社会权力对道歉言语行为的影响
|
摘要
本研究是在美国英语,日语及汉语之间进行的关于社会权力对道歉言语行为的影响的一项对比研究。通过分析在不同情景下不同语言背景中的上级及下级受试对象对道歉策略的选择,得出他们采用策略的共性及差异,通过这些共性及差异,试图揭示不同的语言及文化背景下上下级之间的文化和价值观念的差异。
本研究的最终目的是学会使用在不同情景下使用不同的道歉策略,了解哪个国家更重视社会权力从而理解文化差异,便于文化交流。作者也希望本研究能丰富言语行为理论,并对课堂教学及交际有所启示。这也是本研究的意义所在。
本研究的研究方法涉及到定性研究与定量研究两部分。通过对获得的可量化的数据进行分析,获得一些可定性的文化共性及差异。本研究的数据收集方式是通过问卷进行的DCT测试,包括SDCT, WDCT和MDCT。问卷包含英语,日语及汉语三个版本。问卷设置了四个社会群体,每个社会群体下面分别设有两种情景,其一是社会权力较高的一方要对社会权力较低的一方道歉,其二则相反。
根据数据分析得知:“IFID”和“Offer of repair”是被大家普遍使用的策略,其它六个策略的使用比例因情景及不同的语言背景而有所差异。前四个情景中策略的使用很大程度上受到社会地位的影响;而后四个情景则很受冒犯程度的影响。
美国上级更乐意使用较少的策略与较少的INTENSIFIERS,除了“IFID”和“Offer of repair”之外,“Explanation”和“Taking responsibility”是两个他们选择较多的策略(主要出现在情景3和情景5中)。美国下级使用的策略也不多,但多多少少会使用一些INTENSIFIERS表示对他们上级的尊重。从INTENSIFIERS的分析可以看出,他们上下级之间体现的差异是很小的,远远比不上日本人和中国人,这也许意味着美国人不像日本人和中国人那样看重社会权力。
日本上级在前两个策略“IFID”和“Offer of repair”之外喜欢使用“Taking responsibility”“Showing concern”及“Promise of forbearance”。为了不使听话人丢失脸面,他们更乐意使用消极礼貌策略而非积极礼貌策略,并且他们使用了最多的INTENSIFIERS尤其是各种形式的敬语。但比起他们的下属来,他们使用的INTENSIFIERS要少,敬语也是以简体形式出现。日本下级更乐于一次使用更多的、复杂的策略,比如:“IFID”,“Responsibility”,“Promise of forbearance”,“Offer of repair”及“Showing concern”。在使用INTENSIFIERS方面,日本上下级之间表现出了最大的差异,他们更加注重社会地位。社会权力对他们策略的选择产生了很大的影响。
中国上级为了表示对下级的关注,安抚下级,避免其没面子,更可能使用复杂的方式表示道歉,如:“IFID”,“Explanation”,“Showing concern”及“Offer of repair”尤其是“Showing concern”和“Offer of repair”的使用频率要比另外两个语言背景下的人们使用得多。下级更乐意一次使用比上级更多的策略,并愿意为自己的过失做出解释,同时承诺再也不犯这样的错误。从INTENSIFIERS的使用来看,上下级的差异仅次于日本人,对社会权力或社会地位也是相当重视的。
美国文化属于低语境文化,更强调个性独立,上下级之间更注重的是个人思想的发挥,个人权利的及个人意志的社会作用,因而社会地位或社会权力对道歉策略的选择几乎不会产生太大的影响。日本文化及中国文化属于高语境文化,更强调集体主义,为保持社会和谐,更注重他人的感受,为了给对方面子,会更多地使用消极的礼貌策略,以缓解冒犯可能引起的冲突。总之,日本人和中国人比美国人更注重社会权力,社会权力对他们道歉策略的选择有很大影响。
A contrastive study has been conducted in this thesis among American English, Japanese and Chinese in terms of the impact of social power on apology speech act, aiming at analyzing the apology strategies adopted by participants, and in particular, the relationship between super-ordinates and subordinates so as to uncover the underlying differences of the culture and value in different nations.
