courtesy language in business negotiations商务英语本科学位论文Word格式文档下载.docx

courtesy language in business negotiations商务英语本科学位论文Word格式文档下载.docx

《courtesy language in business negotiations商务英语本科学位论文Word格式文档下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《courtesy language in business negotiations商务英语本科学位论文Word格式文档下载.docx（9页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

2009-4-10

完成时间：

2009-11-1

2009年11月1日

目录

毕业设计任务书…………………………………………………1

毕业设计成绩评定表……………………………………………2

答辩申请书……………………………………………………3-5

正文……………………………………………………………6-23

答辩委员会表决意见……………………………………………24

答辩过程记录表…………………………………………………25

课题CourtesyLanguageinBusinessNegotiations

一、课题（论文）提纲

0.引言

1.礼貌的理论研究

1.1布朗和列文森的礼貌理论

1.2利奇的礼貌原则

2.商务谈判中的礼貌语言

2.1词汇层面

2.1.1自我指称

2.1.2不定代词

2.1.3情态动词

2.1.4模糊语言

2.1.5礼貌用语

2.2句法层面

2.2.1被动语态

2.2.2问句

2.2.3条件句

2.2.4否定句

2.2.5转折句

3.礼貌理论在商务谈判中的作用

3.1有利于面子的维护

3.2有利于建立合作关系

3.3有利于营造和谐的谈判气氛

3.4有利于策略变通

3.5帮助维护自身利益

4.结语

二、内容摘要

商务谈判中，为谈判交际目的服务的礼貌语言呈现出其在商务谈判中独有的特点和规律。

布朗和列文森的礼貌理论为商务语言的礼貌研究提供了理论依据。

根据商务语言内在的礼貌含义，谈判语言区分为词汇和句法两个礼貌层级以及面子维护、关系建立、融洽气氛、策略便通、利益维护等五种语用功能。

三、参考文献

[1]何玲梅.夏决芬.曹耀萍.礼貌现象的语用特征[J].外语与外语教学.2006.（10）

[2]张春泉.第一人称代词的虚指及其心理动因[J].浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）.2005.（03）

[3]BrownP.LevinsonSP.Politeness:

SomeUniversalsinLanguageUsage[M].London.CambridgeUniversityPress.1987.61.

[4]LeechG.PrinciplesofPragmatics[M].NewYork:

LongmanInc.1983.84

[5]HylandK.WritingWithoutConviction:

HedginginScienceResearchArticles[J].AppliedLinguistics.1996.17.17（4）.433.

CourtesyLanguageinBusinessNegotiations

000000000

Abstract:

InBusinessnegotiations,thecourtesylanguageservingforthepurposesofnegotiationcommunicationhasshownitsuniquecharacteristicsandlawsinbusinessnegotiations.BrownandLevinson'

scourtesytheorylaidatheoryfoundationforthestudyofthebusinesslanguage.Accordingtothemeaningofcourtesywithinthelanguageofbusiness,thecourtesylanguageisdividedintovocabularyandsyntactic,twolevelsofcourtesyaswellasfivekindsofpragmaticfunctions,includingfacesaving,relationshipbuilding,aharmoniousatmosphere,policymodificationandtheinterestsofmaintenance.

Keywords:

politeness;

businessnegotiations;

pragmatics;

strategy

0.Introduction

Courtesy,asasocialphenomenon,hasinfiltratedintoeveryaspectofpeople'

slives.Theexpertsandscholarsinvariousresearchfieldsareconstantlyexplore,analyzeitssubstance,principlesandstrategies,functionsaswellaseffectsandattempttoapplytheresultsofstudiesintopractice,sothatpeople’scommunicationandexchangecancarryonmoresmoothly.InternationalBusinessnegotiationisthenegotiationactivitiesbetweenthebothsidesofeconomicandtradecooperation,withthepurposesofreachingsomesortoftransactionorsolvingadispute.Thetwopartiesofnegotiationsbothhavecooperationsideandconflictside,andarealltryingtowinthegreatestbenefitsintheprocessofcooperationwitheachother.Thelevelsoflanguageartsofthenegotiationpartieshaveadirectimpactontheresultandeffectivenessofthenegotiations.Thepragmaticstrategyistoachievetheanticipatedpurposeofexchangetoflexibleapplicationofthewayofexpressionandskillofthelanguage.Courtesylanguage,asacommunicationtool,servesforthepurposesofspecialcommunication,showingitsuniquerulesandrolesunderthisparticularenvironmentofbusinessnegotiation.Thisthesis,startingfromtheangleofthepragmatics,givesaexplanationtothenatureofthecourtesyofthelanguage,aimingatthefunctionofthecourtesylanguagestrategiesinthenegotiations.

1.ThetheoreticalstudyofCourtesy

1.1BrownandLevinson’spolitenesstheory

Since1970,thepoliteissuesintheuseoflanguagehavebeenahottopicinthestudiesofpragmatics.In1987,theBritishscholarBrownandLevinsonpublished"

UniversalsinLanguageUsage:

PolitenessPhenomena"

thefirsttimehavecarriedonasystematicdiscussiononthecourtesyandface,andin1987theyimprovedtheirtheoryintothreebasicconcepts:

face,face-threateningactsaswellascourtesystrategies."

Face"

conceptreferstothedesireofeachperson'

spublicself-imagethattheyfightfor.Theyhavedividedthefaceinto"

positiveface"

and"

negativeface."

Positivefaceisthatpeoplewhowanttogetpraiseandunderstandingfromotherpeople,negativefaceisthatpeoplewhowanttoobtainbehavioralfreedom.Namely,theirownactionswerewithouttheinterferenceandobstructionofothers.BrownandLevinsonaccordingtothedifferentsituationsofthethreattotheobedientpeople’sface,andproposedtwokindsofcourtesyremedialmeasures,namely"

positivecourtesystrategy"

negativecourtesystrategy."

