A Study of the Chinese Speech Act of Dissuasion in ...

Viewer
Transcript

A Study of the Chinese Speech Act of Dissuasion in Service Industry

By Shasha Zhan

Sponsored by The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Burapha University 2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude and deep appreciation to many people who have enormously helped me to complete this research. I will start by expressing my great thanks to the Department of Eastern Languages and Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Burapha University for offering an opportunity to this novice researcher to do the research. In particular, I would like to express my gratitude to Assist. Prof. Dr. Wilai Limthawaranun who mentored patiently and gave valuable advice from the start to the end. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Phoommarin Phiromlertamorn for her comments and very useful guidance. Last but not least, I offer special thanks for all teachers and the personnel in the Department of Eastern Languages for their kindness and assistance.

i

Shasha Zhan Researcher

ABSTRACT This paper mainly chose Chinese contemporary popular movies and TV series with strong expression and colloquial language to collect the corpus of the dissuasive speech act. The themes of the selected movies and TV series are limited to education, medical health, aviation, hotels, public relations, and tour guides sector. The methods this paper adopted are both qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis methods. Firstly, this paper defined the speech act of dissuasion, and distinguished it from other related imperative speech acts, such as the speech act of request, suggestion, and deterrence. Then referring to the analytical method of the three elements of events: reason, course, and result, this paper divided the strategies of the dissuasive speech act into three categories as followings: the category of act, reason, and result, in addition to the special category of the appellation. On the basis of this classification, this paper continued to divide each category into several subdivisions from the perspective of pragmatic functions. Based on further analysis, it is found that aside from the special category of the appellation, the usage proportion of the category of act is the highest, followed by the category of reason. The usage proportion of the category of result is far lower than the first two categories. Why people tend not to use the category of result? This paper explained this tendency from the perspective of Chinese culture, politeness principle and face theory. It is concluded that the dissuasive strategy of the category of act and the dissuasive strategy of the category of reason focus on the issue and not on the person. However, the threat and sarcastic implications while using the dissuasive strategy of the category of result would harm the listener’s face seriously. That’s the reason why the percentage of the usage of the category of result is far lower than the category of act and the category of reason. According to politeness principle and face theory, the category of reason is perfectly logical and more reasonable. But why the proportion of the usage of the category of act is much higher than the category of reason? To solve this problem, this paper analyzed it from the Chinese social structure and the concept of relationship which is deeply rooted in Chinese—insiders and outsiders. It is concluded that the listener is an outsider for the speaker more often. Facing such an outsider, what the speaker concerns is his/her own interests. In the service industry, to stop the listener from doing the current inappropriate action, usually is within the scope of work responsibilities of the speaker’s. So the speaker tends to adopt the dissuasive strategy of the category of act which would let the listener understand the speaker’s intention of dissuasion within the shortest time. That’s the reason why in the service industry people tend to use the dissuasive strategy of the category of act more. ii

Since lacking of the necessary sentence patterns of target language would limit Chinese language learners’ choices of dissuasive strategies and would cause cross-cultural failure, in the following part, the paper summarized the commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns. These sentence patterns are arranged in the degree of difficulty according to ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ and ‚汉语 are placed in the form of listing items with examples. 水平等级标准与语法等级大纲‛. All of these Finally, this paper proposed that, in teaching Chinese as a second language, the Chinese textbook, especially the Chinese textbook of practicality-oriented courses, should arrange the learning of the commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns properly and import the speech act of dissuasion consciously and systematically. When teaching how to implement the speech act of dissuasion, teachers should not only teach the various commonly used sentence patterns under each pragmatic strategy, but also combine with the Chinese culture. In the classroom practicing, teachers should simulate specific context, and let the students take the role of the speaker. KEY WORDS: the speech act of Chinese dissuasion in the service industry, pragmatic strategy, sentence patterns, Chinese pragmatic and cultural rules, teaching Chinese as a second language

iii

CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.................................................................................................................................i ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................ii Chapter One Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1Significance, Purpose and Objective of the Paper .............................................................................. 1 1.1.1 Significance of the Paper ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Purpose of the Paper ............................................................................................................. 3 1.1.3 Research Objective ............................................................................................................... 3 1.2Data Collection and Research Methods .............................................................................................. 4 1.2.1 Date Source........................................................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Research Methods................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Organization of the Paper ................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter Two Literature Review ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.1The theory of speech acts abroad ........................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Application of the theory of speech acts in China ........................................................................... 11 2.3 Research on the speech act of dissuasion in China .......................................................................... 13 Chapter Three Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 19 3.1 The definition of the speech act of dissuasion ................................................................................. 19 3.2 The connections and differences between the speech act of dissuasion and other related speech acts ................................................................................................................................................................ 23 3.2.1 The speech act of dissuasion & the speech act of request .................................................. 23 3.2.2 The speech act of dissuasion & the speech act of suggestion............................................. 25 3.2.3 The speech act of dissuasion & the speech act of deterrence ............................................. 26 Chapter Four The categories of the strategies of the dissuasive speech act .............................................. 29 4.1 Pragmatic strategy ............................................................................................................................ 29 4.2 The categories of the strategies of the dissuasive speech act ........................................................... 30 4.2.1 The dissuasive strategy of the category of act .................................................................... 31 4.2.2 The dissuasive strategy of the category of reason .............................................................. 36 4.2.3 The dissuasive strategy of the category of result ................................................................ 38

Chapter Five The dissuasive strategy statistics and cultural analysis ....................................................... 43 5.1 The statistics of the usage of each category ..................................................................................... 43 5.2 Politeness principle and face theory ................................................................................................. 46 5.3 Insiders and outsiders ....................................................................................................................... 49 Chapter Six The commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns and suggestions for teaching Chinese as a second language............................................................................................................................................ 52 6.1 The commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns ........................................................................... 52 6.2 Suggestions for teaching Chinese as a second language .................................................................. 53 Appendix 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 56 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................... 70

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 44

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 46

Chapter One Introduction 1.1Significance, Purpose and Objective of the Paper 1.1.1 Significance of the Paper At present, there are more and more Chinese people come to Thailand. The number of Chinese tourists that travel to Thailand is increasing day by day. In 2012, it has reached 2.79 million. In 2013, this number has reached 4.7 million. Compared with the year of 2012, the number has increased by 68%. Tourism is a pillar industry of Thailand national economics. And now China possesses the largest number of tourists to Thailand. Therefore, how to improve the quality of the service industry would be a crucial question on which Thailand should focus. However, it is found that when Thai people try to dissuade people in Chinese, they always use it improperly. For example, ‚If you gamble, the police will put you into the jail‛; ‚You Chinese people always do that. That is not polite. We Thais do not do that‛. Such dissuasive sentences express a tone of threat and sarcasm which may make Chinese tourists dissatisfied and disgusted. However, Thai people who use Chinese as a second language are unaware of their indecency, rudeness and impoliteness. In the book "Functional Syllabus of Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language for intermediate and advanced level" which is edited by Jianhua Zhao (赵建华), speech acts are divided into seven categories, 152 pieces of functional items, according to the Chinese learners’ needs for practical communication in the intermediate and advanced level. And under the category of the imperatives, there is a functional item named dissuade. In the service industry, the social relationship between the speaker and the hearer is very special. Under the influence of social power, social distance and so on, how could the attendants implement the speech act of dissuasion effectively and decently? How could the speaker apply the correct dissuasive strategies? Applying what kind of dissuasive strategy affects the degree of the psychological acceptability of the hearer, and also affects the attitude of the hearer for the speaker. Therefore, how to properly use the dissuasive strategy is very important. The research "The Comparative Study of User's Satisfaction and Need of Graduates Quality from the Department of Oriental Languages, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Burapha University"(2008) shows that there are only 10.29% Thai students work in the government sector after they graduated from the major of Chinese, Japanese, Korean. However, the graduates who working in the non-government sector accounted for 89.71% and what’s more, non-Thai foreigner bosses are 60% among these non-government workers. This means that most of the students who graduated from Oriental Language Department still be engaged in cross-cultural communication. In order to avoid cross-cultural pragmatic failure after the students participate in the work, due to the improper use of dissuasive strategies, or due to the lack of the necessary sentence patterns of Chinese, the teaching of dissuasion should be paid more attention to. -1-

The speech act of dissuasion is always involved inevitably in the Chinese teaching process in Burapha University, especially in the courses like Chinese for Tour Guides, Chinese for Hotel Business, etc. How to arrange Chinese dissuasion into such courses scientifically and reasonably, that’s an important problem that must be solved. However, such related research or articles are still lacking so far. The existing textbooks of these courses focus more on the teaching of language knowledge. For example, the textbooks for Chinese Tour guides pay more attention on those professional terms, the introduction of scenic spots and so on, but not the use of language. It indicates that the consideration for the arrangement about pragmatic functions of the textbooks are lacking now. In sum, the dissuasion of Chinese speech act in service is in need of deep research. That’s why this research has its real necessity. The significance of this study is mainly reflected in three aspects as follows. 1.1.1.1 Theoretical value At present the studies in the speech acts in the service industry from the perspective of pragmatics in domestic are very limited. This is worth further study. In particular, there is limited research on the study of the speech act of dissuasion in modern service industry language from the perspective of pragmatics. This paper will sum up the strategies in the speech act of dissuasion in the service industry language; analyze how the Chinese social and cultural factors would influence the dissuasive strategies. It will help Chinese learners grasp the speech act of dissuasion in the service industry from a theoretical point of view, and also help people deepen the understanding of speech acts theory, cross-cultural pragmatics and cultural conventions. 1.1.1.2 Practical value Dissuasion is listed as a functional item under the category of the imperatives in the book "Functional Syllabus of Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language for intermediate and advanced level" which is edited by Jianhua Zhao (赵建华). In the service industry, applying what kind of dissuasive strategy affects the degree of the psychological acceptability of the hearer, and also affects the attitude of the hearer for the speaker. Therefore, how to properly use the dissuasive strategy is very important, so that people, especially the Chinese language learner, should think it over before implementing the speech act of dissuasion. Using the strategies improperly would affect the effective communication. And lacking of the necessary sentence patterns of target language, would limit Chinese language learners’ choices of dissuasive strategies, resulting in cross-cultural failure. After summing up the types of the dissuasive strategies and the commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns, this paper will try to go deeply to explain the strategies from pragmatic cultural rules. This will help Chinese learners to learn and master the system of the Chinese speech act of dissuasion, and help them apply those appropriate dissuasive strategies in the future work.

2

1.1.1.3 Teaching guiding value Combined with the related grammar outline of teaching Chinese as a second language, the commonly used sentence patterns under each category of pragmatic strategies will be arranged according to the degree of difficulty in this paper. This paper will get the complexity scale and give suggestions for Chinese language teaching and textbook compilation. So this research has its guiding value for Chinese teaching.

1.1.2 Purpose of the Paper

1. To understand the pragmatic strategic types of the Chinese speech act of dissuasion in service industry. 2. To summarize the commonly used sentence patterns under each category of dissuasive pragmatic strategies. 3. To try to go deeply to explain what pragmatic conventions and Chinese cultural factors influence people’s choice of the dissuasive strategies. 4. Combined with the related grammar outline of teaching Chinese as a second language, the commonly used sentence patterns under each category of pragmatic strategies will be arranged according to the degree of difficulty. This research will get the complexity scale and give suggestions for Chinese language teaching and textbook compilation. 1.1.3 Research Objective This research focuses on the contemporary speech act of dissuasion in the service industry. The concept of the service industry sector remains to be controversial in theoretical circles. Service industry is regarded as the third industry and includes the other fifteen industrial sectors except agriculture, industry, construction, such as transport, finance, real estate, accommodation and catering industry and so on. According to the report findings of "The Comparative Study of User's Satisfaction and Need of Graduates Quality from the Department of Oriental Languages, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Burapha University"(2008), the Thai students that graduated from Chinese, Japanese, Korean majors, there are 89.71% of them are working in the non-government sector and most of them are working in education sector. Taking into account that this study will ultimately contribute to the Chinese teaching, like the courses of Chinese for Tour Guides, Chinese for Hotel Business in Burapha University, and refer to the sectors in which students would work after their graduation, this research limits the research objective to education, medical health, aviation, hotels, public relations, and tour guides sector.

3

1.2Data Collection and Research Methods 1.2.1 Date Source In order to collect the corpus of the dissuasive speech act more comprehensively and more authentically, this paper must select service industry-themed works with strong expression and colloquial language. And those works should reflect our contemporary social life. Taking into account that films and television works not only have strong verbal expression, and be able to reflect the contemporary face of the service sector, but also show those in the specific scenes. By analyzing the specific scenes, this paper will distinguish the speech act of dissuasion more accurately from the speech acts of request, suggestion, order, etc. So this paper mainly chooses contemporary popular movies and TV series with strong expression and colloquial language to collect the corpus of the dissuasive speech act. According to the purpose and the objective of the research, the themes of the movies and TV series are limited to education, medical health, aviation, hotels, public relations, and tour guides sector. Based on this real corpus, the paper then will analyze the categories of the strategies of the dissuasive speech act. The selected video works are listed as follows. The data of the dissuasive speech act in education comes from:1. Movie 代课老师; 新来的李老师; 一个老师的学校; 2. TV Series 老师，错了(30 episodes);十八岁的天空(22 episodes). The data of the dissuasive speech act in medical health comes from:1. Movie 流氓医生 2. TV Series 大医院小医师(25 episodes);妙手仁心(32 episodes). The data of the dissuasive speech act in aviation comes from: TV Series 落地请开手机(26 episodes); 空姐的战争(18 episodes); 中国空姐(20 episodes). The data of the dissuasive speech act in hotels comes from: TV Series 五星大饭店(32 episodes); 酒店风云(30 episodes). The data of the dissuasive speech act in public relations comes from: TV Series 公关小姐 (44 episodes); 奇妙女孩(28 episodes). The data of the dissuasive speech act in tour guides comes from:1、Movie 天上人间; 2、TV Series 老表，你好(20 episodes);我的淘气天使(22 episodes). 1.2.2 Research Methods This paper will adopt both qualitative analysis method and quantitative analysis method. Qualitative method are mainly reflected in two aspects: 1. The definition of speech act of dissuasion; 2. The definition of the categories of the dissuasive strategies. 4

Quantitative method is mainly reflected in the collection and analysis of corpus. After collect the corpus of the contemporary Chinese speech act of dissuasion from the movies and TV series, the paper will analyze people in the service industry tend to use what kinds of dissuasive strategies statistically. And the commonly used sentence patterns under each category of pragmatic strategies will be arranged according to the degree of difficulty, combined with the related grammar outline of teaching Chinese as a second language.

1.3 Organization of the Paper This paper is divided into six chapters. It’s organized as follows: Chapter one is an introduction to the significance, purpose and objective of the paper, data collection, research method and organization of the paper. Chapter two is a literature review. It begins with the theory of speech acts abroad and its application in China, and then goes into the research on the speech act of dissuasion in China. Finally it sums up the shortcomings of the previous studies on the speech act of dissuasion and points out what worth further study from the perspective of pragmatics is worth further study. Chapter three is definitions. Compared with “说服”、“劝服”、“劝说”、“劝导”、 “规劝”, and referring to the dictionaries’ explanations and the definitions which are associated with dissuasion, the paper defines the speech act of dissuasion. And then the paper continues to give four prerequisites to explain the definition further. After that, this paper distinguishes the speech act of dissuasion with other imperative speech acts, those have some similarities with the speech act of dissuasion and it is easy to be confused, such as the speech act of request, the speech act of suggestion and the speech act of deterrence. Chapter four is the categories of the strategies of the dissuasive speech act. Referring to the analytical method of the three elements of events: reason, course, and result, the strategies of the dissuasive speech act are divided into three categories as followings: the category of act, reason, and result, in addition to the special category of the appellation. On the basis of this classification, this paper continued to divide each category into several subdivisions from the perspective of pragmatic functions. Chapter five, this paper continues to summarize that the speakers in service industry tend to use what kinds of dissuasive strategies statistically. Based on this result, this paper tries to explain the tendency from the perspective of Chinese culture, politeness principle, face theory, and the concept of insiders-outsiders. Chapter six is to summarize the commonly used sentence patterns under each category of dissuasive pragmatic strategies. Then combined with the related grammar outline of teaching Chinese as a second language (‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ and ‚汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲‛), the commonly used sentence patterns under each category of pragmatic strategies are arranged 5

according to the degree of difficulty. Finally, this research gives suggestions for Chinese language teaching and textbook compilation.

6

Chapter Two Literature Review 2.1The theory of speech acts abroad Ferdinand de Saussure was the first man who proposed the concept of ‚langue‛ and ‚parole‛ and made a distinction between them. However, he chose to shelve ‚parole‛, saying that "the whole parole event cannot be recognized because it is not homogeneous". With the development of research in linguistics, this thought has not been accepted by the people. In 1923, British anthropologist B. Malinowsk proposed the concept ‚speech acts‛, and studied the function of language through investigating the cultural life and customs of a nation. He pointed out that language is the way of behavior, instead of the signal of thinking, and speech acts are organic components of human general activities. People's behaviors are always dominated by social norms, so speech acts are behaviors that are also dominated by a variety of social norms. For much of the history of linguistics and the positivist philosophy of language, language was viewed primarily as a way of making factual assertions, and the other uses of language tended to be ignored. With the rise and development of pragmatics, however, the term of "speech acts" has been widely applied. The theory of ‚speech acts‛ which aims to answer how language is used to act rather than to refer to things was founded in the mid-1950s. Since then, speech was explained as a rule-governed activities and this explanation has been a common theme in Anglo-American philosophy of language. In this field the first person who has made significant progress in research is the British philosopher of language John Langshaw Austin. The work of J. L. Austin, particularly his How to Do Things with Words, overturned the traditional notion that truth conditions of the logical semantic are the center of language comprehension, and founded speech act theory. J. L. Austin pointed out that several kinds of sentences are neither true nor false, and they are not used to transmit information, but are equivalent to acts. According to his philosophy, Austin asserted that those performative utterances if are uttered in appropriate circumstances are to perform a certain action rather than to say something. His speech acts theory considered speech act as the basic functional unit of meaning expression through words. So speech act should also be the basic analytical unit for language usage research. The practical significance of speech acts is that to understand the realization patterns of discourse and implementation mechanism of different speech acts in different languages and cultures; to understand the different speech ways which are adopted to implement the same speech act in different languages and cultures. Through comparing those differences and their causing reasons in language learning and intercultural communication, speech acts theory would ultimately contribute to language teaching, learning and intercultural communication. 7