The ultimate purpose of the present research is to understand which culture attaches more importance to social power, to get an insight into the cultural differences for better communication and to teach students to use appropriate apology strategies in different situations. The present research may enrich the speech act theory and offer instructions on communication.
The present research involves qualitative and quantitative analyses in terms of situations and strategies. Analyses on the quantitative data obtained enable the author to find out cultural similarities and differences. Data collecting includes interviews as well as DCT tests through questionnaires in English, Japanese and Chinese; the questionnaires contain four social groups, each of which containing two sub-situations: one is super to sub and the other is sub to super.
Referring to the previous research achivements, eight strategies are adopted in the thesis. They are: IFID; Offer of repair; Taking responsibility; Explanation; Promise of forebearance; Showing concern; Minimizing the degree of offense and Objecting apologizing.
Data analyses indicate that“IFID”and“Offer of repair”are two popular strategies adopted by all language users. In terms of situations, the first four situations are greatly affected by social power, and the last four situations are much influenced by severity of offence. Even though there are many similarities, differences can not be ignored.
American super-ordinates use less number of strategies and intensifiers;“Explanation”(mainly in Situations 3 and 5) and“Taking responsibility”are their popular choices besides“IFID”and“Offer of repair”. American subordinates tend to use fewer strategies; they show respect to super-ordinates through intensifiers to some degree, and they use much less intensifiers than Japanese and Chinese do. The slightest difference in the use of intensifiers can be shown between super and sub, indicating that Americans seem to be careless about social power so much as Japanese and Chinese.
Japanese super-ordinates like to use“Taking responsibility”,“Showing concern”and“Promise of forbearance”besides“IFID”and“Offer of repair”. They use more negative politeness strategies than positive ones, fewer intensifiers than subordinates, and more honorifics in simplified style. Japanese subordinates like to use various types of honorifics like“sonkeigo”,“kenjyogo”in“keitai”, and to use many intensifiers and complicated ways to express apologies like“IFID”,“Responsibility”,“Promise of forbearance”,“Offer of repair”“Showing concern”. The greatest difference in the use of intensifiers can be shown between super and sub, indicating that Japanese pay more attention to social power.
Chinese super-ordinates are likely to use complicated ways to apologize, adopting“IFID”,“Explanation”,“Showing concern”and“Offer of repair”together. In order to show concern to his or her staff, to save the victim’s negative face, they use“Showing concern”and“Offer of repair”more often than the other two. Chinese subordinates put more strategies together and are more likely to explain why they made the mistake or promise never to repeat the mistake. The use of intensifiers shows that Chinese is next to Japanese in the use of intensifiers, which shows that Chinese also lay emphasis on social power.
The result shows that American culture is a low-context culture and is characterized by the rights and autonomy of individuals, and people rely on personal judgments and actions, while Chinese culture, and Japanese culture belonging to high-context culture put more emphasis on social harmony; they are negative-politeness-oriented, and pay more attention to social power than Americans.
