Cross-cultural pragmatic differences in US and Chinese press conferences
跨文化交际中的语言失误(英语专业毕业论文_跨文化交际方向)
A Study of Social Pragmatic Failures in Cross-culturalCommunicationAbstract: Pragmatic failure is one of the main sources that give rise to cross-cultural communication breakdowns. Due to the different interpretations of politeness between Chinese and English cultures, pragmatic failures often exist in cross-cultural communications, resulting in communication breakdowns. This paper focuses on a study of politeness in its manifestations in Chinese and English cultures. It provides basic theories of politeness, cross-cultural communication and cross-cultural pragmatic failure, and points out the differences in interpretation of politeness between Chinese and English cultures, with the purpose of exploring the resources of those differences, so as to avoid pragmatic failures of politeness and effect successful cross-cultural communications. In brief, the findings of this paper support the view that pragmatic failures do exist in greeting, accepting gifts, table manner and many other aspects of daily communicat ion because of people’s different interpretations of politeness between Chinese and English cultures. Therefore, it is of great necessity to understand cultural differences, so as to avoid misunderstandings and miscommunications.Key Word: politeness; cross-cultural pragmatic failure; cultural differences摘要：语用失误是造成跨文化交际障碍的主要原因之一。
新编简明英语语言学教程_第二版_戴炜栋6_pragmatics
For example,“It is cold in here.”
Its locutionary act is the saying of it with its literal meaning the weather is cold in here; Its illocutionary act can be a request of the hearer to shut the window; Its perlocutionary act can be the hearer’s shutting the window or his refusal to comply with the request. ----Analyze one more example: “You have left the door wide open.” Note: Of the three acts, what speech act theory is most concerned with is the illocutionary act. It attempts to account for the ways by which speakers can mean more than what they say.
Correctness vs. appropriateness
“John play golf”---- grammatically incorrect; “Golf played John” ---- logically incorrect; but it might be appropriate pragmatically in certain context. Note: Pragmatics can make sense out of nonsense, given a suitable context. Appropriateness is very important in linguistic communication, especially in cross-cultural communication. If you say something grammatically incorrect, you are at worse condemned as “speaking badly”, but, if you say something inappropriately, you will be judged as “behaving badly”, such as insincere, untruthful, or deceitful. (Thomas, 1983)
礼貌原则与翻译
Politeness as a real-world goal The social-norm view of politeness The pragmatic view of politeness
Politeness as a real-world goal（礼貌是现实目的）
Politeness and translation（礼貌和翻译）
文本功能（textual function）包括概念功能（ideational function）和人际 功能（interpersonal function）
礼貌是判断译文人际功能是否做到对等（interpersonal equivalence）的一 个因素
礼貌面子观
Brown&Levinson将面子定义为“每一个社会成员意欲为自己挣得的一种在 公众中的个人形象”，面子在交际中可以被损害，保持或增强。
积极面子（Positive face ）---希望得到别人的赞同、喜爱、欣赏和尊敬； 消极面子（Negative face）---有自主的自由，不因迁就别人或受干预妨碍 而感到丢面子。
礼貌规则: （1）不要强加于人（don’t impose ）-适用于交际双方权势地位不均等的场合，如学生和老师，雇主和雇员 （2）给对方留有余地和空间（give options ）-适用于交际双方权力地位平等但社会关系不密切的场合，如商人 与客户 （3）增进双方的友情（be friendly）-适用于好友、恋人
（3）增进双方的友情 It looks like you and I got into the wrong line.（刚认识的朋友）
礼貌原则和准则
英国语言学家Leech将语用原则分为“人际修辞”和“篇章修辞”。他的“修辞”指的是 交际中有效的运用语言，它由交际双方所遵循的原则和准则组成。人际修辞 （interpersonal rhetoric ），该框架包括合作原则（cooperative principle）和礼貌原则 （politeness principle）
Cross-cultural pragmatic failure
在英美人看来，凡是关于个人圈子的事，如行动去向、年龄、收入、 支出、家庭婚姻状况和宗教信仰等，都属于隐私的范围。跟他们交 谈，不能随便问“Where are you going”（你上哪里去）， “What are you going to do”（干吗去呀）或“What did you do”（干吗去了），“Are you Married or single”（你结婚了 吗），不要打听：“What’s your religion”（你信什么宗教）， “Do you go to church”（你去教堂吗），Where do you come from”（你从哪里来啊）。对这些问话西方人在心理上的反应（一 般情况下不会说出）是“Why do you ask?”甚至是 It’s none of your business（关你何事）。其实例中及以上所列诸种问候语， 好多都是中国人习用的客套话，是一种随和、友好、亲昵的问候方 式。中国人习惯通过问候给人以亲切温暖之感，因此，问话人并不 是真想弄清被问者的情况或行动去向。即便不涉及隐私的普通的问 候语“吃了吗”（Have you eaten yet）、“你早”（You are early）等也会引起外国人的误会，他们会真以为你要请他们吃饭。
2[1].5-Cross-cultural differences
![2[1].5-Cross-cultural differences](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/9d4de9ced5bbfd0a7956739d.png)
Study differences at level of word classes, syntax, grammar: i.e. which word categories are frequent/infrequent in Chinese and which are frequent/infrequent in English?