In order to study further all of the speech acts under all kinds of speech communication situations, Austin (1955) divided all speech acts into two types: perfomative utterance and constative utterance. But he abandoned this classification later, and put forward threefold division of speech acts. The three subdivisions are locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act. Locutionary act is the actual utterance and its ostensible meaning, comprising phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts corresponding to the verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any meaningful utterance. Illocutionary act is the semantic ‚illocutionary force‛ of the utterance, thus it means the real and intended meaning. It is the act of expressing the speaker’s intention and it is the act performed in saying something. Perlocutionary act is the verbal’s actual effect, whether intended or not. It is the act performed by or resulting from saying something and it is the consequence of or the change brought about the utterance. It is the act performed by saying something. Austin believed the illocutionary force is determined by the verb. So the illocutionary act should be classified into different categories according to the classification of the verb (Austin, 1962). He checked over a condensed English Dictionary, and classified illocutionary acts into five basic categories according to those verbs in the dictionary: verdictives, expositives, exercitives, behavitives and commissives. Verdictives consist in the delivering of a finding, official or unofficial, upon evidence or reasons as to value or fact as these are distinguishable. Examples of verbs are acquit, estimate, calculate, etc. Exercitives are to exercise the powers, rights or exert influence. Examples of verbs are appointing, voting, ordering, advising etc. Commissives is the category to promise or guarantee, including the commitment to ensure, swear, promise, vow, etc. Behavitive is the category to show the attitude. Examples of verbs are apologze, thank, deplore, congratulate, curse, bless, etc. Expositives ‚make plain how our utterance fit into the course of an argument or conversation.‛ They ‚are used in acts of exposition involving the expounding of views, the conducting of arguments, and the clarifying of usages and references.‛ Examples of verbs are affirm, deny, illustrate, concede, reply, etc. On the basis of Austin’s classification, American philosopher-linguist John Searle (1965) pointed out that the first division locutionary act and the third division perlocutionary act have no value for further and deeper understanding of speech acts. Searle insisted that speech act is the kind of act that is to implement a communicative purpose or to perform an act with a specific function. So Searle defined Speech act as illocutionary act. Since then, in the theory of speech acts, the illocutionary act has got much more attention than the locutionary and perlocutionary act. On the basis of Austin’s way of dividing all speech acts according to performative verbs, Searle criticized Austin’s way of doing and criticized Austin’s classification. Searle pointed out that the presence or absence of performative verbs are not be able to be the standard of speech acts’ division. And in Austin’s classification, ‚there is no clear or consistent principle or set of principles on the basis of which the taxonomy is constructed.‛ And also ‚because there is no clear principle of classification and because there is 8

a persistent confusion between illocutionary acts and illocutionary verbs, there is a great deal of overlap from one category to another and a great deal of heterogeneity within some of the categories. ‛（Searle, 1975） Searle noticed that not all of the verbs that Austin listed are illocutionary. Searle (1977) listed twelve significant dimensions of variation for the classification of speech acts, such as illocutionary point, the direction of fit (between words and the world), expressed psychological states, force or strength with which illocutionary point is presented, the status or position of the speaker and hearer, relations to the rest of the discourse, propositional content, style of performance, etc. However, when giving his own taxonomy, Searle only chose four of the twelve criteria, illocutionary point, and its corollaries, direction of fit and expressed sincerity conditions, as the basis for his classification. Based on the above four criteria, Searle (1975) classified the illocutionary into five basic categories: assertives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations. Assertives which are also named as ‚Representatives‛, are those kind of speech acts that commit a speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition. Assertives or representatives are speech acts that stating or describing, saying what the speaker believes to be true, e.g. reciting a creed (religious beliefs shared by a community). Directives are those kinds of speech acts that are to cause the hearer to take a particular action. Directives are speech acts that try to get the hearer to do something, e.g. requests, commands and advice. Commissives are those kinds of speech acts that commit the speaker himself to some future course of action, e.g. promises and oaths. Expressives are those kinds of speech acts that express the speaker's attitudes and emotions towards the proposition, e.g. congratulations, excuses and thanks. Declarations are speech acts that change the reality in accord with the proposition of the declaration. Declarations are speech acts that bringing about immediate changes by saying something, e.g. I now declare the meeting open. Searle pointed out that all the speech acts that belong to the same category share the same purpose or the same illocutionary point, but they differ in their strength or forth. Searle's classification is much more rigorous than Austin’s, because he added some criteria on the basis of Austin’s. And it is a significant advancement in the study of speech act. But there are still some flaws (Levinson, 2001). Levinson criticized that there’s no uniform standard in Searle's classification, not as Searle himself has claimed. Mey also pointed out that Searle only applied four of the twelve criteria he proposed. That influenced the rigor of this classification. But either Austin or Searle, basically their speech act theories are the theories of speech acts of the speaker’s. The listener is completely in passive, subordinate position. Because of only from the perspective of the speaker's and regardless of other factors, Austin and Searle’s speech act theories are typically unidirectional. But as Levinson (1979) pointed out that, all words are among the context of speech. A speech act is not just a speech act in discourse, but a part of the speech activities in their everyday activities. Since the speech act theory has been put forward, the theory emphasizing the role of context appeared on its basis. 9

One example is the theory of speech event. The concept of ‚speech event‛ was proposed by anthropologists and folk cultural sociologists in the process of investigation of folk culture. It means that speech acts are in broad social and cultural activities and are restricted by the social and cultural activities. Later in 1974, Hymes proposed that some factors constitute the speech circumstances and would influence specific speech act. These factors include setting/ scene, participant, ends, act sequence, key, instrument, norms and genres. Another example is "contexts of situation". John Rupert Firth (1957) inherited and developed the concept from Marlinowski who proposed it in 1923. He pointed out the study of ‚meaning‛ and ‚context‛ should be central in linguistics. He insisted that language was not an autonomous entity. As utterances occur in real-life contexts, Firth argued that in addition to the certain environment that the speech activities occurred in, the whole social environment, history, culture, religion, identity of the participants, the relationship between the participants, all of these constitute the context. And the contexts of situation would impact the significance of the language. After Halliday (1978) inherited Firth's theory of ‚contexts of situation‛, he proposed that language is closely linked with and be influenced by typical social situations. His theory ‚system-functional linguistics‛ emphasizes the study the function of language from a social perspective. Halliday distinguished three basic metafunction of language: ideational metafunction, interpersonal metafunction, textual metafunction. He believes that language is a social behavior and is influenced largely by the environment. So the choice of language form is also largely affected by the cultural environment. Halliday attaches great importance to the sociological aspects of language. Only in the context, speech acts are able to play a role. Mey (1985) pointed out that we should study the language with the pragmatic view that is based on the context. This Pragmatic view should not be isolated from the rest of the branch of linguistics, or just be seen as a supplement to truth-conditions semantics, propositional logic or traditional speech act theory. Instead, the context and the users of the language should be seen as an essential role of language to construct linguistic theory. Later in 2001, Mey proposed the concept of Intercultural Pragmatics. Different cultures, different languages and different contexts would cause different pragmatics. All in all, Since Austin put forward speech acts theory, the speech act theory has been severely criticized and adjusted. His student Searle inherited, modified and developed it. At present, the widely accepted version of speech act theory in the linguistic circle is the one adapted by Searle. Speech acts theory still has a huge impact on Linguistics. The research about speech acts increased annually, like Anna Wierzbicka (1987) did the investigation and analysis on performative verbs of speech acts; Blum-Kulka (1984) did a comparative study about different speech acts in different languages, etc. With the broadening of research scope, context, researchers have noticed that speech act belongs to social action. Its composition, 10

operation and effect are subject to the constraints of social factors. Therefore, social and cultural factors are taken into consideration. These studies are all based on Austin and Searle’s theory. 2.2 Application of the theory of speech acts in China The first person who introduced pragmatics comprehensively to the domestic is Zhuanglin Hu(胡壮麟), Professor of Peking University. In his ‚国外语言学‛ (1980), he introduced pragmatics from four and methods; comments from various pragmatics aspects. These four aspects are the pragmatic objects schools; the relationship between pragmatics and other disciplines; Pragmatics rules, etc. And Austin's How to Do Things with Words, the pioneering treatise of the theory of speech acts, is partly translated into Chinese for domestic readers by Guozhang Xu (许国璋) in 1980. Since then, domestic linguistic experts and scholars started to pay attention to speech acts, and continued to focus on, discuss and do research on speech acts theory. Bo Ni’s（倪波）‚国外有关语用学的探索‛ in 1982 is one of those researches. This academic article not only introduced speech acts theory in detail, but also introduced the distinction between direct speech acts and indirect speech acts. In 1983, ‚格赖斯的‘会话含义’与有关的讨论‛(Yumin Cheng 程雨民) introduced H. P. Grice's conversational implicature. Zhaoxiong He’s (何兆熊) ‚话语分析综述‛ (1983) summarized and introduced the main achievements in discourse analysis of Anglo-American scholars’. In 1984, Cidong Huang’s (黄次栋) ‚语用学和语用错误‛ investigated speech acts and their conditions with ten examples of pragmatic errors, and pointed out that we must pay attention to communicative meaning of speech acts. Yongnian Hua (花永年)introduced Speech Act Schema in his ‚言语行为模式分析‛ in 1986. Kaicheng Duan (段开成) introduced Searle’s speech acts theory in detail in his paper ‚舍尔的言语行为理论‛ in 1988. Yucun Qi’s (戚雨村) ‚语用学说略‛ in 1988, summarized the rise and development of pragmatics, and introduced two important concepts (speech act and context) and several topics to domestic, like presupposition, referring expressions, cooperative principle and so on. Before the 1990s, China mainly stayed in the stage of theory introduction in speech acts. However after the 1990s, there were fruitful achievements about speech acts, from the basic theory of speech acts to interpretation or commentary on the theory. The earliest people in China who were exposed to speech acts theory are mainly the scholars in teaching English as a foreign language field. The scholars who contributed to presentation, interpretation or commentary the most to speech acts theory are Wenzhong Hu (胡文仲), Yueguo Gu (顾曰国), Yuxin Jia (贾玉新), Zhaoxiong He (何兆熊), etc. Those articles are like Yuxin Jia(贾玉新) and Jiehong Li’s (李洁红) ‚言语行为和言语行为能力‛ (Foreign Language Research, 1993), Yueguo Gu’s (顾曰国) ‚J.Searle 的言语行为理论：评判与借鉴‛(Foreign Linguistics, 1994), Chunlong Zhang’s (张春隆) ‚论言语行为及存在的问题‛(Foreign Language Research, 1994), Yihong Gao’s (高一虹) ‚沃尔夫假说的言外行为与言后行为‛ (Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 11

2000), Yanping Tang(唐燕萍) and Youfen Zhang’s (张友芬) ‚言语行为新解‛ (Fujian Foreign Languages, 2002) and so on. In the meantime, speech acts theory are used for reference and the focus of research about speech acts shifted to the study of the Chinese speech acts, as well as comparative study of speech acts between Chinese and other languages. Among those scholars who studied speech acts, Jun Li (李军) is the one who did research on speech ontology and made his greatest contribution to the acts’ specific categories from the aspect of Chinese subdivision of directives. His paper ‚汉语使役性言语行为的话语构造及其功能‛（ 1998）analyzed discourse structure, defined the Chinese directive speech acts and analyzed this kind of speech acts’ components. On the basis of the above analysis, Li continued to analyze those components’ pragmatic function and their effects respectively. At last, this paper summarized how to use these components effectively in order to form the best pragmatic strategy. In ‚使役方式选择与社会情景制约关系分析‛ (2001), Jun Li continued to summarize the relationship between the way that we use in directive speech acts in Chinese culture and situational constraints by means of statistical methods. And he discovered that lots of factors would influence the strategies of directive speech acts, such as social power, social distance, the estimation of speaker’s (whether listener would be submissive or not), the difficulty of the requirement, who is the benefiter and the contents’ category of directive speech acts, etc. Later in 2003, he published the article ‚使役性言语行为醒示语分析‛ and ‚使役性言语行为分析‛. In the former paper, he studied further on analyzing the alerts of directive speech acts, divided the alerts of directive speech acts into two subdivisions, vocatives and reminders, and analyzed the regulative function of the alerts. In the latter paper, Jun Li pointed out that the substance of directive speech acts is to implement speaker’s intention. And then he analyzed the elements and expressive forms of directive speech acts, and summarized the contents that would regulate and let directive speech acts be implemented effectively. All in all, Chinese domestic scholars not only introduced the theory of speech acts from abroad, but also used this theory for reference and combined it with practical speech acts in Chinese language. In addition to the comparative study of speech acts between Chinese and other languages, scholars also studied deeply on Chinese speech acts from the aspect of Chinese ontology. They have made great contribution to research on discourse pattern, discourse structure, the types of strategies and the factors that would affect the choices of strategy, etc. These studies and researches have created a good situation for the research of speech acts.

12

2.3 Research on the speech act of dissuasion in China Speech acts theory has been created for just a few decades. However, the researches on the theory have got great achievement. In China, lots of researches have been done on specific speech act, such as the speech act of greeting, request, complaint, compliment, refusal, threat, etc. The results are fruitful. But since there are a large number of specific speech acts, there still is plenty of blank in research that is worth studying further left to us. In the book "Functional Syllabus of Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language for intermediate and advanced level" which is edited by Jianhua Zhao (赵建华), speech acts are divided into seven categories according to the Chinese learners’ needs for practical communication in the intermediate and advanced level. These seven categories are expressives in social activity, narratives of objective circumstances, the expression of rational knowledge, the expression of subjective emotion, the expression of moral emotion, the imperatives and the expression of communicative strategies. The seven categories are divided into 152 pieces of functional items in total. And under the category of the imperatives, there is a functional item named ‚劝阻‛. This paper will use ‚dissuade‛ or ‚dissuasion‛ pointing to ‚劝阻‛. However, in previous studies, scholars have used varied Chinese words like 说服, 劝服, 劝说, 劝导, 规劝 and so on. Those words refer to persuasion. Though persuasion is not the same with dissuasion, the previous studies provide a reference for this research. Researches on the Chinese persuasion date back to the Qin Dynasty. Confucius, Mencius, Han Fei and other ancient philosophers have put forward their own ideas on persuasion. But after the Qin Dynasty, scholars emphasized more on the research of written language and the study of spoken language is relatively ignored. So is the study of persuasion. And this bias has affected the studies in modern Chinese. Up to now, some researchers in China continued to try to summarize the arts and techniques of persuasion, from the cases of persuasion in the business activities and the classical allusions about the ancient counselor's persuasion. These were many such articles, such as Longguang Lu’s(卢隆光) ‚漫谈我国古代劝说的入题艺术‛（1994）,Yongdao Du’s(杜永道) ‚劝说：从对方观念切入‛（1995）, Weijie Gao’s(高伟杰) ‚劝说的基本原则：摆事实和讲道理‛（1995）, Xiaosuo Luo’s (骆小所) ‚公关语言的劝导说服‛ （1996）, Zhongjian Huang’s (黄中建) ‚劝说不妨欲止先纵‛（ 1999）,Xia Zhao’s (赵霞) ‚透过现象看本质——拨云见日式劝说‛（ 2000）, Xuezhu Liu’s(刘学柱) ‚责己谏人：劝说的智慧‛ （2003）, Tiande Ma’s (马天德) ‚三篇古文的劝说艺术‛（2005）, Kun Zhang’s (张坤) ‚劝说类口语交际指导‛ （2007）, etc. Although most of these studies were limited to the certain specific case, lacked of a large corpus and didn’t form a system of theory, the results those articles got were all derived from authentic corpus. So they are helpful to our study in the pragmatic strategies of the dissuasive speech act in the future. 13

The scholars started to pay attention to the speech act of persuasion from the perspective of pragmatics in the 1980s. Early in 1982, Bo Ni(倪波) wrote a paper named ‚国外有关语用学的探索”. In this paper, Ni pointed out that the ‚parameters‛ between the speaker and the hearer should be harmonized in normal context, but those kinds of speech acts, like accusation, threat, reprimand and dissuasion, put the hearer in the dock as a defendant. This is the first paper in domestic which has pointed out that the speech act of persuasion is different from other speech acts, and is worth of studying. Later in 1996, Tiemin Wang (王铁民) pointed out in his paper ‚略论劝导说服的语用艺术‛ that although persuasion and criticism are the same in imposing ideological influence on the hearer, dissuasion is not criticism. They are different. Wang did the initial exploration from the pragmatic perspective on persuasion and pointed out that it involves all fields and scales of language styles. Speech, negotiation, debate, and criticism, promotions and so on, these are all ideological works those contain convincing factors. Persuasion is the use of language tools and techniques to persuade and guide each other to be willing to accept speakers’ views, opinions or recommendations. The purpose is to persuade. This article explores and describes the strategies of persuasion in the three aspects. Firstly, the speaker should be a man with noble personality and should be perfectly confident. Secondly, the speaker should understand the hearer well, especially on psychological aspect. The last point is that the speaker should gradually convince the hearer by using the hearer’s own ideas. In 2002, Changhua Xu (徐昌华) investigated Japanese persuasion from a pragmatic point of view in his paper ‚关于劝说语的语用考察‛. He analyzed the form characteristics of persuasion and did a brief analysis of the similarities and differences between the speech act of persuasion and the speech act of blame. Then he continued to analyze the forms of the indirect speech act of persuasion. However, Xu analyzed these mainly from the perspective of form, and didn’t combine the linguistic context. Caiyun Xu’s（许彩云）two papers in 2002, ‚汉语劝服类言语行为话语结构分析‛ and ‚汉语劝服类言语行为话语模式变式探析之二‛, did the analysis of the discourse structure of the speech act of persuasion with the theory of discourse structure of speech acts. These two papers divided the discourse structure of the speech act of persuasion into the basic structure and the external structure. The former is projected directly by the behavior of persuasion on the language level, and it is constituted by intension, target and reasons. The latter is non-essential, and it serves to strengthen the power of persuasion. On this basis, Xu analyzed the discourse structure of the speech act of persuasion further. Xu’s detailed analysis has important significance and has laid the foundation for later studies. However, the classification of the discourse structure is somewhat messy. For example, ‚recommendations‛ is not listed under the category of the expression of intent, but is put under the auxiliary category of persuasive reasons. That is inappropriate. For another example, in Xu’s classification, there is a small category named emotional 14

construction under the persuasive start-up process, and there’s another small category named emotional reinforcement under the persuasive carry-out process. Since the two small categories all resort to human’s emotion, then how to distinguish them, whether it is emotional construction or emotional reinforcement. So, Xu’s criterion for the classification is somewhat vague. Therefore there exists some problem. And what’s more, these two papers focused on the description and induction of the form, and did not involve the research of the skills and strategies for application. Xia Tang(唐霞) did a lot of research on speech acts of persuasion. Her three papers ‚中美劝说言语行为的对比研究‛（2007）, ‚劝说言语行为的语用分析‛（ 2009）and ‚劝说中的语用预设‛ （2010）demonstrated that the theory of pragmatics is applicable for the study of the speech act of persuasion. She pointed out that the theory of pragmatics has provided a new perspective for studying persuasion, and demonstrated that those traditional theories of pragmatics, such as the principles of cooperation, conversational implicature, face theory, politeness principles and so on, have strong explanatory power for the speech act of persuasion. However, Tang’s research on the pragmatic strategies of the speech act of persuasion still needs to go further. In 2010, Lingzhi Zhai’s (翟玲之) paper ‚言语交际中劝说言语行为语用策略研究 ‛ tried to divide the strategies of the speech act of persuasion into seven categories. But this classification is made on what kind of corpus, this article didn’t specify. And later in 2011, Wei Chen (陈玮) applied the theory of speech acts to the analysis of the speech act of persuasion. He analyzed not only the cooperative principle and the politeness principle in the speech act of persuasion, but also the discourse constitution. He also presented his classification on the strategies of the speech act of persuasion in his paper ‚日常汉语规劝言语行为及策略研究‛. He divided the strategies into 12 categories. However there’s a problem about the classification. As the eighth subdivision, ‚the strategy of doubt‛, is divided from the perspective of sentence category, and the other 11 categories are divided from the perspective of semantics, the standards of classification are not consistent. So there exists serious crossover phenomenon between the eighth subdivision and the other subdivisions. In 2012, Bin Huang’s (黄彬) ‚汉语劝说言语行为的语用研究‛ did an analysis of the discourse of the speech act of persuasion. This paper definitely has its reference value for the study of dissuasion in the future. However, this paper’s analysis is based on the corpus of ‚Dream of Red Mansions‛. Although ‚Dream of Red Mansions‛ has strong color of spoken language, after all, it still is written language. And written language in Qing dynasty definitely is different from the contemporary spoken language. Lack of the dynamic characteristic will affect the objectivity of research. What’s more, because of the story’s limitation, the relationships among the characters belong to kinship or master-servant relationships in a large feudal family. So the data of persuasion from ‚Dream of Red Mansions‛ are different from those collected in 15

