中英禮貌用語的語用學(xué)研究

PAGE摘要“面子”理論和禮貌原則是語用學(xué)用于解釋話語含義的兩條重要原則。由于中西方文化價值取向不同，交際中對禮貌語言的語用原則的取舍也存在很大差異，因此有必要對中西方文化下的禮貌語用現(xiàn)象進行對比研究，這不僅能擴大比較研究的領(lǐng)域，也能有助于得體的運用禮貌語言，提高跨文化交際能力。本文共分六章。第一章，第二章，對禮貌用語的定義作了介紹及禮貌用語的分類。第三章，介紹了本文的研究理論基礎(chǔ)即Brown和Levinson的“面子”理論，以及Leech的禮貌原則。第四章，回顧了中西方學(xué)者對禮貌用語及禮貌原則做出的研究，并揭示了禮貌用語與語用學(xué)研究的關(guān)系。第五章，說明了本文作者對語用原則的理論的取舍的原因，并對招呼及對稱贊的回答兩類禮貌用語做出分析。第六章，總結(jié)本文研究的結(jié)果及啟示。關(guān)鍵詞：“面子”理論；禮貌原則；禮貌用語；

ABSTRACTThe“face”theoryandpolitenessprinciplearewidelyknownpragmaticprincipleusedtointerprettheliteralsense.English–speakingandChineseculturearedifferentinthechoiceofpragmaticprinciplesasthedifferentsenseofvalue.Therefore,thisthesisaimstocomparethepragmaticphenomenainEnglish-speakingandChinesecultureinthehopeofbroadeningthefieldofcomparativestudyandhelpingpeopletocommunicateappropriatelyincross-culturecommunication.Thispaperfallsintofivechapters.TheChapterOneandChapterTwointroducethedefinitionandcategoriesofpoliteness.ChapterThreespecifiesBrownandLevinson’s“face”theoryandLeech’spolitenessprinciple,alltogetherformingthetheoreticalfoundationsofthepresentthesis.ChapterFourreviewsthemajorresearchesonpolitenessandpolitenessprincipledonebyscholarsinWestandinDomestic.Andpointouttherelationbetweenpolitenesslanguageandpragmaticresearch..ChapterFivereadsthereasonwhytheauthorchoosethistheory,anddoaanalysisofgreetingandresponsetocomplimentwhichstandfortwocategoriesofpolitenesslanguageuse.Thelastchapterdrawsaconclusionofthethesisandpointoutitsmeaning.Keywords：”Face”theory;politenessprincipal;politenesslanguageContents1.Introduction 12.Definitionandcategoriesofpoliteness 32.1Definitionofpoliteness 32.2Categoriesofpolitenesslanguage 33.Theoreticalframeworkonpoliteness 53.1BrownandLevinson's"Face"theory 53.2Leech’spolitenessprinciple 54.Researchonpolitenessonbroadandathome 84.1Researchonpolitenessinwest 84.2Domesticreaschonpoliteness 84.3Relationbetweenpragmaticsandpoliteness 95.Analysisforpoliteness 105.1Analysisforpolitenessingreeting 115.2Analysisforpolitenessinresponsetocompliment 156.Conlusion 18Acknowledgements 19References 201.IntroductionAsasocialphenomenon,politenesscanbeobservedinalllanguagesandcultures,andithaslongbeenanimportantobjectofstudyinlinguistics.Itcanbeexpressedverballyandnon-verbally,butinthisstudy,onlylinguisticpolitenessisdiscussed;thatis,thewayspeopleexpresspolitenessverballythroughtheiruseoflanguage.Asacommonsocialphenomenon,politenessisnotonlyauniversallyhighlyvaluedvirtue,butalsoawidelyemployedstrategytorealizetactfulandeffectivecommunication.Weviewpolitenessasoneofthemajorsocialconstraintsonhumaninteractionanditregulatesparticipants’communicativebehaviorbyconstantlyremindingthemtotakeintoconsiderationthefeelingsoftheothers.Itisnecessarytoconsidertheirfeelingssoastoestablishlevelsofmutualcomfortandpromoterapport,whichinturnaccelerateandfacilitatehumancommunication.Wemaintainthatpolitenessisalinguisticuniversalbywhichwemean:1)Linguisticpolitenessexistsinalllanguages.2)Politenessconsiderationsregulateeveryhumanspeaker’sverbalbehaviorinsocialinteraction.Ontheonehand,politenesspervadeshumaninteractionsandplaysanimportantroleintheface-to-facecommunication.Itisnotsimplyameansofconveyinginformation,butamoreimportantmeansofestablishing,maintainingandenhancingsocialrelationships,andhenceitfacilitatessocialinteractions.Ontheotherhand,withtherapiddevelopmentofmoderneconomy,scienceandtechnology,theglobeseemstobecomesmallerandsmaller,anditisgettingmoreandmorefrequentthatpeoplefromdifferentcountriesgetintouchwitheachother.People,whomeettogetherforthevariouspurposessuchasbusiness,culturalexchanges,traveling,maycomefromdifferentcountries,forexample,fromChinaandfromEnglish-speakingcountries.Thentheirknowledgeofcultures,socialnorms,values,customsandhabitsandsoonarecertainlydifferent,andhencetheirrealizationsofpolitenessstrategiesmaybedifferent.Allthesemaybringthemsomemisunderstandingsintheprocessofcommunication,especiallyinapplicationofpolitenessstrategies.Therefore,apragmaticperspectivestudyofpolitenesslanguageinEnglishandChinesebecomesrathermoreimperative.ItisimportantthatweshouldnoticetheuniversalpolitenessawarenessbetweenEnglishandChinese.BasedontheuniversalsignificanceofBrownandLevinson's"Face"TheoryandtheLeech’sPolitenessPrinciple,theauthorinthispaperwanttomakepeoplestrengthentheawarenessofthepolitenessuseinourdailycommunication.AlthoughalotofcontrastiveresearchofpolitenesslanguageinEnglishandChinese,theauthorbelievethatthissimplepragmaticperspectivestudyonpolitenesslanguagealsoplayaimportantrole.

2.Definitionandcategoriesofpoliteness2.1DefinitionofpolitenessWhatispoliteness?Thissoundslikeasimpleandnaivequestion.Itseemsthatwehavewellunderstoodthisconceptandthatitisalltooeasyforustogivepilesofexamplesofpolitebehaviorinourdailylife.However,itisnoteasytogiveasatisfactorydefinitionforpoliteness.Skimmingthroughtheliteratureonthestudiesofpoliteness,wecanfindalackofunanimousagreementastowhatisunderstoodaslinguisticpoliteness.Differentlinguistsandscholarsgivetheirdifferentinterpretationsofpoliteness.Ontheonehand,allthediscussionsbetweendifferentlinguistsandscholarsconfirmtheuniversalfeatureofpoliteness.Speakersofalllanguagesandmembersofallculturesuniversallyholdthenotionofpoliteness;itcanbeobservedinallhumaninteractions.Ontheotherhand,thisdiscussionalsoshowsthedifferencesindefiningorperceivingpoliteness.Onthewhole,Westernlinguiststendtoregardpolitenessasawaytoavoidoffensesandmaintainsocialdistanceaswellassociallubricantofreducinginterpersonalfriction;whileChinesescholarshaveatendencytostresstheassociationofpolitenesswithsocialandmoralvalues.ThisdifferenceisowingtodifferentculturalbackgroundsbetweentheWesternandChineseresearchers.Morespecifically,politenessbearsstrongculturalcharacteristicssincethevalueorientationsofacultureexertcrucialinfluenceonitsmembers’attitudesandspeechacts.Thatistosay,politenessisdefined,realizedandjudgeddifferentlyindifferentcultures.2.2CategoriesofpolitenesslanguageAccordingtothedifferentoccasionwheretheconversationstart,peopleoftenputthepolitenessuseinsomecategoriesasfollowing:FormsofAddress,Greeting,Compliment,ClosingofanEncounter,Compliment,Agreement,RefusalandApologyandThank.Forauthor’sabilityandthelackoforiginalreference,itisimpossibletocoveralltheaspectsofpoliteness.Heretheauthortakesonlytwopatternswherepolitenesslanguageisusedforexample,namelyGreeting,andCompliment,thatistheauthorwillonlydiscusssuchcommonlyusedpolitenessformulaeashowtogreeteachotherandhowtorespondtocompliments.Whenacquaintancesmeetinthestreetandwhenstrangershaveanintentionofstartingaconversation,allofthemhavetofindsomeappropriateandpolitewordstogreeteachother.Greetingisasignofsocialnorm.InChina,itisintolerabletogostraightaheadwithoutsayinganythingtoanacquaintance.Thatkindofbehaviormayberegardedasaprovocation.Ifspeakerwantstobuilduptherelationshipwithhearer,he/shemustrecognizetheimportanceofgreetingasaninfluentialfactorininterpersonalrelationship.Greetingperformsphonicfunctionofalanguageanditisakindofpolitenessstrategytomaintainpositivefaceandrapportbetweensocialbeings.Acomplimentisaspeechact,whichexplicitlyorimplicitlyattributescredittosomeoneforsomething,whichisvaluedpositivelybythespeakerandhearer(Holmes,1986).Complimentsareusuallyintendedtohaveapositiveeffectoninterpersonalrelations;asHolmespointsout,theyaretypically"sociallubricantswhichcreateormaintainrapport"(1995:118,quotedinSpencer-Oatey,2000:98).

