《学术英语原文4单元(7页).doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《学术英语原文4单元(7页).doc（7页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、-His Politeness Is Her PowerlessnessDeborah TannenThere are many different kinds of evidence that women and men are judged differently even if they talk the same way. This tendency makes mischief in discussions of women, men and power. If a linguistic strategy is used by a woman, it is seen as power
2、less; if it is used by a man, it is seen as powerful. Often, the labeling of “womens language” as “powerless language” reflects the view of womens behavior through the lens of mens.Because they are not struggling to be one-up, women often find themselves framed as one-down. Any situation is ripe for
3、 misinterpretation. This ambiguity accounts for much misinterpretation by experts as well as nonexperts, by which womens ways of thinking, uttered in a spirit of rapport, are branded powerless. Nowhere is this inherent ambiguity clearer than in a brief comment in a newspaper article in which a coupl
4、e, both psychologists, were jointly interviewed. The journalist asked them the meaning of “being very polite.” The two experts responded simultaneously, giving different answers. The man said, “Subservience.” The woman said, “Sensitivity.”Both experts were right, but each was describing the view of
5、a different gender.Experts and nonexperts alike tend to see anything women do as evidence of powerlessness. The same newspaper article quotes another psychologist as saying, “A man might ask a woman, Will you please go to the store? where a woman might say, Gee, I really need a few things from the s
6、tore, but Im so tired.” The womans style is called “covert,” a term suggesting negative qualities like being “sneaky” and “underhanded.” The reason offered for this is power. The woman doesnt feel she has the right to ask directly.Granted, women have lower status than men in our American society. Bu
7、t this is not necessarily why they prefer not to make outright demands. The explanation for a womans indirectness could just as well be her seeking connection. If you get your way as a result of having demanded it, the payoff is satisfying in terms of status: Youre one-up because others are doing as
8、 you told them. But if you get your way because others happened to want the same thing, or because they offered freely, the payoff is rapport. Youre neither one-up nor one-down by being happily connected to others whose wants are the same as yours. Furthermore, if indirectness is understood by both
9、parties, then there is nothing covert about it: That a request is being made is clear. Calling an indirect communication covert reflects the view of someone for whom the direct style seems “natural” and “logical” a view more common among men.Indirectness itself does not reflect powerlessness. Its ea
10、sy to think of situations where indirectness is the prerogative of others in power. For example, a wealthy couple who knows that their servants will do their bidding need not give direct orders, but simply state wishes: The woman of the house says, “Its chilly in here,” and the servant sets about ra
11、ising the temperature. The man of the house says, “Its dinner time,” and the servant sees about having dinner served. Perhaps the ultimate indirectness is getting someone to do something without saying anything at all: The hostess rings a bell and a maid brings the next course; or a parent enters th
12、e room where children are misbehaving and stands with hands on hips, and the children immediately stop what theyre doing.Entire cultures operate on elaborate systems of indirectness. For example, I discovered in a small research project that most Greeks assumed a wife who asked, “Would you like to g
13、o to the party?” was hinting that she wanted to go. They felt that she wouldnt bring it up if she didnt want to go. Furthermore, they felt, she would not state here preference outright because that would sound like a demand. Indirectness was the appropriate means for communicating her preference.Jap
14、anese culture has developed indirectness to a fine art. For example, a Japanese anthropologist, Harumi Befu, explains the delicate exchange of tended the invitation, Befu first had to determine whether it was meant literally or just pro forma, much as an American might say, “Well have to have you ov
15、er for dinner some time” but would not expect you to turn up at the door. Having decided the invitation was meant literally and having accepted, Befu was then asked what he would like to eat. Following custom, he said anything would do, but his friend, also following custom, pressed him to specify.
16、Host and guest repeated this exchange an appropriate number of times, until Befu deemed it polite to answer the question politely by saying tea over rice as the last course of a sumptuous meal. Befu was not surprised by the feast because he knew that protocol required it. Had he been given what he a
17、sked for, he would have been insulted. But protocol also required that he make a great show of being surprised.This account of mutual indirectness in a lunch invitation may strike Americans as excessive. But far more cultures in the world use elaborate systems of indirectness than value directness.