modern service industry. It means that ‚Dream of Red Mansions‛ is not able to reflect the dissuasive speech act in modern service industry. Also, there are a number of researchers who have attempted to study the speech act of persuasion in specific fields in the perspective of pragmatics, such as in ‚sales persuasion‛. There are many papers studying in sales persuasion, like ‚A pragmatic analysis of persuasive communication in clothing market‛ (Meili An 安美丽, 2004). She noticed the revival of ancient China’s 纵横术(in ancient China, travelling scholars practiced 纵横术 by means of giving counsel to a ruler on state matters) under the circumstances of China’s transformation from planned economy to market economy. Using Jef Verschueren’s Linguistic Adaptation Theory, and by reference to the model proposed by Dr Yu Guodong, this paper classified the persuasive utterances of shop assistants and individual sellers as adaptation to physical world(including adaptation to stretches of time, adaptation of shopping environment, adaptation of physical appearance, adaptation to different sexes, and adaptation to different ages), adaptation to social conventions(including adaptation to the business tradition of being honest and reliable, adaptation of addressing, adaptation to some people’s worshipping and having a blind faith in things foreign, and adaptation to the custom of figures), adaptation to psychological motivations( including the need for pleasing to the eye, the need for fine quality, the motivation for low price, the desire for esteem, the motivation to follow the consumption of popularity, and the desire to be complimented). ‚A study on pragmatic features of marketing persuasive language‛ (Guang Shao 邵广，2008) followed Meili An’s ideas and on the basis of An’s, Shao collected a larger corpus. Shao’s Paper is an investigation into the Pragmatic features of face-to-face persuasive marketing communications specifically focusing on persuasive communication with foreigners. In this study, observation, interview and taperecording were utilized to collect various informations about the market persuasive language. The subject of the study, totally numbered 118, consists of two groups: the first group of 70 shop assistants in big stores; the second group of 48 individual sellers in small stalls. The first group’s data which mainly consists of shop assistants and sellers’ utterances during the selling process is collected from big departments owned by shareholders, including Beijing Friendship Store (北京友谊商店), Beijing the Palace (世贸天阶), Beijing Shin Kong Palace (北京新光天地). And the second group of small stalls’ data is collected in Beijing silk street (北京秀水街) reacted by individuals by means of tape-recording shop assistants and sellers’ persuasive communication with foreign customers some days before Spring Festival 2008 and in the summer of 2007. The other part of the data is non-verbal. It consists of surroundings, physical appearance and so on. ‚销售劝说言语行为的实证研究‛ (Dongmei Li 李冬梅, 2008) made an on-the-spot investigation about the speech act of persuasion under business environment. This study collected the corpus in the field. Li collected the recordings of the conversations between the buyers and sellers in 121 16

transactions. The corpus collectors are the junior students majored in the Business English from Guangxi Normal University. Each student was required to record the dialogue of his or her one purchase and save it as MP3. After finishing the recording, the student was required to work up the audio contents into text data, and write a report on the activities of the purchase to analyze the reasons why he or she bought or did not buy the commodity and point out what words of the seller influenced his or her decision to buy or not to buy. Through the analysis of the recordings of the conversations between the buyers and sellers in 121 transactions, this paper summed up the principles of sales persuasion, the available strategies and the problems that the speaker should pay attention to during the implementation of the speech act of persuasion. The principles of sales persuasion are the praise strategy, put-yourself-in-customers’-shoes strategy, reducethe-risk-of-purchase strategy, the comparative strategy, lose-win strategy and push strategy. And during the implementation of the speech act of persuasion the speaker should pay attention that the praise should be targeted, do not refute the customers and avoid assertion without foundation. Like sales language, tour guider language also attracted a lot of attention. Lots of scholars tried to use the theory of pragmatics to analyze tour guider language and got fruitful results. Qinghua Que's ‚浅论导游语言中合作原则的渗透及其效果‛ (2007) applied H. P. Grice’s cooperative principle to analyze the tour Guides’ Verbal Communication. He pointed out that the cooperative principle has penetrated in all aspects of the tour guides’ language. He analyzed the penetration from four perspectives: Quantity Maxim, Quality Maxim, Relevant Maxim and Manner Maxim. And in 2008, Que’s ‚论导游言语交际中合作原则的运用‛ (‚On the Application the Cooperative Principle in Tour Guides’ Verbal Communication‛) collected site guiding language, record guiding language, video guiding speech and published tour guide speech materials. By the use of Grice’s Cooperative Principles together with relevant pragmatic principles and the rhetorical theories, Que analyzed these datum and discussed how the language of tour guides comply with and violate the cooperative principle from three perspectives: motivations, the specific embodiment and effects. And then Que gave some suggestions for tour guides. He proposed that a tour guide should avoid violating cooperative principle unconsciously, but should try conscious violation of cooperative principle which may bring us a quite different feelings and effects. Speech which is full of conscious violation is rich in vigor and humor. It is good for a person to express himself correctly and effectively. FU Bingfeng’s (付冰峰) ‚On the Appropriateness of Tourist Language‛ (论导游语言的得体性，2006) pointed out that the express of tourist language has a direct effect on the images and economic benefits of the Tourist Company. Fu’s article focused on the appropriate principle which the tourist language should abide by in the tourist activities from the following three aspects: adapt to the intercourse circumstances, distinguish different partners and keep on the natural qualities. These initial explorations above laid the foundation for further studies in tour guider language. 17

Later in 2010, Jiahui Zhang (张佳慧) tried to apply the pragmatics theories in guide language linguistics systematically in her paper ‚导游语言的语用学研究‛. It was written based on both guide language linguistics theory and case experiences. Zhang collected lots of guide language scripts and tourism experiences. Zhang analyzed the deixis of tour guider language, session meaning and principle of conversational implicature in guide linguistics, indirect speech acts of tour guider language, fuzzy linguistics and cross-cultural/intercultural communication for guide language. In 2013, Jing Su’s (苏晶) ‚导游语言的语用研究‛ also followed Jiahui Zhang’s ideas. These explorative researches laid foundations for further deeper study of speech act of dissuasion in service industry. Undoubtedly, the previous studies provide a reference for this research. But after all, persuasion is not the same with dissuasion. So far there are several shortcomings as follows: 1. There are some problems with the classification of the strategies of the speech act of persuasion, for no recognized criterion for classification is established. Some classification is either a little too complex reason why or somewhat messy. There are even some intersected areas of some small categories. That’s the those previous classifications have not been applied in our practical life. 2. Although there are both some general analysis and segmental research of certain area (like sales area, tour guides area) of the speech act of persuasion, the speech act of dissuasion doesn’t equal to the speech act of persuasion. And up to now, there’s no specific study about the service industry’s dissuasive speech act at all. And most studies are not established on the basis of a large corpus of contemporary language. 3. Apply the results from the studies of dissuasive speech act to teaching Chinese as a second language, give suggestion for classroom teaching and guide Chinese learners to implement dissuasive speech act properly, will make those studies have more practical meaning. However, there’s no study that has been combined with teaching Chinese as a second language. To sum up, at present the studies in the speech acts in the service industry from the perspective of pragmatics in domestic are very limited. This is worth further study. In particular, there is no research on the study of the speech act of dissuasion in modern service industry language from the perspective of pragmatics. The study of the strategies in the speech act of dissuasion in service industry language, how the Chinese social and cultural factors influence the dissuasive strategies, and how these research results could be applied in teaching Chinese as a second language, need to be further studied. And these are just what this paper is going to study. 18

Chapter Three Definitions

3.1 The definition of the speech act of dissuasion In previous studies, there are ‚说服‛, ‚劝服‛, ‚劝说‛, ‚劝导‛, ‚规劝‛ and other expressions. These are all the translations of persuasion in Chinese. Besides of these, ‚劝止‛, ‚劝阻‛ are translated into dissuasion, and are also related to persuade somebody not to do something. Such Chinese words are hard to distinguish from each other. According to the dictionary’s description, the concepts and scopes of those words seem to be similar. They are even used to explain each other in dictionary. For example, in ‚现代汉语词典‛, the explanation of ‚劝止‛ is ‚劝阻‛. But the semantic emphasis of each word varies from each other. So the slight difference would cause the difference of each word’s connotation and extension. So it is necessary to be explained. Up to now, there’s no clear definition of dissuasion in the perspective of speech acts. Therefore, the definition of the speech act of dissuasion in Chinese is essential and it is the basis of the in-depth exploration of this speech act. In ‚现代汉语词典‛, the explanation of the word ‚劝说‛ is ‚劝人做某种事情或对某种事情表示同意‛. (It means to persuade people to do certain things or to persuade people to agree with certain things.) As for ‚劝阻‛, the explanation is ‚劝人不要做某事或进行某种活动‛. (It means talk people out of doing something or certain activity.) From the explanation of the dict ionary, it is seen that ‚劝说‛ emphasizes persuading people to do certain things, while ‚劝阻‛ emphasizes persuading people not to do certain things. Their emphases are different. And what’s more, ‚to persuade people to agree with certain things‛ which is included in the explanation of ‚ 劝说 ‛, is not included in the explanation of ‚ 劝阻‛. So it is concluded as follows: ‚劝说‛(persuade)= persuade people to do + persuade people to agree with certain things. ‚劝阻‛(dissuade)=(speaker think hearer’s words or behavior is inappropriate ) persuade people not to do. For example, in the following scenario, this speech act belongs to ‚劝说‛ rather than ‚劝阻‛. 麝月听说，回手便把宝玉披着起夜的一件貂颏满襟暖袄披上，下去向盆内洗手，先倒了一钟温水，拿了大漱盂，宝玉漱了一口；然后才向茶槅上取了茶碗，先用温水漱了一涮，向暖壶中倒了半碗茶，递与宝玉吃了；自己也漱了一漱，吃了半碗。晴雯笑道：“好妹子，也赏我一口儿。”麝月笑道：“越发上脸儿了！”晴雯道：“好妹妹，明儿晚上你别动，我服侍你一夜，如何？”麝月听说，只得也服侍他漱了口，倒了半碗茶与他吃过。（The 51

st

chapter, ‚Dream of Red Mansions‛） In the example, 晴雯 requested 麝月 to let her take a sip of tea, but 麝月 refused. "After the requester gets feedback from the hearer, if the request has not been achieved, the speaker will then turn 19

the speech act of request into the speech act of persuasion."1 So after 晴雯’s request was rejected, she began to implement the speech act of persuasion. 晴雯 would like to attend upon 麝月 the next evening in exchange for a sip of tea. This exchange lured 麝月 to agree to her request. what 晴雯 did is persuade somebody to agree with certain things. So this speech act belongs to “劝说”. Because there’s no inappropriate language or behavior, so definitely this is not ‚劝阻‛. Thus, the difference between ‚劝说‛ and ‚劝阻‛ is that, the former one stresses persuading people to do certain things, while the latter one emphasizes persuading people not to do certain things. And ‚劝说‛ is also be used to persuade people to agree with certain things, no matter whether the hearer’s language or activity is inappropriate or not. So the concept of ‚劝说‛ covers more and has wider boundary than the concept of ‚ 劝阻 ‛. Considering that this paper is going to study how the speaker would implement the speech act to try to stop the language or activity which the speaker thinks is inappropriate while the hearer is implementing or is going to. So our emphasis is to persuade people not to do something. Therefore, in this paper, ‚劝阻‛(dissuade, dissuasion) is more appropriate. As for ‚劝导‛ ‚劝解‛, in the dictionary of ‚现代汉语词典‛, ‚劝导‛ is explained as ‚规劝开导 ‛, which means persuade to enlighten. And ‚ 劝解 ‛ is explained as ‚ 劝导宽解 ‛, which means persuade to ease anxiety. In another dictionary ‚应用汉语词典‛, ‚劝导‛ is explained as ‚劝说开导‛, which also means persuade to enlighten. And ‚ 劝解 ‛ is explained as ‚ 劝说使解除烦恼 ‛, which means persuade so as to relieve of anxiety. So whether it is ‚劝导‛ or ‚劝解‛, they both emphasize from the psychological aspect. They stress instructing the hearer to relieve worries and entanglements psychologically. Considering that the objective of this paper should emphasize more on stopping the hearer from doing something or certain activity than relieving the hearer’s anxiety, ‚劝阻‛ is more appropriate than ‚劝导‛ and ‚劝解‛. Through the analysis above, it is concluded that although the words those mean persuasion used in the previous studies, such as ‚劝说‛, ‚说服‛, ‚劝服‛, ‚劝导‛, ‚劝解‛ and so on, are basically consistent with ‚劝阻‛(dissuade, dissuasion), their emphases are different. This paper focuses on this speech act that the speaker tries to stop the language or activity which the speaker thinks is inappropriate while the hearer is implementing or is going to. So the emphasis is to persuade people not to do something. So extension of the term ‚劝阻‛ which this paper is going to use is narrower. But the previous studies provide references for this paper. So far, the definitions which are associated with dissuasion are listed as follows.

1

黄彬．（2012)汉语劝说言语行为的语用研究[D]．暨南大学.

20

Fotheringham (1966) defined persuasion as ‚that body of effects in receivers, relevant and instrumental to source-desired goals, brought about by a process in which messages have been a major determinant of those effects‛. He shifted the focus from producers to receivers and emphasized the psychological effects of persuasive communication. Burke (1969) defined that persuasion is ‚the use of symbols, by one symbol-using entity to induce action in another‛. He emphasized the words and images that comprise persuasion, also how persuader and receiver both contribute to the persuasive process and the identification which occurs when we share a similar way of viewing the world with others. Robert c. Beck (1985) thought a definition of persuasion is not necessary because he thought that most concepts have fuzzy edges that are arguable. And it is possible to clarify a concept without having to be committed to a sharp-edged definition of the concept. Such clarification can be obtained by focusing on the shared features of paradigm cases of the concept. And he proposed the common features of persuasion as follows: 1. The notion of success; 2. The presence of some criterion or goal; 3. The existence of some intent to reach that goal; 4. Some measure of freedom (free will, free choice, voluntary action) on the hearer’s part; 5. The effects are achieved through one person’s communicating with another; 6. Persuasion involves a change in the mental state of the hearer. H. W. Simons (2001): Persuasion is an art of human communication. It is used to influence selfjudgment and the behavior of others. Persuasion is a method that attempts to change the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of others’, but not by the means of torture, forced confessions to achieve the purpose. It not only influences on the mere sensory awareness, but also influences on money transactions and material aspect. Persuasion influences people’s identification of the truth or falsity of the issues, judgment, the evaluation of other people or things, personal social responsibility, and even affects the formation of our Fundamental values and ideology. Borchers (2002) defined persuasion as the coproduction of meaning that results when an individual or a group of individuals uses language strategies and/or visual images to make audiences identify with that individual or group. Tiemin Wang (1996): Persuasion is this kind of act that the speaker uses language tools and techniques to persuade and guide the hearer, so as to let the hearer is willing to accept the speaker’s views, opinions or recommendations. The purpose is to persuade and to achieve a certain goal. In short, persuasion is to use persuasive language to achieve the purpose. 21

Caiyun Xu (2002): In certain contexts, the speaker implements certain kind of speech act by stating certain reasons and exerting emotional influence, to make the hearer be willing to adopt the behavior as the speaker has pointed out. This is the speech act of persuasion. Xia Tang (2007) defined the speech act of persuasion as the coproduction of a state of identification between a source and a receiver that results from the use of language strategies. And Xia Tang listed some characteristics of persuasion: Persuasion is a communication process; involves symbolism, involves an attempt to influence; requires free choice; involves at least some strategizing. Chuanming Cui (2009): persuasion is this kind of activity that is to influence others’ ideas or attitudes with non-coercive means. By using language, adopting the appropriate method and integrating a variety of information, the speaker makes use of rational exposition, the emotional impact and the charm of personality to influence others’ ideas or attitudes. Wei Chen (2011): Persuasion is defined as follows: Each community has its own set of rules which non-community members are not required to comply with. If the speaker and the hearer are in the same community, and the hearer’s thoughts or behaviors violated the community’s rules, the speaker puts forward his opinion in accordance with the community’s rules to hope the hearer would comply with his opinion. Bin Huang (2012) defined persuasion from both a broad and a narrow sense. In a broad sense, persuasion is the activity that doer takes use of various non-coercive means to influence the receiver’s attitudes or behaviors, so as to reach a consensus with the receiver ultimately. It is not just a speech act, but also is a human behavior. In a narrow sense, the speech act of persuasion is this kind of speech act that in the communication process, the speaker tries to influence the hearer’s thoughts, attitude or behavior by using a variety of pragmatic strategies in non-coercive way, in order to make the hearer be willing to adopt the behavioral tendency that the speaker has proposed. The behavior tendency here not only refers to the act behavior, but also refers to psychological behavioral tendency. Referring to the dictionaries’ explanations and the previous research results, and also based on the analysis of the corpus and combined with the speech act theory, the speech act of dissuasion is defined as follows. The hearer is preparing or has already taken action A. But the speaker has contrary opinion. The speaker considers A is inappropriate. If the speaker does not prevent the hearer from doing A, the hearer will take action A immediately or continue doing A. Therefore, the speaker implements this speech act in non-coercive way to make the hearer stop doing A. If a speech act possesses such factors, it is called the speech act of dissuasion. 22

In this definition, to determine whether it is the speech act of dissuasion, the following prerequisites must be contained. If all the four prerequisites are contained at the same time, this speech act belongs to the speech act of dissuasion. Otherwise it is not the speech act of dissuasion. 1. The speaker believes that the listener has the ability to adopt the behavior tendency that the speaker proposed; 2. The listener has already taken action A, and there’s no sign showing that the hearer is going to stop A; or there are clear indications that the hearer is about to take action A; 3. The speaker thinks that the hearer should not take action A; 4. If the speaker doesn’t prevent the hearer from doing A, the hearer will take action A immediately or continue doing A. If all of the four prerequisites are contained, regardless of whether the hearer has known that action A is inappropriate beforehand or not and regardless of whether the hearer stop doing A or not in the end, the speech act that the speaker implements is the speech act of dissuasion. However, if the hearer has already stopped doing A before the speaker prevents him or her from doing it, in this case, no matter the hearer will take action A in the future or not, the speech act that the speaker implements does not belong to the speech act of dissuasion. This belongs to the category of the speech act of warning, suggestion, criticism, etc. In sum, this paper is to investigate that how the speaker stops the hearer from doing the current action. 3.2 The connections and differences between the speech act of dissuasion and other related speech acts According to ‚Functional Syllabus of Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language for intermediate and advanced level‛ which is edited by Jianhua Zhao (赵建华), the speech act of dissuasion, request, suggestion, deterrence are all belong to the category of imperative speech act. They all involve instructing the hearer to do certain action. So there are many similarities among them. What’s more, the speech act of dissuasion is a complex activity. It sometimes appears with different forms under certain conditions and it sometimes is realized through a form of other speech acts. So during the collection of the corpus, it is easy to be confused. Therefore, in order to define the speech act of dissuasion more explicitly, it is necessary to draw the line to distinguish between the speech act of dissuasion and other related imperative speech acts. 3.2.1 The speech act of dissuasion & the speech act of request Firstly, the premises between the speech act of dissuasion and the speech act of request are different. The speaker may implement the speech act of request when he or she doesn’t know the 23

hearer's attitude completely. While the speech act of dissuasion is typically built on the basis of different opinions about certain things. The speaker seeks to change the listener’s standpoint and behavior. For example, Case 1: 求求你帮帮我！我爸爸生病了！（《五星大饭店》） Case 2: 林先生请您不要这么冲动，好吗？允许我解释一下可不可以？林先生，这个房间虽然是你们公司租下的，但目前房间是由金志爱小姐个人使用，没有经过她个人允许，我们不能进入房间。（《五星大饭店》）