3.Theoreticalframeworkonpoliteness3.1BrownandLevinson's"Face"theoryBrownandLevinsonpropose"face"（self-esteem）theorytoexplainthepolitenessphenomenonandtherelationshipbetweenpolitenessand"face"'inUniversalsinLanguageUsage:PolitenessPhenomenon(1978).Latertheyrevisedtheoriginalframework,Politeness:SomeUniversalsinLanguageUsageinwhichtheygivefurtherillustrationoftheviewofpoliteness.Yetthemainideaalmosthasnotbeenchanged.Theydefine"face"asfollows:"thepublicself-imagethateverymemberwantstoclaimforhimself'(BrownandLevinson,2003:562).Intheirview,"thefaceissomethingthatisemotionallyinvested,andthatcanbelost,maintained,orenhanced,andmustbeconstantlyattendedtoininteraction"(BrownandLevinson,2003:563).Theparticipantsincommunicationallhave"face"wants,whicharetheirbasicneeds.BrownandLevinsonalso(2003:563)state"Wetreattheaspectsoffaceasbasicwants,whicheverymemberknowseveryothermemberdesires,andwhichingeneralitisintheinterestsofeveryothermembertopartiallysatisfy".AccordingtoBrownandLevinson,everyone'sfacedependsoneveryoneelse'sbeingmaintainedorenhanced,sotheparticipantsshouldtakeeachother'sfaceintoconsiderationincommunication."Face"consistsoftwospecificconstituents:negative"face"andpositive"face".Theformermeanspeoplewanttobeapprovedof,praisedorcomplimented;thelattermeansthebasicclaimtofreedomofactionandfreedomfromimposition.BrownandLevinsonthinkthatsomeactsbytheirnaturethreatenthe"face"wantsofthespeakerorhearer,suchasadvising,promising,criticizing,etc.3.2Leech’spolitenessprincipleAnotherinfluentialtheoryconcerningpolitenessisLeech’sPolitenessPrinciple,whichadaptsandexpandsonGrice’stheory.GeoffreyLeech(1983)suggestsadetailedframework.Heproposestwosetsofconversationalprinciples:“interpersonalrhetoric”and”textualrhetoric”.TheformerconsistsofGrice’sCooperativePrinciple(CP),hisPolitenessPrinciple(PP)andhisIronyPrinciple(IP).AlthoughCPenablesthehearertoarriveatwhatthespeakerreallymeansorimplies,theCPinitselffailstogiveareasonwhypeoplearefrequentlysoindirectinconveyingwhattheymeanunderlyingtheirliteralwords,andPPisusedtoexplainwhysuchindirectnessisused.Leechthusconcludes:“ItisforthisreasonthatthePPcanbeseennotjustasanotherprincipletobeaddedtotheCP,butasanecessarycomplement,whichrescuestheCPfromserioustrouble”(1983:80).Leechdistinguishesrelativepolitenessfromabsolutepoliteness.Theformeremphasizesthefactthatpolitenessisoftenrelativetosomenormofbehaviorforspecificculturesandsituations.Thelatterreferstothedegreeofpolitenessinherentlyassociatedwithaspeechact.Leechprimarilyfocusesonthestudyofabsolutepoliteness.LeechdividesthePPintoanumberofmaxims,eachofwhichhastwosub-maximsasdetailedbelow:(1).Tactmaximsa:minimizecosttootherb:maximizebenefittoother(2).Generositymaxima:minimizebenefittoselfb:maximizecosttoself(3).Approbationmaxima:Minimizepraiseofselfb:maximizedispraiseofself(4).Modestymaxima:minimizepraiseofselfb:maximizedispraiseofself(5).Agreementmaxima:minimizedisagreementbetweenselfandotherb:maximizesympathybetweenselfandother(6).Sympathymaxima:minimizeantipathybetweenselfandotherb:maximizesympathybetweenselfandotherAccordingtotheabove,Politenessisessentiallyasymmetrical:whatispolitewithrespecttoother/hearerortosomethirdpartywillbeimpolitewithrespecttoself/speaker,andviceversa.Leechalsopointsoutthatdifferentculturesmaygivedifferentimportancetothepolitenessmaxims.Forexample,English–speakingcountry(particularBritish)givesprominencetotheMaximofTact,andMediterraneanculturesplaceahighervalueoftheGenerosityMaximandalowervalueoftheModestyMaxim.Someeasterncultures(ChinaandJapan)tendtovaluetheModestyMaimmuchmorehighlythanWesternCountries.Theseobservations,beingthegeneralfunctionalimperativesofhumancommunication,aremoreorlessuniversal,butthattheirrelativeweighswillvaryfromoneculture,socialorlinguisticmilieutoanother(Leech,1983:151)

4.Researchonpolitenessonbroadandathome4.1ResearchonpolitenessinwestThefactthatpolitenessrepresentsasocialnormthatcanbeobservedempiricallyinlanguageandanalyzedbymeansoflanguagehaslongmadeitanimportantobjectofstudyinlinguisticsintheWest.Asearlyas1950s,ErvingGoffmanproposedthe”theTheoryofFace-work”inhisOnFace-work:AnAnalysisofRitualElementsinSocialInteraction(1955).Hegivestheoreticalstudyon“face”fromtheanthropologicalperspective.AccordingtoGoffnan,faceisasacredthingforeveryhumanbeing,andanessentialfactorthatcommunicatorshavetopayattentionto.Facewantsarereciprocalthatis,ifonewantshisfacecaredfor,heshouldcareforotherpeople’sface.FollowingthestepofGoffman,BrownandLevinson(1987)proposed,intheirmasterpiece,Politeness,thenotionofface-threateningacts(FTAS)inrelationtospeechacts.Theconversational-maximviewdependsmainlyontheworkofGriceinhisnew-classicarticleLogicandConversation.Thetwomostimportantrepresentativesofthisview,LakoffandLeech,bothattemptatintegratingGrice’sconversationalmaximswiththeirownrulesofpoliteness,whichareformulatedasasetofmaximsaswell.4.2DomesticreaschonpolitenessTheseriousstudyofpolitenesswithintheChineselinguisticcirclesdidnotbeginuntilthe1980s.Theresearchonpolitenesscanberoughlydividedintotwocategories:oneisplantedonthedomesticcultureaccordingtotheChinesetraditionalpolitenesstoimprovetheimportedtheorytomeetthechangingneeds,mainlyreflectedontheanalysisandexpressionofaddressformandeuphemism.Theotheristryingtolaunchtherelevantresearchusingoverseasachievementinthisfieldforreference.Somescholars(e.g.HeZhaoxiong,1989;HeZiran,1987;ChenRong,1986;LiuRunqing,1987)haveintroducedwhatbythenhadbeenfoundinthestudyofpolitenessintheWest.Sofar,thetwoscholarswhocombinewesternpolitenesstheorieswithChineseandmakealotofachievementsareXuShenghuanandGuYueguo.ProfessorXuShenghuannoticestheflawofLeech’stheoryonpoliteness.HefindsthatLeechonlypaysattentiontoselfandotherinPP,butoverlooksthethirdpartyinconversation.Therefore,healsoputsforwardanewpolitenessprinciple,takingself,otherandthethirdpartyintoconsideration.GuYueguoisthefirstoneinChinatotakeuppolitenessphenomenainmodernChineseasthesolesubjectofstudyandhasmadealotofinspiringobservationsaboutpolitenessinmodernChinese.OwingtotheimpropernessoftheFaceTheoryproposedbyBrownandLevinsoninChina,Chinesescholar,GuYueguoputsforwardhisownpolitenessprincipleanditsmaximswhichareverysuitableinChineseculture,modelingonPolitenessPrincipleinventedbyLeech.Gu(1992)pointsoutfourfeaturesofChinesepolitenessphenomena,namelyrespectfulness,modesty,attitudewarmth,andrefinement.Shortlyafterwards,Gu(1992)againraisestheFiveMaximsofPolitenesswithChineseculturalcharacteristicsbyfollowingthePPbyLeech(1983).4.3RelationbetweenpragmaticsandpolitenessPragmatics,astudyof”relationofsignstointerpreters”(Morris,1938),and”howutteranceshavemeaningsinsituation”(Leech,1983),hasbeenwidelyrecognizedasthekeytounderstandthenatureoflanguage.AccordingtoGeorgeYule(1985),pragmaticsisthestudyofspeakermeaning,thestudyofcontextualmeaning,thestudyofhowmoregetscommunicatedthanissaid,andthestudyoftheexpressionofrelativedistance.HeZirandefinesthatpragmaticsisthestudyofhowtounderstandanduselanguageaccordingtothecontext.Inotherwords,pragmaticsisconcernedwiththewaylanguageisusedtocommunicateratherthanwiththewaylanguageisstructured.Pragmaticsiscentraltothestudyofcommunication,andascommunicationbecomesmoreandmorecrucialinsocialorganization,theneedtounderstanditbecomesthemorepressing.Thestudyofdifferencesinexpectationsbasedonculturalschemaispartofabroadareaofinvestigationgenerallyknownascross-culturalpragmatics(Leech,G.N.1983;GeorgeYule,1985;JiangWangqi,2000).Politenessisoneimportantissueinpragmatics,which"isthestudyofmeaningincontext"(HuZhuanglin,2001:20).Inthisthesis,itwillbediscussedfromtheperspectiveofcross-culturalpragmatics.

5.AnalysisforpolitenessInthispaper,theauthortrytoanalysistwopatternsofpolitenessuseundertheinstructionoftheBrownandLevinson's"Face"theoryandtheLeech’sPolitenessprinciple.HereIhavetoletthereadersknowtwothingswhatI’mthinkingofthispapertitles“a,whichmademypointofviewdissimilarfromothers.Firstly,Consideringtheabilityandtheknowledgeofthecross-culturecommunication,heretheauthordidnotseparatelycutthecross-culturetheorytodiscussthedifferenceofChinesecultureandEnglishcultureitself.Butonlydiscusssomesimpleproblemofcross-culturerelatedneededinthispaper.wehavetouchedonthetermsofpolitenessandculture,realizingthatrelationshipbetweenthemmustbeexplainedclearlyinordertogodeeperdiscussion.Politenessisinseparablyconnectedwithculture.Furthermore,politenessphenomenonisstronglyinfluencedbyculture.Differentcultureshavedifferentrealizationsofpolitenessstrategies.Thereforeincross-culturalcommunication,pragmaticfailureofpolitenessoftenarisesbecauseoflackoftheknowledgeofthediversitiesofpolitenessstrategies.wecanseethatitbecomesmoreimportanttomakeaculturalstudyofthedifferentrealizationsofpolitenessstrategiesinEnglishandChinese.Itisveryobviousthatrulesforpolitebehaviordifferfromonespeechcommunitytoanother.Linguisticpolitenessisculturallydetermined.Forinstance,whenChinesemeeteachother,theyoftenunconsciouslybeginwith“吃了嗎?”asgreeting,whichcannotbeacceptedbyEnglishnatives，whoareusedtosaying“Howdoyoudo?”