18、Only modern Western societies place a priority on direct communication, and even for us it is more a value than a practice. Evidence from other cultures also makes it clear that indirectness does not itself reflect low status. Rather, our assumptions about the status of women compel us to interpret
19、anything they do as reflecting low status. Anthropologist Elinor Keenan, for example, found that in a Malagasy-speaking village on the island of Madagascar, it is women who are direct and men who are indirect. And the villagers see the mens indirect way of speaking, using metaphors and proverbs, as
20、the better way. For them, indirectness, like the men who use it, has high status. They regard womens direct style as clumsy and crude, debasing the beautiful subtlety of mens language. Whether women or men are direct or indirect differs; what remains constant is that womens style is negatively valua
21、ted seen as lower in status than the mens.各种各样的证据表明：即使女性和男性说话方式相同，人们对他们的看法还是不同。这种倾向导致有关女性、男性和无能耐的讨论纷争不断。女性说话讲究方式方法被认为是低微无能，而换成男性则被认为是有能力的表现。视女性的语言为低微无能者的语言常常反映出男性看女性行为的视觉角度。 女性不为高人一等而拼搏，往往就被认为是低人一等。在任何情况下都极容易发生误会。这也说明了为什么专家和非专家常常把女性以友善语言表述出来的思维方式曲解成低微无能的表现。没有什么能比一家报社刊登的采访片段更能清楚地说明这种根深蒂固的歧义。采访对象是一对心理
22、学家夫妇，当记者问他们“表现得非常有礼貌”的含义时，这两位专家同时给出不同的答案。男性回答说：“服从”。女性回答说：“敏感”。两位专家都是正确的，只不过每个人描述的是不同性别的观点。专家和非专家都习惯把女性的任何行为看为低微无能的表现。以上同一篇报刊文章援引另一位心理学家的话说：“一个男人会这样问一个女人：请你去一趟商店好吗？同样的情况下女人会说：哎，我真的需要从商店买点东西，但是我实在太累了。”女性的这种表达方式被称为“隐蔽的”，该词含有“鬼祟”和“秘密”等贬义，而这样表达的原因归咎于一个“权”字，女人觉得她没有权利直接提出要求。的确，在我们（美国）社会里，女性的地位比男性低，但这不等于说她
23、们不愿意提出直截了当的要求。女性的这种间接方式很可能是因为她们在努力寻找某种关系。如果愿意在自己的要求下得到满足，结果就是社会地位的胜利：你高人一等，因为别人按你的意志行事。而如果你的愿望得到满足是因为他人的愿望恰好和你的一致，或者是因为对方心甘情愿，结果就是融洽和谐。当你和对方的需求一致而一拍即合时，你既不高人一等，也不低人一等。而且如果双方都了解这种间接方式，那就不存在什么隐蔽：提出的要求很明确。称间接的沟通方式为隐蔽反映出那些青睐直接沟通方式的人的观点，即直接的方式才是“自然的”、“合乎逻辑的”，这种观点在男性中更普遍。间接方式本身并不反映低微无能。我们不难想象出权势者中有特权的人是怎样
24、使用间接方式的。例如，一位有钱的夫妇用不着直接向听命于他们的用人发号施令，而只须简单地说明其愿望，房子的女主人说：“这儿冷，”用人就会去调高室温；房子的男主人说：“是晚饭的时间，”用人就会摆桌上菜。或许终极的间接是什么都不用说就能使某人做某事：女主人按一下铃，女仆端上下一道菜；家长走进有孩子正在嬉闹的房间，双手叉腰一站，他们就会戛然而止。所有文化都靠以“间接”二字所形成的复杂而精巧的体制去运作。例如，我在做一个小规模的研究项目时发现：当妻子问“你想去参加那个聚会吗？”，大多数希腊人认为他们的妻子是在暗示她想去。他们认为如果妻子不想去，她就不会提出这个问题。而且他们觉得之所以不直截了当提出，是因
25、为她不想使她的愿望听上去像是要求。间接是传达她的意愿的最好方式。日本文化把间接沟通方式发展成为精美的艺术。例如，一位名叫别府春海的日本人类学家这样描述一次简单的午餐邀请所涉及的微妙的间接交流。当他的朋友发出邀请后，别府首先要弄清楚这个邀请是真正的邀请，还是仅仅出于客套，就像美国人说“哪天有空请你到我们家吃饭”而他并不期望你会出现在他的家门口一样。别府在确定邀请是真实的并且接受以后，对方就得问他想吃什么；按照习俗，他于是说吃什么都可以，而他的朋友也照例一定要他说的具体些，这样的交流在主人和客人之间适当重复了几次，直到别府觉得有礼貌地作出回答才是谦谦之举，于是说米饭和茶。当他就餐时，招待他的的确有
26、米饭和茶只不过这是一顿丰盛午餐的最后一个程序。别府对饭菜之丰盛并不感到惊讶，因为他知道按礼节就是这样。如果对方按照他的提议款待他，他就等于受到了侮辱，当然礼节也要求他做出受宠若惊的样子。以上描述的有关午餐邀请时双方所进行的间接交流在美国人看来是过分了，然而相比直接的沟通方式，世界上更多的文化崇尚细腻的间接沟通方式。唯有现代西方社会推崇直接沟通方式，而且即使对我们（美国人）来讲，这种方式更是一种价值观，而不是实践。其他文化现象也清楚地表明间接本身并不能反映地位低下。在一定程度上，是我们对对女性地位的设定使我们把女性的所有行为解释成为地位低下的表现。例如，人类学家埃莉诺基南发现在马达加斯加岛的一个说马达加斯加语的村落里，说话直截了当的是女性，拐弯抹角的是男性。而村民视男性使用隐喻和谚语的间接说话方式为更佳方式。在他们眼里，非直接方式和使用这种方式的男人一样享有崇高地位，而女性的直接风格被视为笨拙、粗鲁、有损男性语言的精深微妙之魅力。关于男性或女性谁直接谁间接在不同地域有不同情况，不变的是女性风格总遭人贬低，其地位被视为低于男性。-第 7 页-