论文部分内容阅读
【摘要】 As we all know, different people hold different views about politeness. To be polite, Leech thinks you should follow "Politeness Principle" while Levinson suggests paying attention to others' "Face Wants" Sometimes what the Chinese people considered to be polite may not be true according to western culture. In order to adequately provide an educated answer to this heartfelt question, this paper attempts to shed light on some of the important differences on politeness between Chinese and western culture.
【關键词】 politeness; face theory; politeness principle; culture differences
1. Interpretation of politeness
What is politeness? We might say it is showing courtesy, respect and consideration to other people, acknowledging them, and not imposing unnecessarily on them. Politeness can be understood as a social phenomenon, a means to achieve good interpersonal relationships and a norm imposed by social conventions. All cultures require and value politeness, but the ways in which the politeness is achieved may vary significantly. Such differences should be traced to the origin of the notion of politeness in different cultures. As a social phenomenon, in the English - speaking culture and the western world in general, politeness has been closely related to the behavior typical of a certain social location and a certain social group. To be polite means to live up to a set of conventionalized norms of behavior. Whereas in modern Chinese, the equivalence of politeness is limao, which is believed to have evolved in history from the notion of li . Then we make clear that while the notion of politeness is universal, it has different origins and thus different connotations in different cultures.
2. Two influential theories of politeness
Research into politeness is closely associated with the names of Leech, Brown and Levinson. These linguists have attempted to approach the fuzzy and empirically difficult area of politeness with a pragmatic means, to derive a number of basic theoretical notions, and to find evidence of politeness in linguistic forms. Leech's Politeness Principle, and Brown and Levinson's Face Theory are now two most influential and successful theories to account for politeness. Their common basis is Grice's theory of conversational implicature and the framework of maxims that give rise to such implicatures, but their theories are posited in totally different spirits.
2. 1 Face Theory
The notion at the heart of Brown and Levinson's politeness theory is 'face', which is based on the face notion raised by Goffman in the late 1950s. According to Goffman, 'face' is a sacred thing for every human being, an essential factor which all communicators have to pay attention to; if one wants his face cared for, he should care for other people's face. The general notion of 'face' becomes more specific in Brown and Levinson's theory. They define 'face' as an 'individual's self-esteem' or the 'public self-image' that every member wants to claim for. According to them, the notion of face entails two different kinds of desires or face wants which all people have and which all people know others to have. These wants are of two basic types:
(1) Positive face wants: desire to be approved of
(2) Negative face wants: desire to be unimpeded in one's actions
However, most speech acts are face-threatening acts, as they intrinsically infringe on the hearer's or the speaker's face wants and thus require softening.
Brown and Levinson distinguish strategies of polite behavior in accordance with the differentiation of face wants:
(1) Positive politeness: oriented to the positive image that the hearer claims; the speaker recognizes the hearer's desire to have his positive face wants respected. Positive politeness strategies express solidarity, friendliness, in-group reciprocity.
(2) Negative politeness: oriented to the hearer's desire not to be imposed upon; the speaker recognizes the hearer's rights to autonomy. Negative politeness strategies express the speaker's restraint and avoidance of imposing on the hearer.
(3) Off-record politeness: indirect strategies that avoid making any explicit or unequivocal imposition on the hearer.
According to Brown and Levinson, nearly all speech acts are face threatening (FTAS); they intrinsically infringe on the hearer's face wants. In communication, FTAS are always threatening the face of two parties. Some threaten the hearer's negative face by imposing on the hearer, other FTAS threaten the hearer's positive face by indicating the speaker's lack of concern for the hearer's self-image and some FTAS are threatening to the speaker himself rather than to the hearer. Therefore, if the speaker wants his face to be given and also the other's face to be cared for, the best way is to adopt proper politeness strategies, using appropriate polite language.
2.2 Politeness Principle
Being a necessary complement of cooperative principle in interpretation of indirectness, PP is divided into six maxims by Leech, each including two sub - maxims.