.Or“Hello”orevensimply“Hi”.TheseexamplesdemonstratethatpolitenessphenomenaexistinbothEnglishandChinesecultures,buttheirrespectiveexpressionsarenotcompletelythesame,whichismainlycausedbytheirdiversecultures.Apoliteformofutteranceinoneculturemaybeimpoliteinanother.Howshouldexpressgratitudeforamealinanotherculture?Isitpossibletorefuseaninvitationpolitely?Howshouldonegreetpeopleindifferentspeechcommunities?Thesearethequestionsofpoliteness,whicharecloselyconnectedwithcultureindifferentspeechcommunities.Morewillbementionedwithreferencestothembelow.Secondly,theauthorneedtodosomeexplanationwhyhereinthispaperonlychoosetheBrownandLevinson's"Face"TheoryandtheLeech’sPolitenessPrinciple,butdroptheprofessorGu’s.Becauseintheauthor’sopinion,theBrownandLevinson's"Face"theoryistheverybasicprincipleinthecourseofourdailyconversation.Inotherwords,ourconversationwillfailifwedidnotobservetheBrownandLevinson's"Face"theory.HerewecantaketheobservingtheBrownandLevinson's"Face"theoryitselfasapolitenessuse.Inthispaper,theauthordonotmeantoanddonothavetheabilitytoputforwardanewsetofrulesforpolitenesslanguageuseespeciallyinEnglishorChinese,justliketheGu’swork.TheauthorjustwantdosomeperspectiveanalysisonsomepatternsofpolitenessuseundertheBrownandLevinson's"Face"TheoryandtheLeech’sPolitenessPrinciple,bothofwhichhaveuniversesignificanceinthepolitenesslanguageresearch.Asmentionedinthetheoreticalbackground,BrownandLevinsonisatpainstoemphasizethatthemaximsarenotculture-boundconventionsliketablemanners.theyarerationallybased,andwouldhencebeexpectedtoobservableinanyhumansociety.AndLeechalsopointsoutthatdifferentculturesmaygivedifferentimportancetothepolitenessmaxims,theseobservations,beingthegeneralfunctionalimperativesofhumancommunication,aremoreorlessuniversal.Undertheuniversalmeaningofthetwotheories,TheauthorexpecttomakepeopleawarethepossibilityoftheconversationgoingsuccessfulbetweenthesepeoplefromChinesecultureandEnglishculture.Inthischapter,thepaperturnstounfoldadiscussionofpolitenessuseindailyinterlocutionsundertheinfluenceofbothculturalandcontextualvariables.Duetothelimitationoftheauthor'sabilityandthespaceofthispaper,theauthorwillonlydiscusssuchcommonlyusedpolitenessformulaeashowtogreeteachotherandhowtorespondtocomplimentsundertheinstructionofBrownandLevinson's"Face"TheoryandLeech’sPolitenessPrinciple.5.1AnalysisforpolitenessingreetingGreetingisacommonpolitenessphenomenonexistinginallsocieties.Greetingisasymbolofpeople'sbeginningtocommunicate.Atalk,whateveritissimpleorseriouslikeabusinesstalk,cannotstartwithoutgreetingeachotherfirst.Greetingcanhelptoestablishandmaintaintheinterpersonalrelationships.Asaninfluentialfactorandasocialnormininterpersonalrelationships,greetingsshouldbepaidhighattentionto.Notonlythosewhomeetforthefirsttimeandtheacquaintancesencountereachotherinthestreet,butalsothosewhoareintimateshoulduseappropriateandpolitelanguagetogreeteachother.Ifsomeonegoesstraightaheadwithoutgreetingtheacquaintances,heorshewouldbeconsideredrude,andhavethreatenedtheother'spositive"face".Fromthispoint,wecanseethatgreetingsserveasaphaticfunctionoflanguagetoestablishandmaintainthesocialcontactinsteadoftransferringinformation,sotheformulaicexpressionsareoftenused.Greetingisakindofpolitenessstrategytosavethehearer'spositive"face".GreetingsarecommonbothinEnglishandChinesecultures.InEnglish,thegreetingsinthefollowingarecommonlyused:1)Howareyou?2)Hello.3)Hey.(BritishEnglish)4)Hi.(AmericanEnglish)Theseexpressionslistedabovearerathercommon.InChinese,thereisasimilarsetofphrasesasfollows:1)Chiguolema?