In case 1, the speaker Miss Doudou’s father was ill and he was locked in the house. Without the key, Miss Doudou couldn’t enter the room. Since there was nobody around and the weather outside was raining dogs and cats, she knocked at her new neighbor’s door, and asked the new neighbor to help. So in this situation, when the speaker implemented the speech act of request, the speaker didn’t know whether the hearer would say yes or no at all. While In case 2, Mr. Lin, the China chief representative of Korean Times Company, demanded the key of Miss Zhiai Jin’s room from the hotel waiter with tough stance. Miss Zhiai Jin is the chairman of the board of Korean Times Company. But Miss Zhiai Jin has claimed in advance that nobody is allowed to enter her room. So there’s disagreement between the hotel and Mr. Lin. And at this moment, Mr. Lin has already started running towards Miss Zhiai Jin’s room. If there’s no dissuasion, Mr. Lin would enter Miss Zhiai Jin’s room in a second. So at this time, the hotel receptionist implemented the speech act of dissuasion. Considering that Mr. Lin is hotel’s customer, and the customer is god, as the serving party, the hotel receptionist should be very polite, especially when he implemented the speech act of dissuasion. So the receptionist adopted the strategy of request. First, he said ‚林先生请您不要这么冲动，好吗？允许我解释一下可不可以‛ to ask Mr. Lin calm down. Then he continued to explain the reason why he’s not able to let him enter Miss Zhiai Jin’s room. What he has done is not only reasonable, and also minimized the threat of face to Mr. Lin. In this case, the speech act of dissuasion is implemented by using the strategy of request. So it still belongs to the speech act of dissuasion, rather than the speech act of request. Secondly, the speaker implements the speech act of request in order to ask the hearer to meet his or her demands, to achieve his or her own purpose. So the request is typically related to the speaker’s own benefit or the benefit of third party who has close relationship with the speaker. However, the speaker may implement the speech act of dissuasion for the speaker’s own benefit, or for the hearer’s benefit or the common benefits of both sides. In case 1, the speaker implemented the speech act of request for her own interests. She asked the hearer to help her. The hearer just moved to this house for several days, and was totally a stranger. While in case 2, the receptionist dissuaded Mr. Lin for the common benefits of both sides. On the one hand, 24

prohibiting anyone from entering Miss Zhiai Jin’s room is customer’s demand. So the speech act of dissuasion is for the customer’s benefit. On the other hand, it is also out of consideration for the hotel itself. As the serving party, the hotel should fulfill its obligation. Otherwise the hotel will lose the customers’ trust. So it is also for the hotel’s benefit. In sum, the difference between the speech act of dissuasion and the speech act of request are their premises and whose interests the speaker is taking as the starting point.

3.2.2 The speech act of dissuasion & the speech act of suggestion Firstly, the premises between the speech act of dissuasion and the speech act of suggestion are different. The premise of the speech act of dissuasion is the disagreement on certain things between the speaker and the hearer. The speaker subjectively thinks the words or the deeds of the hearer’s are inappropriate. Because of the different thoughts, it needs the speaker make greater efforts to eliminate their differences. As for the speech act of suggestion, it is not based on disagreement. While implementing the speech act of suggestion, the speaker and the hearer aim in the same direction. The speaker’s suggestion is given on the basis that the speaker subjectively believes that the hearer would respect his/her opinion. And the speaker hopes his or her suggestion would solve the problem or at least improve the situation. So usually the speaker doesn’t know what the attitude the hearer would hold for his suggestion. Case 3: 其实你们现在可以做的，就只有跟他们打官司，要求法庭将王先生的遗产判给王太太，也就等于承认王太太的合法配偶地位，有资格承受遗产。（《酒店风云》）

Case 4: Lisa，你是对的，但你选择的时机，我是一点准备都没有，不管是工作上的交接，还是在物色人选上。我有一个建议，今天我们都先不作出决定，你去休假吧，你确实累了，我希望你能好好地休息，我给你一个假期，修完假再说，怎么样？让我们都有一个考虑的时间。（《公关小姐》）

In case 3, due to the sudden death of Mr. Wang, Mrs. Wang was excluded by his ex-wife’s sons, and she was evicted form their house. The speaker Mark does not have any blood relationship with the hearer Mrs. Wang. As a new friend of Mrs. Wang’s, Mark gave some suggestion to Mrs. Wang and told her what kind of measures she could take. In this occasion, the speaker and the hearer aim in the same direction. Both of them hope the current problems could be solved. And the hearer had the patience to listen to the speaker and was likely to accept the speaker's proposal. While in case 4, Lisa, the manager of the hotel public relations department, was going to resign. But the general manager of the hotel didn’t want her to leave. This was the difference between the two persons. At this moment, the general manager implemented the speech act of dissuasion, hoping Lisa would change her decision. However, Lisa also had the right to leave. In order to avoid the loss of hotel due to Lisa’s sudden departure, the general manager adopted the strategy of 25

suggestion to dissuade. He suggested “我有一个建议，今天我们都先不作出决定，你去休假吧，

你确实累了，我希望你能好好地休息，我给你一个假期，休完假再说，怎么样？让我们都有一个考虑的时间”. (It is translated that, I have a suggestion. Both of us don’t have to make the

decision today. Take a break, because you are really tired. I hope you can have a good rest. I’ll give you a vacation. How about talking about it after your vacation? Let both of us have enough time to think about it. ) Adopting this strategy means the speaker tries to negotiate with the hearer. Here, the general manager adopted the strategy of suggestion and what he implemented is the speech act of dissuasion, rather than the speech act of suggestion. Secondly, the difference between the speech act of dissuasion and the speech act of suggestion also exists in the expectations from the speaker. In the speech act of suggestion, the intention of the speaker is to put forward his or her advice to the hearer sincerely. As for whether the hearer will take the advice or not, the speaker doesn’t concern it necessarily. But in the speech act of dissuasion, the speaker sincerely hope that the hearer’s thoughts would be consistent with his or hers. So the speaker will try to convince the hearer to comply with him/her. Therefore, the emphases between the two speech acts are different. For example, in case 3, the hearer Mrs. Wang was helpless at this moment, and was willing to listen to the hearer’s suggestion. The speaker Mark gave her some advice sincerely with his professional knowledge. As to whether Mrs. Wang would take the speaker’s suggestion or not, it had nothing to do with the speaker. So the speaker didn’t care whether the hearer would take his suggestion or not finally. In case 4, the intention of the general manager was to hope the manager of the hotel public relations would take his suggestion and comply with him. Otherwise, the hotel would suffer from the hearer’s sudden leave. So when the general manager implemented the speech act of dissuasion, his purpose was not just give advice to the hearer sincerely. To make the hearer comply with him was the ultimate purpose. In sum, the difference between the speech act of dissuasion and the speech act of suggestion are their premises and the expectations from the speaker. 3.2.3 The speech act of dissuasion & the speech act of deterrence According to the explanation of ‚现代汉语词典‛, ‚deter‛ means ‚to force to stop, not allow to continue‛. The premises and the purposes between the speech act of deterrence and the speech act of dissuasion are very similar. Their premises are the hearer is preparing to or has already taken certain kind of action which the speaker thinks is inappropriate. And their purposes are to stop the hearer from taking the current action. However, in order to achieve the goal, the speech act of deterrence adopts coercive way, while the speech act of dissuasion adopts non-coercive way. This is the biggest difference between the two speech acts. Because of its coercive way, tough attitude and emphatic tone, the speech act of deterrence doesn’t 26

leave any opportunity for the hearer to say no. When the speaker implements the speech act of deterrence, he forces the hearer to abandon his or her own original idea, and be obedient to the speaker’s commands. Case 5: 住手！别动！（《酒店风云》） In case 5, the scenario is consanguineous brothers were not getting along well. The elder brother hurt the younger brother’s mother. So there was a big fight between them. When the elder brother tried to drive to escape, the younger brother drove car to run into his half-brother’s car. After the elder brother was forced to get off the car, the younger brother rushed forward to fight with him. At that time, the police arrived. The policeman raised his gun, and said: ‚Stop! Don’t move!‛ In this case, the two brothers violated the law, so the police came here to stop them. When the policeman said ‚Stop! Don’t move‛, he also pulled out of his gun at the same time. With this coercive way, even though the two brothers refused to accept it psychologically, they had to listen to the policeman’s command behaviorally. The two brothers had no choice in front of the gun but to stop their current fight. So what the policeman had implemented is the speech act of deterrence. But the speech act of dissuasion is implemented by ‚劝‛ ( advising). According to the explanation of ‚汉语大词典‛, ‚劝‛ means persuade people by bring out reasons. So the speech act of dissuasion is using non-coercive ways to achieve the goal. For example, Case 6：哎呀，你们现在赶紧踩刹车还来得及。这可不是什么财神爷上门，这是诈骗集团在骗你们！香港律师公会根本就是幌子，他们都是一伙吸血鬼，先骗你们一万，然后再骗你们十万，接着搞不同的花样，直到骗你们，把你们的钱骗光为止。（《老师错了》）

In case 6, the scenario is one student’s grandparents got a call from the scamming group, and they were gullible. They were going to wire money to the scammers. If there was nobody stopped them, the scammers would get the money immediately. At this time, the teacher implemented the speech act of dissuasion. And the teacher adopted non-coercive way. Through explaining the current situation, the speaker tried to stop the grandparents wiring money to the scammers, to stop the hearer’s current behavior. Not like case 5, in case 6, the teacher could only implement the speech act in non-coercive way. However, as the hearers, the grandparents still had the right to choose to be obedient or not. Even though the speaker was right, the hearer still was able to insist on his or her own opinion. Since there’s no choice left to the hearer, the speech act of deterrence threatens the hearer’s face more seriously. In contrast, although the speech act of dissuasion also aims to stop the hearer from taking the current action, the hearer still has the right to make his or her own decision and refuse to follow the speaker’s instruction. So comparatively the speech act of dissuasion threatens the hearer’s face less seriously.

27

In sum, the differences between the speech act of dissuasion and the speech act of deterrence are the way they adopt and the degree of threatening the hearer’s face.

28

Chapter Four The categories of the strategies of the dissuasive speech act

4.1 Pragmatic strategy Say the right words in the right occasion. ‚Saying this to this person at this place at this time, this argument is best; however, saying this against another person, in another case, this argument is not necessarily the best. We should apply another way of saying. ‛ 2 ‚Pragmatic strategy is the policy applied by a pragmatic body in communication in order to achieve a certain purpose in the relevant context. It is effective measures to help people to be successful in pragmatic communication. And it is abstracted out of thousand of times of language practice by people.‛ 3 Therefore, while implementing speech acts, people should adopt different strategies based on the specific context, including the factors like time, place, topic, interpersonal relationships. That means when people ask someone to do things, or when you have to apologize to others, people should adopt appropriate strategies. So is the implementation of dissuasive speech act. In the service industry, the servant (the speaker) and the customer (the hearer) are non-relative. The relationship between them is very simple, one providing service and the other one enjoying the service. no matter When the customer is going to or has already taken action A, this is his/her opinion or decision, whether his/her opinion or decision is appropriate or not. At this time, the servant has contrary opinion and tries to change the customer’s attitude and stop the customer from doing A. Although the servant will do this in non-coercive way, the speech act itself would threaten the customer’s face more or less. And what’s more, service consciousness has become a more important question than ever in service industry. The idea that the customer is god has become a generally accepted concept. Likewise, the saying that ‚the customer is always right‛ has become a household slogan in the service industry. Service attitude is undoubtedly one of the most important standards of the service quality. Nowadays, in the increasingly competitive economic situation, service attitude is almost as important as the service content. Customer service is an overall evaluation. The formula that 100 - 1 = 0 refers to that just one aspect or detail errors will lead to customer’s dissatisfaction and finally it would cause the evaluation of the service be negative. In the current economic environment, there is more or less a psychological advantage of customers when they are enjoying services. When the servant is trying to dissuade the customer, it means the servant disagree with the customer. It surely will

2

何兆熊. (1995).Study of Politeness in Chinese and English Cultures [J]．外国语.

唐红芳. (2008).中西语用策略的文化差异性[J]．湖南社会科学.

3

29

threaten the customer’s face. Therefore, the dissuasive speech act in service industry is a Face-Threatening Act (FAT). (Brown & Levison). Face is the public self-image that every one tries to protect. Brown and Levinson proposed their face theory in 1978. They divided face into two related aspects: positive face and negative face. Positive face was defined as ‚the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others executors‛, or ‚the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants‛. Negative face was defined as ‚the want of every 'competent adult member' that his actions be unimpeded by others‛, or ‚the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction—i.e. the freedom of action and freedom from imposition‛.4In short, positive face is the desire to be liked, admired, ratified, and related to positively, and negative face is the desire not to be imposed upon as Brown defined ten years later. Positive Face refers to one’s self-esteem, while negative face refers to one’s freedom to act.5 A face threatening act is an act that inherently damages the face of the hearer or the speaker by acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other. The speech act of dissuasion tries to change the hearer’s ideas to prevent the hearer from doing what he or she is doing or is going to do. The speaker has contrary opinion with the hearer. So the speech act of dissuasion is a face threatening act. So adopting what kind of manner in which the speaker is able to achieve the purpose of implementing dissuasive speech acts without causing rigidity of the relationship is very important. That means adopt what kind of dissuasive pragmatic strategies is crucial. 4.2 The categories of the strategies of the dissuasive speech act Because there’s no recognized criterion for classification, the classification of the strategies of the dissuasive speech act is either a little too complex or somewhat messy in previous studies. There are even some intersected areas of some categories. That’s the reason why those previous classifications have not been applied in our practical life. Therefore, in order to overcome the problems and let the research result be more scientific and more valuable, this paper classified the categories of the dissuasive speech act on the basis of the collected corpus of the dissuasive speech act which has over 20,000 words. Referring to the analytical method of the three elements of events: reason, course, and result, the author divided the strategies of the dissuasive speech act from these three angles (the reason, the act itself, and the result) into three categories. These three categories

4 Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levison. (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage [J]．Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5 Foley, William. (1997) Anthropological Linguistics: An introduction. Blackwell. 30

are listed as follows in descending order according to their proportion in the corpus: the category of act, the category of reason, and the category of result. 4.2.1 The dissuasive strategy of the category of act The dissuasive strategy of the category of act is the strategy that, the speaker points out the error or the inappropriate place of the hearer’s act directly or indirectly, or the speaker puts forward the correct act that the hearer should take. The speaker implements it from the perspective of the hearer’s act itself. In other words, it refers to the dissuasive strategy that the speaker points out the fault of A, or puts forward A (the opposite act of A). Based on the form characteristics of the dissuasive language, and combined with pragmatic functions, the dissuasive strategy of the category of act is divided into two subdivisions: the direct dissuasive pragmatic strategy and the indirect dissuasive pragmatic strategy. 4.2.1.1 The direct dissuasive pragmatic strategy The speaker shows his/her intention to dissuade directly, and makes direct instructions to tell the hearer what to do or not to do, so that the hearer is able to get the speaker’s dissuasive intention of stopping the hearer’s present act directly. It is named this kind of dissuasive strategy of the category of act as the direct dissuasive pragmatic strategy. As to the form, the direct dissuasive pragmatic strategy contains ‚not do A‛ or ‚do A ‛. And it often uses those words with strong color of dissuasive intention to show the speaker’s intention of dissuasion directly, such as 别, 不要, 不能, 不可以, 应该, etc. Case 7：先生，你这样不行啊，在我们酒店范围找生意（《酒店风云》） Case 8：护士：这些东西不能玩啊，别玩了，过来，我替你拆纱布，不要玩了啊！（《妙手仁医》）

In case 7, since the hearer’s hotel occupancy rate did not reach the target, the hearer went to another hotel directly to attract customers. Facing this situation, the hotel staff came out to implement the dissuasive speech act. Since the hearer’s behavior violated the hotel interests of the speaker obviously, the speaker now was in the right and self-confident, and could rightly dissuade the hearer. So the speaker used the word ‚不行‛ with strong color of dissuasion to express his dissuasive intention directly to stop the hearer’s current behavior. In case 8, the speaker is a nurse, and the hearer is a very young patient. The hearer messed with the medical equipment in the hospital, so the speaker used these words(‚不能‛, ‚别‛, ‚不要‛) with obvious dissuasive intention, trying to stop the hearer’s current behavior. In addition to using the words with strong dissuasive colors, the speaker who adopts the direct dissuasive pragmatic strategy would also often use ‚请‛, ‚吧‛, ‚好吗‛, ‚好不好‛, ‚拜托‛ and so on, to ease the mood. These polite words indicate that the speaker is now placing the hearer in the honored position. 31

So they would not only reduce the face threat for the hearer, but also would make the hearer to be more willing to accept the speaker’s dissuasion. Therefore, relatively, it is easier to achieve the goal of dissuasion. Case 9：林先生请您不要这么冲动，好吗？允许我解释一下可不可以？（《五星大饭店》） In case 9, the speaker is a front-desk receptionist of a five star hotel, and the hearer is a guest. The hearer is China chief represent of a Korean company, and the chairman of the company is staying in this hotel. Due to the chairman’s sudden disappearance, the hearer asked for the key of the chairman’s room, in order to take some important documents from the chairman’s room. But the chairman had stated beforehand that all people could not enter her room. In order to safeguard the rights of hotel guest, the speaker could not allow the hearer to enter the room. But as the spirit of the service industry is that guest is god, if the speaker dissuades the guest without words of courtesy, the guest would feel a huge threat to his face and it would be more difficult to solve the problem. By using ‚请‛, ‚好吗‛, ‚可不可以‛, together with ‚允许我解释一下‛ (allow me to explain), the speaker reduced the color of dissuasion to the lowest extent. Therefore, the threat to the hearer's face was greatly weakened. So it is very appropriate and wise that the speaker achieved the purpose of dissuasion by using words of courtesy in the current context. The direct dissuasion may be the dissuasion aimed at stopping the hearer’s current behavior, such as case 7, case 8. And it may also be the future warning triggered by the hearer’s current behavior that is still continuing and has not stopped, such as case 10. Case 10: 你们俩，我可警告你们了，以后上课不能再眉目传情了，回家以后也不能

