linguistic小论文

linguistic小论文

On suprasegmental features
Introduction
So far we have
been talking about phonetic features as they apply to single phonetic segments,
or phones. Phonetic features can also apply to a string of several
sounds, such as a syllable, or an entire word or utterance. The study of
phonological features which applies to groups larger than the single segment,
are known as suprasegmental
features, such as the syllable or the word. The study of these features is known
as prosody. It mainly includes
syllable, stress, pitch, tone, and intonation. In this paper, I will talk about
the suprasegmental features in
great detail.
Key words: phonetic, suprasegmental.

Syllable
The most obvious prosodic feature in language
is the syllable. Let's briefly discuss the notion of syllables. Like all of our other basic linguistic concepts,
although everyone knows what a syllable is, the concept "syllable" is
difficult to define in absolute terms. A syllable can be divided into three
parts, that is, onset, nucleus, and coda, of which nucleus is a must. A
syllable that has no coda is called an open syllable while a syllable with coda
is called a closed syllable. In English only long vowels and diphthongs can
occur in open syllables. The onset may be empty or filled by a cluster of as
many as three consonants, while the coda position may be filled as many as four
consonants. The maximal onset principle states that when there is a choice as
to where to place a consonant, it is put into the onset rather than the coda.
In some languages, syllables are always open,
that is, they always end in a vowel, never a consonant. (Hawaiian)
On the other hand, every Hawaiian syllable must begin with a consonant. (Aloha spoken as a single word begins
in a glottal stop.) In other languages, syllables are always closed; they must
end in a consonant (Navaho): Háá'ishah dididiljah. Let's build a fire. Táá diné 'ooljéé'go naaskai' Three men went to the moon. (Like
Hawaiian, they must also begin in a consonant.
)
Stress
The nature of stress
The word stress is used differently by
different authors, and the relationship between stress, emphasis, accent and
prominence is also defined differently. Robins has defined it as “a generic
term for the relatively greater force exerted in the articulation of part of
utterance”. The nature of stress is simple enough—practically everyone would
agree that the first syllable of words like“father”, “open” is stressed, that
the middle syllable is stressed in “potato”, “apartment” and the final syllable
is stressed in “about”, “perhaps”, and most people feel they have some sort of
idea of what the difference is between stressed and unstressed syllables,
though they might explain it in many different ways.
The production of stress is generally
believed to depend on the speaker using more muscular energy than is used for
unstressed syllables. From the perceptual point of view, all stressed syllables
have one characteristic in common, and that is “prominence”. Roach has
manifested that at least four different factors are important to make a
syllable prominent:
i) Loudness: Most people seem to feel
that stressed syllables are louder than unstressed ones; in other words,
loudness is a component of prominence.
ii) Length: The length of syllables has
an important part to play in prominence; the syllables which are made longer
than the others will be heard as stressed.
iii) Pitch: Pitch in speech is closely
related to the frequency of vibration of the vocal folds and to the musical
notion of low-pitched and high-pitched notes; if one syllable is said with a
pitch that is noticeably different from that of the others, this will have a
strong tendency to produce the effect of prominence.
iv) Quality: a syllable will tend to be prominentif it contains a vowel that is different in quality from neighboring vowels.
Languages differ in how they use stress.
1) In some languages, eachsyllable is equally stressed or unstressed，as in Cambodian
2) the syllable in eachword is more stressed.
The
place of stress is fixed on a
certain syllable:
1) initial. Finnish,Hungarian and other Finno-Ugric languages
2) penultimate. Polish,
3) final. French.
4) Complex set of
rules. In Bulgarian nouns and verbs have separate sets of rules for
stress placement. Hopi (phonetic: first syllable of a two syllable
word: síkwi meat; in
words of three or more syllables, accent falls on the first long vowel:
máamatsi to recognize; or on
the first short vowel before a consonant cluster: péntani to write; otherwise it falls on the
next to last syllable: wunúvtu stand
up)
The place of stress is random.
1) In Russian the stress iscompletely random: xoroshó, xoróshi.
2) In English the stress is
more predictable but still random. Usually a middle syllable of a longer
word receives the stress. In two syllable words stress is rando and often
renders differences in meaning: project/to
project, produce/produce, and insult/ to insult.
Some languages have more than one stress per
word: English is such a language. In English, words of four
syllables or more have a primary
and a secondary stress. Some
English compounds have phrasal stress on the first element of the
compound. Phrasal stress often distinguishes meaning in adjective/noun
combinations.
Sentence stress in English
According to He Shanfen (1992), Englishsentence stress has two main functions:
⑴ to indicate the important words in the
sentence; ⑵ to serve as the
basis for the rhythmic structure of the sentence.
Consequently, in connected English speech,
sentence stress usually falls on content ( or lexical) words, which carry the
basic meaning of a sentence, e.g. nouns, adjectives, adverbs etc. Those which
are usually unstressed in sentences are form (or structural) words, which show
grammatical relationships, such as articles, auxiliary and modal verbs,
monosyllabic prepositions, etc.
Pitch
Another prosodic feature is pitch, defined as the frequency of
vibration of vocal cords. Pitch is measured in hertzes. Physiologically, pitch tends to be higher in
woman than in men and higher before puberty than after puberty. Also, the
pitch of women's voices tends to lower with old age; the pitch of men's voices
tends to get higher with age. Despite these physiological, non-linguistic
universal, each language uses pitch distinctions for linguistically
meaningful purposes. Starting
from the lowest pitch on the initial syllable, the pitch of each subsequent
syllable raises until the word reaches the "peak". From that point,
pitch either remains at the same level for the remainder of the word or it
drops again. The choice between maintenance of high pitch or allowing it to
drop is a matter of formality: pitch is maintained in formal or careful speech,
but dropped in colloquial usage.
七．Conclusion
Being the most important part, suprasegmental features can not be despised in phonology research.
From the whole passage, we can understand that suprasegmental
features not only has its phonology significance, but also the practical
use as well. We can not say this person is a good language user just by his or
her vocabulary, as well as the grammar. Spoken language is also very useful. I
do hope that the paper will be sufficient to prove that suprasegmental features is an efficient way for our studies and encourage
more and more students to pay attention to using it.