(1) Tact Maxim (in impositives and commissives)
(2) Generosity Maxim (in impositives and commissives)
(3)Approbation Maxim (in expressives and assertives)
(4)Modesty Maxim (in expressives and assertives)
(5)Agreement Maxim (in assertives)
(6) Sympathy Maxim (in assertives)
The PP's first four maxims go in pairs because they deal with bipolar scales: the cost - benefit and praise - dispraise scales. The other two maxims deal with unipolar scales : the scales of agreement and sympathy. (1) and (2) respectively concern the cost of benefit of future action to other and to self , (3) and (4) respectively concern the degree to which speaker's remarks convey some good or bad evaluation of other and of self . For example, the Approbation Maxim is exemplified in the intrinsic courtesy of congratulations, and the Modesty Maxim in that of apologies. Of the twinned maxims (1) ---(4), (1) appears to be a more powerful constraint on conversational behavior than (2), and (3) than (4).
2. 2. 1 Tact Maxim
There are two sides to the Tact maxim, a negative side“Minimize the cost to h” ,and a positive side“Maximize the benefit to h”. The second is less important, but is a natural corollary of the first. It means, for example, that in proposing some action beneficial to h, s should bias the illocution towards a positive outcome, by restricting h's opportunity of saying“No”.
2. 2. 2 The Generosity Maxim
Minimize Benefit to self: Maximize Cost to self. As Leech pointed out the bilateral aspect of
impositive and commissive speech acts.
2. 2. 3 The Approbation Maxim and the Modesty Maxim
The approbation Maxim says“avoid saying unpleasant things about others, and more particularly, about h”.
(1) A: How efficient of you to get this done all at once!
B: It's nothing.
This case also shows the Modesty maxim. However there is and obvious trade - off between different maxims of the PP, just as there is between the maxims of CP. The Modesty Maxim sometimes comes into conflict with some other maxim, in which we have to allow one maxim to take priority over the other.
2. 2. 4 Irony Principle
Irony Principle is one of the important principles within Interpersonal Rhetoric. This principle, together with other principles within textual rhetoric, socially constrain communicative behavior in various ways; they do not provide the main motivation for talking, but serve as regulative factors to ensure that once conversation is under way, it will not follow a fruitless or disruptive path. The IP is a“second - order principle” which enables a speaker to be impolite while seeming to be polite; it does so by superficially breaking the CP, but ultimately upholding it. Irony has been associated with face - saving, either of the speaker him or herself, or a means that the speaker allow the listener to save face. The function of irony may thus be tentatively explained as follows. If the PP breaks down, it is liable to break down on both sides: direct accusation leads to counter - accusation, threat to counter - threat, and so on. But because irony pays lip service to the PP, it is less easy to break the PP in one's response to it.
3. Awareness of the Different Politeness Orientation
Politeness is what people of different cultural background all try to observe and maintain.
While admitting the universal nature of politeness, we should on the other hand be aware that cultures differ in the actual ways to realize politeness and also in the standards for its judgment. Such differences stem from the different histories the notion can be traced back to and also the cultural values gradually formed in the course of time under the influence of a variety of factors, social, historical, anthropological, geographical, etc.
3. 1 Chinese Politeness Orientation
It is universally accepted that modesty is the most striking Chinese politeness characteristic. Modesty is highly valued because it is helpful in softening the relationships of a hierarchical society, In addition, the convention of being modest may influence Chinese psychological, preventing the Chinese from being self-centered and against society. Modesty is reflected in every aspect of Chinese life. It has become the habit of the majority of the Chinese to belittle themselves and respect others. Denying other's praise is proper language behavior in China. It is a Chinese convention to decline other's invitation for at least one time to show modesty. In a word, the Chinese are ready to show modesty all the time. Here are some Chinese modest cases:
（2） American: You did a good job.
Chinese: a. That's the result of joint efforts.
b. There's still much room for improvement.
c. No, no. I didn't do it quite well.
(3) When being praised, Chinese people are apt to deny the praise - worthy fact or minimize self's efforts to show modesty, which is regarded as impolite by Westerners because their judgment is directly denied. English speaker generally accept other's compliment, for they tend to observe Agreement Maxim first. It is quite natural for Chinese people to decline others' first offer and accept it at the second time or third time even if they have every intention of accepting it. The following is a typical Chinese dialogue:
(4) A:“Drink some wine, please. ”
B:“No, I do not want to drink wine.”