吃過了嗎(Haveyouhadmeal?)2)Quna1i?去那里(Whereareyougoing?)3)Shangjiequ?上街去((Areyougoingshopping?)Hearingsuchutterances,mostEnglish-speakingpeoplewillfeelpuzzledandsurprised.DuetoknowinglittleabouttheChineseculture,theywillreact:“It'snoneofyourbusiness”,“Areyougoingtoinvitemetodinner?”ThereasonforsuchembarrassmentisthattherearedifferentstereotypedthinkingexistinginwesterncountriesandChina."IntheChineseculture,toshowwarmthandconcernforothersisconsideredasapoliteact.That'swhywhentwoChinesemeeteachotherevenforthefirsttime;theymightbeginaskingabouteachother'sage,maritalstatus,offspring,occupation,andevenincome.TheChinesepeoplethinkthattheyarebeingpolitebyshowingconcernfortheotherperson,andaskingallthesequestionswillhelpshortenthedistancebetweenthemselvesandtheirinterlocutors."(HeZhaoxiong,1995:7).ForthosewhohavelearnedabouttheChineseculture,theywilljustsmilewithoutanywords,althoughitseemsstrangetothem.Generallyspeaking,Chinesewaysofgreetingshavesuchfeatures,whicharedifferentfromthoseinEnglishcultures.GreetingsseemtoshowtheSpeaker’sconcernandwarmthtotheHearerbothinEnglishandChinesethere.Thesegreetingsshowattitudinalwarmthtothehearer.InChinesechiguofanlema?吃過飯了嗎(Haveyouhadmeal?)orniquna1i?你去哪里(Whereareyougoingnow?),Whichareallverycommongreeting.Thesequestionsseemtoseekoutinformationaboutthehearer.Infact,whetherornotthehearerhashadmealorwhereheorsheisgoinghavelittletodowiththespeaker.Whatthespeakerexpectsisonlyaresponsewithwhichthegreetingcanbeconsideredcompleteandsuccessful,orthespeaker'spositive"face"willbethreatened.InEnglish,therearealsosuchgreetingsas“Hi”,“Hello”,and“Howisyourwife?”“Howiseverything?”etc.Similarly,thehearerissupposedtorespondwith“Hi”,“Hello”,“Fine,thankyou,andyou?”Ifthehearerdoesnotreply,hewillleavethespeakerfeelembarrassedandawkward.ThuswecanseethatthegreetingsbothinEnglishandChinesehavethesamephaticfunctions,sopeopleinbothculturesattachgreatimportancetoit.Whatdifferherearethecontentsandmotivesofthesegreetings.Letusalsohavealookattheexamplesinthefollowing:S:Nichiguofan1ema?你吃過飯了嗎(Haveyouhadyourmeal?)H1:Haimeine.還沒呢(Notyet.)H2:Gangchiguo.剛吃過(Yes,Ihave.)H3:Mashangjiuchile.馬上就吃了(Iwillsoon.)Chinesepeopleadvocatecollectivism.Tohelpeachotherandshowwarmthtoothers,theybelieve,isvirtue.Therefore,thesegreetingsaboveareappropriate,commonandpoliteexpressionsintheireyes.Andthehearerswillnottakethemasanintrusionontheirprivacy,fortheyknowthatwhatthespeakersreallyconcernsthemselveswithisnotwhethertheyarefullorhungrybutasimpleresponse.Inmostcases,theconventionalansweris"yes",whichisactuallyawhitelie,forthenegativeanswer"no"wouldputthespeakerinanawkwardsituation.Ofcourse,sometimesthehearerwillrespondwith"no",butit'sjustajokingwhichbothSpeakerandHearerwillnottaketoheart.InChineseculture,talkingaboutages,occupations,whetherornottheyhaveeaten,andotherpersonalmattersisaTypicalChinesewaytoshowthespeaker'sconcernandwarmthtothehearerwithher/hisrealintentiontoestablishandmaintaintherelationship.LetushavealookatasceneexcerptedfromLily《百合花》(WangJianhua,1998:19)A:Niduodale?你多大了（Howoldareyou?)B:Shijiu.十九（Nineteen.)A:Canjiagemingjinianle?參加革命幾年了(:Howmanyyearshaveyoujoin