本研究的最终目的是学会使用在不同情景下使用不同的道歉策略,了解哪个国家更重视社会权力从而理解文化差异,便于文化交流。作者也希望本研究能丰富言语行为理论,并对课堂教学及交际有所启示。这也是本研究的意义所在。
本研究的研究方法涉及到定性研究与定量研究两部分。通过对获得的可量化的数据进行分析,获得一些可定性的文化共性及差异。本研究的数据收集方式是通过问卷进行的DCT测试,包括SDCT, WDCT和MDCT。问卷包含英语,日语及汉语三个版本。问卷设置了四个社会群体,每个社会群体下面分别设有两种情景,其一是社会权力较高的一方要对社会权力较低的一方道歉,其二则相反。
根据数据分析得知:“IFID”和“Offer of repair”是被大家普遍使用的策略,其它六个策略的使用比例因情景及不同的语言背景而有所差异。前四个情景中策略的使用很大程度上受到社会地位的影响;而后四个情景则很受冒犯程度的影响。
美国上级更乐意使用较少的策略与较少的INTENSIFIERS,除了“IFID”和“Offer of repair”之外,“Explanation”和“Taking responsibility”是两个他们选择较多的策略(主要出现在情景3和情景5中)。美国下级使用的策略也不多,但多多少少会使用一些INTENSIFIERS表示对他们上级的尊重。从INTENSIFIERS的分析可以看出,他们上下级之间体现的差异是很小的,远远比不上日本人和中国人,这也许意味着美国人不像日本人和中国人那样看重社会权力。
日本上级在前两个策略“IFID”和“Offer of repair”之外喜欢使用“Taking responsibility”“Showing concern”及“Promise of forbearance”。为了不使听话人丢失脸面,他们更乐意使用消极礼貌策略而非积极礼貌策略,并且他们使用了最多的INTENSIFIERS尤其是各种形式的敬语。但比起他们的下属来,他们使用的INTENSIFIERS要少,敬语也是以简体形式出现。日本下级更乐于一次使用更多的、复杂的策略,比如:“IFID”,“Responsibility”,“Promise of forbearance”,“Offer of repair”及“Showing concern”。在使用INTENSIFIERS方面,日本上下级之间表现出了最大的差异,他们更加注重社会地位。社会权力对他们策略的选择产生了很大的影响。
中国上级为了表示对下级的关注,安抚下级,避免其没面子,更可能使用复杂的方式表示道歉,如:“IFID”,“Explanation”,“Showing concern”及“Offer of repair”尤其是“Showing concern”和“Offer of repair”的使用频率要比另外两个语言背景下的人们使用得多。下级更乐意一次使用比上级更多的策略,并愿意为自己的过失做出解释,同时承诺再也不犯这样的错误。从INTENSIFIERS的使用来看,上下级的差异仅次于日本人,对社会权力或社会地位也是相当重视的。
美国文化属于低语境文化,更强调个性独立,上下级之间更注重的是个人思想的发挥,个人权利的及个人意志的社会作用,因而社会地位或社会权力对道歉策略的选择几乎不会产生太大的影响。日本文化及中国文化属于高语境文化,更强调集体主义,为保持社会和谐,更注重他人的感受,为了给对方面子,会更多地使用消极的礼貌策略,以缓解冒犯可能引起的冲突。总之,日本人和中国人比美国人更注重社会权力,社会权力对他们道歉策略的选择有很大影响。
A contrastive study has been conducted in this thesis among American English, Japanese and Chinese in terms of the impact of social power on apology speech act, aiming at analyzing the apology strategies adopted by participants, and in particular, the relationship between super-ordinates and subordinates so as to uncover the underlying differences of the culture and value in different nations.
The ultimate purpose of the present research is to understand which culture attaches more importance to social power, to get an insight into the cultural differences for better communication and to teach students to use appropriate apology strategies in different situations. The present research may enrich the speech act theory and offer instructions on communication.
The present research involves qualitative and quantitative analyses in terms of situations and strategies. Analyses on the quantitative data obtained enable the author to find out cultural similarities and differences. Data collecting includes interviews as well as DCT tests through questionnaires in English, Japanese and Chinese; the questionnaires contain four social groups, each of which containing two sub-situations: one is super to sub and the other is sub to super.
Referring to the previous research achivements, eight strategies are adopted in the thesis. They are: IFID; Offer of repair; Taking responsibility; Explanation; Promise of forebearance; Showing concern; Minimizing the degree of offense and Objecting apologizing.
Data analyses indicate that“IFID”and“Offer of repair”are two popular strategies adopted by all language users. In terms of situations, the first four situations are greatly affected by social power, and the last four situations are much influenced by severity of offence. Even though there are many similarities, differences can not be ignored.