C: “All right. Thank you.”
If the Chinese respond to American's offering of wine as B does to A, they will lose the chance of drinking the wine, for English speakers usually express themselves directly in the situation and will not insist on offering wine by convention. It has become Chinese subconsciousness to
belittle self and respect others. English speakers occasionally denigrate themselves but they have no purpose to favor others at the same time as the Chinese do. There are in Chinese self - depreciatory form of address more than one can count while in only a small amount compared with the ones in China. The Chinese are much more modest in quantity or in quality than English speakers.
3.2 English Speakers' Politeness Orientation
Privacy is valued in all culture, but it is much more highly regarded in the English - speaking culture than in the Chinese culture. An English - speaking person might simply regard what is considered as an act of politeness in the Chinese culture as an intrusion upon a person's privacy. Prof. Gu Yueguo has rightly included "attitudinal warmth" as one of the four notions underlying politeness in the Chinese culture. To show warmth and concern for the first time, they might begin asking about each other's age, marital status, off spring, occupation, and even income. The Chinese think that they are being polite by showing concern for the other person, and asking all these questions will help to shorten the social distance between themselves and their interlocutors. But speakers of English, should they be asked all such questions, would feel their interlocutor is rudely encroaching upon their privacy. Notion encompasses at once the freedom, rights, and the independence of action of man. Due respect to an individual's liberty, his rights, his independence will be considered polite, lack of it will appear to an English - speaking to be improper, and even rude.
eg. (I feel close to the young man now.) I—— an old man he—— a young man
I: How old are you? He: Nineteen. I: How long have you been in the army? He: One year.
I: How did you joined the revolution? He: I followed the army voluntarily when they retreated to the north.
I: Who else are in your family? He: My mother, father, brother, sister and my aunt.
I: Are you married? … (c.f Ru Zhijuan " Liliaceous" )(c.f. Gu 1992)
This seems to be an interview or an interrogate for a westerner, otherwise it may be taken as an insult, but it' s a daily conversation in China. In China, people like to talk about their age, marriage, children, salaries etc. even on their first meet. That may seem somewhat ridiculous for the westerners, who never like things like this to be asked, for they look on them as privacy.
3.3 Different Cultural Values
It has also been suggested that the essential difference between the Chinese and the English cultures is that of value systems ___ collectivism of the Chinese culture and individualism of the English culture. The basic differences between individualism and collectivism are summarized by a group of western scholars as follows:
Collectivism is characterized by individuals subordinating their personal goals to the goals of some collectives. Individualism is characterized by individuals subordinating the goals of collectives to their personal goals. A key belief of people in collectivist cultures is that the smallest unit of survival is the collective. A key belief of people in individualistic cultures is that the smallest unit of survival is the individual. In many situations people in collectivist cultures have internalized the norms of their collectives so completely that there is no such thing as a distinction between in-group goals and personal goals.
The major characteristics of individualism in the English culture are "I" consciousness and self-orientation whereas those of collectivism in the Chinese culture are "we" consciousness and collectivity-orientation. Given name comes first in the West, only thereafter is family name added, while in China, where family is the basic unit of the social structure, family surname comes first and only thereafter comes the given name. Individual identity, individual rights, individual needs are emphasized in the West over "we" identity and the interests of the group or in-group, and obligations and commitment.
Notions of impositions can be said to be culture-specific. In the Western culture, the primary goal of every individual is to satisfy his personal needs and to maximize his personal comfort; every act that brings one in contact with other people might be regarded as an imposition. However, in the Chinese society, hospitality and regard for the collective good or other people's benefit make such acts as offering, inviting, thanking, complimenting and greeting typically polite speech acts.
