAbstract(inChinese)Abstract(inEnglish)I】 4.4.4Questionnaires354.5AnalyticalMethod38ChapterFiveRESULTS405.1EffectsofGenderDiferenceonApologyStrategiesinDML405.1.1OverviewofDMLSpeakers'ChoicesofApologyStrategies405.1.2GenderEfectsonDMLParticipants415.2EffectsofOffenceSeverityonApologyStrategiesinDML465.3ComparisonofApologyStrategiesbetweenDMLandLD495.3.1OverviewofLDspeakers'ChoicesofApologyStrategies495.3.2GroupComparisonbetweenDMLandLD50ChapterSixANALYSISANDDISSCUSSION546.1DiscussionoftheEffectsofGenderontheApologyStrategiesinDML546.2DiscussionoftheEffectsofSeverityontheApologyStrategiesinDML566.3DiscussionofSimilaritiesandDiferencesinApologiesofDMLandLD576.3.1TheSimilaritiesoftheApologyStrategyinDMLandLD576.3.2TheDifferencesoftheApologyStrategyinDMLandLD58ChapterSevenCONCLUSION607.1MainFindings607.2Implications617.3Limitations62REFERENCES63APPENDICES73AppendixAPartialQuestionnairesforDML73AppendixBPartialQuestionnairesforLD85ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS94 ListofTablesTable4.1TheSocialVariablesDistributioninRole-PlaySituationsunderHigherPressureandLowerPressure32Table4.2ParticipantsGroupCombinationsinRolePlay34Table4.3FourGroupsofParticipantsofDMLandLD35Table4.4TheSocialVariablesDistributioninSituationsunderHigherPressureandLowerPressureinPart1oftheQuestionnaire36Table4.5TheSocialVariablesDistributioninSituationsunderHigherPressureandLowerPressureinPart2oftheQuestionnaire37Table4.6DataCodingSchemeintheStudy39Table5.1TheFrequencyDistributionofStrategiesinDML40Table5.2TheGenderDifferencesinHeadActsofApologyinDML43Table5.3TheGenderDifferencesinSupportiveMovesofApologyinDML.46Table5.4TheSeverityofOfenceEffectsonApologyStrategiesinDML…Table5.5Table5.6Table5.7Table5.8 ListofAbbreviationsCCSARPTheCross-culturalSpeechActRealizationProjectDCTDiscoursecompletiontestsDHPDongxiangminoritylanguageunderhigherpressureDLPDongxiangminoritylanguageunderlowerpressureDMLDongxiangminoritylanguageDXDongxiangFTAsFace-threateningactsHHearerHPHigherpressureLDLanzhoudialectLPLowerpressureLZLanzhouPPercentageRIRankofimpositionSSpeakerSDSocialdistance ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialed:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyChapterOneINTRODUCTIONThischapterconsistsofageneraldescriptionofthebackground,thepurpose,thesignificance,thescopeandtheorganizationofthepresentstudy.1.1BackgroundoftheStudyThepresentstudyinvolvesDongxiangminoritylanguage(DML)whichisregardedasoneoftheendangeredlanguages(Bradley,, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyInChina,someoftherichlanguagesareendangered.AccordingtoPu(2001),,,“” ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudy1.3SignificanceoftheStudyOntheonhand,thetheoreticalsignificanceofthisresearchisrelatedwiththedevelopmentofthespeechacttheorywhichisanessentialpartofpragmatics.ThecontrastbetweentheapologystrategiesofDMLandLDenrichesthestudyofthespeechacttheoryorspecificallytheapologyspeechacttheory.Andthepresentstudyconcernstwodiferentlanguagesofdifferentcultures,whichtosomeextentdevelopsthecross-culturalpragmatics.Ontheotherhand,】】, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudypresentstudy.Exceptfromtheopenrole-play,discoursecompletiontests(DCTs)includingopenDCTandcloseDCTareappliedaswellinthisresearch.