Percentage of articles accepted by Science in 1994 (W.W. Gibbs, Scientific American 1995: 92-99)
Center for Medical LSP
Cross-cultural differences Dimensions in organization of academic texts:
Center for Medical LSP
Cross-cultural differences Analysis and observation Source language (SL) interference at levels of:
Lexis Syntax Text word level differences sentence structure + sender-receiver relationship move/step structure; cohesion/coherence
Center for Medical LSP
Cross-cultural differences Analysis and observation – lexico-syntactic level DK adverbial Î UK verbal Danglish
英语专业毕业论文Critique范文
A Critique of “Contrastive Analysis of Compliment between English and Chinese ”1.Introduction of the articleRui Yu, Li Fu & Xiao-Yu Hou’s “Contrastive Analysis of Compliment between English and Chinese”is a classic in intercultural communication studies. It is published in Journal of Intercultural Communication StudiesXVI, 2007, Volume 1, Pages 153-162.2. Analysis of the articleThe social phenomenon of compliment behavior exists in various societies and linguistic cultures. The compliment behavior can not only enhance the relationship between communicators but also consolidate and strengthen the solidarity among communicators. Thus, the compliment behavior operates like social lubricant. Compliment responses in Chinese and English have different characteristics because they are influenced by different social factors. Consequently, the study on compliment has been paid extensive attention to.This thesis aims at investigating the characteristics of compliment responses in Chinese and English, comparing their differences and similarities and attempting to analyze the reasons which lead to the differences and similarities from cross-cultural perspective.Based on Julia Gousseva’s experiment, a similar experiment was designed and carried out by the present author.The purposes were to find the features of compliment in Chinese by Chinese students, to discover similarities and differences of compliment between English and Chinese and to explore the reasons why the differences in linguistic performance exist.This article provides deeper research on this subject and examines genre of written discourse. Most of previous studies abroad and in China focus on the syntax and the topic of compliment behavior itself. This article also claims that most of the studies,such as its function,implication,and causes are based mostly on the study on the oral compliment.As for the oral compliment,this paper shows it very clear in the literature review. And it demonstrates the syntactic differences between Chinese and English compliments by the table.When it comes to the research on the written complient,it mentions focusly on the gender difference in compliment.In this thesis, the quantitative method and the qualitative method are adopted. It collects materials from college students at Chinese Department of a University,and native speakers of Chinese and non-English majors. The experiment was carefully designed so as to keep great resemblance with that of Julia Gousseva’s. And the study consisted of two parts, (1) gender-linked features, such as positive evaluation, intensifiers and personal involvement, and (2) discourse strategies, suchas good/bad new strategies, opening, closing and framing strategies, and their interests were on the differences associated genders. Then it analyzes the data and summarizes the different characteristics on compliment responses in Chinese and English through a couple of tables. Finally, it explains the differences in the application of linguistic forms and strategy to the compliment, so as to learn the social and cultural factors that might account for these differences.The major findings of this study are as follows:(1) the biggest difference lies in the use of positive evaluation, that is to say the American students use more positive evaluation. This may be explained by that many Americans are very active in expressing their ideas and feelings while more Chinese would like to choose neutral words and restrain their feeling, for many of them were taught to be observed and not to be heard when they were young. Most of the English speakers tend to accept compliments. Moreover, they often offer series of comments on the object complimented when they accept compliments. They usually express their disagreement directly when they reject compliments. In addition, English speaker use some combined strategies to express their responses to compliment.