Theformeradoptsomemeanstoemphasizethecommoninterestsandaspirationsofthespeakerandthehearer,thelattermeansthatthespeakerexpressedsomesortofbehavioristoimposealastresort.

1.2TheLeech’sPolitenessprinciple

LinguistLeech（1983）onthefoundationofthepredecessor’sstudies,summarizedandclassifiedtheprinciplesofcourtesyanddivideditintothefollowingcriteria:

Policyguidelines:

tominimizethelossofotherssoastomaximizetheinterestsofothers;

Generousguidelines:

tominimizetheirowninterests,trytoincreasetheirownloss;

Recognitioncriteria:

tominimizethedegradingofotherssoastomaximizethepraiseofothers;

Modestyguidelines:

tominimizethepraiseoftheirownsoastomaximizetheirownderogatory;

Agreedcriteria:

tominimizethedifferencesbetweentheothers,andincreasethecommongroundbetweentheothersasmuchaspossible

Sympathycriteria:

tominimizetheresentmentofothers,trytoincreaseSympathytoothers.

Leechthinkthatpolitenessis"

Relativetothenormsforaparticularbehavior,seefrommanypointofviewisavariable."

Thatcanbeseenthatthecourtesyinpragmaticsisactuallythespeakerinordertoachieveacommunicativepurpose,combinedwithacertainenvironmentoflanguage,usingdifferentformoflanguagetochangethecommunicationscenario,socialrelations,orchangethestatusquoandthestrategiesadopted.

2.Thecourtesylanguageinbusinessnegotiations

HeMeiling（2006）belivedthat,inpragmatics,whatthecourtesyconcernedwithwasnotwhetherthepeoplearereallyfriendlytoothers,butwhatthespeakerwassaidandwhathaveimpactonthehearer.Ifwetaketheconversationasasystem,thesystemisconsistsoffourbasiccomponents:

conversationer,thecontentofconversation,theformatofconversationandthesceneofconversation.Theformofconversationcannotbeisolatelydecidedwhethertheactofspeechispoliteornot,whetherthecourtesyistheresultoftheinteractionbetweentheabove-mentionedfourelements.Undersuchabusinessnegotiationconversationenvironment,thenatureofthepoliteoflanguagecontentcanbeachievedfromtheinsideofthelanguage.Namely,thelevelofvocabularyandthelevelofsyntactic.

2.1Thevocabularylevel

2.1.1Theuseoffirstperson

Thefirst-personpronounisoneofthewaysthatthespeakerusedtodescribethemselvesandtheirtopicsaswellastherelationswiththehearer,therearepsychologicalrealityinthespecificenvironmentofthelanguage.Thisparticularphenomenonofspeechepitomizestheinteractionbetweenexpressionandacceptance,aswellasthecloseassociationbetweentheusersofspeech.Itschoicecanaffecttherelationshipbetweenthespeakerandthehearer,undercertaincircumstances,itaffecttheopinionofthehearertothespeaker.Forexample:

Sorry,Bill,but,can'

thaveamotionuntilwegetridofthisamendment.Sorry,Bill,butwecan'

thaveamotionuntilwegetridofthisamendment.Theformeroneandthelatteronemeansessentiallythesame,butthereisdifferenceattheextentofexpressionofintimaterelationshipbetweenthespeakerandthehearer.Intheformerone,thespeakeruse"

I"

expresstheattitudedirectly;

inthelatterone,"

we"

reducethespeaker'

sposition,maintainedtheequalrelationswiththehearer,atthesametime,italsoimpliesthatthespeakerisjustoneofthepersonswhomakethisdecisionsothatreducetheirownliability.

2.1.2Indefinitepronouns

Thecondemnationsexpressthedissatisfactiontothebehavior,individualoropinions.Theuseofindefinitepronounscanmakethespeaker’stoneseemsobjective,humilitywhenexpresstheirviews,asa"

negativecourtesy"

strategy,ithelpsthespeakerexpoundedtheviewjustright.Trytocomparethefollowingtwosentences:

Youshouldn'

tdothingslikethat.Oneshouldn'

tdothingslikethat.Obviously,thelateroneispolitethanthepreviousone,Theindefinitepronoun"

one"

putthefocusofdebateshiftedtosomethingfromapersonthatreducethelossofthehearer’sface.

21.3Modals

Themodalverb"

haveto"

"

must"

canplaya"

roleintheapology,implyingthatthespeaker'

sbehaviorresultofsomeexternalfactors,ratherthanthepersonalwill.Suchas:

Iamsorry,butIhavetocallourhomeofficeandthenmakeadecision.

2.1.4Vaguelanguage

The"

vaguelanguage"

isdefinedas"

theexpressionoftentativenessandpossibility”.Thepeoplefortheconsiderationoftheirownself-interestortheneedsofpolitetoothers,andtheirpowerofdiscourseareambiguous.Forexample:

Well,perhapsyoucouldrethinkthisissue.Suchas"

well"

perhaps"

just"

really"

actually"

certain1y"

"

possible"

thiskindofvaguewordsandphrasesthatleavealargeroomfortherecipientandallowthereceivertoestimatewhetheritisfeasibleornot,it’sa"

negativecourtesy"

strategy.Lookatthissentence:

Ithinktheimplicationsoftheretwotermsaredifferent."

think"

wonder"

andothervagueverbscanexpressthepsychologicalprocessesofthespeaker,andalsocanreducetheextentofthewillthat