Reference
【1】Cao
Jianfen. The Rhythm of Mandarin Chinese. Institute
of Linguistics of Chinese Academy
of Social Science. RPR-IL/CASS (2000-2002).
【2】Chen Ying.
2001. Contrastive Study of Suprasegmental Phonology in English and Chinese: a
Functional Perspective. MA: Southwest
China Normal
University.
【3】Chomsky,
N. & Halle,
M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.

英语语言学论文

语言学可以写的内容很多。基本上不外乎以下一些：
一，语音类
如语音的属性、音韵与语音的关系、强弱、轻浊、音节等
二，词汇类
如词汇形态学，语义学，构词，词化，语义场等等
三，语法类
如语法结构，层次，修辞等
四，句子类
如分析句子的各种成分，语序，基本句型等
五，语篇类
如连贯性，思维逻辑性，结构修辞，主体与客体意识等
这方面的教材很多，就看你的要求了。现在英语与汉语的对比语言学和对比文学比较热，从这方面下手也不错。

英语语言学论文

转摘More and more scholars are now showing an interest in adopting linguistic approaches to translation studies. Between 1949 and 1989, an incomplete survey by the author revealed that there were only about 30 textbook passages discussing the relationship between linguistics and translation, including aspects of general linguistics, pragmatics, stylistics, text linguistics, rhetoric and machine translation. From 1990 to 1994, there was an incredible increase in the number of passages looking at translation from a linguistic point of view. Almost 160 articles published over these five years concerned translation and general linguistics, stylistics, comparative linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, text linguistics, rhetoric, etc. New terms such as discourse analysis, hermeneutics, dynamic equivalence, deep structure and surface structure, context, theme and rheme, cooperative principles, to mention just a few, appeared in the field of translation studies. We can definitely identify a trend of applying linguistics theories to translation studies in these years.