热线不断。（《老师，错了》）

In case 10, two senior students in high school fall in love with each other. Since nothing could change the current status, their parents and teachers allowed the two students to be in a relationship. But the premise was that they should study hard, and promise they would not let the relationship influence their studies. However the two students could not control themselves. Their frequent contact seriously affected their learning. Even in class, they were passing notes to express mutual affection. As the students’ head teacher, the speaker implemented the dissuasive speech act, not only to stop the students’ current behavior, but also to warn them not to do this anymore. 4.2.1.2 The indirect dissuasive pragmatic strategy The indirect dissuasive pragmatic strategy is the strategy that the speaker adopts the other speech acts to achieve the purpose of dissuasion. According to the proportion in the corpus in descending order, they are listed as follows: interrogation, suggestion, evaluation, apology, enquiry and condition. 4.2.1.2.1 The pragmatic strategy of interrogation In view of the existing situation and the hearer’s current action, the speaker adopts the way of interrogation. The purpose of interrogation is not to ask, but to deny the hearer’s current action intensely, so as to achieve the purpose of dissuasion. When adopting the pragmatic strategy of 32

interrogation, the tone is relatively strong. And rhetorical questions are usually adopted by this strategy. So when the speaker adopt the pragmatic strategy of interrogation, it is bound to deny the hearer’s current action more strongly so as to show the dissuasive intention. It would, however, inevitably cause great threat to the hearer's face. Case 11：你知不知道你这么做，对你和胎儿都是很不负责任的？(《妙手仁医》) In case 11, the hearer is a female patient, and the speaker is her doctor in charge. The hearer was pregnant, but she was in urgent need of surgery at that time. So her physical condition is not suitable for pregnancy. Even if she gets pregnant, the fetus's health will be a problem. However, since the hearer's husband had just died, the hearer wanted this baby. And she didn’t listen to the doctor’s advice, refused to do this surgery and insisted to leave hospital. Facing this stubborn patient, the speaker adopted the interrogative pragmatic strategy. By taking the form of rhetorical questions, the speaker tried to make the hearer understand that her current behavior is not desirable, not only for herself, but also for the baby. The speaker tried to achieve the purpose of dissuasion through interrogation. 4.2.1.2.1 The pragmatic strategy of suggestion When the speaker adopts the pragmatic strategy of suggestion, there are usually some suggestion markers, like ‚ 建议‛, ‚劝‛, ‚还是„„吧‛and so on. Adopting the form of suggestion would put forward A more euphemistically, and would make the dissuasion sounds negotiable. In this way, it dilutes the tone of command, and the hearer would feel that there’s still plenty of room to choose. So the threat to the hearer’s face is also reduced. That’s why it is easier and more smoothly to achieve the purpose of dissuasion by adopting the pragmatic strategy of suggestion. Case 12: 我有一个建议，今天我们都先不做出决定，你去休假吧，你确实累了，我希望你能好好地休息，我给你一个假期，休完假再说，怎么样？让我们都有一个考虑的时间。(《公关小姐》)

In case 12, the hearer is the manager of the hotel’s public relations department, and the speaker is the hotel general manager. The speaker was going to give the hearer a promotion, but at that time the hearer was going to resign which the speaker had never expected. The sudden loss of such a talented public relations manager certainly is not conducive to the development of the hotel. So the speaker had to implement the speech act of dissuasion. Though the speaker is a superior of the hearer, and the hearer would respect for what he said, the hearer still has the right to decide her own fate, leave or stay. So the speaker chose to use a tone of suggestion instead of command. Adopting the pragmatic strategy of suggestion under this situation, not only helps the speaker protect his authority, but also shorten the distance between the hearer and him. In this way, the purpose of dissuasion would be easier to be realized.

33

4.2.1.2.3 The pragmatic strategy of evaluation The pragmatic strategy of evaluation is the strategy that the speaker gives negative evaluation directly to the hearer’s current behavior. In this way, to tell the hearer indirectly that he/she should stop the improper current behavior. Case 13: 咱们有事儿好谈！现在学生正在上课，像你们这样直闯教室去兴师问罪，这恐怕会妨碍学生的上课安宁！太不妥了！不妥，不妥，不妥！（《老师，错了》）

In case 13, the hearer is a female student's father, and the speaker is a teacher. Approaching the entrance examination for university, the hearer heard that his daughter falls in love with a boy student. He attributed this fault to the boy student stubbornly. Thus, he rushed to the school angrily trying to give that boy a lesson. It was just the school time. In order to not affect the class, the speaker had to implement the speech act of dissuasion. The speaker adopted the pragmatic strategy of evaluation. She was trying to use the way of giving the hearer negative evaluation to let the hearer realize that his current rush-to-classroom behavior is inappropriate, so as to achieve the purpose of dissuasion. 4.2.1.2.4 The pragmatic strategy of apology To stop the hearer’s current words or deed inevitably will cause some threat to the hearer’s face more or less. Adopting the pragmatic strategy of apology, by using the apology words, such as ‚对不起‛, ‚不好意思‛, will make the hearer feel that to stop his/her current behavior is to interfere his/her rights. So it is the speaker’s fault. In this way, the hearer’s fault or negligence is transferred to the speaker. Therefore, it will reduce the face threat to the hearer, and also pave the way for the forthcoming dissuasion. The apology words are often placed at the beginning of a sentence. Case 14：对不起先生，这里有客人住，如果您想参观这类房型，请和销售部联系，如果您需要，我可以帮您。(《五星大饭店》)

In case 14, the speaker is a personal butler of a five-star hotel, and the hearer is one guest. The hearer pretended to ask room prices and wanted to take a look at the room. Actually, he was trying to rush into the other guest’s room, and he’s very suspicious. No matter this room’s guest has asked beforehand or not, the hotel is not able to allow other guests to enter this room. So as the butler of this room’s guest, the speaker is not allowed to let such suspicious stranger enter this room. It’s his duty to dissuade the hearer’s current behavior. In view of the hotel’s principle that guest is god, the speaker is not able to be skeptical of the hearer no matter how suspicious the hearer is without evidence. And the butler definitely is not able to offend the hearer. The speaker has to take the hearer’s face into account. So the speaker adopted the pragmatic strategy of apology first, and then continued to explain why he was not able to let the hearer enter this room. All of these paved the way for providing another way to satisfy the hearer. Dissuading the hearer like this is perfectly sensible. So the purpose of dissuasion surely is much easier to be achieved. 34

4.2.1.2.5 The pragmatic strategy of enquiry The pragmatic strategy of enquiry is the strategy that, by using the question words, such as ‚什么‛, ‚谁‛, ‚哪里‛, ‚怎么‛ and so on, and adopting the form of yes-no question, wh-question, A-not-A question and so on, the speaker intends to initiate the hearer into deeper thinking. In that way, the hearer would realize his/her current misconduct and then the dissuasion speech act would be completed. The difference between the pragmatic strategy of enquiry and the pragmatic strategy of interrogation is that, when adopting the pragmatic strategy of enquiry, the speaker is still looking forward to the hearer’s answer; while adopting the pragmatic strategy of interrogation, the speaker just denies the hearer’s words or deeds, and doesn’t need the hearer’s answer. Case 15: 王先生，您认为您这样的教育，适合大山吗？(《老师，错了》) In case 15, the hearer is a student’s father, and the speaker is the student’s head teacher. After his dream of training his son into a pop star is broken, the hearer decided to train his son into a poet, just like Tsemon Hsu. He made rules that they could only use classical Chinese to communicate at home. They even planned to let their son leave school and intended to carry out family education. However, the student definitely doesn’t have the talent. What his parents had done only made him feel that he’s a clown. As the head teacher, the speaker sympathized with the student. But she also should respect the parents’ opinions. Therefore, to make the hearer be aware of his absurd behavior, the speaker adopted the enquiry pragmatic strategy to let the hearer reflect on his own behavior, so as to achieve the purpose of dissuasion. 4.2.1.2.6 The pragmatic strategy of condition When adopting the pragmatic strategy of condition, the speaker’s logic is that, if the conditions that the speaker put forward are met, the hearer is able to take action A; while the current situation is not able to meet those conditions, so that means the hearer is not able to take action A. the implication of this strategy is, as long as the conditions are met, the speaker is willing to accept what the hearer said or have done, and even will help the hearer in some ways. This implication will make the hearer feel in a certain extent that the speaker considers the issue from the hearer’s interests, or at least the speaker does not deliberately place obstacles. Thus, this implication would help the speaker obtain the trust of the hearer, and will help to achieve the purpose of dissuasion. Case 16: 如果我们认为，怀孕对你来说无论在心理或者生理上都有很坏的影响，那我们当然会替你做，但是你现在的情况并不是很坏。（《妙手仁医》）

In case 16, the speaker is a doctor, and the hearer is a female patient. The hearer's husband already got a vasectomy, while the hearer got pregnant. So her husband didn’t trust her and suspected that the child belongs to others. Having no choice, the hearer was going to have an abortion. Out of respect for life, the speaker tried to dissuade the hearer. While the hearer had the right to determine by herself, so the speaker was not able to force her. Therefore, the speaker took advantage of professional knowledge and adopted the 35

pragmatic strategy of condition. The speaker told the hearer that if the baby has a bad effect on her health no matter mentally or physically, the doctors would help her to have an abortion. But the situation now was not consistent with this condition, so the hearer should change her decision. In this context, if the speaker adopted the direct dissuasive pragmatic strategy, the hearer would dwell on her own suffering, and wouldn’t strategy is more likely to be accepted under this listen to the speaker. So adopting indirect dissuasive situation.

4.2.2 The dissuasive strategy of the category of reason The dissuasive strategy of the category of reason is the strategy that, from the perspective of the reason of dissuasion, the speaker explains why the hearer’s behavior is inappropriate, or explains the correctness of A . Through the way of rational analysis or conquering the hearer with emotions, the speaker tries to make the hearer be aware of his/her inappropriate words or deeds, so as to achieve the goal of dissuasion. From the perspective of function, the dissuasive strategy of the category of reason are divided into two subdivisions: explanation of the objective reasons and resorting to the subjective emotion. 4.2.2.1 Explanation of the objective reasons When adopting the strategy of explanation of the objective reasons, the speaker tries to use the way of rational analysis to explain the present situation and the mistake of the hearer’s action A, or the correctness of A , to let the hearer know his/her current behavior is inappropriate, so as to achieve the purpose of dissuasion. Through objective analysis, the speaker intends to let the hearer understand that if the hearer follows the dissuasion, he will benefit from it. Otherwise, the hearer’s current behavior will cause a result that he’s reluctant to face. In this way, the hearer would feel that the speaker is taking side with the hearer and the speaker thinking about things from the hearer’s interests. This feeling will let the hearer consider the speaker’s dissuasion seriously. And the hearer is more willing to be obedient. Case 17: 你就想的是，在学校多惹点事儿，让学校把你开除了，你爸实在没办法了，就送你去戏校，是不是？对付父母，你跟我比，可差远了，你这样是行不通的。这第一呢，现在是九年义务制教育，你就是再捣乱，学校也不能把你开除了，这第二呢，你爸刚才也说了，你在咱们学校都不能学好，你去了戏校能学好吗？也就是说，你在咱们学校越不好好学习，你爸就越不可能送你去戏校，明白了吗？（《新来的李老师》）

In case 17, the hearer is a primary school student, and the speaker is his head teacher. The student likes singing, and wants to study in the opera school. But his father doesn’t agree. So the student came up with an idea that when he goes to school, be a troublemaker, trying to let the school dismiss him. In that way his father would have no choice but send him to the opera school. And his plan would be successful. And he did so. Facing such a student, if the speaker just advises the hearer to stop making troubles and study hard, the hearer surely would not listen to it. So the speaker chose the strategy of 36

explanation of the objective reasons, and analyzed the situation from the hearer’s interests. Through objective analysis, let the hearer understand that his current behavior would not bring the result he had expected. So when speaker uses the strategy of explanation of the objective reasons, the speaker analyzes the hearer understand that if the hearer accept the objectively from the hearer’s point of view, to make dissuasion and stop current behavior, the hearer would benefit from it. Otherwise, the negative consequences will trouble the hearer. When adopting the strategy of explanation of the objective reason, the speaker may analyze the present situation objectively, and may also use the past similar cases as examples. Past experience, if not forgotten, is a guide for the future. By sharing the speaker’s own personal experience with the hearer or telling the similar case which is closely related to the hearer, the past specific cases would affect the hearer much easier and let the dissuasion be more effectively. Case 18：你知道吗？主任也以为只要认真，就可以把每一件事做好，所以会不断地勉强自己，要求别人。就拿这件事儿来说吧，为了让你们能够顺利演出，我努力地去说服家长，安抚其他班级，甚至还请其他的老师来帮忙。我会尽我最大的能力，把这件事情做到最好，然而在我认真做一切努力的时候，石延风却简单地跟我说，表演不参加

了，表演不参加了，他这样，很有可能让我所有的努力白费，在那一刻，我明白了合作的意义，无论是班级，还是剧场的演出，都是由人组成的，如果没有人和，一个人的力量是不可能成功的，对吗？(《老师，错了》)

In case 18, the speaker is a high school teacher, and the hearer is her student. In the class performance activities, the hearer played the role of a director. The hearer was too harsh on everyone during rehearsal time, so the other students could not stand her any more, and they decided to quit. In order to stop the hearer continue being so harsh, the speaker told the hearer her own past similar experience. By sharing, the speaker tried to make the hearer understand that if she wants to get a good result, she has to stop her current behavior. Using this way, by putting yourself in other’s shoes, it is easier for the hearer to accept the dissuasion. 4.2.2.2 Resorting to the subjective emotion When adopting the strategy of resorting to the subjective emotion, the speaker implements the speech act of dissuasion by stating that the reason why the speaker implements the speech act of dissuasion is totally for the sake of the hearer’s interests. By resorting to the relationship between the speaker and the hearer, the speaker shows his/her concern with the hearer. When the hearer decides to accept the care from the speaker, it also suggests that the hearer’s psychological defense against the speaker has begun to be crushed, and the emotional distance between the hearer and the speaker is shortened. So the hearer will change his/her behavior according to the dissuasion of the speaker more automatically.

37

Case 19: 你们现在正在接受他的遥控，如果你们按照他的指示，按了号码，那你们的十万块就会跟昨天一万块一样，在人间蒸发了！那，那你们就血本无归了！我不能不管！这是你们省吃俭用留下来的钱，我不能让你们白白被骗走！（《老师，错了》）

In case 19, the hearers are a student’s grandparents, and the speaker is the student’s teacher. The hearers are gullible and believed the phone fraud. They were even going to transfer money to the fraud group. The speaker saw through that was a scam, and tried to dissuade the hearers from doing that. After she adopted the strategy of explanation of the objective reason, the speaker continued to adopt the strategy of resorting to the subjective emotion to express her concern for the hearers. In that way, it is easier to conquer the hearts of the hearers, and it would shorten the distance between them. So the purpose of dissuasion would be achieved more easily. 4.2.3 The dissuasive strategy of the category of result The dissuasive strategy of the category of result is the strategy that, from the perspective of the result of hearer’s behavior, the speaker points out if the hearer continues doing the current action, he/she will get a bad result; or if the hearer stops taking the current action, and does A , he/she will get a good result. By using the way of beating about the bush, threats or inducements, the speaker tries to lead the hearer to think about his/her own current behavior from the result. After the hearer realizes that his/her current action is inappropriate, the purpose of dissuasion is also achieved. From the perspective of pragmatic functions, the dissuasive strategy of the category of result are divided into two subdivisions. They are listed as follows according to the proportion in the corpus in descending order: threat, promise, and inference. 4.2.3.1 The pragmatic strategy of threat The pragmatic strategy of threat is this kind of dissuasive strategy that, the speaker uses words to force or intimidate the hearer, and tries to let the hearer realize that if he/she chooses not to listen to the dissuasion and continues doing the current action, the hearer will be punished or will only get a bad result. In this way, the hearer will be intimated, and will be more willing to yield. So the pragmatic strategy of threat sometimes is very effective. But it will cause a huge threat to the hearer’s face undoubtedly. Case 20: 我知道你的重点，可是如果这件事情闹开来，媒体一定是大标题，大谈医院的性骚扰，到时候我们都别想安静工作！（《大医院小医师》）

In case 20, the speaker is a doctor, and the hearer is her intern. The hearer encountered sexual harassment from a patient who is well respected by others. The hearer insisted that she would sue the patient to court. However, the patient used his social power to exert pressure on the hospital. The speaker also wanted the patient be punished in her heart. But with no choice, she was sent by the superiors to dissuade the hearer from suing. The hearer tried to protect women’s right. So her current behavior actually is 100% right. So the speaker was not able to use the dissuasive strategy of the category of act or reason. Then how to finish 38

the task of dissuasion is really difficult for the speaker. Considering that the speaker is the hearer’s superior from the social status point of view, the speaker has more social experience than the hearer. So the speaker adopted the pragmatic strategy of threat to tell the hearer that, if she insists on suing, it would bring the hospital bad reputation. This threat would intimidate the hearer, and it’s the best strategy of dissuasion under that situation. 4.2.3.2 The pragmatic strategy of promise The pragmatic strategy of promise is this kind of dissuasive strategy that, the speaker promises the hearer that if the hearer stops the current action, the hearer will get the corresponding benefits. The promised benefits may be specific material returns, and may also be a promise to help the hearer deal with the related matters. The speaker uses the temptation of profit to complete the speech act of dissuasion. As the proverb goes, there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. By offering the hearer a tempting result and letting the hearer make the decision by himself/herself that whether he/she is willing to listen to the speaker's dissuasion, it reserves the choosing rights to the hearer. Therefore, when adopting the pragmatic strategy of threat, it also reduces the face threat to the hearer. Case 21：我们也不希望你来不及回去陪你太太庆祝生日，不过如果你要告我们的话，就要留下来做笔录，到时候不止影响到你谈生意，还可能赶不及回去，这样好了，我们不止给你升格住套房，明年这个时候，我们再留一间豪华套房给你和你太太，所有食宿都由我们酒店全部负责，好不好？（《酒店风云》）

In case 21, the speaker is the head of a hotel’s communications department, and the hearer is a guest living in the hotel. Due to the occurrence of food poisoning during the time in the hotel, the hearer insisted that he’s going to sue the hotel. After showing the inconvenience that suing would bring to the hearer, the speaker continued to adopt the pragmatic strategy of promise. The speaker promised that, as long as the hearer changes his mind, there will be a series of material returns. The material returns are also compensations for the face threat to the hearer. After weighing the gains and losses, the hearer agreed to waives the right to litigate. Case 22：汪老师，抓早恋我不反对，但事情没有您想象那么严重，您放心，等下我找机会找赵军谈谈。（《老师，错了》）

In case 22, the speaker and hearer are all high school teachers. One boy student in the speaker’s class paid court to one girl student who’s in the hearer’s class. In traditional Chinese ethical thoughts, puppy love in high school is forbidden. The stubborn hearer insists that the boy influenced the girl’s study. That day was the girl’s birthday, and the boy sent roses to the girl in the classroom. This made the hearer very angry, so he rushed into the classroom of the boy and was going through the boy’s bag. The hearer’s behavior hurt the boy’s dignity, and violated the boy’s privacy. As the boy’s head teacher, the speaker should protect the boy. But in front of so many students, the speaker should also take the hearer’s face into account. So there was no direct negative evaluation of the hearer’s behavior. The speaker adopted the pragmatic strategy of promise 39

and promised that she would help the hearer to solve the problem later. The implication is that ‚I am able to help to solve it later, but not now‛. In this way, the hearer’s face was preserved, and also the hearer was able to get the clue to the speaker’s dissuasive intention. 4.2.3.3 The pragmatic strategy of inference The pragmatic strategy of inference is the strategy that, by using the way of thinking which belongs to the hearer deliberately, the speaker draws inferences about the result of the hearer’s current words or deeds, and shows it to the hearer, aims to let the hearer understand how wrong or how absurd his/her current behavior is. Since the inferences are drawn based on the hearer’s own way of thinking, this foreseen result would serve as a warning, and it will cause the hearer reflecting on his/her own words or deeds. Case 23: 真的这么决定了？不后悔了？好！那你们好自为之！老师祝福你们快乐、幸福、美满，拜！（老师假装要走，两个学生拉着老师，希望老师给他们意见。）我问你们两个，身上带了多少钱？一千块只够买一张机票。哎，另外一个走路去上海啊？然后呢？找工作？一个月赚六百，然后呢？ „„ 小弟弟、小妹妹，你们做的是美梦诶，你们有没有想过美梦之外，也有噩梦。比如说，你们受不了生活的折磨，太现实了，灰心了当然会呀！有没有听说过，在家样样好，出外万事难。听说过吧？美梦破灭了，两个人的关系也„„咻，散了！（《老师，错了》）