(2) The American students use more first person pronoun (2.17 vs. 0.93) and less third person pronouns (1.09 vs. 2.68) than their Chinese counterparts. It is known to us that the idea of being self-oriented is favored by many people in America. They intend to maximize the use of first person pronounin order to show their opinion directly in interaction. On the contrary, the idea of other-oriented has exerted influence over China for thousands of years, and many Chinese learn to minimize self importance by maximizing the use of the third person pronoun. Most of Chinese people tend to reject compliments. When they accept compliments, Chinese people often transfer the eompliment to some third person or to the object itself. Besides, Chinese speakers have one more strategy—Determination Expression to respond to compliment. They tend to express their determinations when they meet compliment from persons who have higher status. In addition, Chinese speakers employ more diverse sub-strategies to respond to compliments than English speakers. Finally, More Chinese speakers tend to give no response when they meet compliments than English speakers.(3) Chinese college students tend to accept compliments much more frequently than other people. The reason lies in students’ adaptation to the change of culture which results from social development and the influence of foreign cultures.(4) The reason of all these differences can attribute to their adaptation to different social worlds, which include different traditional values, different politeness principles, different realization of face, and influence of western culture.The study has some significance. Firstly, this study helps us understand differences between Chinese and English compliment responses. Thus, pragmatic mistakes in the cross-cultural communicationcan be avoided. Secondly, this study also gives the analysis of the Chinese compliment responses which enables more foreigners to know and accept Chinese communication criterions. Finally, it makes a conclusion that culture and language are interwoven, and the inclination of communicative choices is closely associated with social norms and cultural background.3. Critique of the articleAs summarized above, this is a good article with a well-chosen topic supported by many well-devised studies, which set a model for the following studies.The studies are rigorous in that the deeper research on this subject from cross cultural perspective. Besides, in the study, the peer review and comparison among various aspects of American compliment and Chinese’s were taken into consideration. This study helps us understand differences between Chinese and English compliment responses. The research on syntax between English and Chinese shows clearly that there are much difference in oral compliment. Pragmatic mistakes in the cross-cultural communication can be avoided. The finding that the American compliment resembles the Chinese one in forms, strategies and functions in the situation under study. Meanwhile, it also proves that a great deal of discrepancy emerges in the use of positive evaluation, of the 1st and 3rd person pronouns and of some discourse strategies, which areworth studying.In addition, the writers also found that the biggest difference lies in the use of positive evaluation, that is to say the American students use more positive evaluation. This may be explained by that many Americans are very active in expressing their ideas and feelings while more Chinese would like to choose neutral words and restrain their feeling, for many of them were taught to be observed and not to be heard when they were young. This study also improves that language is the carrier and mirror of its respective culture, which makes the whole research more convincing. Moreover, the finding that he American students use more first person pronoun (2.17 vs. 0.93) and less third person pronouns (1.09 vs. 2.68) than their Chinese counterparts has profound pedagogical implications and opens a new area for further research.However, there are also some drawbacks in this article.On the one hand, it is not clear on compliment responses. And the compliment responses are very few At the same time, studies of compliment from the aspect of pragmatics are limited in number. Therefore, this thesis can explore and analyze compliment responses from another new perspective and the paper may be more convincing.On the other hand, though after a couple of studies showed great progress, the question why men and women adopt such different evaluations has not been emphasized.To conclude, the studies are still rigorous and this article is still quite informative, convincing and thought-provoking though there are some shortcomings.This study analyzes the difference between Chinese and English compliment from a new perspective and a new inspiration can be given to other researchers.。
语用学Chapter 12 Cross-cultural pragmatics陈新仁何自然何伟
30
E. 道谢与道歉方面的语用差异
汉语中的谢谢与英语中的“thank you”适用场合 不尽相同。 服务业中: 在汉语交际中，被服务者感谢付出服务者。 而操英语的本族人认为是相反的： Thank you for your service! That’s my duty! I’m glad to be of help.
