毕业设计（论文）-商务谈判中礼貌语用及研究.doc

MA ThesisNingbo University商务谈判中礼貌的语用研究摘要将礼貌理论用于各种文体的语言分析是近些年来中西方语言学家所致力于研究的课题。但是很少有人将礼貌理论和商务谈判语言相结合，从而分析其功能和应用。商务谈判以经济目的为中心并围绕价格展开，谈判人员既要为己方争取优越条件，又要兼顾对方的利益，保证谈判的效率，为谈判交际目的服务的礼貌语言因而也呈现出其在商务谈判中独有的特点和规律。本文拟运用语用学的礼貌理论，在收集到的大量谈判语料的基础上，采用定性分析方法，对商务谈判语言中的礼貌性进行阐释，旨在发现其在谈判语言上的语用规律。全文分五个部分：第一章，作者交代了写作目的和整篇论文的结构布局。第二章，作者概括了前人对礼貌理论的研究。第三章，作者从词汇、句法、篇章三个角度，对商务谈判中礼貌在语言上的实现做了全面分析，指出称谓、语气、无人称句、婉转表达、模糊表达、反馈语等等语言现象在特定的场合可以发挥出其内在的礼貌特点，起到为谈判目的服务的作用。第四章为实例分析，作者把谈判分为三个阶段：初始阶段、交锋阶段和协议阶段，并指出礼貌在不同阶段的表现。在初始阶段，运用礼貌策略来营造友好的气氛是关键；在交锋阶段，礼貌策略用来避免僵局的发生；在协议阶段，则礼貌策略旨在为建立一种长期合作的关系。第五章，作者总结了礼貌语言在谈判中的功能。指出礼貌语言在谈判中不仅是交际方式，更是一种谈判的策略和手段。礼貌策略可以用来表达对对方的重视、赞美和谢意，体现合作的诚意，可以融洽尴尬气氛，为自己留有周旋余地，甚至可以巧妙地拒绝对方不合理的要求，从而使谈判人员既实现了己方的经济目的又与对方建立长期友好的合作关系。第六章，在对商务谈判语言的礼貌特点作了全面、具体的分析后，作者指出了社会原因，人际关系和文化因素会在一定程度上影响礼貌的实现。最后是论文的总结。关键词：礼貌；商务谈判；语用学；策略IMA ThesisNingbo UniversityA Pragmatic Study of Politeness in Business NegotiationsAbstractThis thesis explores the communication practice of politeness in business negotiations. Avariety of sample discourses are chosen for analysis, which covers a wide range of businessdetails in business negotiations. This thesis argues that, in negotiations, language operates attwo levels: the literal level and pragmatic level. In business negotiations, politeness in thepragmatic level can be intended, conveyed and perceived through literal expression.The linguistic realization of politeness theory in business with regard to lexicon, syntaxand discourse has been analyzed in the case study, with Brown and Levinsons mode ofpoliteness theory as underlying principles. We also make an in-depth look at thecommunication process of business negotiations.This thesis is composed of seven chapters:Chapter 1 is devoted to the introductory scenario about the thesis. Chapter 2 provides acritical overview of how scholars approach an account of politeness: Lakoffs Rules ofPoliteness, Leechs Principles and Maxims, Goffmans Notion of Face, Brown & LevinsonsTheory of Politeness. Chapter 3 exams the realization of linguistic politeness in businessnegotiations. It explores broadly the nature of politeness strategies in business negotiations.Chapter 4 is devoted to the analysis and description of verbal communications in internationalbusiness negotiations in light of Brown & Levinsons politeness theory. In chapter 5, thefunctions of politeness in business negotiations are documented. Chapter 6 takes a closer lookat the role that the social factor, interpersonal distance and cultural factor play in businessnegotiations. Finally, Chapter 7 is a concluding part, the theoretical and practical significanceof the thesis is considered with suggestions for further research efforts.Based on case study, we discover the politeness does not only serve to reserve theopposing partys face, but exercise some strategic functions in business negotiations, and thechoice of politeness strategy can be influenced by social factor, interpersonal distance andcultural factor.IIMA ThesisNingbo UniversityWe conclude that negotiators who are aware of the rationale of politeness strategy in thenegotiation communication and making use of it correctly are more likely to communicatemore accurately and effectively in business negotiations.Key words: Business Negotiations; Politeness; Pragmatics; StrategyIIIMA ThesisNingbo University1 Introduction1.1 Subject of the ThesisThis thesis is an attempt to study the linguistic realization of politeness theory inbusiness negotiations. My main purpose is to highlight some of the approaches with whichbusinessmen make use of the available linguistic system in their day-to-day negotiationcommunication and to provide a linguistic account of actual business conversations before thefunctions of politeness negotiation are summarized.As many authors have pointed out that an important macro-function of language is theeffective management of relationships. In linguistics, this perspective on language use hasbeen explored extensively within politeness theory. The point that should be illustrated is that“Politeness” here moves from evaluations of polite behavior in general to the more specificcase of polite language usage, i.e. “polite” language. But so far the study of politeness theoryhas mostly focused on face-to-face interaction in non-professional settings. Furthermore, thesubjects that have been discussed are based on self-invented utterances made in a socialvacuum.The difference of this thesis from the others is that this thesis attempts to explore certaintheoretical assumptions about politeness through an examination of a specific professionalsetting - business negotiations. Business negotiation refers to the negotiation which isconducted by economic organizations or their representatives for an economic goal. Its maincharacter is price- oriented. (Wang Lijuan 王丽娟 2004: 36)As a purposeful social activity which is a process between two parties, businessnegotiations are to manage conflicts to achieve an agreement or to solve a problem. But in theprocess of negotiation, the most troublesome kinds of problems that arise in negotiation arethe intangible issues related to loss of face. In some instances, protecting against loss of facebecomes a central issue, for the failure to do it may put issues at stake and generates intenseconflicts that can impede progress toward agreement and increase substantially the costs ofconflict resolution. In other words, the common pragmatic function of business negotiationcommunication is that of getting the other party to comply in some way by using politelanguage to protect the others faces.