|
【摘要】：本文以场理论为基本框架，从中西认知异同的角度对跨文化交际进行探讨。
全文共五章。第一章是导言，介绍了论文的探讨领域、预期目的、使用措施和篇章结构等，并对若干关键词进行了定义。第二章首先回顾了主要的交际探讨文献，随后介绍了场理论的历史、发展和组成要素，并将该理论运用到交际探讨中。作者认为，所有人际活动都可以看作是交际，西语论文，其作为一个整体系统，在内部元素的相互影响和外界因素的多重限定下运行，即构成交际场。第三章从人与交际场的角度对中西认知方式进行了详细阐述。作者提出场依存性和场独立性是中西认知方式的根本异同，并以此为基础，从对场的理解、解释、分类，控制和预测等角度展开中西认知异同的讨论。第四章是中西认知异同在跨文化交际中的具体表现。作者指出，场依存性和场独立性的不同认知方式是中西文化的根本异同，而人与交际场的关系同样适用于跨文化交际范畴。作者选择了跨文化交际的三个方面，人际关系(面子和关系)，交际风格和时间观念，进行了具体的讨论、略论和阐述。第五章是结论部分。本文的基本结论是：
1．一切人际活动都可以看作是交际，而交际是一个在内部元素相互影响和外界因索多重限定下运行的系统。因此，通过场理论对其进行探讨，构建交际场，可以揭示其本质属性和多维特点，同时也有利于对交际参与者的思维方式和相应的交际行为进行探讨和研讨。
摘要
中西文化的根本异同在于不同的认知方式，即场依存性和场独
立性，其不仅是中西认知方式的核心，也是中西文化的核心，
直接决定了两种文化的诸多异同，如集体主义和个体主义，高
语境交际和低语境交际等。
场依存性和场独立性的认知异同在跨文化交际中得到了充分
体现，尤其是在人际关系、交际风格和时间观念等方面。跨文
化交际具有其复杂性和特殊性，西语专业论文，误会和冲突往往无法避免，尤
其是在以上诸方面。因此，从认知异同的角度对跨文化交际进
行略论，将有利于各方更好地理解彼此之间的误会和冲突，从
而降低其损害，进而逐步完善中西之间的跨文化交际。
【关键词】：认知异同 跨文化交际 场理论
Abstracts3-13 1 Introduction13-26 1.1 Research Scope13-14 1.2 Research Methods14-15 1.2.1 Personal Experience14 1.2.2 Interview14-15 1.2.3 Questionnaire15 1.2.4 Case Study15 1.3 Research Purpose15-17 1.4 Definitions of the Key Terms17-24 1.4.1 Communication17-20 1.4.2 Culture20-24 1.5 Organization of the Research24-26 2 Field and Communication26-57 2.1 Introduction26 2.2 Different Approaches of Communication Studies: A Review of the Related Literature26-44 2.2.1 The Process School30-34 2.2.2 The Semiotic School34-37 2.2.3 The Psychological School37-39 2.2.4 Elements of Communication39-44 2.3 Application of the Field Approach to Communication Studies44-56 2.3.1 Field and Field Theory44-49 2.3.2 Elements of the Field49-51 2.3.3 Application of the Field Approach to Communication Studies51-56 2.4 Summary56-57 3 Cognitive Differences between Chinese and Westerners: A Field Approach57-114 3.1 Introduction57 3.2 Particles in Intercultural Communication57-66 3.2.1 Properties of Particles58-60 3.2.2 Epistemological Core60-63 3.2.3 Cultural Prints63-64 3.2.4 Cultural Norms64-65 3.2.5 Particles in Intercultural Communication: Intercultural Particles65-66 3.3 Cognitive Differences between Intercultural Particles: A Field Approach66-98 3.3.1 A Cultural-psychological View of Cognition66-73 3.3.2 Historical Origin of Cognitive Differences: Ancient China vs. Ancient Greece73-76 3.3.2.1 Continuity vs. Discreteness74-75 3.3.2.2 Relationships and Similarities vs. Categories and Rules75-76 3.3.3 Field-dependent vs. Field-independent: Cognitive Differences between Chinese and Westerners76-98 3.3.3.1 Understanding of the Field: Holistic vs. Analytic and Dialectical vs. Logical81-85 3.3.3.2 Explanation of the Field: Contextual vs. Dispositional85-88 3.3.3.3 Categorization of the Field: Similar vs, Categorical88-92 3.3.3.4 Control of the Field92-94 3.3.3.5 Prediction of the Field: Holistic Prediction and 'Postdiction'94-98 3.4 Values: Collectivism vs. Individualism98-105 3.4.1 Values and Culture98-100 3.4.2 Differences in Values between Chinese and Americans: Collectivism vs. Individualism100-103 3.4.3 Collectivism vs. Individualism: Scales of Attention to the Field103-105 3.5 Cultural Identities105-112 3.5.1 Ethnocentrism and Cultural Imperialism106-108 3.5.2 Cultural Relativism108-109 3.5.3 Chinese and Americans: Stereotyped Cultural Identities109-112 3.6 Summary112-114 4 Field-dependent vs. Field-independent in Intercultural Communication114-171 4.1 Introduction114 4.2 A Review of Literature on Intercultural Communication114-123 4.2.1 Intercultural Model of Samovar and Porter116-118 4.2.2 Uncertainty Reduction and Stranger Theory118-119 4.2.3 Communication Networks119-121 4.2.4 Hofstede's Five Dimensions121-123 4.3 Culture, Communication and Intercultural Communication123-126 4.4 FD vs. FID in Intercultural Communication: Studies of Face and Guanxi126-150 4.4.1 A Review of Literature on Face and Guanxi126-130 4.4.2 FD vs. FID in the Concept of Self130-139 4.4.2.1 Self at the Intersection of Individual and Culture132-133 4.4.2.2 FD vs. FID in Chinese and American Selves133-139 4.4.3 Guanxi: Relation of Self to Others139-144 4.4.4 Face and Its strategies: Evaluation of Self144-150 4.5 FD vs. FID in Communication Styles: Studies of Context150-163 4.5.1 FD vs. FID and High vs. Low Context153-160 4.5.1.1 Selfserving Attributional Bias153-154 4.5.1.2 Attention to Information154-160 4.5.2 High vs. Low Context in Different Writing Styles: Implicit vs. Explicit160-163 4.6 FD vs. FID in Studies of Time: Polychronic vs. Monochronic163-169 4.7 Summary169-171 5 Conclusion and Suggestions171-187 5.1 Introduction171 5.2 Conclusion171-182 5.3 More on Methodologies of Intercultural Communication Studies182-185 5.4 Suggestions for Future Research185-187 |
