wanghuiping.doc

Acknowledgements

This paper is accomplished under the inspiration and instructions of my respected supervisor: Prof. Zhu Yue. I am extremely grateful to him for his illuminating directions, valuable suggestions and constant encouragement throughout the writing of this paper and other relative studies. First of all, he introduced me into the field of linguistics; the courses he offered and the academic experience he imparted enlarged my horizon and imbued me with initiative and creativity. Moreover, he made a lot of corrections and suggestions as to the language and improved some ideas in my paper. Without his supervising , this paper would never have come to the present form.

I would also like to express my gratitude to all my teachers in the School of Foreign Studies, to whom I owe much of my knowledge in the English language, linguistics, literature and translation theories during three-year graduate study. They are Prof. Hong Zengliu, Prof. Cheng Zhengfa, Prof. He Gongjie, Prof. Xiao Shuhui, Prof. Cheng Yongsheng，Dr. Zhu Xiaomei and Dr. Hu Jian. Their lectures have broadened my knowledge and horizon. I have benefited a lot from their earnest teaching and enlightening which are of great help for my study.

I will sincerely express my gratitude to my husband, whose help is indispensable for the data collecting. And great thanks also go to all of our friends and those unknown people for their participation and cooperation in my survey. Without their help, the paper would not have been finished.

At last, my gratitude goes to my daughter. She has given me much support both in my life and study.

Abstract

This paper attempts to conduct a critical study on whether Mr. Gu Yueguo’s politeness maxims conform to the linguistic reality in the mainland of China from a pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspective. Fieldwork has been carried out and data collected have been analyzed for the first time to study the application of Gu’s politeness maxims critically in the main land of China and the effect of social variables on the use of the polite language. This study adopts a quantitative approach. Data are collected through Questionnaires distributed among altogether 180 people with different educational background from different occupations and different ages.
The paper investigates three maxims of Gu’s politeness principle: the self-denigration maxim, the address-term maxim and the refinement maxim. In addition, the social variables affecting people’s use of polite language are also concerned.
The paper consists of five chapters. First a brief introduction is presented to the study of politeness phenomenon home and abroad. Then Gu’s politeness theory is introduced. Chapter 3 is ascribed to dealing with aims of the study and methodological problems focusing on research methods and procedures of the investigation. In Chapter 4, detailed data analysis is made. The results show that the politeness language in the main land has changed: The polite expressions such as 鄙人，鄙姓，小儿，舍弟，卑职，敝厂，敝校，令郎，令弟，令妹，尊职 are seldom used by people in their daily face-to-face communication and so have become obsolete. 您，贵姓 have become the basic polite expressions for common people. Influenced by the culture of the foreign country, modern Chinese people attach much importance to individuality and self-expression, so they do not always denigrate themselves when they are complimented. But the acceptance of the compliments from others depends on what are complimented and the social distance between the complimenting person and the complimented person. People do not always use self-referring words to express self-denigration and other-referring words to express their respect for others. Context plays a decisive role in determining the meaning of the referring words.
“老婆”is no longer the address form for one’s own wife to show one’s self-denigration; It can be used to refer to other’s wife when the social distance between the speaker and the interlocutor is very close. 表姐/表哥are seldom used by people born in the seventies and eighties of the twentieth century with the change of our society and the adoption of the one-couple, one-child family-planning policy. People do not always use refined language form in their daily face-to-face communication and foul language is often used among people who have close relationship with each other to express solidarity, friendship and love. Therefore, the self-denigration maxim, the address-term system and the refinement maxim of Gu’s politeness maxims are not correspondent to the linguistic reality in the main land of China. Besides, the four variables (age, occupation, gender and education) considered in this study have significant influence on the use of polite language form, and social distance plays a significant role in how referring words will be used, whether the compliments will be accepted and whether foul language will be spoken. At last, a conclusion is drawn and some limitations in the present study are mentioned with some proposals of further research.

Key words: politeness; politeness principle; self-denigration maxim; address-term maxim; refined maxim; social variables