Today, we are at the point of questioning whether linguistics is a necessary part of translation. In recent years, some scholars who are in favour of free translation, have repeatedly raised this question to the public and appealed for an end to the linguistic approach to translation. Some firmly believe that translation is an art and that therefore linguistics is neither useful nor helpful. Such a claim is wrong if we look at translation as a whole, including scientific translation where meanings are rigid and restricted and the degree of freedom is limited. Flexibility, in this case, is neither required nor appreciated.

But even in literary translation, linguistics is hardly a burden. Wang Zongyan pointed out that « If one sees linguistics as a body of rules regulating language, translators most probably will yawn with boredom. If it signifies the use of words and locutions to fit an occasion, there is nothing to stop translators from embracing linguistics » (Wang 1991: 38). The controversy over « literal » versus « free » translation has a long history, with convincing supporters on each side. For example, ancient Western scholars like Erasmus, Augustine, and others were in favour of literal translation. Among early Chinese translators, Kumarajiva is considered to be of the free school, while Xuan Zuang appears as literal and inflexible. In modern China, Yan Fu advocated hermeneutic translation, while Lu Xun preferred a clumsy version to one that was free but inexact. There is nothing wrong in any of these stances. When these translators emphasized free translation they never denied the possibility of literal translation, and vice versa. Problems only arise when the discussion turns to equivalent translations.

The problem of equivalence has caused much controversy. Some people believed that there could be an equivalence of language elements independent of the setting in which they of occurred. Based on this assumption, some « literal » translators tried to decompose a text into single elements in hopes of finding equivalents in the target language. This is a naive idea. Jakobson (1971: 262) notes that « Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. » He does not refer to « equivalence » but to « equivalence in difference » as the cardinal problem. Nida was also misunderstood by many for his notion of « equivalence, » which he took to mean that « Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style » (1969: 12). He further concluded that « Absolute equivalence in translating is never possible » (1984: 14). De Beaugrande and Dressler believed that the success or failure of either free or literal approaches was uncertain: an unduly « literal » translation might be awkward or even unintelligible, while an unduly « free » one might make the original text disintegrate and disappear altogether. To them, equivalence between a translation and an original can only be realized in the experience of the participants (cf. de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981: 216-217). Catford (1965: 27) expressed the same concern that equivalent translation is only « an empirical phenomenon, discovered by comparing SL and TL texts. » In citing the above examples, I have absolutely no intention of insisting on untranslatability. What I mean is that a translator should incorporate his or her own experience and processing activities into the text: solving the problems, reducing polyvalence, explaining away any discrepancies or discontinuities. Linguistic knowledge can help us treat different genres in different ways, always with an awareness that there are never exact equivalences but only approximations. Therefore, amplification and simplification become acceptable.

If we agree that texts can be translated, then, in what way does linguistics contribute to translation? To answer this question, we must look at the acceptance of western linguistics in China and its influence on translation. Systematic and scientific study of the Chinese language came into being only at the end of the last century, when Ma Jianzhong published a grammar book Mashi Wentong «马氏文通» in 1898, which was the first in China and took the grammar of Indo-European languages as its model. The study of language was, in turn, influenced by translation studies in China. In Mashi Wenton, the main emphasis is on the use of morphology, which takes up six-sevenths of the book. Influenced by the dominant trend of morphological studies, a word was regarded as the minimum meaningful unit, and a sentence was therefore the logical combination of words of various specific types. Translation was, then, principally based on the unit of the word. In the West, Biblical translation provided a very good example, just as the translation of Buddhist scriptures did in China.

Not until the end of the 19th century did some linguists come to realize that sentences were not just the summary of the sequenced words they contained. The Prague School, founded in the 1920s, made a considerable contribution to the study of syntax. According to the analytic approach of the Functional Perspective of the Prague School, a sentence can be broken down into two parts: theme and rheme. Theme is opposed to rheme in a manner similar to the distinction between topic and comment, and is defined as the part of a sentence which contributes least to advancing the process of communication. Rheme, on the other hand, is the part of a sentence which adds most to advancing the process of communication and has the highest degree of communicative dynamism. These two terms help enlighten the process of translating Chinese into English.