6
• 英，语言学家，利奇（Leech,1983) • 语用学: a) 语用语言学（ pragmalinguistics )
b) 社交语用学（sociopragmatice)
7
II. 语际语用学
• 语际语用学（20世纪70、80 年代末）：从语用学 的角度研究第二语言的习得或第二语言学习过程 中出现的中介语，包括中介语的类型与特征，产 生的原因，给交际带来的负面影响、语用失误。
A: Yes or no?
B: Thank you! I will try to come.
29
PS.：操英语的本族人，特别是美国 人，在握手道别时会讲客气话，没有 具体时间、地点的邀请不必认真。 Give me a call sometime. Let’s have lunch sometime.
• 太过完整，会产生言外之意，误以为说话人不耐烦，耍脾 气，对对方的提问不领情，觉得是多管闲事。回答："Yes. I have."就可以了。
23
III. 社交文化语用研究
英汉语用差异
社交应酬方面的语用差异
招呼用语 道别用语
恭维与赞扬
邀请与应答方面 道谢与道歉方面
人际关系方面的语用差异
13
• C) 探讨语际语中的语用迁移
• 语用迁移（pragmatic transfer) ：外语习者将母 语母语文化中的有关知识借用到外语的使用与理 解中来。 • 按迁移的结果与目标语关系分类： • 正向迁移（positive transfer ) • 负向迁移（negative transfer)
Cross-cultural differences
what he promises. He can’t be trusted to keep his promises because of his past actions
Lexical and Sequencing differences (cs
Lexical and Sequencing differences (cont.)
Example: I came to be acquainted with her during the fall semester 1991 when she took my course in physics. (effect, time, cause) {native} During the fall semester 1991 she took my course in physics and I came to be acquainted with her. (time, cause, effect) {Chinese} It is very urgent that computers be introduced to China at this time (time). {native} In modern times (time), to introduce computers to China is very urgent.{Chinese}
Incorrect assumption that longer sentences are superior to shorter ones and will be admired by teachers. Translating from Chinese to English (Chinese comma usage)
cross culture跨文化考试笔记
Our ability to communicate effectively is based, at least in part, on our ability to manage our anxiety and uncertainty.
Anxiety and Uncertainty Management (AUM)Theory (Gudykunst, 1995)： AUM management theory suggests that effective interpersonal and intergroup communication is a function of how individuals manage the anxiety and uncertainty they experience when communicating
Cultural Differences in Interpreting and Coping Tactics 口译中的文化差异及应对策略
口译中的文化差异及应对策略摘要：在跨文化商务交际中，东西方民族常常会因为文化积淀、认知方式以及思维方式的不同而遭遇文化冲突。
口译人员应自觉培养自身的跨文化意识，减少乃至消除商务谈判中的语用失误，促使跨文化交际的成功。
关键词：口译跨文化差异跨文化意识Cultural Differences in Interpreting and Coping TacticsAbstract: In cross-cultural business communication , east and west will often because national culture , cognitive styles and different ways of thinking and incurring the cultural conflict . Interpreter should be careful to develop their cross-cultural awareness , reduce or eliminate business negotiation of the pragmatic failures , make the success of cross-cultural communication .Key words: Interpretation Cross-cultural differences Cross-cultural awarenesswhen it comes to interpreters , we can not help thinking it an honored occupation , also , feeling that it is much far away from us . However , today we are learning the interpretation curriculum , which thanks to the good consequence of the transformation of the english lesson . I have not ever thought of that I could speak and listen english freely and fluently one day , but the interpretation curriculum may make it possible . Through the curriculum , I have learned how to make efficiency notes , which is much more different from and difficult than others, that's why we must form the style of notes charactered by ourselves . Being cool just as interpreter is not as easy as it looks like . Interpretation is a language communication behavior , which transforms one language to another , and a basic mode of communication that human beings of different culture and different ethnic are relying on . The job of interpretation is challenging , compared towritten translation , the most outstanding characteristic of interpretation is what you must say after a very short time . Interpreters have no time to think about it repeated deliberately or look up dictionary or reference book while interpreting . Sometimes interpreters may forecast to connected content according to the site condition ,but they ,in most of the time , cannot know the details ,especially in business negotiations . That demands interpreters not only know the language and the knowledge of business and industry , but also need to have a good command of the two kinds of culture and know about what are the differences between cultures on expression . For the time being , cross-cultural communication has become much more common in the globalization . Only knowing more cultural discrepancy , different habits , distinct way of thinking and different concept of diversity nationals , can they improve themselves of business interpretation step by step .The most difficulty the interpreter may encounter is the culture differences . We take it for granted that we are right if we do just as traditional of our country . For example , we eat with chopsticks while western foreign with spoon . That's the little difference but to the key point . We are familiar with Chinese and english interpretation ,because of the two languages belonging to oriental and westerner culture , the huge difference is apparent . Here , what I want to talk about is cross-cultural conflict caused by the diverse of cultural antecedents , cognitive system and thinking mode ,which are the main content in interpretation .Since