Addressing terms can be said to be the manifestations of power or solidarity relationship. The Chinese social structure is basically hierarchical or vertical in nature and the principle of "Ren" and "li" help reinforce the asymmetrical or vertical relationship by advocating the maintenance of differences between the emperor and his subjects, father and his son, elder brother and younger brother, male and female; and obedience of the lower position to those who are in higher position and respect from the humble to those who are superior in the society. Logically, in terms of interpersonal relationship, it has become an unwritten rule that authority and power relationship should be valued in daily transactions. What power refers to vary with time. Nowadays it may include, for example, father in a family, leaders at different levels, the elder and the aged and even people who are considered useful in the society. Power relationship is best demonstrated in the use of titles, personal pronoun "Nin" and honorifics when addressing occurs.
Each member of the Western society, comparatively speaking, enjoys independence and equality, which lays the foundation for the establishment of solidarity relationship as the main relationship in the social interactions in the West. Solidarity is a sociolinguistic term not only referring to the equal and informal relationship, but also the desire for the setting up of equality, intimacy, common interest, sharing, etc. Whatever it may possibly mean, its core notion is equality. The emphasis on solidarity over power on the Western side can best be demonstrated in the use of first names in everyday interaction.
4. Conclusion
In a word, politeness is universal and culture - specific to some extent. When we are communicating with people from different cultures, it is best to consult what is appropriate in their culture and act with regard to that, so as to avoid misunderstandings caused by culture differences.
參考文献
［1］ 〖ZK(#〗Brown ,P. and S. Levison , Politeness : some Universals in Language Use ［M］ . Cambridge :Cambridge University
Press. 1978.
［2］ Hu ,Wenzhong(ed) ,Lingustics :A Course Book［M］ . London :Longman group limited. 1983.
［3］ 《中国教育文摘》2011.11“如何贯彻体育素质教育”
［4］ Levison ,S. C. Pragmatics［M］. Cambridge :CUP. 1983.
［5］ Li ,Li and Chen , Zhi'an. Language ,Culture and TEFL ［M］. Chongqing : Southwest China Normal Universty
Press. 1997.
［6］ Gu ,Yueguo ,Politeness Phenomenon in Modern Chinese ［J］ . Journal of Pragmatics. 1990 , (14) :237 - 257.
［7］ 陈融. 面子•留面子•丢面子［J］. 外国语，1986,（4）.
［8］ 陈融. 英语的礼貌语言［J］. 现代外语，1989,（3）.
【關键词】 politeness; face theory; politeness principle; culture differences
1. Interpretation of politeness
What is politeness? We might say it is showing courtesy, respect and consideration to other people, acknowledging them, and not imposing unnecessarily on them. Politeness can be understood as a social phenomenon, a means to achieve good interpersonal relationships and a norm imposed by social conventions. All cultures require and value politeness, but the ways in which the politeness is achieved may vary significantly. Such differences should be traced to the origin of the notion of politeness in different cultures. As a social phenomenon, in the English - speaking culture and the western world in general, politeness has been closely related to the behavior typical of a certain social location and a certain social group. To be polite means to live up to a set of conventionalized norms of behavior. Whereas in modern Chinese, the equivalence of politeness is limao, which is believed to have evolved in history from the notion of li . Then we make clear that while the notion of politeness is universal, it has different origins and thus different connotations in different cultures.
2. Two influential theories of politeness
Research into politeness is closely associated with the names of Leech, Brown and Levinson. These linguists have attempted to approach the fuzzy and empirically difficult area of politeness with a pragmatic means, to derive a number of basic theoretical notions, and to find evidence of politeness in linguistic forms. Leech's Politeness Principle, and Brown and Levinson's Face Theory are now two most influential and successful theories to account for politeness. Their common basis is Grice's theory of conversational implicature and the framework of maxims that give rise to such implicatures, but their theories are posited in totally different spirits.
2. 1 Face Theory
The notion at the heart of Brown and Levinson's politeness theory is 'face', which is based on the face notion raised by Goffman in the late 1950s. According to Goffman, 'face' is a sacred thing for every human being, an essential factor which all communicators have to pay attention to; if one wants his face cared for, he should care for other people's face. The general notion of 'face' becomes more specific in Brown and Levinson's theory. They define 'face' as an 'individual's self-esteem' or the 'public self-image' that every member wants to claim for. According to them, the notion of face entails two different kinds of desires or face wants which all people have and which all people know others to have. These wants are of two basic types:
(1) Positive face wants: desire to be approved of
(2) Negative face wants: desire to be unimpeded in one's actions
However, most speech acts are face-threatening acts, as they intrinsically infringe on the hearer's or the speaker's face wants and thus require softening.