In case 23, the speaker is a head teacher, and the hearers are two students in high school. The two students fell into puppy love, and they decided to elope. As their teacher, it’s the speaker’s duty to enlighten the two immature kids. But if the speaker just adopts the dissuasive strategy of the category of act or reason, and preaches at the hearers like their parents or other teachers do, the two kids would not listen to and they would elope immediately. So the speaker adopted the pragmatic strategy of inference. The speaker supported their decision first, and then used the way of thinking which belongs to the hearers deliberately to show their future after their elopement. After the hearers imagined their future according to what the speaker described, they realized how stupid their current decision was, and how immature they are. In this way, the speech act of dissuasion was completed. In addition to the three above categories of pragmatic strategy of dissuasion, there is another kind of dissuasive pragmatic strategy. When adopting this category of strategy, there’s only the appellation. It seems not completed, but in the specific context, the hearer is able to fully understand the dissuasive purpose of the speaker’s. The speaker adopts this strategy, for sometimes the time is limited, and the hearer is able to fully understand what the speaker is going to say without any word. Sometimes because it’s inconvenient to say it out, so for the hearer’s face, the speaker doesn’t spell it all out but only the appellation. In a word, it is best left unsaid. 40

Case 24：哎，王太太、王太太！ Case 25：古老师！ In case 24, the speaker is the secretary of a hotel chairman, and the hearer is the hotel general manager's wife who is also in charge of the hotel purchasing department. The hearer tried to rush into the office of the chairman without appointment. Certainly the hearer knows that if she wants to see the chairman, she should let the secretary ask the chairman first. But the hearer was too angry. Since the hearer knows the rules, the speaker was only able to use the appellation without other words, and the dissuasive intention was still very obvious. And also the time is too limited to let the speaker finish his dissuasion. So in this context, the speaker had no choice but adopting the strategy of the appellation. In case 25, the speaker is a director in high school, and the hearer is a head teacher. A student parent representative, who is also the director of the school council, said that her child recently was a little strange, so she came to school for further information. As the student’s head teacher, the hearer told the parent representative directly that she should give the kid more space, and should try to understand the kid’s inner world. The way that the hearer used was a little too direct. So it is difficult for the parent representative to accept, and her face even began to change. At that time, the speaker had to come out to ease the atmosphere, and dissuade the hearer from talking in that direct way. But if the speaker said too much, it would threat the hearer’s face in front of the parent representative. So adopting the strategy of the appellation, not only saved the hearer’s face, but also completed the speech act of dissuasion. In sum, in addition to the strategy of the appellation, the dissuasive strategy in the service industry are classified into the above three categories: the dissuasive strategy of the category of act, the dissuasive strategy of the category of reason, the dissuasive strategy of the category of result. In reality, in one dissuasive speech act, people often not only adopt one strategy of them, but using a variety of strategies at the same time. Case 26：志爱小姐，我希望你还是再考虑一下，我们还是不要参加漂流了，我又打听了一下，彭河的水流特别急，两岸都是峡谷，暗礁很多，万一不小心出了什么意外，你说谁能负责。（《五星大饭店》）

In case 26, the speaker is a personal butler of a five-star hotel, and the hearer is his guest. The hearer insisted to go rafting, but there exists some dangerous factor. For the sake of the guest, it is the speaker’s obligation to dissuade the hearer. First, the speaker adopted the pragmatic strategy of suggestion which belongs to the category of act. And he continued to adopt the strategy category of reason, and explained objectively how dangerous it is. At last of the speech act, he adopted the threat strategy of the category of result to alert the hearer. So in just one speech act of dissuasion, the speaker used all of the three categories of strategy. 41

Adopting several pragmatic strategies of dissuasion at the same time would not only make the hearer understand the dissuasive intention more explicitly and also would make the dissuasion more persuasive. So it would be easier for the hearer to accept. Therefore, in reality, people tend to use these dissuasive strategies comprehensively.

42

Chapter Five The dissuasive strategy statistics and cultural analysis 5.1 The statistics of the usage of each category Although there are various pragmatic strategies of the dissuasive speech act in the service industry, in the process of the strategy classification, the author discovered that the data of certain kinds of pragmatic strategies are more than the other strategies’. And in certain context with the similar topic and similar social situations, people often tend to adopt the same dissuasive pragmatic strategy. Based on this finding, this research did further statistics on the corpus, and summarized how many times each strategy has been used in the corpus, as in Table 1 and Figure 1below. (Each value in the table and the tree chart is the total number of the usage times of each strategy. And the percentage= the total number of the usage times of each strategy / the total number of the usage times of all strategies.)

43

Table 1 The direct dissuasive pragmatic strategy 188 (32.14%)

The category of act 329 (56.24%)

The categories of the strategies of the dissuasive speech act in the service industry 585 (100%)

The indirect dissuasive pragmatic strategy 141 (24.10%)

Explanation of the objective reasons 168 (28.72%) Resorting to the subjective emotion 32 (5.47%) Threat 30 (5.13%)

The category of reason 200 (34.19%) The category of result 50 (8.55%)

Promise 15 (2.56%) Inference 5 (0.85%)

The special category of the appellation 6 (1.03%)

44

Interrogation 45(7.69%) Suggestion 38 (6.50%) Evaluation 23 (3.93%) Apology 15 (2.56%) Enquiry 11(1.88%) Condition 8(1.37%)

Figure 1

45

Figure 2

From Figure 2, it is seen clearly that, aside from the special category of the appellation, the usage proportion of the category of act is the highest, followed by the category of reason. The usage proportion of the category of result is the lowest. And take a further look at the numerical value, it is easily find that, the usage proportion of the category of result is far lower than the first two categories. Why there’s such a trend? Why people use this strategy category less when people implement the dissuasive speech act? This paper tries to explain the tendency from the perspective of Chinese culture. 5.2 Politeness principle and face theory In Chinese ancient clan society, loyalty and filial piety is the most important principle in the clan, and it is the core of the family ethics system. The structure of the country is the same with the structure of the clan. Thus, to safeguard national stability, the rulers use the moral principles that maintain the stability of the clan for reference. When loyalty and filial piety is applied by the rulers to the country, it got its new name ‚the three cardinal guides and the five constant virtues‛. This is the principle of feudal moral conduct. The three cardinal guides include three aspects of meaning: ruler guides subject; father guides son; and husband guides wife. Five constant virtues mean benevolence, righteousness, propriety, knowledge and sincerity. The rights and obligations of each person are allocated and assigned clearly. In the society with ‚the pattern of difference sequence‛, everyone pays attention to ethics and social status difference. Everything is oriented by 46

human relationship. So when dealing with matters, people should regard others as orientation. In a word, Social ethics norms constantly regulate people’s words and deeds. After it was inherited by each generation, Chinese formed their own unique philosophy of life. It is the doctrine of the mean. Extreme ideas would cause conflict and argument easily. So with the pursuit of neutralization, the doctrine of the mean does not advocate extreme ideas. Reflected in people’s daily communication, the doctrine of the mean pursue harmony, and guide people to avoid quarrels. So when the speaker is going to implement the speech act that would hurt others’ face, the speaker should look before he/she leap and be prudent. People have to pay attention to keeping the balance between him/her and others. This feels like two persons are doing Tai Chi. Both sides have always maintained the balance. In order to maintain this balance, people should be respectful, modesty, and polite at any given time or place. In the 20th century, the scholars from different countries did a lot of deep studies on the pragmatic principle of politeness, like Robin T. Lakoff, Geoffrey N. Leech, and Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levison. They all did great contribution to the studies of politeness theory. The most influential theories are Leech’s and Brown & Levison’s. Leech put forward the polite principle guiding for successful communication, according to the western people’s speech habits. The polite principle is composed of tact maxim, generosity maxim, approbation maxim, agreement maxim and sympathy maxim. And Brown and Levinson’s theory is their face theory. In China, Gu Yueguo (顾曰国, 1990, 1992) proposed his Politeness Maxims according to the historical and cultural background of China. The Politeness Maxims are composed of self-denigration maxim, address-term maxim, refinement maxim, agreement maxim, virtue-word-behavior maxim. What kind of words and deeds are polite and what are not? In 1991, Wu Bin (武斌) pointed out that Chinese care about their face very much and he continued to reveal the Chinese concept of face. Whether it’s polite or not depends on ‚face‛. In ‚Modern Chinese Dictionary‛, the word ‚face‛ is interpreted as ‚体面‛ and ‚情面‛. In Jun Li and Yanni Song’s paper ‚面子理论在汉文化中的考察‛, they pointed out that face is related to individual identity and personal relations. ‚体面‛ is defined from the perspective of individual social identity. It is the embodiment of individual social status and social value. Under the standard of public ethics, individuals with different identities and images have different codes of conduct. In other words, everyone should make his/her words and deeds comply with the requirements of his/her identity and image in order to maintain social status and protect his/her own ‚体面‛. If the man/woman behaves complying with the requirements of his/her identity, he/she behaves decently and saves his ‚体面‛ successfully, and vice versa. As to ‚情面‛, it is defined from the perspective of personal relations. In Chinese cultural society, people pay special attention to personal relations. ‚情面‛ is regarded as a gauge of a person’s interpersonal influence and the harmony degree of relations. In interpersonal communication, giving the others ‚情面‛ would help 47

achieve harmonious relationship, and can deepen your friendship. 6 There’s a Chinese old saying that ‚not for the monk’s sake, but for the Buddha’s‛. It means that to do something out of consideration for somebody else. But no matter it’s monk’s face or the Buddha’s face, it’s all about ‚情面‛. Therefore, how to measure whether the face is given enough or not, or whether what one person has done hurts the other’s face, people are able to use individual social identity and personal relations as measurement standard. Xiaotong Fei (费孝通) had compared the network of Chinese social relations to the water waves vividly. He proposed that everyone is the center of his/her social influence circle. This is kind of pushing the waves in the pattern of difference sequence. It causes the relativity of the boundary between group and individual. Or we can also say that it causes ambiguous boundary.7 In this culture, the concept of self is built on others. This means that just because Chinese people know and define themselves according to the relationship between others and them, the boundary between ‚I‛ and ‚others‛ is relatively not so clear and sharp. The traditional Chinese concept of self has two characteristics: uncertainty and relativity.8 Chinese people define each other’s social identity and the distance between each other after the mutual relationship is established. Only after that can Chinese people decide what they should do to give enough face to the other, according to the social customs and out past social experience. Face is the core of politeness. So to determine whether it’s polite or not, is to judge whether the face is given enough in accordance with social customs, social status requirements and the relationship. If the given face is less than the other expected, he/she will feel the threat to his/her face. Face is obtained in social relations. It belongs to each person himself/herself, but also it’s given by others. Therefore, when people are maintaining their own faces, they should also protect the face of others’. Only by saving face for both sides, would people keep the balance of communication. When implementing the speech act of dissuasion, although the way the speaker adopts is noncoercive, the purpose of the speech act is to stop the hearer’s current improper behavior, so the hearer would feel that his/her right to freedom of movement is violated more or less. This is a threat to the hearer’s negative face. In Chinese mind, life lost, little lost; face lost, everything lost. So adopting what kind of dissuasive pragmatic strategy to implement the speech act of dissuasion is a significant thing. How to dissuade politely to minimize the threat to the hearer’s face is a crucial issue that people must think about it twice before dissuasion. The best way is to focus on the issue, but not the person. Let the hearer understand that what the speaker denies is only the hearer’s current behavior, not him/her. Men are not saints. Nobody is free from faults. In this way, the speaker minimizes the face threat to the hearer, and keeps the hearer’s mental balance.

6

李军、宋燕妮．(2004) ．面子理论在汉文化中的考察[J]．修辞学习.

7

曲卫国、陈流芳．（1999）．论传统的中国礼貌原则[J]．学术月刊.

8

曲卫国、陈流芳．（1999）．论传统的中国礼貌原则[J]．学术月刊.

48

The dissuasive strategy of the category of act is the strategy that, the speaker points out the error or the inappropriate place of the hearer’s act directly or indirectly, or the speaker puts forward the correct act that the hearer should take, from the perspective of the hearer’s act itself. In short, the breakthrough point is act itself. And as to the dissuasive strategy of the category of reason, it is the strategy that through the way of rational analysis or conquering the hearer with emotions, the speaker tries to make the hearer be aware of his/her inappropriate words or deeds. The hearer would feel that the speaker is taking side with the hearer and thinking about things from the hearer’s interests. Its breakthrough point is the reason. So in sum, the category of act and the category of reason all focus on the issue, not on the person. Adopting the two categories of dissuasive strategies, not only achieves the dissuasive purpose much more easily, but also saves the hearer’s face. That’s why the percentage of the usage of the two is high up to more than 90%. While adopting the dissuasive strategy of the category of result, the breakthrough point is result. By the way of threats, inference and so on, the speaker warns or intimidates the hearer that if he/she insists the current behavior, it is bound to put himself/herself at a disadvantage and at that time the hearer will be unable to control the situation. So this strategy actually is to let the hearer realize his/her own incompetence. It goes without saying that this strategy not only negatives the hearer’s current behavior, but also implies that the hearer will be incompetent to control the development with the hearer’s ability right now. Everyone wants his/her ability to be recognized by others. Therefore, no doubt, the pragmatic strategy of threat will harm the hearer’s face seriously. And as to the pragmatic strategy of inference, the speaker draws inferences about the result of the hearer’s current words or deeds to dissuade. This is much milder than the pragmatic strategy of threat. However, just because of insinuation, it suggests that ‚just as what you are doing, how absurd the result will be‛. With the overtones in conversation, it sounds sarcastic. Therefore, compared with the category of act and the category of reason, the dissuasive strategy of the category of result will make the hearer feel that the dissuasion not only focuses on the issue, but also focuses on him/her. This will make the hearer feel that he/she is put in the dock. So it is easier to make the hearer feel humiliated and it is also more likely to cause psychological conflict. That exactly is the reason why the percentage of the usage of the category of result is far lower than the category of act and the category of reason. 5.3 Insiders and outsiders From politeness principle and face theory, this paper got the reason why people tend to use the dissuasive strategy of the category of result less than the other two categories. But at the same time, another question arises. Leaving the dissuasive strategy of the category of result aside, let’s just compare the dissuasive strategy of the category of act with the category of reason. According to politeness principle and face theory, the category of reason is perfectly logical and reasonable. It seems more polite and would be 49

much easier for the hearer to accept it. But why the proportion of the usage of the dissuasive strategy of the category of act is much higher than the category of reason as it is showed in Fig.1? To solve this problem, this paper seeks the answers from the Chinese social structure and the concept of relationship deeply rooted in Chinese. most basic relationship. Built up on the kinship, the clan In traditional Chinese society, kinship is the organization has strong stability and cohesion. In order to maintain the harmony and order within the group, when Chinese people say or do something, they have to take other people into account. The time when one person maintains his/her own face, he/she should also not hurt someone else’s face. This is called ‚other9 oriented‛. ‚Other-oriented‛ is an extension of ‚group-oriented‛. The group’s interests are above everything. So in the system of the group, the individual is like a screw, and he/she may even sacrifice himself/herself for the group, for others in the group. But this sacrifice is only limited for the others or it is called insiders in the group. As to Outsiders, because they are not family members, so they are unable to be trusted. Insiders exclude outsiders like out of instinct. Once the other one is regarded as an outsider, the speaker doesn’t have to consider social customs, social status requirements and the relationship such factors any more when the speaker behaves. So generally the strategy the speaker adopts is not so tactful. In sum, the closer the relationship is, the more face the hearer would require, and the speaker would be more willing to sacrifice for the hearer’s interests, and vice versa. To the outsiders, to the strangers, the most important thing for the speaker is his/her own interests, not the hearer’s face any more. That’s why sometimes Chinese seem heartless and cold-blooded. This is the difference between insiders and outsiders. In addition, nowadays, the Chinese idea is also deeply affected by the concept of equality. In the process of highlighting the role of individual, the Chinese have made a big step forward. When people pay attention to the group’s interests, the individual’s interests have also received unprecedented attention. ‚Chinese people start getting rid of the moral restraint which is absolute group-oriented. People begin to require the change of the social function of morals from the relationship mediation to ensuring selfperfection and self-development. Pay attention to the maintenance of individual benefit.‛10 In the service industry, to stop the hearer from doing the current inappropriate action, usually is within the scope of work responsibilities of the speaker’s. So if the speaker just turns a blind eye to it, it is dereliction of duty. From this point of view, the relationship between the speaker and the hearer becomes much more simple and clearer. Facing such an outsider, it’s just about the duty of work. The speaker doesn’t have to be so considerate or patient any more. However, when adopting the dissuasive strategy of the category of reason, the speaker needs more time and more patience. So for an outsider, there’s no need to spend so much time. That’s why the speaker

9 10

贾玉新．(2007) ．跨文化交际学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版 P.61. 贾玉新．(2007) ．跨文化交际学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版 P.85.

50

would rather adopt the dissuasive strategy of the category of act which is more direct and is able to let the hearer understand the speaker’s intention of dissuasion within the shortest time. That’s also the reason why the proportion of the direct dissuasive pragmatic strategy of the category of act is the highest among all the subdivisions, followed by the explanation of the objective reasons of the category of reason. the category of reason seems more polite, the dissuasive In short, although the dissuasive strategy of strategy of the category of act is the most used dissuasive strategy in the service industry.

51

Chapter Six The commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns and suggestions for teaching Chinese as a second language 6.1 The commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns As it is mentioned in the significance of the paper that in the service industry, when Thai people try to express the function of dissuasion in Chinese, they always utter it improperly, like ‚If you gamble, the police will put you into the jail‛; ‚You Chinese people always do that. That is not polite. We Thais do not do that‛. Such dissuasive sentences express a tone of threat and sarcasm which Thai people may not intend to express. And this tone may make Chinese tourists dissatisfied and disgusted. However, Thai people who use Chinese as a second language are unaware of their indecency, rudeness and impoliteness. Therefore, although the usage frequency of dissuasion is lower than the other speech act, such as greeting, request, command, studying on the speech act of dissuasion is very significant. In the process of classification of the dissuasive strategies, the author found that under each category there are always some commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns. Since lacking of the necessary sentence patterns of target language would limit Chinese language learners’ choices of dissuasive strategies and would cause cross-cultural failure, this paper summarized the commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns under each category of pragmatic strategies, to help Chinese learners to learn and master the system of the Chinese speech act of dissuasion and help them apply those appropriate dissuasive strategies in the future work. In order to let it be used for teaching better, the author decided to arrange them according to the degree of difficulty, combined with the related grammar outline of teaching Chinese as a second language. Since the 1990s, discipline consciousness of teaching Chinese as a second language increases gradually, and the standardization work of the discipline has begun in large-scale. After absorbing results in grammar teaching, the Office of Teaching Chinese As a Second Language at that time issued a series of grammar syllabus,11such as ‚对外汉语教学语法大纲‛(1995), ‚高等学校外国留学生汉语言专业教学大纲‛(2002) and so on. ‚汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲‛ (1995) is also such a syllabus which got widespread attention. In the 21st century, with the rapid worldwide development of the international promotion of Chinese, in order to adapt to the new situation, Confucius Institute Headquarter (Hanban) issued ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ in 2008 and ‚Chinese Proficiency Test Syllabus‛ in 2009. Then which outline should this paper adopt to arrange the commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns according to the degree of difficulty? According to the research results of ‚从语法大纲看对外汉语教学和测试理念的发展‛ (2011) which was supported financially by Humanities and Social Sciences project fund, Chinese Ministry of 李靖华．(2011)从语法大纲看对外汉语教学和测试理念的发展[J]．天津：考试研究.

