☆☆☆☆☆
簡體網頁||繁體網頁



點擊這裡下載

類似圖書 點擊查看全場最低價

---

內容簡介

　　社會語言學是研究語言與社會多方麵關係的學科，它從社會科學的不同角度，諸如社會學、人類學、民族學、心理學、地理學和曆史學等去考察語言。自20世紀60年代發端以來，社會語言學已經逐漸發展成為語言學研究中的一門重要學科，引發眾多學者的關注和探究。
　　“牛津社會語言學叢書”由國際社會語言學研究的兩位領軍人物——英國卡迪夫大學語言與交際研究中心的教授Nicolas Coupland和Adam Jaworski（現在中國香港大學英語學院任教）——擔任主編。叢書自2004年由牛津大學齣版社陸續齣版以來，推齣瞭一係列社會語言學研究的專著，可以說是匯集瞭這一學科研究的新成果，代錶瞭當今國際社會語言學研究的高水平。
　　《牛津社會語言學叢書》從中精選齣九種，引進齣版。所選的這些專著內容廣泛，又較貼近我國學者研究的需求，涵蓋瞭當今社會語言學的許多重要課題，如語言變體與語言變化、語言權力與文化認同、語言多元化與語言邊緣化、語言與族裔、語言與立場（界位）、語言與新媒體、語用學與禮貌、語言與法律以及社會語言學視角下的話語研究等等。其中既有理論研究，又有方法創新；既有框架分析建構，又有實地考察報告；既體現本學科的前沿和縱深，又展現跨學科的交叉和互補。
　　相信《牛津社會語言學叢書》的引進齣版能為從事社會語言學研究的讀者帶來新的啓示，進一步推動我國語言學研究的發展。

目錄

精彩書摘

　　《牛津社會語言學叢書：禮貌語用學》：
　　Gu's reworking of my Generosity Maxim opened my eyes to a fiaw in the 1983 model; also his Balance Principle， which recognizes the important element of balance or equilibrium underlying mutual politeness， needs to be recognized as an essential component of why people are polite. Other writers， such as Watts and Spencer-Oatey， also recognize this
　　The idea that politeness is normative comes out particularly strongly in the conversational contract view of Fraser and Nolen， but it is also an essential feature of other models， including my own. As I see it， the nature of sociopragmatic politeness （as opposed to pragrnalinguistic politeness） involves convergence on， or divergence from， a norm of what is regarded as appropriately polite for a given set of situational parameters The normative nature of politeness has been questioned by Eelen （2001）， because it appears to make the exercise of politeness an impediment to the individual's freedom of behavior. However， awareness of a norm does not compel obedience to a norm. Certainly a norm is not to be seen as some kind of superimposed restriction on behavior. Empirically， I see no problem in recognizing the existence of statistically observable politeness norms （as shown， for example， by convergent responses to discourse completion tasks and multiple choice questionnaires"） as a background against which individual performances can deviate Moreover， we carry around with us some contextually tunable sense of what is normal politeness as part of our social-co8:nitive response to communicative situations When the comment is made that a person is "very polite，" or "a little bit rude，" and so on， we are implicitly acknowledging; such a norm， from which individuals' behavior can deviate in a positive or negative direction.
　　Arndt and Janney lay great store on the responsiveness of the whole person in politeness; for them， the purely linguistic aspect of politeness must be integrated with other components of interpersonal emotive communication， including prosody， paralinguistics， gesture， eye gaze， kinesics， and proxemics. I recognize the importance of these additional channels of communication， and in fact it has often been commented that the nonlinguistic channels may be more important for impressions of politeness than the actual words said. At the same time， I have to admit that little space in this book will be devoted to these features， which demand a rather different research paradigm. My two excuses for largely omitting nonlinguistic and prosodic aspects of politeness are that my research endeavor does not extend beyond the linguistic， and that the corpora I have mainly used for examples do not provide paralinguistic or prosodic information. On the other hand， Arndt and Janney's characterization of politeness in terms of supportiveness is something I find compatible with my General Strategy of Politeness （GSP; 4.3）， which identifies politeness with the assigning of high value to the other person's concerns and Iow value to one's own. Indeed， the two ideas are very closely associated: being supportive means giving compatbetic support-something of value-to another person. Amdt and Janney's approach in particular highlights the importance of one of the constituent maxims of the GSP: the Sympathy Maxim， which focuses especially on the goal of identifying one's own feelings with the feelings of the other.
　　Ideals distinction between Discernment and Volition as two types of politeness， the former more associated with Eastern cultures and the latter with Western cultures， corresponds in essence to my distinction between bivalent and trivalent politeness （1.2.1）， the former being richly developed in languages such as Japanese that have elaborate honorific systems， I also see these bivalent and trivalent conceptions of politeness as leaning respectively toward a sociolinguistic domain and a pragmatic one. As opposed to pragmatics， sociolinguistics tends to deal with variables that are relatively stable across time （Thomas 1995: 185-187）: variables such as the gender， age， social networks， and social relations as measured according to B&L;'s P and D factors Hence bivalent politeness （"discernment"）， with its social indexing function， belongs here rather than to pragmatics. On the other hand， trivalent politeness （"volition"）， dealing with dynanuc 8oal-driven communicative behavior， belongs more to pragmatics The goal-driven nature of trivalent politeness is likely to vary from one encounter to another， depending on the individual goals， as well as social goals， adopted by S. However， the two politenesses are not separate， and honorific usage can interact dynamically with context， as has been shown for Japanese
　　by Okamoto （1999）.
　　……

前言/序言

　　Politeness is a topic on which people have very different opinions （and "people，" in this case， includes linguistic scholars and researchers）. According to one view， politeness is a superficial and dispensable adornment of human language， rather like icing on a cake. For others， including myself， it is a deeper phenomenon， something that human communicators would find it hard to do without. Many children leaming their native language soon discover the importance of saying things like please and thank you， which are insisted on by their parents in the process of socialization-becoming "paid-up" members of human society. This renunds us that politeness is a social phenomenon-and yet a social phenomenon largely manifested through the use of language.
　　Hence politeness has to be studied in terms of the relationship between language use and social behavior. This area of linguistic study is typically called pragmatics. However， pragmatics-the study of language use and its meaning to speakers and hearers-can readily be seen in terms of two interfaces： the one between pragmatics and linguistic form （known as pragmalinguistics） and the other between pragmatics and society （known as sociopragmatics）， It is virtually impossible for any book to cover all aspects of politeness， and therefore I have oriented this book more toward pragmalinguistics， an area that has been somewhat neglected of late， while not ignoring sociopragmatics This means taking a fairly detailed close-up view of the way a language is used for politeness， rather than the big-picture view of how politeness relates to social behavior and society in general. Another major limitation of this book is that its focus will be mainly on one language： English. Although the emphasis will be on polite forms of language and how they are used， it is important not to ignore impolite linguistic behavior-the topic that will be dealt with in Chapter 8， and which has recently become a popular area of research. At the same time， I naturally devote most of my attention in other chapters to politeness， rather than impoliteness， as some degree of politeness is generally considered the unmarked form of behavior.
牛津社會語言學叢書：禮貌語用學 [The Pragmatics of Politeness] 下載 mobi epub pdf txt 電子書

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

評分☆☆☆☆☆

類似圖書 點擊查看全場最低價