Brown and Levinson distinguish strategies of polite behavior in accordance with the differentiation of face wants:
(1) Positive politeness: oriented to the positive image that the hearer claims; the speaker recognizes the hearer's desire to have his positive face wants respected. Positive politeness strategies express solidarity, friendliness, in-group reciprocity.
(2) Negative politeness: oriented to the hearer's desire not to be imposed upon; the speaker recognizes the hearer's rights to autonomy. Negative politeness strategies express the speaker's restraint and avoidance of imposing on the hearer.
(3) Off-record politeness: indirect strategies that avoid making any explicit or unequivocal imposition on the hearer.
According to Brown and Levinson, nearly all speech acts are face threatening (FTAS); they intrinsically infringe on the hearer's face wants. In communication, FTAS are always threatening the face of two parties. Some threaten the hearer's negative face by imposing on the hearer, other FTAS threaten the hearer's positive face by indicating the speaker's lack of concern for the hearer's self-image and some FTAS are threatening to the speaker himself rather than to the hearer. Therefore, if the speaker wants his face to be given and also the other's face to be cared for, the best way is to adopt proper politeness strategies, using appropriate polite language.
2.2 Politeness Principle
Being a necessary complement of cooperative principle in interpretation of indirectness, PP is divided into six maxims by Leech, each including two sub - maxims.
(1) Tact Maxim (in impositives and commissives)
(2) Generosity Maxim (in impositives and commissives)
(3)Approbation Maxim (in expressives and assertives)
(4)Modesty Maxim (in expressives and assertives)
(5)Agreement Maxim (in assertives)
(6) Sympathy Maxim (in assertives)
The PP's first four maxims go in pairs because they deal with bipolar scales: the cost - benefit and praise - dispraise scales. The other two maxims deal with unipolar scales : the scales of agreement and sympathy. (1) and (2) respectively concern the cost of benefit of future action to other and to self , (3) and (4) respectively concern the degree to which speaker's remarks convey some good or bad evaluation of other and of self . For example, the Approbation Maxim is exemplified in the intrinsic courtesy of congratulations, and the Modesty Maxim in that of apologies. Of the twinned maxims (1) ---(4), (1) appears to be a more powerful constraint on conversational behavior than (2), and (3) than (4).
2. 2. 1 Tact Maxim
There are two sides to the Tact maxim, a negative side“Minimize the cost to h” ,and a positive side“Maximize the benefit to h”. The second is less important, but is a natural corollary of the first. It means, for example, that in proposing some action beneficial to h, s should bias the illocution towards a positive outcome, by restricting h's opportunity of saying“No”.
2. 2. 2 The Generosity Maxim
Minimize Benefit to self: Maximize Cost to self. As Leech pointed out the bilateral aspect of
impositive and commissive speech acts.
2. 2. 3 The Approbation Maxim and the Modesty Maxim
The approbation Maxim says“avoid saying unpleasant things about others, and more particularly, about h”.
(1) A: How efficient of you to get this done all at once!
B: It's nothing.
This case also shows the Modesty maxim. However there is and obvious trade - off between different maxims of the PP, just as there is between the maxims of CP. The Modesty Maxim sometimes comes into conflict with some other maxim, in which we have to allow one maxim to take priority over the other.
2. 2. 4 Irony Principle
Irony Principle is one of the important principles within Interpersonal Rhetoric. This principle, together with other principles within textual rhetoric, socially constrain communicative behavior in various ways; they do not provide the main motivation for talking, but serve as regulative factors to ensure that once conversation is under way, it will not follow a fruitless or disruptive path. The IP is a“second - order principle” which enables a speaker to be impolite while seeming to be polite; it does so by superficially breaking the CP, but ultimately upholding it. Irony has been associated with face - saving, either of the speaker him or herself, or a means that the speaker allow the listener to save face. The function of irony may thus be tentatively explained as follows. If the PP breaks down, it is liable to break down on both sides: direct accusation leads to counter - accusation, threat to counter - threat, and so on. But because irony pays lip service to the PP, it is less easy to break the PP in one's response to it.