11

52

Education, ‚no matter the teaching syllabus or the testing syllabus, the recent outlines no longer have descriptive explanation; instead they adopted the form of listed items with examples.‛ 12 Whether domestic or foreign, they have gradually changed. The outlines no longer emphasize the pure professional grammatical knowledge, but pay attention to the actual needs and the learning efficiency of the foreign students’. Language Education‛ adopted the tabular form and Since ‚International Curriculum for Chinese emphasized more on the language form itself, it is useful for the students’ language learning. And considering that ‚Chinese Proficiency Test Syllabus‛ has only issued the grammar syllabus from level 1 to level 3, and the level 4 to level 6’s have not yet released, the author decided to use the grammar syllabus of ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛（ ‚常用汉语语法项目分级表‛）as the standard of the degree of difficulty. And its form of listing items with examples is also adopted. But just because of the feature of ‛not seeking detailed refinement and perfection‛ of "International Curriculum for Chinese Language Teaching", it will cause the missing of some important dissuasive sentence patterns. In order to make up for this deficiency, this paper uses ‚汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲‛ which emphasizes the perfection of each grammar item as the supplement. So in this paper, after the commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns under each pragmatic strategy are arranged in the degree of difficulty according to ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛, this paper continued to list the left commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns according to ‚汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲‛ for compensation. All of these are placed in the form of listing items with examples. Refer to Appendix 1 for details. 6.2 Suggestions for teaching Chinese as a second language As this paper mentioned above, Chinese learners should think it over before implementing the speech act of dissuasion. Using the strategies improperly would affect the effective communication. And lacking of the necessary sentence patterns of target language, would limit Chinese language learners’ choices of dissuasive strategies, resulting in cross-cultural failure. Thus, as a teacher of teaching Chinese as a second language, what should the teacher do to help the foreign students master the speech act of dissuasion? Thomas (1983) proposed that unsuitable teaching material is one of the main reasons that cause students’ pragmatic failures.13 As the important way of input, if the Chinese textbooks arrange the commonly used dissuasive sentence patterns properly and import the speech act of dissuasion consciously and systematically according to the students’ language level, especially the Chinese textbook of practicalityoriented courses, such as Chinese for Tour Guides, Chinese for Hotel Business and so on, it would help Chinese learners grasp the Chinese speech act of dissuasion in the service industry more effectively. 李靖华．(2011)从语法大纲看对外汉语教学和测试理念的发展[J]．天津：考试研究.

12

13

Thomas, J．(1983) Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure [J]．Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, No. 2. 53

But the consideration for the arrangement about pragmatic functions of the textbooks are lacking now. Take the existing Chinese textbooks of Tour Guides for example. Some textbooks focus more on the teaching of language knowledge, like those professional terms, the introduction of scenic spots and so on. Some textbooks focus more on the training of the grammar items. And most of the textbooks still pay more attention to knowledge exercises, not the communicative exercises. However, as a practicality-oriented course, the fundamental goal of Chinese for Tour Guides is to develop learners’ Chinese communicative ability, and the purpose of learners who take this course is to apply the skills that they have learnt to their work in reality. Therefore, functional items should be taken into account in the process of compiling Chinese textbooks for Tour Guides. For instance, in the course of Chinese for Tour Guides, when it involves the topic of Thailand taboos, the textbook may design the scenario as follows: a Chinese tourist came to Thailand, and he saw a very cute Thai kid. He reached out his hand and wanted to touch the kid’s head in order to express his love to the kid just as every Chinese does in China. But in Thailand, it is taboo to touch other’s head. So as a tour guide, you have to implement the speech act of dissuasion at this moment. Design such specific scenes and compile such dialogues in Chinese textbooks would help the students figure out the specific social relations between the speaker and the hearer. So it will be more conducive to mastering the speech act of dissuasion. No matter how perfect a textbook is, it still is the product of generality. One textbook will never be able to meet all the learners’ demands, and it’s impossible to be suitable for all the learners with different learning styles. Therefore, classroom teaching is the best supplement to the textbook. In the classroom practicing, it is recommended that teachers also simulate specific context, and let the students take the role of the speaker. After helping the students understand the relationship between the speaker and the hearer, try to lead the students to implement the speech act of dissuasion properly. In this process, the teacher is able to adopt the way of panel discussion which makes use of students’ competitive spirit and cooperative consciousness. Adopting the way of panel discussion, instead of asking one student to act alone, would not only arouse the students’ enthusiasm, but also would help to overcome some students’ shyness and avoid awkward silence in classroom. After the task is completed, the teacher then continues to give the assessment toward the results that each group got, and analyze the pragmatic factors that influence the communication. And then introduce the three categories of Chinese dissuasive strategies and their commonly used sentence patterns. Thus, in the process of completing the task, students use their language knowledge, language skills and communicative strategies to solve the problem. ‚Learning by doing‛ is a good approach that would enable the learners to achieve the purpose of using the target language naturally and flexibly. (盛双霞, 2007) There’s another point that the teachers must pay attention to. When teaching how to implement the speech act of dissuasion, teachers should not only teach the various commonly used sentence patterns under each pragmatic strategy, but also combine with the Chinese culture. Only when the Chinese dissuasive 54

pragmatic strategies are explained from the perspective of politeness principle and face theory, Chinese concept of insiders and outsiders, would the students understand the speech act of dissuasion in the service industry more deeply. Otherwise, the students will only know the sentence patterns, but don’t know the cultural meaning of these sentence patterns, and don’t know whether they use these patterns properly or not. Therefore, only when it is combined with the Chinese culture, will the students avoid the occurrence of such a situation.

55

Appendix 1 The sentence patterns of each dissuasive pragmatic strategy category

ⅠThe dissuasive strategy of the category of act A. The direct dissuasive pragmatic strategy ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ （Appendix v “常用汉语语法项目分级表”） Grammar Items Level 1 Grammar Items Structure Example sentences 祈使句：表示礼貌请求

请+动词

1.请你们安静！ 2.请出示您的房卡。 3.哎，你们不能进去, 请到那边去登记。 4.请您不要这样大声喧哗。 5.先生，请你不要骚扰我们的客人。

Grammar Items

Grammar Items Level 2 Structure Example sentences

动词重叠

1.消消气，消消气。 2.哎，其然，其然，你等等！

Grammar Items 正反疑问句

Grammar Items Level 3 Structure Example sentences 主语+adj.不 adj.? 1.咱们别闹出人命，好不好！ 2.你别每次来，都是这么喝酒，行不行啊？主语+V 不 V+（宾

允许我解释一下可不可以？

语）？用“怎么样”、“好吗”、

小句，好吗？

1.小声一点，小声一点，好吗？

“可以吗”、“行吗”的疑

2.先生，麻烦你小声点好吗？

问句能愿动词：能

能+动词短语

先生，这里不能讲电话的。

可以

可以+动词短语

哎，太太，医院记录不可以让你随便看的。

56

应该

现在，你应该要把你自己的事情做好，让自己成为一个更好的人。

Grammar Items Level 4 Structure Example sentences

Grammar Items

时间副词作状语：再

1、你听清楚了啊，我再说一遍，手

主语+再+动词短语

术前不但不可以吃东西，也不可以喝水，明白吗？

2、别再说了，别再说了

特殊句式：是„的

3、杨格，你不要再去找他了！

表达自己的看法，

你们这样闯教室是不行的！

强调复句

不但„，而且„

手术前不但不可以吃东西，也不可以喝水，明白吗？

Grammar Items Level 5 Structure Example sentences

Grammar Items 结果补语

一般形容词作结果补语

“好”作结果补语

动词+形容词

你听清楚了啊，我再说一遍

动词+好

你现在可不能激动，躺好躺好躺好。

趋向补语复合趋向补语

动词+回+来/去

坐回去！

趋向补语的引申用法

动词+下

坐下坐下！

主语+把+名词+动

咱可别把事情弄大了。

“把”字句

词+形容词主语+把+名词+动

快把它拿下。

词+趋向兼语句

主语+请/让/叫+某

1.让她安静，让她安静一下！

人+动词短语

2.医院记录不可以让你随便看的。 3.喂，这里不让拍照！ 4.喂，这里不许拍照!

《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences 57

【甲】形容词词组

冷静一点!

【甲】否定副词：别

1.都别吵了！ 2.别这么冲动。 3.王太太，别这样，别这样!

【甲】紧缩复句

有话好好说，不要动手嘛。

【乙】名词：以后

以后啊，少逃点课，多看看书，听见了吗？

【乙】语气副词：千万

你千万别存着侥幸的心理了。

可（你可不能这么说哦）

你现在可不能激动。

【乙】用副词“就”强调

1、找她谈谈就行了。 2、你就不要再闹小孩子脾气了，好不好？

【乙】只有„„才„„

今天必须写完才能走。

【乙】不管（无论）„„也（都）„„

可不管怎么说，你也不能跟学生瞎起哄啊！

【丙】说 X 就 X，„„

不许拍！我说不能拍就不能拍！

【丙】被动句：给（表“叫、让”义）

不给你们按！不给你们按！

【丁】你给我 X

都给我坐下，听见没有！

B. The indirect dissuasive pragmatic strategy 1. The pragmatic strategy of interrogation 《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences

【甲】强调的方法: 反问句：吗

1.但是你这样，不觉得对宝宝很不公平吗？ 2.没看见师傅正在点人数吗？ 3.但是校长您以为躁进就是腾飞吗？

怎么

1.弄成这样，怎么在飞机上为乘客服务！ 2.怎么又是你俩？ 3.怎么能吃口香糖呢

【丙】反问句：什么

1.啊啊啊，你干什么！你干什么！ 2.你们俩这是什么态度啊！ 3.干什么动手动脚的呢！

58

为什么

1.我说你为什么那么笨！ 2.为什么不能和平共处，互相促进呢！

谁

1.谁说的！ 2.谁是你老婆呀！

1.这是在干嘛呀！

干嘛

2.干嘛搞得这么极端呀？怎么样呢【丁】（没）有什么（好）X 的„„

人家老先生，我们能对他怎么样呢？你们有什么可争的呀

2. The pragmatic strategy of suggestion ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ （Appendix v“常用汉语语法项目分级表”） Grammar Items Level 3 正反疑问句主语+adj.不 adj.? 1.咱们还是别漂了，我陪你去爬山好不好？ 2.咱就尽量不在外边上了，你看行不行？主语+V 不 V+（宾

是不是也让大山以课业为重？

语）？用“怎么样”、“好吗”、

小句，好吗？

1.明天再去好吗？

“可以吗”、“行吗”的疑

小句，怎么样？

2.我给你一个假期，修完假再说，

问句

怎么样？

Grammar Items Level 4 复句

如果/要是„„，

1.如果是能不在外边上课，咱就尽

就„„

量不在外边上了。 2.如果真的彼此喜欢，再谈恋爱也不迟啊。 3.要是你真的认为有必要的话，我建议你到附近诊所让别的医生看看。

《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences

【甲】语气助词：吧

1.这样吧，找一天呢，大家坐下来。我们好好地把心里话说出来。

59

2.要去明天再去吧。【乙】语气副词：尽管

咱就尽量不在外边上了。

【乙】固定词组：算了

表扬李兰，咪咪就算了吧。

【丙】语气副词：其实

其实你不必这么快就做出这样的决定的。

【丙】连词：要不

要不您在家好好吃饭，我去找孩子聊聊。

3. The pragmatic strategy of evaluation ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ （Appendix v “常用汉语语法项目分级表”） Grammar Items Level 1 Grammar Items Structure Example sentences 用“吗”、“吧”、“呢”

小句+吧？

在教室里闹不太妥吧？

用“不”的否定句

主语+不+动词短语

这样不好！

感叹句

太+形容词+了

太不妥了！

程度副词作状语

很、非常、真、太

1.这样很危险的。

的一般疑问句

2.孩子这么批评家长，非常不妥。范围副词作状语:也

也+动词短语

您也错了。

Grammar Items

Grammar Items Level 3 Structure Example sentences

2.事情正在进行的表达

主语+在+动词短语+

又在说话呢！

（呢）

Grammar Items Level 4 Structure Example sentences

Grammar Items 时间副词作状语:再和又

又在说话呢！

《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences

【甲】程度副词：更

那就更不对了。

【乙】用“非„„不可”强调

那也没必要非得闹到辞职不可呀！

【丙】让／叫Ｘ，„„还真Ｘ（呀）

说你笨，你还真就笨。

60

4. The pragmatic strategy of apology

《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences

【乙】固定词组：不好意思

王太太，不好意思！王太太！

5. The pragmatic strategy of enquiry 《‛International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛》（Appendix v “常用汉语语法项目分级表”） Grammar Items Level 1 Grammar Items Structure Example sentences 用“吗”、“吧”、“呢”

小句+吗？

王先生，您认为您这样的教育，适

的一般疑问句

合大山吗？小句+呢？

崔先生，那你认为怎么办呢？

Grammar Items

Grammar Items Level 3 Structure Example sentences

用疑问代词的特殊疑问句 l

什么、谁、哪、哪

1.哎，小姐，请问你有什么事儿？

儿

2.你找谁啊？

3.哎，你要去哪里啊？先生，你要去哪里啊？选择疑问句

„还是„

到底是你的哥们儿知道你的脾气，所以才不来看你，还是因为他们根本没把你当哥们儿？

正反疑问句

用“怎么”询问方式

主语+V 不 V+（宾

周先生，是不是因为环境或者经济

语）？

不容许你照顾你爸爸？

主语+怎么+动词短

那你认为怎么办呢？

语？

Grammar Items

Grammar Items Level 4 Structure Example sentences

复句

虽然„但是„

宋副总，我也考虑过退，但是理由呢？

《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences 61

【乙】语气副词：到底

到底是你的哥们儿知道你的脾气，所以才不来看你，还是因为他们根本没把你当哥们

儿？

6. The pragmatic strategy of condition ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ （Appendix v ‚常用汉语语法项目分级表 ‛） Grammar Items Level 4 复句

如果/要是„„，

1.如果小瘦要是能考上重点中学的

就„„

话，那就说明他在哪儿都能学好。 2.要是他考不上的话，这件事儿，小瘦就再也不许提

《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences

【乙】只有„„才„„

先生，叫到号码才进来！

【丙】除非„„才„„

除非公安机关向我们给出正式的答复，证

实金志爱小姐永远都不会再回来了，并且公安机关也不再对这件事儿进行调查，那么你们在法律手续齐备的情况下，才可以进入这个房间。【丙】„„不只（不仅）„„而且（并

除非公安机关向我们给出正式的答复，证

且）„„

实金志爱小姐永远都不会再回来了，并且公安机关也不再对这件事儿进行调查，那么你们在法律手续齐备的情况下，才可以进入这个房间。

【丙】总得„„

你要找黄总得先预约一下！

ⅡThe dissuasive strategy of the category of reason A. Explanation of the objective reasons ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ （Appendix v ‚常用汉语语法项目分级表‛） Grammar Items Level 2 Grammar Items Structure Example sentences 62

范围副词作状语:也

也+动词短语

她现在全身都是伤，而且也不能说话。

Grammar Items

Grammar Items Level 3 Structure Example sentences

事情正在进行的表达

主语+在+动词短语 +（呢）

类同的表达

王先生，我们在开记者会。

主语+正在+动词短语+（呢） „„跟/和„„

这学生们正在上课，上课呢！

（不）一样

2.可是我当时对他的态度，就跟你

1.可你和她们不一样。

现在对你哥哥的态度一模一样，都那么讨厌。

Grammar Items

Grammar Items Level 4 Structure Example sentences

时间副词作状语:已经

已经+动词短语

可你们都已经高三了。

助词“了”的用法

（就/快）要+动词

天快黑了。

短语+了比较句复句

这个世界上没有人比父母还亲。先„„再„„

他们都是一伙吸血鬼，先骗你们一万，然后再骗你们十万，接着搞不同的花样，直到骗你们，把你们的钱骗光为止。

因为„„所以„„

1.因为要参加校庆的活动，势必会耽误你们复习的时间。 2.是因为婴儿的情况不太稳定 3.正因为来日方长，所以我们现在必须收敛斗志。

如果/要是„„，

1.可是你如果想象太多，那就会变

就„„

得很复杂了。 2.如果你再这样子继续和她们吵下去，只怕会影响到她的升迁哦！ 3.如果你这年龄对异性不感到好奇，那我才觉得奇怪。

不但„„，而

双双老师啊，其实我们教育孩子

63

且„„

呢，不但要给他们知识，而且还要教他们做人的道理。

虽然„„，但

林先生，这个房间虽然是你们公司

是„„

租下的，但目前房间是由金志爱小

姐个人使用。

Grammar Items Level 5 Structure Example sentences

Grammar Items 8.各种复句

既然„„就„„

既然这件事情公安机关已经介入了，那任何人要进入 1948 房间，都必须通过公安机关的批准。

无论„„都„„

无论是班级，还是剧场的演出，都是由人组成的，如果没有人和，一个人的力量是不可能成功的。

《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences

【甲】助动词：会

你们这样，景文会很难过的。

【甲】程度副词：更

天底下没有白吃的午餐，更不可能有不劳而

获的事情。【甲】介词：

你出去是为了散心，没有必要非去冒险。

引出目的、原因：为，为了表示排除和加合：除了

除了外表靓丽，穿着打扮很漂亮意外，她还

除了„„以外

有由内而外散发出一种自信美。

【乙】程度副词：尤其

尤其这个啊，又是涉及到人家夫妻间的问题。

【乙】语气副词：

这恐怕会妨碍学生的上课安宁！

恐怕

这可不是什么财神爷上门，这是诈骗集团在

可（你可不能这么说哦）

骗你们！

【乙】连词：然而

然而在我认真做一切努力的时候，石延风却简单地跟我说，表演不参加了。

【乙】用“非„„不可”强调

你出去是为了散心，没有必要非去冒险。

【乙】固定词组：就是说

也就是说，你在咱们学校越不好好学习，你爸就越不可能送你去戏校。

64

【乙】“是„„的”句：这种格式多用来

只要他们没有骚扰到其他的住客，我们是不

表示说话人的看法、见解和态度

可以骚扰他们的。

【乙】用副词“就”强调

就是怕时间长了，娃们心都野了。

【乙】条件复句：只有„„才„„

1、学会做人，才能做好其他事情。 2、你有骨气，也要先活下来才能有骨气嘛！

【乙】条件复句：只要„„就„„

【乙】条件复句：不管（无论）„„也

主任也以为只要认真，就可以把每一件事做好。因为不管怎么说，你们都希望被别人看得

（都）„„

起，被别人尊重。

【乙】转折复句：„„可是（可）„„

可是最糟糕的就是，你传出了很多不真实的传言。

【乙】让步复句：就是„„也„„

你就是再捣乱，学校也不能把你开除了。

【乙】紧缩复句：越„„越„„

你在咱们学校越不好好学习，你爸就越不可能送你去戏校。

【丙】粘着语素：第（第一、第二、第

这第一呢，现在是九年义务制教育，你就是

三„„）

再捣乱，学校也不能把你开除了，这第二呢，你爸刚才也说了，你在咱们学校都不能学好，你去了戏校能学好吗？也就是说，你在咱们学校越不好好学习，你爸就越不可能送你去戏校，明白了吗？