(2)ThenativespeakersofDMLandLDweretheparticipantsinthisstudy.Specifically,DongxiangparticipantswerechosenfromSuonanvillage,SuonanCountywhilenativespeakersofLDcamefromShidongvillage,GaolanCounty.TheparticipantsofDMLandLDagingfrom18to65yearsoldwererandomlyselectedfortherole-playaccordingtotherandomsamplingtableintheirrespectivevillages.Thetotalnumberofparticipantsintherole-playwas40inbothDMLandLDrespectively.Bothofthegroupsincludedtwogendersandtheratiowas1:1.Andinthelarge-scalequestionnairestage,260participantsagingfrom18to30wereselectedforDMLandLDrespectively.(3)Withregardtothedatacodingscheme,,, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyChapterFourshowsthemethodologyoftheresearch.Participants,instrument,datacollectionproceduresanddatacodinganddataanalysisareincluded.ChapterFivepresentsthemajorresultsofthepresentstudyfromtheperspectiveofapologystrategies:headactsandsupportivemoves.ChapterSixprovidessomepossiblereasonsfortheresults.Meanwhile,, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyChapterTwoTHEORETICALFRAMWORK2.1Austin'sSpeechActTheoryAustin(1962)definesspeechactsasactsperformedbygivingordersormakingpromises.AccordingtoAustin(1962),sayingsomethingisdoingsomethingandanyutteranceinvolvesthesimultaneousperformanceofcertainkindsofacts,includinglocutionaryact,illocutionaryactandperlocutionaryact.First,““, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudythefunctionofspeechacts,Searle(1969)arguesthattherearefivetypesofutterance:directive,assertive,commissives,declarativeandexpressive.Oneofthemajorcharacteristicsofspeechactsthusdistinguishedistheirdirectionoffit,whichcanbeworld-to-wordsorwords-to-world.Forexample,byorderingforsomethingtobedone,thespeakerafectsthewaytheworldisandbystatingafact,thespeakeraffectsthewaytheworldisratherthanafectingit.Apologyspeechactisakindofexpressive.Byusinganexpressive,thespeakermakesthewordsfittheworld.Then,Searle(1979)arguesthatspeechactsaredefinedbyfourkindsoffelicityconditions:prepositionalcontent,preparatorycondition,sincerityconditionandessentialcondition.Theprepositionalcontentconditionsrefertothespecificaspectsofwhattheactcanbeabout.Forinstance,apologiesareaboutpastactsofthespeaker.Thepreparatoryconditionsmeanthatspeakerhascertainreasontobelievetheactwillbenefitthehearer.Thesincerityconditionmeansthatspeakerbelievesthehearerwillbenefitfromtheact.Theessentialconditioncountsasanundertakingtotheefectthattheactisinthehearer'sbestinterest.Last,Searle(1979)proposesindirectspeechtheorywhichmeans“,,““” ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect;ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyone'sclaimtofreedomofactionandthelatterisaboutone'swanttobeappreciatedandapprovedbyothers(Brown&Levinson,1987).Basedontheconceptoftwoaspectsoffaces,Brown&Levinsonproposetwotypesofpoliteness,positiveandnegativepoliteness.Asitsnameimplies,negativepolitenessorientstothenegativefaceoftheinteractants,ordesireforautonomy.Positivepoliteness,ontheotherhand,addressesthepositivefacewantsoftheinteractants,ordesireforconnection.AccordingtoBrown&Levinson(1987),linguisticactsareintrinsicallyface-threateningandface-threateningacts(FTAs)refertothoseactsrunningcontrarytotheaddressee'sand/orthespeaker'spositiveand/ornegative‘,, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudy2.4Leech'sPolitenessPrincipleLeech(1983)firstproposespolitenessprinciple.HeadoptsGrice'sconstructofconversationalprinciplesandelaboratesathoroughanalysisofpoliteness.InhisextensionofGrice'sframework.LeechattemptstoexplainwhypeopleoftenconveymeaningindirectlyandarguesthatthepolitenessprinciplecannotonlysolvetheproblemgivenbyGrice'scooperativeprinciple, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudytheofensiveconsequences.Andalltheabovemaximsaimtomaximizethepoliteexpressionandminimizetheimpoliteexpression.2.5GuYueguo'sPolitenessPrinciplesBasedonChineseculture,Gu(1990)proposeshisownpolitenessprincipleandelaboratesfourpolitenessmaxims:(1)theSelf-denigrationMaxim:denigrateselfandelevateother;(2)theAddressMaxim:addressone'sinterlocutorwithanappropriateaddressterm;(3)theTactMaxim(4)theGenerosityMaxim.GiTsprinciplemayoriginatefromthefournotionsunderlyingtheChineseconceptof“礼貌”：“,,“,,“”,“,“’“”,““”对小起,原谅,包涵,’, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudySearle(1979)classifiesapologizinginto“,,“,,,“,,“‘‘,,“”,, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialed:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyapologistandthevictim's“” ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudythecaseofApology,1.AnexpressionofapologyThespeakeremploysaword,expression,orsentencecontainingexplicitapologizingwordingsuchas“,”“,”“,”“”“”,,；“”；“”；(,”,”“,“” ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudysituation-specificandlessfrequentthantheotherstrategies.6.ConcernforthehearerThespeakershowsconcernforthehearer'swell-beingorconditionssoastocomfortorsatisfyhim/her.Forinstance,“”““,“””,, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyresponsibilitycanbesub-categorizedonacontinuumfromstrongself-humblingonS,”“”“””“” ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudycontrastpragmaticdifferencesamongdifferentculturesandlanguagecommunities.AccordingtoBlum-Kulkaetal.(1989),,, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect;ACross-CulluralPragmaticsStudytheapologyspeechact,manyscholarsconducttheresearchesandprovideabundantsignificantfindingswhichcontributetothewholeproject.2,8Eco-linguisticsandLanguageEcologyCrisis2.8.1Eco-IinguisticsThedeteriorationofglobalenvironmenthasarousedmoreinterestinpursuingaharmoniousenvironmentthaneverduringthelastseveraldecades.Inthe1990,5,thescholarsfromEurope,AustraliaandAmericahaveexploredtheroleoflanguageinsolvingenvironmentalproblemsfromthelinguisticperspective,henceeco-linguistics,asanewlinguisticbranchappears.E.Haugen(1971)firstdescribestheinteractionbetweenlanguageanditssurroundingenvironmentinteractioninanalogywiththerelationshipbetweenanimals,plantsandtheenvironmentinaconversation.He(1971)putsforwardanideatoexaminetheinteractionbetweenaspecificlanguagewithitsenvironmentinTheEcologyofLanguage,andhealsoanalogizeslanguageenvironmenttothebio-ecologicalenvironmentinthebook.Sincethen,themetaphorof“”, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulluralPragmaticsStudyeco-linguisticscanbesummarizedfromtheabove,thatis,theresearchoflanguagediversityandecologydiversity.2.8.2LanguageEcologyCrisisThediversityofhumanlanguageisoneofitsmostintriguingfeatures,andoverthelastdecadescholarsfromseveraldisciplineshavebecomeinterestedinwhatpaternsoflinguisticdiversitymighttellusaboutthehumanpast.However,thelanguagediversityisthreatened.Althoughapproximately6000languagesstillexist,manyareunderthreat.AccordingtoFishman(1991),, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyChapterThreeLITERATUREREVIEWThischapterprovidesabriefreviewoftherelevantstudies,consistingofthreeaspects:previousempiricalstudiesontheapologyspeechact;previousstudiesonendangeredlanguagesandDongxiangminoritylanguageandLanzhoudialect.3?1PreviousEmpiricalResearchesonApologySpeechActThedevelopmentoftheresearchesonapologyspeechactisflourishedduringthelast80sand90s.Owingtotheeffortsofthosescholarsfromvariouscountries,suchasAmerica,Japan,Chinaandothernationalities,theresearchesonapologyspeechactmakealargequantityofachievement.Accordingtotheresearchers,publishedarticlesorbooks,itisfoundthatapologyspeechacthavebeenstudiedfromvariousaspectsincludingcross-culturalcommunication,pragmaticcompetenceoflearners,genderdiferencespresentedinapologiesandsoon.Discoursecompletiontest(DCT)iswidelyusedtocollectdatainthosestudies.Someimportantresearchesrelatedtothepresentstudyonapologiesarepresentedasfollowing.Blum-Kulkaetal.(1989)inInvestigatingCross-CulturalPragmatics:AnIntroductoryOvenuewintroducethefourresearchaspectsofcross-culturalpragmatics一“”“ ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyIFIDandexpressionofresponsibilitypreferenceacrossthesevensituations”, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialed:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudycomponentinclassroomlearning.Bataineh&Bataineh(2006)conductaresearchtoinvestigatetheapologystrategiesofJordanianEFLuniversitystudents.Thefindingsofthestudyshowthatbothmalesandfemalesemployprimaryapologystrategiesbutthattheyaredifferentintheorderoftheirchoices.Intheresearchers'othersurvey(2008),theycomparetheapologiesinAmericanEnglishnativesandJordanianArabicnatives.Thesubjectsarealsocollegestudents.TheresultspresentthatthedifferencesbetweenthetwogroupsdoexistandthattherearemorediferencesbetweenJordanianmalesandfemalesthanthatofAmericans.Thereasonofthatphenomenonmaybeduetodifferentwaysofeducatingchildren.Shariati&Chamani(2010)conductasurveyonPersianapologystrategies,includingthefrequency,thecombinationandtheorderofthestrategies.Basedon500naturalcontexts,theresearchobtainsitsneededdata.AndthefindingsshowthatthemostcommonstrategyisanexplicitapologytogetherwithaskingforforgivenessandthatPersianapologystrategieshavemuchincommonwithotherlanguagesbutthereasonswhythenativeschoosethosestrategiesarecultural-specific.Afghari(2007)alsoexaminesPersianapologyspeechactbysummarizingitsstrategieswiththepurposeofinvestigatingwhetherthepragmaticstructuresofPersianapologyisasconventionalasEnglishapology.Furthermore,theresearcherinvestigatestheeffectsofsocialdistanceandpowerontheapologyintensifiers’“”’ ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyManyothersstudiedtheapologyspeechactfromdifferentperspectives.Obeng(1999)investigatesAkanapologiesandattributesitsfeaturestotheculturalcharacteristics.Jebahi(2011)examinestheapologystrategiesofTunisianuniversitystudentsandappliestheresultstocross-culturalcommunication.Itisobservedthatapologiesvaryfromonesocietytoanotheralthoughtheyareculturalanduniversal.TheliteraturereviewaboveshowsthatthegreatmajorityofpreviousworkhasfocusedonAmericanandEuropeanphenomena.However,studiesbasedonnon-westernlanguagesarescarce.ThereisagrowingbodyofresearchesinthespeechactofapologyintheChineselanguage.S.Liu&R.Q.Liu(2005)conductaquantitativestudyofapologyphrases.Inthisstudy,theuseof/’’‘】)“”“” ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyTheresearchersattempttofindouttherelationshipbetweensocio-pragmaticfactorsandthespeechactofapologyperformedbyChinesemalesandfemales.Thestatisticsanalysisshowsthatontheonehand,theapologiesperformedbymalesarecloselyrelatedtothethreesocialparameters(power,distanceandseverity),whichessentiallyconfirmstothefacetheoryofBrown&Levinson;ontheotherhand,theapologizingoffemalesisafectedlessbythethreesocio-pragmaticfactors.Femalespaymoreatentiontomaintainingharmonioussocialrelationship,thus,,‘’, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudy,situation.3.2PreviousStudiesonEndangeredLanguagesAccordingtoKrauss(1992)inTheWorld'sLanguagesinCrisis,, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialed:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudySuleiman(2010)analyzesthatdialectmaintenance,dialectshiftandlanguageattitudesmakemaincontributionstothecurrentsituationofthelanguageecologyinJordan.Besides,theauthormentionsthatthepervasivespreadofEnglishandFrenchhasledtothelanguagecrisisinJordantosomedegreeapartfrommodernization,urbanizationandglobalization.Moreover,Gupta(2010)statesthelanguageecologyinSingapore;Collins(2010)doesaresearchonthelanguageecologyinMalayworld;Kanno(2010)investigatestheeducationoflanguageminorityinJapanintermsofclassroomlanguageecologies.Languageendangermentisacommonphenomenonwhichwillbringaboutsomenegativeeffects,hencehasbeenattachedgreatimportancebylinguistsandanthropologistsofallcountries.Chinahasmaderemarkableprogressinthestudyofendangeredlanguagesbypublishingquiteanumberofresearchfindingsandholdingsomeinternationalacademicconferences.However,therestillremainsmuchroomforfurtherdevelopmentformoreprofoundtheoreticalfoundationandmorefindings.Moremeasuresshouldbetakentoprotectandrescuetheendangeredlanguages,anddifferentmethodsbeadoptedtostudythem.InChina,,, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-Cultura)PragmaticsStudyoflanguagedeclineandrecentresearchbyoverseaslinguists,whichoffersacomprehensivepictureoftheglobalproblem.Pu(2001)discussestheapproachtotheprotectionandutilizationofChineseethniclanguagesfromtheperspectiveofglobaldyinglanguagesphenomena.Theauthormentionsthattheemergenceofthreatenedlanguagesresultsfrommanyfactors,includingsocial,economic,historical,andculturalfactorsandsoon.Puexplainsthatmorethan20languagesofthetotal120ethniclanguagesinChinaareusedbylessthanonethousandpeople,basicallyattheedgeofdeathandthoselanguagesusedbymorethanthousandsofpeoplearenotnecessarilywithvitality.Inthepaper,countermeasuresonhowtoprotectandutilizeethnicendangeredlanguagesinChinaareprovided.Themeasuresareasfollows:(1)Fullyrecognizelanguagevaluesandcreatetheusageenvironmenttopostponethedeathprocessoflanguages；,,,’ ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudysomemeasuresofprotectingendangeredlanguagesinChineseminorities;J.J.Fan(2006)inLanguageCrisisandLanguageHumanRightsofMinorityNationalitieselaboratestherelationshipbetweenlanguagecrisisandhumanrightsofminority,includingtherightsofliving,education,ecology,andcultureandsoon.3.3PreviousStudiesonDongxiangLanguageandLanzhouDialectAtpresenttimethereareafewachievementsinthestudyofDongxiangnationality.Forinstance,,, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudy(2000)clearlydefineareasofspeakingLDintheirstudy.Zhang&Mo(2009)publishaLanzhoudialectdictionary‘ ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulluralPragmaticsStudyChapterFourMETHODOLOGYThischapterinvolvesthemethodemployedinthepresentstudy,includingparticipants,instrument,procedures,datacodinganddataanalysis.Tobeginwith,theresearchquestionsaredisplayed.4.1ResearchQuestionsoftheStudyResearchQuestion1：；’： ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyconsideration,theresearcherchoosesthepeoplefromoneoftheremotevillageswheretheDMLremainsinagoodstate.Ontheotherhand,thisstudyintendstomakecomparisonsinapologiesbetweenDMLandLD.Hong(2005)holdsthatequivalenceinthecross-culturalpragmaticsstudyshouldbeensuredasmuchaspossible,whichsuggeststhatthenativespeakersofLDshouldbefromvillagesaswell.Specifically,DongxiangparticipantswerechosenfromSuonanvillage,SuonanCountywhilenativespeakersofLDcamefromShidongvillage.GaolanCounty.ParticipantsofDMLandLDagingfrom18to65yearsoldwererandomlyselectedfortherole-playaccordingtotherandomsamplingtableintheirrespectivevillages.Thetotalnumberofparticipantsintherole-playwas40inbothDMLandLDrespectively.Theywerearrangedintotheelderlygroupandtheyounggrouponthepartoftheirage(SeeTable4.3).Bothofthegroupsincludedtwogendersandtheratiowas1:1.Besides,mostofDongxiangparticipantsdidnotspeakorevendidnotunderstandManderinChinese.BothDMLspeakersandLDspeakerswereindigenous.Therefore,theparticipantswereallcompetentinunderstandingandperformingtheapologyspeechactintheirownlanguage.Besides,it'snecessarytomentionthatalloftheparticipantswerepaid,whichtosomeextentwouldguaranteetheparticipants'cooperation.4.3InstrumentThemajorconcernofthisstudyisthedatacollectingmethod.However,thefact(Ma,2006)thatDMLhasnowrittenformandmostDongxiangminoritypeoplecannotreadorcannotunderstandChinesewordsleadstothechoiceofopenrole-play.AccordingtothepreviousresearchesconductedbyCohen&Olshtain(1993),,, jApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyTherefore,openrole-playwaspreferredtoelicitthesemi-naturalprimarydataforthepresentstudy.Exceptfromtheopenrole-play,discoursecompletiontests(DCTs)includingopenDCTandcloseDCTareappliedaswellinthisresearch.ByapplyingDCT,theresearcherisfreetodesignvarioussituationstomeettherequirementsofthestudy.Besides,thesamesituationsdesignedinDCTareemployedforparticipantsofdiferentculturalbackgrounds,whichmaycontributetothecomparabledataresults.Furthermore,moretimecanbesavedandthedataelicitedcanbeusedinanefficientwayontheconditionthatDCTisemployedproperly.4.4Procedures4.4.1InterviewBeforedesigningthesituationsofrole-play,itisessentialtoconductsomeinterviews.AccordingtoKvale(1996),“, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudygeneralknowledgeofDMLandLD.Thedesignofrole-playwasbasedontheresearchesofBlum-Kulkaetal.(1989).Furthermore,accordingtoBrown&Levinson(1987),socialpower,socialdistanceandtherankingofimpositionareessentialtospeechactbehavior.Thus,takingthesethreefactorsintoconsideration,twelvegroupswerecombinedandeachgroupconsistedoftwosituationalsettings.Thecorrespondentsocialvariablesofthetotal24settingswhicharefamiliartotheparticipantsaredistributedasinTable4.1.Table4.1TheSocialVariablesDistributioninRole-PlaySituationsunderHigherPressureandLowerPressurePressuresPowerSocialDistanceRankofImpositionSituationalSettingsLowerPressureP(s)>p(h)SD-R1+SIDestroyingone'syoungcrop;S2BreakthepromiseSD-Rl-S3Breaktheplateintopieces;S4LosetheaxeSD+RKS5Neglectone'sduty:S6OweadebtSD+RI-S7BreaktheglassintopiecesS8BreaktheglassintopiecesP(s)=p(h)SD+RI+S9FailtohelptheneighborSIOFailtohelptheneighborSD+RI-SI1Steponone'sfoot;S12KnockoverthefruitstandHigherPressureP(s)=p(li}SD-R1+S13Delaytopayoffthedebt;S14GetanewtelevisionoutoforderSD-RI-S15MaketherelativeknockintoachairS】义； ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyaffordedfullconsiderationfortheparticipantsofDMLandLD.Inordertomaintainthereliabilityofthestudy,allofthesituationsoriginatedfromtherealdailylifeofDMLparticipantsandLDparticipants,,,,,,‘‘, ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguage.andLanzhouDialed:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyThenthevideosweretranscribedbythenativespeakersofDMLandthetranscriberswhocouldfullycomprehendthepurposeoftheresearchwereselectedfromcollegestudents.Moreover,theproofreadofthetranscribedversionwasconductedbyalinguisticexpertofDML.ThetranscriptionofLDwasdonebytheresearcher.Therewere195originalvideosforDMLand207forLDwhilethevalidvideoswere191forDMLand192forLDrespectively.Thetranscriptionoriginatedfromtheopenrole-play,whichprovidedreliablelanguagematerialsforthelaterstageoftheresearchandthefinalquestionnaires.Table4.2ParticipantsGroupCombinationsinRolePlayAgeoftheSpeakerSpeakerHearerSituationsTheElderlyAnOldMaleAnOldMaleSituations:AnOldMaleAnOldFemale1/3/5/AnOldFemaleAnOldMale7/9/11/AnOldFemaleAnOldFemale13/15/17/AnOldMaleAYoungMale19/21/23AnOldMaleAYoungFemaleAnOldFemaleAYoungMaleAnOldFemaleAYoungFemaleTheYoungAYoungMaleAYoungMaleSituations:AYoungMaleAYoungFemale2/4/6/AYoungFemaleAYoungMale8/10/12/AYoungFemaleAYoungFemale14/16/18^AYoungMaleAnOldMaleAYoungMaleAnOldFemaleAYoungFemaleAnOldMaleAYoungFemaleAnOldFemale34 ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulluralPragmaticsStudy4.4.4Questionnaires4.4.4.1DesignoftheQuestionnairesOnthebasisofthetranscriptions,theactualperformancesoftheapologyspeechactandthelanguagematerialswerecomparedandselectedinordertodeterminetheframeworkandthespecificresearchquestions.Itwaspresentedthattheyoungpeople'sperformancesoftheapologyspeechacttotheoldweremoresignificanttobestudied.Thus,thesituationdesignintherole-playwaspartlyrevisedaccordingtothetranscribedmaterialssoastodevisetheproperapologycontextswheretheyoungaddressedtotheold.Hence,thequestionnairedesignsincludedfourtypescorrespondingwithfourgroupsofparticipantsasinTable4.3.Thesefourtypesofquestionnairescoveredthesamecontextsexclusiveofthespecificspeakersandhearers.Table4.3FourGroupsofParticipantsofDMLandLDParticipantsofDMLParticipantsofLDGroup1Youngmales(S)-Oldmales(H)GroupAYoungmales(S)-Oldmales(H)Group2Youngmales(S)-Oldfemales(H)GroupBYoungmales(S)-Oldfemales(H)Group3Youngfemales(S)-Oldmales(H)GroupCYoungfemales{S)-01dmales(H)Group4Youngfemales(S)-Oldfemales(H)GroupDYoungfemales(S)-Oldfemales(H)Notes'.ThesefourgroupsofparticipantsofDMLandLDarecorrespondentwithfourtypesofquestionnairesofthesamecontextualdesignsrespectively.S:Speaker’ ApologyStrategiesinDongxiangMinorityLanguageandLanzhouDialect:ACross-CulturalPragmaticsStudyspecificsituationalsettingsarelistedinTable4,4(forPart1)andTable4.5(forPart2)asfollows.Thequestionnaireconsistedof12situationssincethetwopartslistedinTable4.4and4.5sharedfoursamesettings.Aftertherevisionandthedesignofthequestionnairewerecompleted,20youngmalesand20youngfemaleswereselectedtobeinterviewedbythetranscriberswhomadefullexplanationsabouttheresearchpurposeandthespecificcontexts.Theresponsesoftheintervieweesweretape-recordedandthentherecordingsweretranscribedandproofreadbythelinguisticexpertofDML.AsforLD,thesameprocedureswereconductedandthetranscriptionsweredonebytheresearcher.Table4.4TheSocialVariablesDistributioninSituationsunderHigherPressureandLowerPressureinPart1oftheQuestionnairePressuresPowerSDRJSituationalSettingsHigherpressureP(s)
此文档下载收益归作者所有