Chinese has a long history ,accumulating plenty of old words , including idioms , proverbs , mottoes , slangs , saying , two-part allegorical sayings and so forth ,which contain abundant cultural connotation with thick national colors . For instance ,during a business activity , the Chinese side said ,'建立一条龙服务中心，为外国投资者提供审批业务', and the interpreter interpreted ,'set up the one-dragon service center to provide a coordinated process service for foreign investors in obtaining approval '. I don't think foreigners will understand . Moreover ,dragon represents auspicious in China while it means evil in western ,if interpreter does not know about it ,misunderstanding will occur .It is different of people's approaches and angles to sense and know the world around . Ina national or huge social groups ,the differences usually cannot be a barrier , however , when in different national , it can be . Even confronting with the same thing , people may form different words to express and you can not figure it out if you are not one of them . As an example in business negotiation interpretation , Chinese said ,'我们不会给你们打白条子，我们会按时付款的'. If the interpreter interpreters ,'we shall not issue blank paper to you , we will pay you on time '. Meanwhile ,foreigners cannot understand it . In fact , here blank means empty , or more straightforward , similar to IOU . The interpreter might as well interpreter ,' we shall not issue IOUS to you '. Foreigners can catch your main ideas .The last difference I will mention is the way of thinking , which summarize the objective reality and indirectly reflect using knowledge and experience as media . The way of thinking variety from one to another , determining the diversity of language expression . Therefore , we must adjust the language to others can understand and recept and it appears more fluently and natural . Or listeners may feel harder to understand . For example , there are a lot of special sentences differing from Chinese , which may cause a understanding gap . When 'it' as subject , it can represent time , place , distance , the name of lifeless words and a large passive situation ,all of these caused by national object strictly separate thinking characteristics . Many 'it' as form subject substitute for different forms of real subject and complicated , multi-level master-slave complex sentences are fear connected with the preference analysis thinking while Chinese prefer comprehensive thinking . British and American people used to talk about subjective views first and than object and last others connected , perhaps it is related to linear thinking while Chinese curve type thinking . Also , part or complete inversion can not be separated with reverse thinking .So it demands highly for interpreters to adapt themselves for better prompted know and communicate each other . Cultivate themselves cross-cultural quality is in a desperate time and armed with cross-cultural awareness . Interpreter should use intercultural knowledge to help business activities .Where there is a will , there is a way . Though interpretation is a tough occupation , we can do it better if we try our best . To me , I like english very much . I believe I willcontinue to learn english and interpretation to enrich my life .主要参考文献（限4篇以内）：1.梅德明，2008，《中级口译教程》[M]。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Cross-cultural pragmatic differences in US and Chinese press conferences: the case of the North Korea nuclear crisisXIANGYING JIA NG0 前言This study focused on the routine press conferences held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People‟s Republic o f China and the US Department of State on the issue of the North Korea nuclear crisis.研究目的：to investigate the potential culturally related differences in strategies of asking and responding to questions, more specifically, to investigate how the speech acts of requests and refusals were performed in the two culturally distinct settings and examines the differences from ideological and cultural perspectives. （Requests: Questions in press conferences were seen as requests for information；refusal：very ofte n spokespersons may not comply with journalists‟requests in providing as much information as the journalists want. This type of non-compliance was seen as a refusal in this study.）研究意义：1、Cross-cultural pragmatic analysis of speech acts and interactional strategies in the discourse of press conferences is essential for better understanding of the different ideologies and cultural assumptions of countries in the field of diplomacy.2、The findings of comparative studies should provide information for international journalists about the differences in the conventions on which press conferences in China and the US are based and how information presented by spokespersons should be interpreted;3、more importantly, comparative analysis may raise journalists‟ awareness of spokespersons‟ techniques of noncompliance and help them develop better skills for asking questions.