摘 要

本文试图从语用学的角度和社会语言学的角度批评研究顾曰国先生的礼貌原则是否与中国大陆的语言现实相符。首次用统计数据批评研究顾曰国先生的礼貌准则在中国大陆的实施情况及社会变量对使用礼貌语言的影响。本次研究采用了定量研究的方法，采用了问卷调查形式来收集语料，调查分别在来自不同职业、不同年龄并接受过不同教育的180人中展开。
本文调查研究了顾曰国先生的礼貌原则中的三个准则： 贬己尊人准则、称呼准则和文雅准则。 此外，也研究了影响人们使用礼貌语言的社会变量。
全文共分为五章。第一章对简要概述了国内外对礼貌现象的研究。第二章介绍了顾曰国先生的礼貌理论。第三章对本次研究中的目标、方法及程序作了必要的论述。主要对语料的收集方法作了重点阐述。文章的第四章依据所收集的语料，分析了中国大陆礼貌语言使用状况，结果表明中国大陆的礼貌语言已发生了变化：诸如鄙人，鄙姓，小儿，舍弟，卑职，敝厂，敝校，令郎，令弟，令妹，尊职等礼貌表达在日常面对面交际中极少使用，因而已经过时。“您、贵姓”成为普通人基本的礼貌用语。由于受外来文化的影响，现代中国人重视个性与自我表现。因此，在受到恭维时，并不总是贬低自己。但是，接受他人的恭维依赖于受恭维的内容及恭维人与受恭维人的社会距离。人们并不总是使用自称词语来表示自贬和他称词语来表示对他人的尊敬。语境决定指称词语的意义。“老婆”不再是用于称呼自己妻子的贬称。在说话者与交际者的社会距离很近时，可用于当对方的面来指称对方的妻子。随着社会的变化与计划生育政策的实行，“表姐、表哥”很少被在二十世纪70年代与80年代出生的人所使用。在日常面对面交际中，人们并不总是使用文雅语言，污秽语在关系密切的人中经常用于表达一致、友谊与爱。因此，顾曰国先生的贬己尊人准则、称呼准则和文雅准则与中国大陆的语言现实并不相符。 此外，也研究了年龄、职业、性别及所受教育对人们使用礼貌语言的影响。在决定如何使用指称词语、恭维是否被接受、及是否说污秽语，社会距离起着重要的作用。最后是对本文的回顾和前瞻，在总结全文的基础上，提出了本次研究的意义和局限性以及今后可能的研究发展方面的建议和努力方向。

关键词：礼貌；礼貌原则；贬己尊人准则；称呼准则；文雅准则；社会变量

- 61 -

Table of contents

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………....….i
Abstract（English）………………………………………………………………...ii
Abstract（Chinese）………………………………………………………………....iv

Chapter 1 Introduction…...... …….. …..…….. ……. ……………… ……...…….. 1
1.1 Previous study of politeness home and abroad ………………………. ..………. .1
1.2 Approaches and goals of the study …... …….. …. ………….. …….. .……..… 10
Chapter 2 Gu’s Politeness Theory .. ... . . . … . ……….….... …….. ………..……12
Chapter 3 Methodology and Procedures. …….. …….. …….. …….. ………….. 19
3.1 Aims and objectives…..……... ………………... ……..…….. …….. …… ……19
3.1.1 General aims ……………………………………………………………… … 19
3.1.2 Specific objectives ……………………………………………… …………... 20
3.2 Data collection ……………… …………………….…….. …….. ………….… 21
3.2.1 Subjects …………………………… ……………. …….. …….. …………… 21
3.2.2 Questionnaires………..…. …….. …….. …….. …….. ……. ………………..21
3.2.2.1 The design of questionnaires.…….. …….. ……..………. … ……….……..22
3.2.2.2 Questionnaires..…….. ……..…….. ……. ……..……. ……….. ……..……22
3.2.3 Data collecting procedures ……..…….. ….. …….. ………..…..…………….24
3.3 Social variables …………………………………………………………………24
3.4 Summary ……………………………………………….……………………… 25
Chapter 4 Results and discussions…....……..……. ………..………..…………...26
4.1 People’s use of Gu’s referring words in reality…………...….. ..... ...…………...26
4.1.1 Actual use of the referring words………….….………………….…. …….….26
4.1.2 Social variables and use of the referring words ……………………………… 29
4.1.2.1 Gender and use of the referring words ……………………………….……. 29
4.1.2.2 Age and use of referring words……….. .. ..…….. …….. …….. …………..30
4.1.2.3 Occupation and use of referring words …….……………………………… 32
4.1.2.4 Education and use of referring words ….…….…………………………….. 33
4.1.3 Summary... .. ……….. ………………...……….……. ……………………….34
4.2 Context and use of referring words..…. .….. ……. ……………. ……………. . 34
4.2.1 Data analysis………. …….. …….. ………. …. ……….. ……….. ……….…34
4.2.2. Context theory…….. ….. …….. …….. …….. ..…….... .…….. ………..…....35
4.2.3 Context and use of referring words ……... …..…………..….. .…………..…..36
4.2.4 Summary………….. ……. .…..…..……........……....…….….... ……..…….. 39
4.3 Politeness and social distance.. ……….. ..…. .. ………..….….. ... ……….. .. .. 39
4.3.1 Social distance and use of referring words…………………………. .………..39
4.3.2 Summary.……..…………………………………………………….………….42
4.4About laopo( wife) ..…………………………………………….…………….. 42
4.4.1Theactual use of laopo( wife) …………………………….……………………42
4.4.2 Social variables and use of laopo( wife)……………………………….……... 43
4.4.2.1Ageand use of laopo( wife)……………………………………….………….43
4.4.2.2Occupation and use of laopo( wife)…………………………. .……………..45
4.4.2.3 Gender and use of laopo( wife)…………………………………….……….46
4.4.2.4 Education and use of laopo( wife)………………………………….……….46
4.4.3 Summary……………………………….………….……………….…………. 47
4.5 Chinese people’s attitude toward compliments…….…….………….…………. 47
4.5.1 Actual attitude toward compliments ….………….……….……….…………. 47
4.5.2 Social variables and compliments….………. . .….……….……….…………. 48
4.5.2.1.Gender and attitude toward compliments . .. .….……….……….…………. 48
4.5.2.2.Age and attitude toward compliments . .. .….………. ………….…………. 49
4.5.2.3. Occupation and attitude toward compliments. .……. ………….…………. 50
4.5.2.4. Education and attitude toward compliments…..…….….…… .…. .………. 50
4.5.3. Summary. ...….………. ….…. ….….…….…..…..…….….…… .…………. 51
4.6 Foul language speaking….…. ….….……. ..…....…..…….….…… .…………. 51
4.6.1 Actuality of foul language speaking…. ..….... .…..…….….…… .….………. 51
4.6.2 Social variables and foul language speaking. .. .…..…….….…… .…………. 52
4.6.2.1 Gender and foul language speaking.. .…..……. ……….……… .…………. 52
4.6.2.2 Occupation and foul language speaking..……. ….…….……… .…………. 52
4.6.2.3 Age and foul language speaking…….….…….………………….…………. 53
4.6.2.4 Education and foul language speaking….…….………………….………… 54
4.7 The change of address system….…….……………………………….…………54
4.7.1 The actuality of our address system……………………………….…….…… 54
4.7.2 Age and use of biaojie/biaoge (cousin)….……………………….……….… 55
4.7.3 Summary….…….………………………………………………….……….… 56
Chapter 5 Conclusion……..…..…..…….. …….. ….….. …….…….. …….. .……62
Bibliography…………………………………………..…………………………….64

