搜索
对比分析论文：中美达人秀节目评委批评策略对比分析【中文摘要】言语行为是人们最常用的交流方式之一。言语交流在人们的生活中起着举足轻重的作用。对言语行为的研究,也深受研究者们关注,但目前主要集中在对请求,道歉,恭维,拒绝等方面的研究,对批评策略的研究还不够充分。批评作为一种威胁面子的行为,使用得恰当就很可能达到目标效果,使用不当,不仅很难达到目标效果,甚至可能会恶化说话者和听话者的关系。由此可见,对批评策略的研究有着深远的意义。本文以言语行为理论,礼貌理论以及霍夫斯泰德的国家文化维度理论为基础,对中国达人秀与美国达人秀节目评委的批评策略进行了对比研究。前人对批评策略的研究基本上采取调查问卷的方法收集语料。这种方法能在短时间获取大量的语料,但是这种语料的语境都是假设的,缺少真实的语境,因而语料的说服力不够强。本文以中国达大秀第一季前六集和美国达人秀第三季中的七集批评性语料建立封闭语料库,并对语料库当中的中国达人秀评委与美国达人秀评委的批评策略进行了对比分析。通过语料分析共得出17种批评策略,其中9种为公开策略,8种为非公开策略。中国达人秀评委共用到了其中的14种批评策略,美国达人秀评委用到16种批评策略。通过批评策略对比研究,发现中美达人秀节目评委均偏爱使用公开策略,但美国达人秀评委的公开策略的使用比率明显大于中国达人秀评委(中国达人秀节目评委的公开策略比率为52.1%,而美国达人秀评委使用的公开策略比率为80.6%)。根据研究结果,论文进一步讨论了中美达人秀节目评委批评策略使用异同的原因。研究发现,文化维度在中美达人秀评委批评策略的不同点方面起着相当重要的作用。中美达人秀节目评委的批评策略使用情况一定程度的反应了两国的文化异同,在达人秀节目越来越受欢迎的今天,节目评委的批评策略很可能影响甚至引导观众的批评策略。因此,本文作者希望通过对中美达人秀节目评委的批评策略使用情况的对比分析,在一定程度上揭开批评策略的神秘面纱。同时本研究为批评策略研究,跨文化研究,以及跨文化交流,做出了一定的贡献。当然,本文仅涉及了批评策略的对比研究,对批评其他方面的研究还需要进一步探讨,如对批评应答语的研究等。【英文摘要】Speechactisoneofthemostcommonusedwaysofcommunication,whichplaysanimportantroleinpeople’slife.Itisalsooneofthestudyfocusesforresearchers.Thepreviousspeechactstudiesmainlyfocusonrequest,apology,complimentandreject,etc.However,theresearchesoncriticismstrategiesarestillinadequate.Criticismisafacethreateningspeechact.Ifitisusedappropriately,theexpectedcriticismeffectcanbeachieved;ifitismisused,therelationshipbetweenthespeakerandthehearermightbehurt.Therefore,theresearchoncriticismstrategyhasfar-reachingsignificance.BasedonSpeechActTheory,PolitenessTheoryandHofstede’sTheoryofNationalCulturalDimension,thepaperconductsacontrastiveanalysisofjudges’criticismstrategiesinChineseandAmericantalentshows.Thedataofpreviousresearchesoncriticismstrategieswerealmostcollectedthroughthewayofquestionnaires.Theresearcherscanobtainalargenumberofdatainashorttimebysuchaway.However,thecontextofthisdataisassumed.Forlackingofrealcontext,thecorpusisnotpersuasiveenough.Basedontheself-builtclosedcorpus,whichiscomposedbysixepisodesinSeason1ofChina’sGotTalentandsevenepisodesinSeason3ofAmerica’sGotTalent,thepaperconductsacontrastivestudyofjudges’criticismstrategiesinChineseandAmericantalentshows.17criticismstrategieshavebeenobtainedfromtheself-builtcorpus,whichincludes9On-recordStrategies,8Off-recordStrategies.ThejudgesofChina’sGotTalentemployed14criticismstrategiesamongthe17strategies,andthejudgesofAmerica’sGotTalentadopted16criticismstrategies.Bycriticismstrategiescontrast,itseemsthatboththeChineseandAmericantalentshows’judgespreferOn-recordStrategies.Buttherearebigfrequencydifferencesbetweenthetwoparties(thefrequencyofOn-recordStrategiesadoptedbyAmerica’sGotTalentjudgesisashighas80.6%,whiletheChineseis52.1%).AfterDiscussingthesimilaritiesanddifferencesofcriticismstrategiesemployedinthetwoshows,thepaperpresentstheinterpretationofthesimilaritiesanddifferencesofcriticismstrategiesinthefollowing.ThestudyfindsthatNationalCulturalDimensionplaysaveryimportantroleintheinterpretation.Nowadays,talentshowbecomesmoreandmorepopular,andthejudges’criticismstrategiesarelikelytoinfluenceandeventoguidetheaudiencehowtousecriticismstrategies.Therefore,thewriterhopestorevealthemysteryofcriticismstrategiestosomeextent.Thispapermaycontributetocriticismstrategiesstudy,cross-culturalstudyandcommunicationinacertaindegree.Ofcourse,thisstudyonlytouchesoncontrastiveresearchofcriticismstrategies,andmoreaspectsaboutcriticismarestillwaitingforfurtherstudiesanddiscussions,suchastheresponseofcriticismstrategies,etc.【关键词】对比分析言语行为批评策略达人秀【英文关键词】contrastiveanalysisspeechactcriticismstrategytalentshow【目录】中美达人秀节目评委批评策略对比分析摘要3-4Abstract4-5ListofTablesandFigures6-9Chapter1Introduction9-111.1BackgroundoftheStudy9-101.2ObjectivesoftheStudy101.3StructureoftheThesis10-11Chapter2LiteratureReviewandTheoreticalFramework11-232.1LiteratureReview11-162.1.1DefinitionofCulture11-132.1.2DefinitionofCriticism13-152.1.3PreviousStudiesonCriticismAbroad15-162.1.4PreviousStudiesonCriticismatHome162.2TheoreticalFramework16-232.2.1SpeechActTheory17-192.2.2PolitenessTheory19-202.2.3Hofstede’sNationalCulturalDimensionTheory20-23Chapter3ResearchMethodologyandDataDescription23-263.1MethodologyoftheStudy233.2DataDescription23-263.2.1DataResource23-253.2.2ReasonsforChoosingtheTwoTalentShows25-26Chapter4Judges’CriticismStrategiesAnalysisandDiscussion26-494.1OverallCriticismStrategiesContrast26-284.2On-recordStrategies28-364.2.1BaldStatement28-294.2.2Questioning29-304.2.3Sarcasm30-314.2.4Consequence31-324.2.5Order/Command32-334.2.6Comparison33-344.2.7Insult34-354.2.8ExpressionofNegativeFeeling354.2.9Hedging35-364.3Off-recordStrategies36-444.3.1Instruction/Suggestion36-374.3.2Enquiry37-384.3.3Empathy38-394.3.4Figuration39-404.3.5Stroking40-414.3.6Hope/Encouraging41-424.3.7Humor42-444.3.8Hesitation444.4SimilaritiesoftheTwoShows44-464.4.1AnalysisoftheSimilarities44-454.4.2InterpretationoftheSimilarities45-464.5DifferencesoftheTwoShows46-494.5.1AnalysisoftheDifferences46-484.5.2InterpretationoftheDifferences48-49Chapter5Conclusion49-525.1MajorFindings49-505.2LimitationsoftheStudy505.3SuggestionsforFurtherResearch50-52