理论框架：1、conversation analysis 2、cross-cultural pragmatics（takes an integrated approach in analyzing press conference discourse. Specifically, it draws upon previous literature on question–response sequences in the analysis of news interviews）1、Question–response sequences(1) press conferences can be seen as news interviews with multiple interviewers and one interviewee.(2) Similar pattern of turntaking between news interviews and press conferences: the interviewer ask questions and the interviewee responds to those questions. So, the analytical approach used in news interviews may also be usefully applied to press conference interactions.1.1 THE PRACTICE OF QUESTIONING(1) Similar to news interviews, press conferences are primarily a question-driven form of interaction.(2) Quirk et al. (1985) identified four types of questions: yes–no questions, wh-questions, alternative questions, and declarative questions.(3) Bull (1994) introduced two additional categories: indirect questions…in which the force of the question is exp ressed in a subordinate clause‟, eg. posing a question by reporting on what other people said, and what Jucker (1986) called ‘moodless’ questions, which refer to questions without a finite verb.eg. a noun phrase+ “?”(4)作者的分类：interrogative：yes–no questions, wh-questions and alternative questions, noninterrogative ：declarative, indirect and moodless questions(5) Heritage and Roth (1995) focused on questions and questioning in broadcast news interviews.They noticed the inadequacy of a strictly grammatical coding framework due to …the interactional nature‟ and …institutional context of news interview interactions‟ Thus, they broadened the framework …with classes of interviewer actions that accomplished questioning through additional pragmatic, turn-constructional, and institutional features‟. The development and application of this framework enable quantitative analysis of interactional data based on coding turns at talk.1.2THE PRACTICE OF RESPONDING(1) Bull and Mayer (1993) analyzed eight video-recorded political interviews and coded the interviewees‟ Replies. They developed a typology of non-replies, which includes 11 categories: ignores the question; acknowledges the question without answering it; questions the question; attacks the interviewer; declines to answer; makes a political point; answers incompletely; repeats the answer to the previous question; states or implies that the question has already been answered; and apologizes.(2) Dickerson (2001) investigated interactional sequences in political news interviews and found that interviewees may challenge prior interviewer turns in a wide variety of forms. He identified 12 types of challenges and indicated that the most common challenge was for the interviewees to explicitly refuse to answer a question. However, instead of giving …a flat statement of noncooperation‟,they often express …some form of justificatory remark‟ and …produce refusals to comply in a way that positions them as reflecting inability or inappropriat eness‟(3) Clayman (1993) examines one particular response practice called …reformulating the question‟: before responding to questions from journalists, public f igures sometimes …paraphrase or reformulate‟ the question before answering it.Clayman (2001) provides an overview of the dynamics of answering and resisting questions in broadcast news interviews and analyzes some of the practices used by politicians to manage interactional resistance. He concludes that interviewees engage in various forms of …dam age control‟ when overt resistance is involved; and when resisting covertly, they …take steps to render the resistance less conspicuous‟(4) Harris (1991)：politicians tend to ignore the questions and say what they want to say and repeat what they have to say. They do appear evasive and employ far more indirect speech in their answers than other respondents in institutional contexts.1.3THE PRESENT STUDYall the questions asked by journalists are defined as requests for information and spokespersons‟ non-compli ance with the journalists‟ requests are considered refusals. Journalists‟ requests have four functions: requests for specific information, for clarification, for confirmation, and for comments.The study investigates these four orientations of journalists‟ requests and the refusal strategies spokespersons adopted to avoid giving direct answers. Cross-cultural comparisons are made to show how press conferences held by China‟s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the US Department of State differ with regard to the request functions and refusal strategies adopted by journalists and spokespersonsrespectively.