In the mid-1950s, the study of syntax peaked with the Chomsky's establishment of transformational-generative grammar. This theory of the deep structure and surface structure of language influenced translation tremendously. Nida relied heavily on this theory in developing his « analyzing-transfering-reconstructing » pattern for translation. Some Chinese linguists, in the meantime, tried to raise language studies to a higher plane. Li Jinxi (1982) enlarged the role of sentence studies in his book A New Chinese Grammar, two thirds of which was devoted to discussing sentence formation or syntax. He writes that « No words can be identified except in the context of a sentence. » The study was then improved by other grammarians, including Lu Shuxiang, Wang Li.

With the development of linguistic studies, translation based on the unit of the sentence was put forward by some scholars. It was Lin Yu-Tang who first applied the theory to translation in his article « On Translation. » He claimed that « translation should be done on the basis of the sentence [...] What a translator should be faithful to is not the individual words but the meaning conveyed by them » (Lin 1984: r 3). The importance of context in the understanding of a sentence was therefore emphasized. Chao Yuanren, a Chinese scholar and professor at Harvard University, criticized scholars and translators who tended to forget this point and take language for something independent and self-sufficient. In fact, it is obvious that when we translate a sentence, we depend on its context; when we interpret an utterance we rely on the context of the speech (cf. Chao 1967). When a sentence is removed from the text, it usually becomes ambiguous due to the lack of context. Therefore, translation becomes difficult.

In the 1960s, people began to realize that the study of language based on sentences was not even sufficient. A complete study should be made of the whole text. A simple sentence like « George passed » may have different interpretations in different contexts. If the context is that of an examination, it means George did well on a test; in a card game it would indicate that George declined his chance to bid; in sports it would mean the ball reached another player. Without a context, how could we decide on a translation? Linguists therefore shifted their attention to the study of texts and to discourse analysis. Text linguistics have become increasingly popular since that time. Van Dijk was a pioneer in this field, and his four-volume edition of the Handbook of Discourse Analysis is of great value. Halliday's Cohesion in English and Introduction to Functional Grammar help us to better understand the English language on a textual level. It is worth noting that de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) provided an overall and systematic study of text, which is useful to translation studies. De Beaugrande actually wrote a book called Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating in 1978. The book did not become very popular as it confined the discussion to translating poetry. At the same time, books on a linguistic approach to translation were introduced into China, such as the works of Eugene Nida, Peter Newmarks, J.C. Catford, Georges Mounin, and others. These books gave a great push to the application of linguistic theories to translation studies in China.

Textual or discoursive approaches to the study of translation could not keep pace with the development of text linguistics. Some studies remained on the syntactic or semantic level, though even there textual devices were employed. In talking about the translation units of word and text, Nida wrote:

... average person naively thinks that language is words, the common tacit assumption results that translation involves replacing a word in language A with a word in language B. And the more « conscientious » this sort of translation is, the more acute. In other words, the traditional focus of attention in translation was on the word. It was recognized that that was not a sufficiently large unit, and therefore the focus shifted to the sentence. But again, expert translators and linguists have been able to demonstrate that individual sentences, in turn, are not enough. The focus should be on the paragraph, and to some extent on the total discourse. (Nida and Tabber 1969: 152)

From that statement we can see that Nida regards a discourse as something larger than a paragraph, as an article with a beginning and an ending. Nida himself never applied text linguistics to translation, and there might be some confusion if we use his term in our interpretation of discourse, because discourse analysis is not merely a study based on a larger language structure.