American super-ordinates use less number of strategies and intensifiers;“Explanation”(mainly in Situations 3 and 5) and“Taking responsibility”are their popular choices besides“IFID”and“Offer of repair”. American subordinates tend to use fewer strategies; they show respect to super-ordinates through intensifiers to some degree, and they use much less intensifiers than Japanese and Chinese do. The slightest difference in the use of intensifiers can be shown between super and sub, indicating that Americans seem to be careless about social power so much as Japanese and Chinese.
Japanese super-ordinates like to use“Taking responsibility”,“Showing concern”and“Promise of forbearance”besides“IFID”and“Offer of repair”. They use more negative politeness strategies than positive ones, fewer intensifiers than subordinates, and more honorifics in simplified style. Japanese subordinates like to use various types of honorifics like“sonkeigo”,“kenjyogo”in“keitai”, and to use many intensifiers and complicated ways to express apologies like“IFID”,“Responsibility”,“Promise of forbearance”,“Offer of repair”“Showing concern”. The greatest difference in the use of intensifiers can be shown between super and sub, indicating that Japanese pay more attention to social power.
Chinese super-ordinates are likely to use complicated ways to apologize, adopting“IFID”,“Explanation”,“Showing concern”and“Offer of repair”together. In order to show concern to his or her staff, to save the victim’s negative face, they use“Showing concern”and“Offer of repair”more often than the other two. Chinese subordinates put more strategies together and are more likely to explain why they made the mistake or promise never to repeat the mistake. The use of intensifiers shows that Chinese is next to Japanese in the use of intensifiers, which shows that Chinese also lay emphasis on social power.
The result shows that American culture is a low-context culture and is characterized by the rights and autonomy of individuals, and people rely on personal judgments and actions, while Chinese culture, and Japanese culture belonging to high-context culture put more emphasis on social harmony; they are negative-politeness-oriented, and pay more attention to social power than Americans.
引文
Austin J.L. : How to Do Things with Words[M],《如何以言行事》,北京,外语教学与研究出版社,牛津大学出版社, 2002.
Bataineh R. F. :“Apology Strategies of Jordanian EFL University Students”[J], The journal of Pragmatics, volume 38: 1901-1927, Elsevier, 2006.
Blum-Kulka S. , House J., Kasper C. : Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies[M], Norwood, NJ, Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1988.
Ellis J. M. : Language, Thought, and Logic[M], Illinois, Northwestern University Press, 1993.
Ermida J. :“Linguistic Mechanisms of Power in Nineteen Eighty-Four: Applying Politeness to Orwell’s World,”[J], The journal of Pragmatics, volume 38: 842-862, Elsevier, 2006.
Fasold R. : The Sociolinguistics of Language[M],《社会语言学》,北京,外语教学与研究出版社,布莱克韦出版社, 2000.
Fisiak J. : Contrastive Linguistics Prospects and Problems[M], Berlin·New York·Amsterdam, Mouton Publishers, 1992.
Gudykunst W. B.: Cross-cultural and Intercultural Communication[C], Thousand Oaks·London·New Delhi, Sage Publications, 2003.
Hickey L. and Stewart M. : Politeness in Europe[C], Clevedon·Buffalo·Toronto, Multilingual Matters LID, 2005.
Holtgraves T. : Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use[M], Mahwah, New Jersey, London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
Kramsch C. : Language and Culture[M],《语言与文化》,上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
Kulich S. J., Prosser M. H.: Intercultural Perspectives on Chinese Communication[C], 《跨文化视角下的中国人:交际与传播》,上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2007.
Lakoff R.T., Ide Sachiko: Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness[C], Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Co. 2005.
Mckay S. L. , Hornberger N. H.: Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching[M],《社会语言学与语言教学》,上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
Owen M. : Apologies and Remedial Interchanges[M], Berlin·New York·Amsterdam, Mouton Publishers, 1980.
Penelope B. , Levinson S. :“Universals in Language usage: Politeness Phenomena”[J], Questions and Politeness. Strategies in Social Interaction: 56-289, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Reiter R. M. : Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay---a Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies[M], John Benjamins Pub. Co., 2000.
Scollon R., Scollon S. W. : Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach[M], 《跨文化交际:语篇分析法》,北京,外语教学与研究出版社,布莱克韦尔出版社, 2000.
Searle J. R. : Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M],《表述和意义:言语行为研究》,北京,外语教学与研究出版社,剑桥大学出版社, 2001.
Searle J. R. : Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[M],《言语行为:语言哲学论》,北京,外语教学与研究出版社,剑桥大学出版社, 2001.
Spolsky B. : Sociolinguistics[M],《社会语言学》,上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
Wang Haiping: Is Apology a Scarcity in China?——A Study on Speech Act of Apologizing in Chinese[D], Shanghai International Studies University, http://www.cnki.net, 2005.
Watts R. J., Ide Sachiko, Ehlich K. : Politeness in Language[M], Berlin·New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 1992.
Wouk F.:“The Language of Apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia,”[J] , The Journal of Pragmatics, volume 38: 1457-1486, Elsevier,2006.
Yuling, Pan: Politeness in Chinese Face-to-face Interaction[M], Standford, CT, Ablex Pub. Corp. 2000.
Zhang Li: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Pragmatic Study of the Impact of the Degree of Familiarity on Apology Strategy [D], http://www.cnki.net, 2005.
常宗林:Comparative Studies in Language & Culture,《英汉语言文化学》[C],青岛,中国海洋大学出版社, 2004.
邓炎昌,刘润清:《语言与文化——英汉语言文化对比》[C],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1989.
高嵩:‘道歉’与‘感谢’言语行为的中日对照研究[D],http://www.cnki.net, 2005
顾嘉祖,陆昇:《语言与文化》[C],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 1990.
胡文仲:《跨文化交际学概论》[M],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1999.
胡文仲:《文化与交际》[M],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1994.
胡文仲,杜学增:《中英文化习俗比较》[M],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1999.
林伟,杨玉晨:《英语语篇分析》[M],上海,复旦大学出版社,2007.
王德春,孙汝建,姚远:《社会心理语言学》[M],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 1995.
王福祥,吴汉樱:《文化与语言》[C],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1994.
王福祥:《对比语言学论文集》[C],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1992.
王秀文:《日本语言、文化与交际》[M],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 2007.
吴国华,杨仕章:《语言国情学》[M],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
武心波:《当代日本社会与文化》[C],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
秦明吾:《中日习俗文化比较》[M],北京,中国建材工业出版社, 2004.
许余龙:《对比语言学概论》[M],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 1992.
许力生:《跨语言研究的跨文化视野》[C],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2006.
赵蓉晖:《社会语言学》[M],上海,上海外语教育出版社,2005.
祝畹瑾:《社会语言学概论》[M],湖南,湖南教育出版社,1992.
http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/bibliorgraphy/apologies.html
Bataineh R. F. :“Apology Strategies of Jordanian EFL University Students”[J], The journal of Pragmatics, volume 38: 1901-1927, Elsevier, 2006.
Blum-Kulka S. , House J., Kasper C. : Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies[M], Norwood, NJ, Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1988.
Ellis J. M. : Language, Thought, and Logic[M], Illinois, Northwestern University Press, 1993.
Ermida J. :“Linguistic Mechanisms of Power in Nineteen Eighty-Four: Applying Politeness to Orwell’s World,”[J], The journal of Pragmatics, volume 38: 842-862, Elsevier, 2006.
Fasold R. : The Sociolinguistics of Language[M],《社会语言学》,北京,外语教学与研究出版社,布莱克韦出版社, 2000.
Fisiak J. : Contrastive Linguistics Prospects and Problems[M], Berlin·New York·Amsterdam, Mouton Publishers, 1992.
Gudykunst W. B.: Cross-cultural and Intercultural Communication[C], Thousand Oaks·London·New Delhi, Sage Publications, 2003.