3. Awareness of the Different Politeness Orientation
Politeness is what people of different cultural background all try to observe and maintain.
While admitting the universal nature of politeness, we should on the other hand be aware that cultures differ in the actual ways to realize politeness and also in the standards for its judgment. Such differences stem from the different histories the notion can be traced back to and also the cultural values gradually formed in the course of time under the influence of a variety of factors, social, historical, anthropological, geographical, etc.
3. 1 Chinese Politeness Orientation
It is universally accepted that modesty is the most striking Chinese politeness characteristic. Modesty is highly valued because it is helpful in softening the relationships of a hierarchical society, In addition, the convention of being modest may influence Chinese psychological, preventing the Chinese from being self-centered and against society. Modesty is reflected in every aspect of Chinese life. It has become the habit of the majority of the Chinese to belittle themselves and respect others. Denying other's praise is proper language behavior in China. It is a Chinese convention to decline other's invitation for at least one time to show modesty. In a word, the Chinese are ready to show modesty all the time. Here are some Chinese modest cases:
（2） American: You did a good job.
Chinese: a. That's the result of joint efforts.
b. There's still much room for improvement.
c. No, no. I didn't do it quite well.
(3) When being praised, Chinese people are apt to deny the praise - worthy fact or minimize self's efforts to show modesty, which is regarded as impolite by Westerners because their judgment is directly denied. English speaker generally accept other's compliment, for they tend to observe Agreement Maxim first. It is quite natural for Chinese people to decline others' first offer and accept it at the second time or third time even if they have every intention of accepting it. The following is a typical Chinese dialogue:
(4) A:“Drink some wine, please. ”
B:“No, I do not want to drink wine.”
C: “All right. Thank you.”
If the Chinese respond to American's offering of wine as B does to A, they will lose the chance of drinking the wine, for English speakers usually express themselves directly in the situation and will not insist on offering wine by convention. It has become Chinese subconsciousness to
belittle self and respect others. English speakers occasionally denigrate themselves but they have no purpose to favor others at the same time as the Chinese do. There are in Chinese self - depreciatory form of address more than one can count while in only a small amount compared with the ones in China. The Chinese are much more modest in quantity or in quality than English speakers.
3.2 English Speakers' Politeness Orientation
Privacy is valued in all culture, but it is much more highly regarded in the English - speaking culture than in the Chinese culture. An English - speaking person might simply regard what is considered as an act of politeness in the Chinese culture as an intrusion upon a person's privacy. Prof. Gu Yueguo has rightly included "attitudinal warmth" as one of the four notions underlying politeness in the Chinese culture. To show warmth and concern for the first time, they might begin asking about each other's age, marital status, off spring, occupation, and even income. The Chinese think that they are being polite by showing concern for the other person, and asking all these questions will help to shorten the social distance between themselves and their interlocutors. But speakers of English, should they be asked all such questions, would feel their interlocutor is rudely encroaching upon their privacy. Notion encompasses at once the freedom, rights, and the independence of action of man. Due respect to an individual's liberty, his rights, his independence will be considered polite, lack of it will appear to an English - speaking to be improper, and even rude.
eg. (I feel close to the young man now.) I—— an old man he—— a young man
I: How old are you? He: Nineteen. I: How long have you been in the army? He: One year.
I: How did you joined the revolution? He: I followed the army voluntarily when they retreated to the north.
I: Who else are in your family? He: My mother, father, brother, sister and my aunt.
I: Are you married? … (c.f Ru Zhijuan " Liliaceous" )(c.f. Gu 1992)
This seems to be an interview or an interrogate for a westerner, otherwise it may be taken as an insult, but it' s a daily conversation in China. In China, people like to talk about their age, marriage, children, salaries etc. even on their first meet. That may seem somewhat ridiculous for the westerners, who never like things like this to be asked, for they look on them as privacy.
