【作者】 李辉；

【导师】 李晶漪；

【作者基本信息】 信阳师范学院 ， 英语语言学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 本论文运用言语行为理论等语用学理论结合礼貌原则对间接拒绝语进行了研究分析,文中对日常拒绝语的句子进行分析归纳,总结出人们经常出于礼貌而利用语言的间接性以及故意违背合作原则来间接实施拒绝这一言语行为的现象。言语行为理论认为,人们在实施同一种言外行为的时候,可能会运用到不同的表达方法,而同一句话在实际交际中同时具有不同的功能,正是因为句子的多重功能性,人们在表达自己的想法时可以有托词和退路。间接拒绝正是设法制造出虽与语境有关,但表面上却毫不相干的语言信息,使听话人在处理信息时付出一定的努力才能揣摩出被拒绝的意义。有时候听话人也完全可以装作不理解说话人的意图来表达拒绝。由于语言的间接性与礼貌程度成正比,所以话说得越间接就越显得礼貌。日常交际中最常见的另外一种现象是,交际者故意违反某一准则,并让听话者体会到这一点。说话者处于自身的动机或某种理由,常常通过违反合作原则的某些准则,以产生特殊的会话含义,去让对方揣摩。其实这些违反合作原则的话语也在深层面上遵守着合作原则,受话者总是先要假设说话者也是在遵守原则,所说之话肯定和双方交际内容有关联,然后才进行推理得出说话者的言语本意。利奇礼貌原则的提出,弥补了合作原则的不足而且丰富发展了“会话含义”理论。文中采用面子理论和礼貌原则来缓和拒绝语的一些用法,以礼貌的间接拒绝方式来增进人际关系的和谐。此前国内外拒绝语研究虽非屈指可数,但运用的理论和研究方向大致相同,这些研究多侧重于拒绝语的构成层面及拒绝语的策略方法,其研究成果对拒绝语的运用提供了较全面的参考依据,但这些研究多从语法、语义方面着手,拒绝语的策略归纳也缺少理论依据。该论文从不同角度出发,尝试提出新的研究结果为大家所利用。拒绝言语的研究大多局限在私人交往语域中,本文也未能跳出这种局限去研究某一特定领域中人们运用拒绝语的现象,所以文中仍是日常生活中人们在交际时进行拒绝常用的例子。本论文研究有助于深化和丰富目前拒绝言语研究的理论及实际运用调查。它的创新之处在于通过语用学理论深入分析所选拒绝语例子并把它们重新分类,以期归纳出人们在交流中怎样礼貌地进行间接拒绝,在礼貌的间接拒绝对方时怎样违反了合作原则。当然,怎样把理论完美地和实践研究相结合是通篇所依照的原则。更多还原

【Abstract】 In my dissertation, I do research on indirect refusals in daily conversation based on speech act theory and other pragmatic theories combined with politeness principles. Through analyses, I summarize that people usually violate the cooperative maxims to realize the aim of refusal indirectly, and most of these indirect refusals are out of politeness.According to the speech act theory, we can explain why people can succeed in refusing others indirectly. This is because the illocutionary act of refusal can be implemented by any means, so I dare say, one can never neglect speech act theory when doing research on indirect refusals. Indirect refusals express a kind of implied meanings to make distinction between what people say and what people imply, so we must have some knowledge of the theory of conversational implicature. In our life, to achieve certain goals, people sub-consciously or even unconsciously follow cooperative principles (CP for short) to accomplish various successful conversations. There are four categories of maxims under the cooperative principles:Quantity Maxim, Quality Maxim, Relation Maxim, Manner Maxim. Indirect refusals can be produced by means of violating the four maxims. However, if we take a closer look, we can find when people refuse indirectly, actually they are also following CP, they only deliberately ignore the maxims to achieve implied meanings, which they hope can convey their unwillingness or inability of doing the things requested by others. To the addressees, they must assume the information imparted by the speaker is relevant to their conversation. But the reason why the speaker violate the maxims must lie in that they want to get across some unspoken meanings, so through inference, the listeners can successfully understand the real intention.Besides the above theoretical bases, indirect speech act and violation of the maxims of CP are both out of politeness. If people want to express refusals and at the same time they want to maintain good relationship with others, then they must consider politeness, therefore, in order to make up this kind of insufficiency, G N Leech proposed politeness principle to "rescue" the cooperation principle. For the particularity of refusal "a threatening behavior threatening the requestor’s face", this paper adopts face view and politeness principle to make refusals be polite. What the optimal successful communication demands is improving some indirect refusals to be beneficial to interpersonal harmony, but not being against your willingness to do what you do not want to do.Earlier studies on refusals are not few, but their theories and research directions are roughly the same. Their studies focus on the composition and strategies of refusals. Although they provides a comprehensive reference, these researches are from the angles of syntactic, semantic and refusal strategies, which lack theoretical bases for induction. This paper puts forward the new research results from the angle of pragmatic views.The study confines refusals in private language communications, failing to jump off such limitations to study refusals used by a particular group of people, so examples presented in this thesis are still from communications in daily life. After making a comparison and discussion of the data collected, the conclusion is reached as followings: indirect refusals are what most people choose, and these refusals are prone to be the violation of CP maxims.This paper helps deepen and enrich the theories about refusals. It supplies thorough analyses of many examples by using relevant pragmatic theories. The following questions are paid more attention to and will be solved through the dissertation:1.How can we use indirect speech act theory to explain indirect refusals with examples?2.How do indirect refusals violate the maxims of co-operational principle? Are they really uncooperative in the real conversation?3.How can we combine all the theories perfectly and closely with indirect refusals?更多还原