Hickey L. and Stewart M. : Politeness in Europe[C], Clevedon·Buffalo·Toronto, Multilingual Matters LID, 2005.
Holtgraves T. : Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use[M], Mahwah, New Jersey, London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
Kramsch C. : Language and Culture[M],《语言与文化》,上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
Kulich S. J., Prosser M. H.: Intercultural Perspectives on Chinese Communication[C], 《跨文化视角下的中国人:交际与传播》,上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2007.
Lakoff R.T., Ide Sachiko: Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness[C], Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Co. 2005.
Mckay S. L. , Hornberger N. H.: Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching[M],《社会语言学与语言教学》,上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
Owen M. : Apologies and Remedial Interchanges[M], Berlin·New York·Amsterdam, Mouton Publishers, 1980.
Penelope B. , Levinson S. :“Universals in Language usage: Politeness Phenomena”[J], Questions and Politeness. Strategies in Social Interaction: 56-289, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Reiter R. M. : Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay---a Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies[M], John Benjamins Pub. Co., 2000.
Scollon R., Scollon S. W. : Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach[M], 《跨文化交际:语篇分析法》,北京,外语教学与研究出版社,布莱克韦尔出版社, 2000.
Searle J. R. : Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M],《表述和意义:言语行为研究》,北京,外语教学与研究出版社,剑桥大学出版社, 2001.
Searle J. R. : Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[M],《言语行为:语言哲学论》,北京,外语教学与研究出版社,剑桥大学出版社, 2001.
Spolsky B. : Sociolinguistics[M],《社会语言学》,上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
Wang Haiping: Is Apology a Scarcity in China?——A Study on Speech Act of Apologizing in Chinese[D], Shanghai International Studies University, http://www.cnki.net, 2005.
Watts R. J., Ide Sachiko, Ehlich K. : Politeness in Language[M], Berlin·New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 1992.
Wouk F.:“The Language of Apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia,”[J] , The Journal of Pragmatics, volume 38: 1457-1486, Elsevier,2006.
Yuling, Pan: Politeness in Chinese Face-to-face Interaction[M], Standford, CT, Ablex Pub. Corp. 2000.
Zhang Li: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Pragmatic Study of the Impact of the Degree of Familiarity on Apology Strategy [D], http://www.cnki.net, 2005.
常宗林:Comparative Studies in Language & Culture,《英汉语言文化学》[C],青岛,中国海洋大学出版社, 2004.
邓炎昌,刘润清:《语言与文化——英汉语言文化对比》[C],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1989.
高嵩:‘道歉’与‘感谢’言语行为的中日对照研究[D],http://www.cnki.net, 2005
顾嘉祖,陆昇:《语言与文化》[C],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 1990.
胡文仲:《跨文化交际学概论》[M],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1999.
胡文仲:《文化与交际》[M],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1994.
胡文仲,杜学增:《中英文化习俗比较》[M],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1999.
林伟,杨玉晨:《英语语篇分析》[M],上海,复旦大学出版社,2007.
王德春,孙汝建,姚远:《社会心理语言学》[M],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 1995.
王福祥,吴汉樱:《文化与语言》[C],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1994.
王福祥:《对比语言学论文集》[C],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 1992.
王秀文:《日本语言、文化与交际》[M],北京,外语教学与研究出版社, 2007.
吴国华,杨仕章:《语言国情学》[M],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
武心波:《当代日本社会与文化》[C],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
秦明吾:《中日习俗文化比较》[M],北京,中国建材工业出版社, 2004.
许余龙:《对比语言学概论》[M],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 1992.
许力生:《跨语言研究的跨文化视野》[C],上海,上海外语教育出版社, 2006.
赵蓉晖:《社会语言学》[M],上海,上海外语教育出版社,2005.
祝畹瑾:《社会语言学概论》[M],湖南,湖南教育出版社,1992.
http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/bibliorgraphy/apologies.html