3.3 Different Cultural Values
It has also been suggested that the essential difference between the Chinese and the English cultures is that of value systems ___ collectivism of the Chinese culture and individualism of the English culture. The basic differences between individualism and collectivism are summarized by a group of western scholars as follows:
Collectivism is characterized by individuals subordinating their personal goals to the goals of some collectives. Individualism is characterized by individuals subordinating the goals of collectives to their personal goals. A key belief of people in collectivist cultures is that the smallest unit of survival is the collective. A key belief of people in individualistic cultures is that the smallest unit of survival is the individual. In many situations people in collectivist cultures have internalized the norms of their collectives so completely that there is no such thing as a distinction between in-group goals and personal goals.
The major characteristics of individualism in the English culture are "I" consciousness and self-orientation whereas those of collectivism in the Chinese culture are "we" consciousness and collectivity-orientation. Given name comes first in the West, only thereafter is family name added, while in China, where family is the basic unit of the social structure, family surname comes first and only thereafter comes the given name. Individual identity, individual rights, individual needs are emphasized in the West over "we" identity and the interests of the group or in-group, and obligations and commitment.
Notions of impositions can be said to be culture-specific. In the Western culture, the primary goal of every individual is to satisfy his personal needs and to maximize his personal comfort; every act that brings one in contact with other people might be regarded as an imposition. However, in the Chinese society, hospitality and regard for the collective good or other people's benefit make such acts as offering, inviting, thanking, complimenting and greeting typically polite speech acts.
Addressing terms can be said to be the manifestations of power or solidarity relationship. The Chinese social structure is basically hierarchical or vertical in nature and the principle of "Ren" and "li" help reinforce the asymmetrical or vertical relationship by advocating the maintenance of differences between the emperor and his subjects, father and his son, elder brother and younger brother, male and female; and obedience of the lower position to those who are in higher position and respect from the humble to those who are superior in the society. Logically, in terms of interpersonal relationship, it has become an unwritten rule that authority and power relationship should be valued in daily transactions. What power refers to vary with time. Nowadays it may include, for example, father in a family, leaders at different levels, the elder and the aged and even people who are considered useful in the society. Power relationship is best demonstrated in the use of titles, personal pronoun "Nin" and honorifics when addressing occurs.
Each member of the Western society, comparatively speaking, enjoys independence and equality, which lays the foundation for the establishment of solidarity relationship as the main relationship in the social interactions in the West. Solidarity is a sociolinguistic term not only referring to the equal and informal relationship, but also the desire for the setting up of equality, intimacy, common interest, sharing, etc. Whatever it may possibly mean, its core notion is equality. The emphasis on solidarity over power on the Western side can best be demonstrated in the use of first names in everyday interaction.
4. Conclusion
In a word, politeness is universal and culture - specific to some extent. When we are communicating with people from different cultures, it is best to consult what is appropriate in their culture and act with regard to that, so as to avoid misunderstandings caused by culture differences.
參考文献
［1］ 〖ZK(#〗Brown ,P. and S. Levison , Politeness : some Universals in Language Use ［M］ . Cambridge :Cambridge University
Press. 1978.
［2］ Hu ,Wenzhong(ed) ,Lingustics :A Course Book［M］ . London :Longman group limited. 1983.
［3］ 《中国教育文摘》2011.11“如何贯彻体育素质教育”
［4］ Levison ,S. C. Pragmatics［M］. Cambridge :CUP. 1983.
［5］ Li ,Li and Chen , Zhi'an. Language ,Culture and TEFL ［M］. Chongqing : Southwest China Normal Universty
Press. 1997.
［6］ Gu ,Yueguo ,Politeness Phenomenon in Modern Chinese ［J］ . Journal of Pragmatics. 1990 , (14) :237 - 257.
［7］ 陈融. 面子•留面子•丢面子［J］. 外国语，1986,（4）.
［8］ 陈融. 英语的礼貌语言［J］. 现代外语，1989,（3）.