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1. Previous study of politeness home and abroad
Goffman proposes the face theory and defines “face” as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact.”(1967:5) According to him, face is not a private property “lodged in or on his [the individual’s] body,” but as an image “located in the flow of events” supported by other people’s judgments and by “impersonal agencies in the situation”(1967:7). So face is a public image that is on loan to individuals from society, and that will be withdrawn from them if they prove unworthy of it.(1967:10) To save this public image, people must do the “face-work”, which Goffman calls (1967:12) .
Based on Goffman’s theory, Brown and Levinson raise the Face-saving Theory or Face-Threatening Act (FTA).
They make the following assumptions that all competent adult members of a society have (and know each other to have):
1) “face”, the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects:
(a) negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction---to freedom of action and freedom from imposition
(b) positive face: the positive consistent self-image or “personality” (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants.
2) certain rational capacities, in particular consistent modes of reasoning from ends to the means that will achieve those ends.
(Brown & Levinson, 1987:61)
Derived from this, they “treat the aspects of face as basic wants, which every member knows every other member desires, and which in general it is in the interests of every member to partially satisfy(ibid, 1987)”.That is, face is the public self-image that everyone wants and expects everyone else to recognize.(ibid, 61) They hold that “face can be, and routinely is, ignored”, “in case of social breakdown (affrontery)”, “in case of urgent cooperation, or in the interests of efficiency”(ibid,1983). Therefore, they define face as wants and classify the notion of face into two types: the negative face and the positive face. They state negative face as “the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others. It refers to the need to be independent, to have freedom from of action, and not to be imposed on by others. By contrast, the positive face refers to the need to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that one’s wants are shared by others. So they define positive face as “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some other (ibid, 1987:67)”.
In fact, Goffman’s face is different from Brown and Levinson’s. According to Mao, “Goffman’s face is a public, interpersonal image, while Brown and Levinson’s face is an individualistic, ‘self’-oriented image.”(He, 2003:599)
Brown and Levinson state “certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face (ibid, 1987:68).” That is to say, nearly all the speech acts are Face-threatening acts ( FTAs) . Some speech acts can be a threat to the hearer’s negative face by imposing on the hearer; other speech acts threaten the hearer’s positive face by indicating speaker’s lack of concern for the hearer’s self-image. Moreover, some speech acts are threatening to the speaker rather than to the hearer by either offending the speaker’s positive face wants or negative face wants.
Brown and Levinson argue that conversation is much more concerned with observing politeness expectations designed to ensure the “redress of face with the exchange of information(ibid,1987:68) Thus, the notion of positive and negative politeness are derived. By negative politeness, it is meant that the participants tend to show deference, emphasize the importance of the participants’ right to freedom or independence in their social interactions. Positive politeness is concerned with participants’ positive face. They will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both the speaker and the hearer want the same thing, and that appeal to a common goal and even friendship or membership. Therefore, Brown and Levinson state that “positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself.(ibid,1987:68)”. They propose that the potential face threat can be minimized if “S considers H to be in important respects ‘the same’ as he, with in-group r