【丙】副词：反而

我是怕江燕接受不了这样的刺激，她反而病情更严重。

【丙】语气副词：其实

其实她出发点是好的。

【丙】否定副词：未必

这种东西未必能帮她，相反还可能导致其他问题。

【丙】何况

何况我发现大山最近也有点食古不化，言语上也矫揉造作的。

【丙】兼类词：万一（副词、名词）

万一不小心出了什么意外，你说谁能负责。

【丙】要不（要不然）„„

要不然就像林志玲一样，骑上马背，被马给摔下来。

【丙】一来„„二来„„

小姐，不好意思. 一来呢，你穿成这样，我们不能提供服务，二来呢，我们这儿的客人

65

都讲求体面，如果就这样让你进来，影响到

其他客人就不太好了，是不是啊？【丙】动词、动词词组、动宾词组作宾

你以为我不知道你那点心思？

语：以为

我们这节课就是让大家说真话，让大家彼此

【丙】是„„而不是„„

了解，增进友谊，而不是互相议论别人的长

【丙】再„„也„„

处和短处。你再怎么逼裴佩，她也没法给你正确的答案。

【丙】不是„„而是„„

新闻最重要的不是耸动，而是新闻的真实性。

B. Resorting to the subjective emotion ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ （Appendix v ‚常用汉语语法项目分级表‛） Grammar Items Level 1 Grammar Items Structure Example sentences 用“不”的否定句

主语+不+动词短语

我不认为你是一个那么快就向困难低头的人！

程度副词作状语

很、非常、真、太

1、我很敬佩你的责任心。 2、老师我也是第一次参加这个校庆，也非常想看你们表演。

范围副词作状语:也

也+动词短语

其实你的话也有道理。

Grammar Items

Grammar Items Level 4 Structure Example sentences

兼语句

主语+请/让/叫+某

我不能让你们白白被骗走！

人+动词短语复句

虽然„„但是„„

但我希望愿意留下来的人都是从心眼里边喜欢这个工作。

Grammar Items

Grammar Items Level 5 Structure Example sentences

结果补语的可能式肯定的可能式

动词+得+补语

看得出同学们对这个校庆的演出非常有兴趣。

66

《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences

【甲】助动词：得（d ě i）

我在这儿一天必须好好教一天，他们就得好好学一天。

小李老师，你的那个快乐教学法，我觉得挺

【乙】情态副词

好，一下子就把学生娃的热情、积极性全都

【乙】兼类词：只是（副、连）

带动起来了。我们只是希望你们能够尊重我们为她所做的事情。

【乙】用副词“就”强调

我在这儿一天必须好好教一天，他们就得好好学一天。

【乙】强调的方法：用双重否定强调

我不能不管！

Ⅲ The dissuasive strategy of the category of result A. The pragmatic strategy of threat ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ （Appendix v ‚常用汉语语法项目分级表‛） Grammar Items Level 1 Grammar Items Structure Example sentences 用“吗”、“吧”、“呢”

小句+吗？

你想一辈子躲警察吗？

的一般疑问句

Grammar Items Level 4 助词“了”的用法

（就/快）要+动词

马上就要出状况了！

短语+了复句

如果/要是„„，

如果你们按照他的指示，按了号

就„„

码，那你们的十万块就会跟昨天一万块一样，在人间蒸发了！

不但„„，而

而且大家都不开心。

且„„

Grammar Items Level 5 兼语句

主语+请/让/叫+某

待会儿我就让你去校长室练习，我

人+动词短语

让校长知道你的身段有多柔软。

67

《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences

【甲】助动词：会

如果让你家人发现，门窗会关得更紧的。

【甲】强调的方法：连„„也（都）„„

你现在连下一分钟会发生什么事情都不知道。

【乙】连词：不然【乙】„„否则„„ 【丙】兼类词：万一（副词、名词）

不然请你们离开！否则，这科我给你算零分！万一彭河的水流急，眨个眼就能把人冲走，救生衣根本就没用。

【丙】要是（如果）„„的话

你要是再胡闹啊，我可对你不客气了啊！

【丙】主谓词组作宾语

不怕别人有非分之想啊！

可带主谓词组（小句）作宾语的最常用的动词有：怕【丙】„„不只（不仅）„„而且（并

但是如果社长知道的话，她不仅要扣你工

且）„„

资，还要挨骂呢！

B. The pragmatic strategy of promise ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ （Appendix v “常用汉语语法项目分级表”） Grammar Items Level 3 Grammar Items Structure Example sentences 正反疑问句主语+adj.不 adj.? 这样好不好，我给你的房租打个折扣，好不好？

《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences

【甲】助动词：会

我们会帮你的。

【甲】时间副词：就(1)

问题一解决就马上通知你。

【乙】名词：以后

所以以后你一定会遇见可以跟你匹配的女孩。

【乙】语气副词：难道

你难道要放弃马上到手的利益？

【丙】„„不只（不仅）„„而且（并

我们不只给你升格住套房，明年这个时候，

且）„„

我们再留一间豪华套房给你和你太太。

68

C. The pragmatic strategy of inference ‚International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education‛ （Appendix v ‚常用汉语语法项目分级表”） Level 1 Grammar Items Grammar Items Structure Example sentences 用“吗”、“吧”、“呢”

小句+呢？

找工作？一个月赚六百，然后呢？

的一般疑问句

《汉语水平等级标准与语法等级大纲》

Grammar Items

Example sentences

【丁】连词：就算

就算你要捉弄姚老师，你也不能这么光天化日大明大放的呀！十几双眼睛看着你呢！就算姚老师没逮着你，你以为你跑得了吗？

69

Bibliography Report： ปานเสก อาทรธุระสุ ข 、วิไล ลิ่มถาวรานันต์ 、สุ นทรี ลาภรุ่ งเรื อง ．(2008) The Comparative Study of User's Satisfaction and Need of Graduates Quality from the Department of Oriental Languages, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Burapha University[R] ． ภาควิชาภาษาตะวันออก ได้รับทุนสนับสนุนจาก งบประมาฌเงินรายได้ คณะมนุษยศาสตร์และสังคมศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยบูรพา Monograph：邓炎昌、刘润清．（1991）．语言与文化[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 胡文仲．（1999）．跨文化交际学概论[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 贾玉新．（2007）．跨文化交际学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版. 林大津．（2008）．跨文化交际研究——育英美人交往指南[M] ．福建：福建人民出版社. 张怀承．（1993）．中国的家庭与伦理[M]．北京：中国人民大学出版社. 祝畹瑾．（1992）．社会语言学[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社.

Austin. J. L. （1962）. How to Do Things With Words [M]．Oxford, Clarendon Press. Leech, G. （1983）. Principles of pragmatics [M]．London: Longman. Searle, J. R . （1969）. Speech acts [M]．Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. Searle, J. R . （2001）. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M]．Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collection：何兆熊主编．（2003）．语用文献选读[C]．上海：上海外语教育出版社. 胡文仲．（1999）．跨文化交际面面观[C]．北京：外语教育与研究出版社.

Degree：付冰峰．（2007）．论导游语言的修辞策略[D]．湖南师范大学. 贺琼．（2003）．汉语文化中的礼貌和面子请求策略之讨论[D]．湖南大学. 黄彬．（2012）．汉语劝说言语行为的语用研究[D]．暨南大学. 匡文艺．（2001）．批评语的语用分析[D]．第七届全国语用学会议论文，苏州. 刘文欣．（2010）．现代汉语责训句研究[D]．黑龙江大学. 阙庆华．（2008）．论导游言语交际中合作原则的运用[D]．湖南师范大学. 苏晶．（2013）．导游语言的语用研究[D]．东北师范大学. 唐霞．（2007）．中美劝说言语行为的比较研究[D]．广西师范大学硕士学位论文. 严敏芬．（2012）．汉语中不礼貌构式的社会与认知研究[D]．上海外国语大学. 张佳慧．（2010）．导游语言的语用学研究[D]．扬州大学. 朱湘燕．（2002）．汉语批评言语行为研究及其对对外汉语教学的启示[D]．暨南大学.

70

Journal：

Laforest,M. （2008）. Complaining in front of a witness: Aspects of blaming others for their behavior in multi-party family interactions[J]. Pragmatics Thomas, J. （1983）Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure[J]. Applied Linguistics. Ulrike Skrries. （1998）. Features of a blame type using and:An analysis of an example[J]. Applied Linguistics, 包旭玲．（2009）．试析‚X 就 X‛[J]．齐齐哈尔：齐齐哈尔师范高等专科学校学报. 毕继万．（1996）．汉英感谢语的差异[J]．北京：语文建设.

毕继万．（1997）．汉英告别语的差异[J]．北京：语文建设. 毕继万．（1997）．汉英寒暄语的差异[J]．北京：语文建设. 毕继万．（1997）．汉英介绍语的差异[J]．北京：语文建设. 毕继万．（1997）．汉英社交称谓的差异[J]．北京：语文建设. 毕继万．（1997）．汉英招呼语的差异[J]．北京：语文建设. 陈光伟．（1996）．‚请求‛与‚恭维‛：汉英言语行为的实现与语用失误[J]．南宁：广西师院学报. 陈松岑．（1988）．汉语招呼语的社会分布和发展趋势[J]．北京：语文建设. 陈玮．（2011）．日常汉语规劝言语行为及策略研究[J]．鸡西：鸡西大学学报. 程雨民．（1983）．格赖斯的‚会话含义‛与有关的讨论[J]．北京：国外语言学. 戴炜华．（1998）．言语行为和事件的跨文化语用研究[J]．上海：上海外国语学院学报. 丁凤．（2002）．汉语请求言语行为中的性别差异[J]．西安：西安外国语学院学报. 丁凤汉．（2002）．汉语请求言语行为中的性别差异[J]．西安：西安外国语学院学报. 段开成．（1988）．舍尔的言语行为理论[J]．北京：北外学报. 付冰峰．（2006）．论导游语言的得体性[J]．湖南永州：湖南科技学院学报. 贡献．（1997）．恭维答语——英汉言语行为对比[J]．洛阳：解放军外语学院学报. 顾曰国．（1984）．John Searle 的言语行为理论与心智哲学[J]．北京：当代语言学. 顾曰国．（2002）．礼貌、语用与文化[J]．北京：外语教学与研究. 韩荔华．（2001）．论导游语言的研究[J]．北京：语言文字应用. 何兆熊．（1983）．话语分析综述[J]．上海：上海外国语学院学报. 何自然、阎庄．（1986）．中国学生在英语交际中的语用失误—汉英语用差异调查[J]．北京：外语教学与研究. 何自然．（1984）．语用学的研究及其在外语教学上的意义[J]．广州：现代外语. 侯风英．（2007）．导游辞的顺应性研究[J]．山西晋中：晋中学院学报. 胡文仲．（1994）．跨文化交际学在美国[J]．南京：外语研究. 花永年．（1986）．‚言语行为模式‛浅析[J]．上海：上海外国语大学学报. 黄河．（2003）．汉语日常口语中打招呼的限制因素[J]．吉林延吉：汉语学习.

71

黄理文、王西成．（1996）．英汉招呼语比较[J]．长沙：湖南大学学报（社会科学版）.

黄永红．（2001）．‚对言语行为‘道歉’的跨文化研究‛ [J]．洛阳：解放军外国语学院学报. 贾玉新．（1991）．文化相关论与言语行为理论[J]．哈尔滨：黑龙江大学学报. 李德华．（2010）．‚（你）看你 V 的‛句式考察[J]．长春：长春教育学院学报. 李桂梅．（2004）．现代家庭伦理精神建构的思考——兼论自由与责任[J]．天津：道德与文

明.

李靖华．（2011）．从语法大纲看对外汉语教学和测试理念的发展[J]．天津：考试研究.

李敬科．（2006）．中美邀请言语行为对比研究[J]．南昌：江西金融职工大学学报.

李军、宋燕妮．（2004）．面子理论在汉文化中的考察[J]．上海：修辞学习. 李军．（1998）．汉语使役性言语行为的话语构成及其功能（上）、（下）[J]．北京：语文建设 . 李军．（2003）．汉语使役性言语行为核心行为语分析[J]．北京：中国语言学报. 李军．（2001）．使役方式选择与社会情景制约关系分析[J]．广州：现代外语. 李军．（2004）．使役性言语行为醒示语分析[J]．广州：暨南大学华文学院学报. 李丽．（2006）．浅析中英问候语的文化差异[J]．云南昭通：昭通师范高等专科学校学报. 李文新．（2003）．广告语言的劝导性研究[J]．广州：广东外语外贸大学.

李志荣．（1997）．跨文化交际中言语行为的语用问题[J]．江苏徐州：徐州师范大学学报. 李佐文、李晓玲．（2004）．导游交际中的互明区域[J]．重庆：四川外语学院学报. 梁镛．（2007）．跨文化的语用研究[J]．武汉：长江学术. 林一心．（2006）．导游语言与语境[J]．厦门：厦门广播电视大学学报. 刘大为．（1991）．言语行为与言说动词句[J]．吉林延吉：汉语学习. 刘绍忠．（1997）．国外语际语用学研究现状与我国语际语用学研究的思考[J]．广州：现代外语. 陆小英．（2010）．中西方文化差异中的‚面子‛比较[J]．福州：福建广播电视大学学报. 骆小所．（1996）．公关语言的劝导说服[J]．北京：语文建设. 马欣华、常敬宇．（1980）．谈‚就‛[J]．北京：语言教学与研究. 倪波．（1995）．言语行为和言外行为分类[J]．南京：外语研究. 潘文国．（2002）．汉英对比研究一百年[J]．北京：世界汉语教学. 戚雨村．（1988）．语用学说略[J]．上海：上海外国语学院学报. 曲卫国、陈流芳．（1999）．论传统的中国礼貌原则[J]．上海：学术月刊. 曲卫国、陈流芬．（2001）．也谈‚please‛，也谈‚请‛[J]．上海：外国语. 阙庆华．（2007）．浅论导游语言中‚合作原则‛的渗透及其效果[J]．长沙：企业家天地下半月刊（理论版）仁甫、刘方、子亮、勇毅．（1995）．言语行为与文化模式──中国人的交际方式三例 [J]．吉林延吉：汉语学习.

72

商拓．（1997）．语境中祈使句的结构特点[J]．上海：修辞学习.

苏文妙．（2003）．文化价值与交际风格—英汉请求言语行为对比研究[J]．西安：西安外国语学院学报. 孙镭．（2007）．试论副词‚就‛的统一语法意义[J]．山东曲阜：现代语文（语言研究版）. 孙淑芳．（2001）．隐含祈使的间接言语行为句[J]．哈尔滨：外语学刊.

王爱华．（2001）．英汉拒绝言语行为表达模式调查[J]．北京：外语教学与研究. 王传经．（1993）．间接言语行为及其对英语教学的启示[J]．西安：外语教学.

王得杏．（1990）．跨文化交际的语用问题[J]．北京：外语教学与研究.

王红旗．（1996）．‚别 V 了‛的意思是什么——兼论句子各式意义的概括[J]．吉林延吉：汉语学习. 王红旗．（1997）．‚别 V 了 1‛中动词的特征[J]．吉林延吉：汉语学习. 王虹、束定芳．（1994）．言语平等关系与心理平衡结构——兼论社会权势关系中的礼貌扬升抑降现象与平等关系[J]．上海：上海外国语大学学报. 王铁民．（1996）．略论劝导说服的语用艺术[J]．广州：广东青年干部学院学报. 王燕．（2008）．从‚别 V（了）‛来看否定副词‚别‛的用法和意义[J]．合肥：安徽文学. 王勇．（2001）．英汉礼貌的语用与文化价值差异[J]．安徽马鞍山：安徽工业大学学报

（社会科学版）. 王渊明．（1989）．西方家庭史学[J]．北京：世界史研究动态. 王宗炎．（1982）．评斯金纳著《言语行为》[J]．北京：当代语言学. 吴格奇．（2004）．英语教材中的跨文化语用失误——‚招呼语‛之会话结构英汉对比分析 [J]．南京：外语研究. 徐渊．（1980）．‚言语行为论‛指导下的第二语言教学法[J]．上海：国外外语教学. 许彩云．（2002）．汉语劝服类言语行为话语结构分析[J]．江苏南通：南通职业大学学报. 许彩云．（2002）．汉语劝服类言语行为话语模式变式探析之二[J]．安徽六安：皖西学院学报. 严辰松、高航．（2003）．国外语用学 20 年：回顾与前瞻[J]．洛阳：解放军外国语学院学报. 姚舜霞、邱天河．（2003）．浅析英汉请求言语行为策略类型[J]．洛阳：河南科技大学学报. 姚舜霞、邱天河．（2003）．请求策略的选择与社会距离变化的互动关系[J]．武汉：武汉理工大学学报. 姚舜霞、邱天河．（2003）．英汉请求言语行为策略类型对比初探[J]．河南平顶山：平顶山师专学报. 张犁．（1993）．寒暄的策略[J]．北京：语文建设.

73

张倩．（2008）．中英问候语差异与跨文化交际[J]．河南信阳：信阳农业高等专科学校学报. 张绍杰、王晓彤．（1997）．‚请求‛言语行为的对比研究[J]．广州：现代外语. 张绍杰．（1994）．言语行为与施为动词[J]．大连：外语与外语教学. 赵娟．（2004）．‚拒绝‛言语行为的跨文化语用策略研究[J]．成都：西南交通大学.

赵锐．（2002）．小议跨文化语用研究[J]．太原：太原师范学院学报. 郑娟曼、邵敬敏．（2008）．‚责怪‛义标记格式‚都是+NP‛ [J]．吉林延边：汉语学习.

郑娟曼、张先亮．（2009）．‚责怪‛式话语标记‚你看你‛[J]．北京：世界汉语教学.

郑丽芸、方经民．（1999）．中日寒暄问候比较[J]．上海：修辞学习. 钟守满、姚明发．（2004）．近 50 年来‚言语行为‛理论研究的发展与反思[J]．南昌：江西教育学院学报. 钟小洛．（1989）．试论外贸信函中的‚言语行为‛[J]．广州：国际经贸探索. 周品淇．（1992）．言语行为的运行机制[J]．郑州：中州学刊. 周永平．（2009）．关联理论对间接性指责言语的阐释力再分析[J]．自贡：四川理工学院学报(社会科学版). 周永平．（2008）．关联理论关照下的间接性指责言语分析[J]．广州：外语艺术教育研究.

祝东平．（2007）．‚别 V 了‛的语用分析[J]．长春：长春师范学院学报.

74

A Study of Automatic Speech Recognition in Noisy ...