- 1 -MA ThesisNingbo UniversityMy research question becomes, then: If obtaining compliance is the most frequent goalof business negotiation communication, how is information to be presented and whatpoliteness strategies are to be used in order to obtain compliance meanwhile, to protectagainst loss of face, furthermore, which factors may affect the politeness strategies in businessnegotiations.1.2 The Organization of the TopicThe present thesis consists of seven chapters as illustrated in the following:Chapter 1 is devoted to the introductory scenario about the thesis, namely, a generaldescription, organization of the thesis.The primary purpose of Chapter 2 is to provide a critical overview of how scholarsapproach an account of politeness. Four fundamental theories on treatment of politeness areidentified and explicated: Lakoffs Rules of Politeness, Leechs Principles and Maxims,Goffmans Notion of Face, Brown & Levinsons Theory of Politeness. Each is provided witha characterization of politeness embraced.Chapter 3 exams the realization of linguistic politeness in business negotiations. Thegoals and the means for achieving them are linked so that it is necessary to explore thecharacteristics of negotiation before we explore broadly the nature of politeness strategies inbusiness negotiations.Chapter 4 is devoted to the analysis and description of verbal communications ininternational business negotiations in light of Brown & Levinsons politeness theory.Examples are organized to present the linguistic strategies which parties choose to enhanceeffective communication, which are mainly divided into 3 groups according to the process ofnegotiation.Chapter 5 documents the functions of politeness in business negotiations.As most negotiators discover, strategies do not always work the way they were intendedto. Most commonly, negotiation breaks down because the conflict dynamics get out of controland inhibit the parties from reaching an agreement. Chapter 6 takes a closer look at the rolethat the social factor, interpersonal distance and cultural factor play in business negotiations.In many ways, these factors operate much the social structure dimension; that is, they are acontext that tempers, modifies, or even changes politeness strategies in business negotiations.- 2 -MA ThesisNingbo UniversityFinally, Chapter 7 is a concluding part, the theoretical and practical significance of thethesis is considered with suggestions for further research efforts.- 3 -MA ThesisNingbo University2 Theoretical Background2.1 Lakoff s Rules of PolitenessSince 1975 when Grices Co-operative Principle (CP) and his Maxims of Conversationwere formulated, many linguists have tried adopting Grices universal construct ofconversational principles to investigate politeness phenomena which have not been touched inCP. Lakoff was among them.Lakoff (1973) proposes two simple rules of pragmatic competence on the presuppositionthat the speaker is aware of his/her relations with his/her hearer, his/her own situation wherethe conversation occurs, and the extent to which he/she wishes to change either or both, or toreinforce them:(1) Be clear.(2) Be polite.In Lakoffs point of view, although Grices Conversational Maxims can be used toilluminate how to maintain clear in conversation, they fail to explain the latter rule to bepolite. Although Lakoff has not until now specified what she takes politeness to be, she pointsout that politeness should make the hearer “feel good”, hence, to be polite, one should avoidconflict with the hearer, by not intruding into others territory, letting the hearer take his orher own decisions. She claims that politeness involves the nonlinguistic behavior (e.g.opening door for others), linguistic behavior (e.g. apologizing by speech acts), and somespecial expression means of politeness. In this light, she posits sub-rules, adapted as follows:(1) Formality: Dont impose, to remain aloof.Rule 1 states that one should keep distance from others by not imposing. In order to keepdistance from others, she points out that one tends to use formal expressions or uses technical- 4 -MA ThesisNingbo Universityvocabulary to exclude personal emotions. This rule is apt for the situation where the twoparticipants are imbalanced in power, e.g. students and leaders, workers and directors etc.(2) Hesitancy: Allow the hearer his options.The second rule is characterized by saying things hesitantly, by not stating ones willclearly or by using euphemisms. It involves the status difference of the speaker and the hearer,and the speaker yields to the power of the hearer by leaving the option of decision to thehearer. This rule is suitable for the situation where the participants are equal in power andstatus and not familiar with each other, e.g. businessmen and customers, two strangers etc.