研究问题：1）What are the common functions in the questions journalists pose in pressconferences? Are there differences in the functions of journalists‟ questions in Chinese and US press conferences? If so, what are they and why?2）What are the common refusal strategies spokespersons adopt in press conferences? Are there differences in the strategies used by Chinese and US spokespersons? If so, what are they and why?2.Method2.1 DATA COLLECTIONtranscripts of press conferences found on the official websites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairsof the People‟s Republic of China and the US Department of State. the Chinese version of the transcripts of the press conferences in China was used as the major source for analysis, with the English version as a secondary reference.2.2 UNIT OF ANALYSIS（1）Question–response sequences, like invitation–acceptance and apology–acceptance sequences, comprise what is called an …adjacency pair‟ inconversation analysis（2）One way in which adjacency pairs can be expanded into longer sequences is through …insertion sequences‟（3）The structural concepts of adjacency pair and insertion sequence do not always fit the current press conference data; therefore, the functional/semantic concept of proposition is adopted in dividing the data into question–response analysis units.2.3 QUESTIONS AS REQUESTS（1）The press conference data of this study indicate that the questions can be categorized into four groups: requests for specific information, for confirmation, for clarification, and for comments.（2）List some of the commonly used structures for each function of questions2.4 REFUSALS IN RESP O NSESIn this study, refusals are defined as non-compliance to the journalists‟ requests for information. When asked about a particular issue, the spokespersons may not know the answer, or they may have to protect confidential information. In this case, they may have to acknowledge their inability or lack of knowledge, show their unwillingness to talk about the issue, provide reasons for not giving the answer, give an insufficient answer, or try to avoid the question. Based on literature in the field of news or political interview analysis (Bull, 1998; Bull and Mayer, 1993; Clayman, 1993, 2001; Dickerson, 2001), six categories of refusal strategies were identified to code the press conference data:1) direct refusal, explicit denial of compliance without reservation ,include:(i) “No”: direct use of a denying lexical itemii) Negative willingness: utterances showing unwillingness, I’m not going to(iii) Inability/lack of knowledge: acknowledging inability or ignorance, I don’t know2) reason, The spokespersons give reasons for non-compliance, which includes four substrategies:(i) not in the position to give certain kind of information, I’m certainly not in a position to(ii) not the right time to talk about something, e.g. I think it would be premature to(iii) lack of information/new information at this point, e.g. Assistant Secretary Kelly will be out in the region next week. I do not have his exact itinerary yet(iv) uncertain about the information and willing to check on it, e.g. I‟m not sure if we‟ve done it directly. I will have to double-check on that and see3) alternative, The spokespersons make referrals to another agency or another sourcefor information, e.g.you’ll have to check with the Russians on that4) criticism, The spokespersons criticize the journalists for their personal characters,(i) criticizing the journalist, e.g.e.g. I think you have sort of an odd way of looking at things, frankly(ii) criticizing the question, e.g. I think what you mean by your question is totally groundless (iii) criticizing the source where journalists get information, e. g. From time to time, the Washington Times publishes some irresponsible and groundless reports out of ulterior motives. 5) avoidance, The spokespersons avoid direct responses to the questions asked, whichinclude:(i) repeating the major position(ii) joking,(iii) ignoring,6) insufficient answer. The responses provided by the spokespersons are not enough toanswer the questions satisfactorily, which are subdivided into five categories: (i) Minimal answer plus elaboration, (ii) Incomplete answer, (iii) Repeating answer to previous question (iv) Answering back to the journalist by asking a question (v) Too general, vague, irrelevant, or not targeted to the specific question,2.5 CODING OF THE CORPUSAll the questions in both the US and Chinese press conference data were coded for the four functions mentioned earlierConsidering the categorical nature of the data in this study, Cohen‟s (1960) kappa was adopted to calculate the inter-rater reliability, which is considered to be more conservative than percentage agreement. The obtained inter-rater reliability coefficient (Cohen‟skappa) for the two coderswas .91. The remaining disagreements were resolvedby discussion until consensus was reached.3 Findings and discussion3.1 REQUEST FUNCTIONSTable 1：includes the number of questions functioning as requests for specific information, for clarification, for confirmation, and for comments, and the percentage these represent out of the total number of analysis unitsFigure 1：comparing the percentage of different question functions in US and Chinese press conference data.（1）相同点：a request for specific information was the most frequently adopted strategy in bothUS and Chinese press conferences, > 70 % of all the questions.说明：in line with the nature of press conference activities（to disseminate information about what is happening in the world and what is likely to happen next.）（2）不同之处：the US data：more clarification and confirmation strategies,the Chinese data：more requests for comments.