Some Chinese scholars did make the effort to apply text linguistics to the theory and practice of translation. Wang Bingqin's article (1987) was the first academic paper of this sort. He stated his aim to study and discover the rules governing the internal structure of a text in light of text linguistics. He analyzed numerous examples using textual analysis, but unfortunately, all the samples he collected were descriptions of scenery or quotations from the books of great scholars--no dialogue, no illocutionary or perlocutionary forces in the language. He failed to provide a variety of examples. For this reason, his research findings are largely restricted to rhetorical texts in ancient China (cf. Wang 1981; Luo 1994).

Scholars like He Ziran applied pragamatics to translation. He's article (1992) put forth two new terms, « pragmalinguistics » and « socio-pragmatics » which, in translation, refer respectively to « the study of pragmatic force or language use from the viewpoint of linguistic sources » and to « the pragmatic studies which examine the conditions on language use that derive from the social and cultural situation. » He discusses the possibility of applying the pragmatic approach to translation in order to achieve a pragmatic equivalent effect between source and target texts; that is, to reproduce the message carried by the source language itself, as well as the meaning carried by the source language within its context and culture. In this article he tries to distinguish « pragma-linguistics » from « socio-pragmatics » but finally admits that « Actually, a clear line between pragma-linguistics and socio-pragmatics may sometimes be difficult to draw. » Still he insists that the application of the pragmatic approach to translation is helpful and even necessary. Ke Wenli (1992) argued that semantics, which in a broad sense combines semantics and pragmatics, should be studied to help understand, explain and solve some of the problems encountered in translation. In this article, he examines four semantic terms--« sense and reference, » « hyponomy, » « changes of meaning » and « context »--giving many examples to illusrate the importance of having some general knowledge of semantics and of understanding the relationship between semantics and translation. This article is clearly written and readers can easily draw inspiration from it.

These linguistics approaches shed new lights on the criteria of « faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance » defined by Yan Fu. Chinese scholars began to criticize the vagueness of these three criteria and endeavored to give them concrete significance through the theories of western linguistics. The result is that the content of these three traditional criteria has been greatly enriched, especially by the effect equivalence theory, which in a broad sense means that the target language should be equivalent to the source language from a semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic point of view. But we are still unable to evaluate translations in a very scientific way. Therefore, Chinese scholars like Fan Shouyi, Xu Shenghuan and Mu Lei embarked on quantitative analyses of translations and used the fuzzy set theory of mathematics in accomplishing their analysis. Fan published several articles on this field of study. His 1987 and 1990 articles evaluate translations according to a numerical quantity of faithfulness. Xu's article « A Mathematical Model for Evaluating a Translation's Quality » presents a normal mathematical model. He states that it is difficult to produce an absolutely accurate evaluation of translations with this model because of the uncertainty and randomness of man's thought process. Making such analysis more accurate and objective would require further research.

The unit in translation is a hard nut to crack. Without solving this problem, no research in translation studies will ever be sufficient. To date, very few people have focused their research on this area. Nida holds that the unit should be the sentence, and in a certain sense, the discourse. Barkhudarov (1993: 40), Soviet linguist and translation theorist, suggests that:

translation is the process of transforming a speech product (or text) produced in one language into a speech product (or text) in another language. [...] It follows that the most important task of the translator who carries out the process of transformation, and of the theorist who describes or creates a model for that process, is to establish the minimal unit of translation, as it is generally called, the unit of translation in the source text.

Though he notes the importance of the unit of translation in a text and considers that this unit can be a unit on any level of language, he fails to point out what a text is and how it might be measured in translation. Halliday's notion of the clause might be significant in this case. To him, a clause is a basic unit. He distinguishes three functions of a clause: textual, interpersonal and ideational. According to Halliday, these functions are not possessed by word or phrase. But he is not quite successful in analyzing the relationship between clause and text (cf. Halliday 1985). In China, some people have tried to solve this problem. Wang Dechun (1987: 10) more or less shares Bakhudarov's view that the translation unit cannot be confined just to sentences. In some ways, the phoneme, word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or even text can all serve as a unit. At this point, we cannot find anything special in treating text translation except for having text as the highest level among translation units. This is not the aim of text linguistics or discourse analysis. If we want to apply these to the theory and practice of translation, we will require a textual approach.