(3) Equality or camaraderie: Act as though the speaker and the hearer were equal to thelatter one, or show sympathy to make him feel good.This rule, on the other hand, emphasizes equality between the speaker and the hearer,and it enhances closeness between them. This rule can be applied to enhance the relationshipbetween intimate friends or lovers.Lakoff argues that the three rules of politeness are not necessarily compatible. Lakoffsuggests that they are to some extent mutually exclusive: different ones are applicable indifferent real-world situations, and applying the wrong one at the wrong time may cause asmuch friction as not applying any. She suggests that before speakers determine which strategyshould be used in the conversation, they must assess their relationship with their hearers, aswell as their communicative goals and intentions.Lakoffs politeness rules can be applied to three situations, which have already beenmentioned above. But they dont draw enough observation from other linguists, mainlybecause Lakoff doesnt set forth in details what will be the consequences if the rules areviolated, neither does she explain the reason why sometimes people violate them on purpose.Lakoffs analysis does not offer an integrating theory that places her rules of politeness in aframework that explains their form in terms of social relationships and expectations abouthumans as interactants.- 5 -MA ThesisNingbo University2.2 Leechs Principles and MaximsLike Lakoff, Leech also considers politeness from the conversation-maxim point of view.Leech (1983: 81, 83) argues politeness functions in two ways: to “rescue” GricesCooperative Principle (CP) by explaining why speakers choose to violate the maxims, and tominimize the impoliteness of impolite illocutions, with its mirror image of maximizing thepoliteness of politeness illocutions. Unlike other studies of politeness, he opts to treat thestudy of linguistic pragmatics as the study of goal-directed linguistic behavior, and studiespoliteness within the domain of a rhetoric pragmatics. In this light, he speaks of an“Interpersonal Rhetoric” and “Textual Rhetoric”. The Interpersonal Rhetoric is concernedwith variables typically associated with the rhetorical situation such as the hearer and thepurpose of communication. The Textual Rhetoric, on the other hand, is concerned with theformal properties of the text proper, such as genre conventions and coherence. ForInterpersonal Rhetoric, Leech elaborates a framework which mainly consists of CooperativePrinciple (Grice maxims) and Politeness Principle.According to Leech, politeness is based on principle of cost and benefit. His politenessprinciple goes: “Minimize (other things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs” and,conversely, “Maximize (other things being equal) the expression of polite beliefs”. Impolitebelief is belief which is unfavorable to the hearer or some third party and polite belief theopposite. This give rise to a range of more specific maxims, such as:(I) Tact Maxim: Minimize cost to other; maximize benefit to other.(II) Generosity Maxim: Minimize benefit to self; maximize benefit to other.(III) Approbation Maxim: minimize dispraise of other; maximize praise of other.(IV) Modesty Maxim: minimize praise of self; maximize dispraise of self.(V) Agreement Maxim: minimize disagreement between self and other; maximizeagreement between self and other.(VI) Sympathy Maxim: minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize sympathybetween self and other.The politeness of an utterance results from three factors. First, the nature of the speechact itself, notably to which degree it involves costs or benefits to the speaker or the hearer.- 6 -MA ThesisNingbo UniversitySecond, the formulation of the speech act, concerning the degree of indirectness and thedegree of optionality (the freedom of choice given to the hearer). Finally, the relationaldimensions “authority” and “social distance”. These factors constitute pragmatic scales. Onwhich a specific speech act is given values according to the context.However, a number of authors have criticized Leechs politeness maxims for severalreasons. Brown & Levinson (1987) points out that it is unacceptable to invent new maximsevery time new regularities are noticed in “polite” language use. If doing so, as a result, wewill “have infinite number of maxims, and the pragmatic theory will be too unconstrained topermit the recognition of any counter-example” (Brown & Levinson 1987:4). And they alsoargue that the politeness maxims function at a more superficial, less fundamental level thanthe co-operative maxims, and are more easily undermined than the co-operative maxims. Theargument of Spencer-Oatey (2001) is that, in the politeness maxims, one pole of a givendimension is always taken as being more desirable than the other. For example, with regard tomodesty-pride, Leech implies “the more modest the better”. Yet in different cultures, and indifferent speech context within the same culture, we contend that different options could befavored. Polite behavior depends partly on pragmatic contextual variables and partly onculturally-based preferences.2.3 Goffmans Notion of Face“Face” has been the focus of many studies since Goffman laid the foundation in 60s.Goffman (1967), the pioneering theorist, introduced the concept of face to illuminate patternsof behavior, defines face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himselfby the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (1967: 5). One person canmaintain face by having his/her word accepted and acknowledged by others in interaction onthe assumption that the speaker has taken into account his/her position in society. If onecarries out actions or takes part in activities that would be awkward to face up to, he/she maylose face. In other words, once a person takes on a self-image expressed through face, he/sheis expected to live up to it, refraining from actions that are either above or beneath him/herstatus, and often from performing other actions that may be costly to him/her.- 7 -MA ThesisNingbo UniversityFace consists of two different social claims. One is a certain self-image, consisting ofattributes such a