解释：Asking for clarification or confirmation presupposes that what the spokespersons said is not clear enough, so the journalists need more information or are not sure how they are supposed to the interpret the information. This practice can be face-threatening to the Chinese spokespersons and may be considered negatively as impolite challenges against their authority The rarity of requests for clarification and confirmation is closely related to the lack of follow-up questions in the Chinese data; in fact, most of the clarification and confirmation questions were asked after theprimary turn where the spokespersons gave the response. In some cases, the journalists brought in information from outside sources and tried to get official confirmation. request for comment appears neutral and acceptable. Similar to requests for specific information, Chinese spokespersons are less likely to feel challenged or offended by the journalists. Comments, however, are to a great extent oriented toward opinions. Unlike factual information, opinions are liable to appear vague and general, less tangible and harder to decipher. The journalists in the Chinese press conferences requested more comments, which may have something to do with the spokespersons‟ refusal strategies.3.2 REFUSAL STRATEGIES（1）…direct refusals‟ and …reason‟ were the most frequently used strategies in the US data andoccurred much more often than in the Chinese data.（2）Avoidance and insufficient answers were the major strategies in the Chinese corpus and usedmuch more often than in the US corpus.解释：Chinese culture is known for its implicit and face-oriented way of communication. Refusals are a type of face-threatening act4 Conclusion结论一：press conferences in China and in the US are different in several ways：1）Due to the traditional and conservative nature of Chinese culture, press conferences in Chinaappear to be more controlled and based strictly on turn allocations, with almost no interruptions orfollow-ups in the question–response units. lack of joking as an avoidance strategy, and lack ofvocatives or attention-getting signals in the conversation2）Journalists in China asked more questions for comments than confirmation or clarification, butin the US, more questions were asked for confirmation and clarification.3）The spokespersons also adopted different refusal strategies. In the Chinese data, avoidance andinsufficient answers were prevalent but relatively few direct refusals were used. In contrast, theUS spokespersons used many more direct refusals.解释：Some features in the Chinese culture may account for the differences, such as implicit andface-directed communication styles.结论二：From the question–response routines in press conferences, we obtained a sense of how the two countries shape their policies and deal with conflicts in the international diplomatic arena. Their different ideologies, cultural assumptions, self-perceived international roles and responsibilities seem to have influenced their perspectives on the North Korea nuclear issue. Through the routinequestion–response activities, press conferences offer a reflection on government policies.limitations of this study：the use of ready-made transcripts instead of having access to the audio orvideo version of the material and transcribing it. Although there are some descriptions of the pressconference atmosphere through notations such as [laughter], other important clues for the analysisof spoken discourse such as pause length, latching, and overlapping were not available in the transcripts. More subtle information conveyed through intonation and body language was also lost. In addition, the use of English translation of the Chinese data, even just partially, is not an optimal choice; as Connor-Linton (1999) noted, …cross-culture communication through interpreters and translation complicates and limits any discourse analysis‟ .The idiosyncratic language style of individual translators may also affect the sentence structure and word choice in the translated data. For further research, it would be interesting to incorporate theories of criticaldiscourse analysis and frameworks of ideology studies into the analysis of crossculturalpress conference data, especially the framework proposed by Van Dijk(1995, 1998) on opinions and ideologies.important insights：1）The analysis of request and refusal strategies is of value in helping journalists become more aware of spokesperso ns‟ techniques of non-compliance and develop better skills in asking questions, and thus to achieve more effective communication in the diplomatic and political arena. 2）the frequent reliance on interpreters in the field of international diplomacy makes this crosscultural analysis of press conference interactions relevant to the field of interpreter training.文章存在的细节问题：一、标题中实词没有以大写字母开头二、语言方面，出现一些中式英语，例1 Findings demonstrated that:例2 The press conference data of this study indicate that the questions can be categorized into four groups: requests for specific information, for confirmation,for clarification, and for comments.三、Findings and Discussion 中没有必要再使用柱形图，因为其信息都已经清楚地列在表格中，有重复、显摆的嫌疑。