OndifferencesbeweenChineseandWesernculuraloulookonface_开题报告

一、Literature Review 

In the process of intercultural communication, there is often a face conflict or a face threatening situation because of the differences in cultural background. How to avoid or reduce such conflicts, we must understand the cultural background, the "face" of the different cognition and attitude, timely conflict is difficult to avoid in the process of communication, we can effectively avoid and dissolve, so as to ensure the success of communication.

Specific research ideas: Studies in their Western "face" culture, comparison, combination of pragmatic knowledge, so that in the process of cross-cultural communication, people from different cultural backgrounds face how to choose pragmatic strategies, so as to safeguard themselves and others face, enhance the effectiveness of cross-cultural communication.

Foreign "Face", Brown& Levinson's Face Theory, Scollon, R&Scollon, S.W., the face contradiction theory, Goffman's self and face Kung Fu theory, Stella Ting-Toomey face negotiation theory, and Leech politeness theory. China first proposed the "Face" point of view Gu Riguo, Hu Xianjin put forward the "face" and "face" view, as well as Jia Yuxin's face of the second features "public".

    In terms of pragmatic strategies, Austin divides language behavior into "intra language behavior, illocutionary act, and post verbal behavior".

Three. With the rapid development of pragmatics, politeness has become one of the subjects of research. In foreign countries, the most influential theory is Brown& Levinson's Face Theory, Scollon, R&Scollon, S.W. theory of face contradiction, Goffman's self and face Kung Fu theory, Stella Ting-Toomey surface negotiation theory, and Leech politeness principle theory.

Brown& Levins on defines different faces, and they believe that "face is the kind of 'the public self-image' that every member of the society wants to earn for himself." Brown& Levinson thinks that some language behaviors are threats to face, such as requests.

Goffman is an American sociologist. He defines face as the affirmative social value that he strives for effectively based on others' guesswork in communication. Face is self described by people's proven social value.

He two scholars of Scollon, R&Scollon and S.W. have absorbed the theory of Brown& Levinson and Goffman and developed it, and put forward the theory of face contradiction. They studied the influence of face to face skills from two aspects: cultural factors and self identity.

The face negotiation theory of Stella Ting-Toomey is the development of Brown& Levinson, which is more comprehensive and convincing than the theory of Brown& Levinson. The "face negotiation theory" refers to the conflict management process and the face in different cultures. The theory of face management in the process of different cultural conflict management is established.

Leech proposed 5 maxims: Tact Maxim, generosity maxim, approbation maxim, modesty maxim, agreement maxim.

In 2780s, pragmatics was introduced into China, and the study of politeness in China began formally. In the first place, the "face" is the state of the Gu. In his book "the politeness of contemporary Chinese", he puts forward a set of politeness guidelines, which he thinks that Brown& Levinson face does not apply to Chinese culture and Chinese, and then forms a set of politeness guidelines based on the values of traditional Chinese culture.

Anthropologist Hu Xianjin put forward the Chinese face in two aspects: "face".

And "face". "Face" refers to the social belief in personal moral character. "Face" refers to the promotion of a person's reputation.    

In Jia Xinyu's cross cultural communication, the second features of the face of the Chinese people are that they are public and sociality, and face is the public's examination of any deviations or violations of social norms.

ween China and the West. Therefore, the understanding of the cultural differences between China and the West leads to a key role in the success and success of intercultural cultural communication.

In sum, all the above studies have put forward valuable ideas about the cultural difference reflected in the two versions. However, there seems to be a lack of in-depth and detailed analysis and comparison, which will surely shed more light onto the cultural implications. Thus my study may hopefully make some contribution in this direction.

二、Outline

1.Introduction

2. The meaning of face

3. Different views of face in Chinese and Western culture 

3.1 The view of face in Chinese culture

3.2 The view of face in western culture

4 Differences between Chinese and Western views on face

4.1 The value difference between Chinese and Western views on face

4.2 Differences in speech behavior between Chinese and Western views of face

5.The consideration and strategy of face in different cultural backgrounds 

  5.1 Behave in a position of identity

  5.2 Choose the right voice form

  5.3 Choose the right face skills

  5.4 Meet the face requirements of the listener

6. Conclusion

7. References

三、References

[1] Brown,P&Levinson S.Universals in language usage; politeness phenomena,In E.Goody (ed.)Questions and Politeness Strategies in Social Interaction[M].Cambridge University Press.1978:61.

[2] Brown,P&Levinson,S.C.Politeness:some universals in language[M].New York:Cambridge University Press,1978.

[3]Leech,GN.Principles of pragmatics[M].Longma 1983.

Ron Scollon,Suzanne Wong Scollon.Intercultural Communication [M].Blackwell,1995.

Hu Hsien Chin.The Chinese Concepts of “Face”[J].American A nthropologist ,1994,46:45.

Austin,J.L.How to Do Things with Words[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1962.

Chang,H&Holt,R.A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational concern.In Ting-Toonmey,S.(Ed),The Challenge of facework.Albany:State University of New York Press,1994:121.

Ting-Toomey,Stella, Facework Competence in Intercultural Conflict:an up-dated face-negotiation theory.Theory,International Journal of intercultural relationship 1998.

[9] 贾玉新：《跨文化交流》，《上海外国语教育出版社》，1997年，第299页。

[10] 胡文仲：《跨国际文化交际学》，《上海译文出版社》，1988年，第203页。

[11] 黄光国，胡先缙：《面子》，《中国人民大学出版社》，2004年。

[12] 何自然，冉水平：《语用学概论》，《湖南教育出版社》，2001年。

[13] 陈融,《面子、留面子、丢面子》[J].《外国语言》，1986年。

[14] 陈之昭，《面子心理的理论分析与实际研究》，[J].《中国人的心理》，1982年。

[15] 顾日国，《文化与交际》，《外语教学与研究出版社》，1998年。

[16] 刘森林，《语用策略与言语行为》，[J].《外语教学》，2003年第5期。