英语小论文1000~2000字 <论中美人文对比> 100分以上的奖励

中美文化基本差异：中国观念与美国观念对比分析

集体主义：一般而言，中国和其他亚洲文化反映了社会科学家称为“集体主义”的取向。这些文化比较注重群体合作和个人谦虚。
个人主义：相反，美国人通常表现出一种个人主义取向。他们更重视独立性。自我实现即使不是一种期望，但至少更容易被人们接受。美国人更重视不受外部制约的“自由”。
社会关系：中国人的社会关系比美国人更加正式，等级更分明。中国人似乎非常习惯于等级分明的结构，他们可基于自己在结构中的位置和惯例确定自己的行为方式。 美国人则更侧重于非正式和平等关系。美国人通常和社会地位相同的人在一起最自在；他们不太重视社会等级。
友谊：与美国人相比，中国人更可能拥有少数终生挚交，他们彼此之间交情深厚，愿意相互提供任何形式的帮助。 美国人可能有许多“朋友”和熟人，这些朋友和熟人随着时间的推移而变换，彼此之间承诺的义务有限。
义务 在中国人之间，与他人的关系通常意味着彼此之间的义务。 与此相反，美国人倾向于回避相互依赖的关系以及可能导致长期义务的局面。
任务取向与关系取向：中国人侧重于关系取向。保持和谐的关系比完成任务更重要。 相比之下，美国人侧重于任务取向。完成工作通常比关系更重要。
和谐与“事实”：中国人所受的教育通常是避免直接冲突、公开批评和具有争议的话题。他们希望在周围的人中保持和谐，给别人留“面子”。相反，美国人通常愿意直接面对问题、提出批评、讨论具有争议的问题，并坚持自己认为是“事实”的意见。他们对“面子”并不在意。
法律、规章和条例的作用: 在交往方面，中国人通常更信任人际关系，而不太信任书面规则和程序。 而美国人一般认为书面规则适用于每一个人，并且能够产生公正、合理的程序和决定。
时间观念：中国人比较怀旧，也比较注重未来。 美国人通常对过去不太感兴趣，他们注重的是眼前的情况。
指定身份与获取身份：在中国的传统中，个人在社会中的地位很大程度上基于继承特征，例如年龄、性别和家庭，但这种情形正在发生变化。 对于大多数美国人，个人地位主要基于自己的成就，包括受教育程度和事业上的成功。

此篇作为我的“中国文化漫谈”系列文章的第一篇，希望能够把浅显的道理与实际的问题结合起来，让我们了解什么是中国文化的价值所在。洋洋大观，才疏学浅；一家之言，不成敬意。

今天我们首先谈一谈什么是文化。之后对中美文化进行一个简要的对比，从而看出文化对于一个社会的巨大影响。

什么是文化（Culture）？
简单的说来，文化是那些你不知道原因但还愿意接受的，来自上辈的规则与认识，在实践中大多数人能够体会带来的益处，或者相信可以带来益处，使得这些规则与认识又成为当代大多数人的选择，此时就构成文化主体内容。但是如果这条规则或认识已经完全被客观实践证明不可行的时候也不会坚持，也是文化具有的更新能力。所以文化主要是那些难以给予定论的规则与认识（属于价值观和哲学层面），并具有主观性，延续性，群体性，有益性四个特点。

比如说过春节，每个人都认为应该过春节，而且习惯于此，很难说出过大家一定要过春节有什么必要性，但都能说出一些好处，所以就自然延续下来。但就是这种自然的惯性，具有强大的社会力量，除非社会发生巨变，或者彻底被外族文化所侵蚀压迫。后面的过程对于中国传统文化不是没有而且不止一次，但是都被中国文化自身具有的理性和强大的凝聚力所征服。这里提出两个中国文化的特点，理性和凝聚力。

文化的延续性不等于失去其合理性。实际上文化合理性的辩论虽然是全民参与的，但是往往由被认可的社会精英层给出答案。但是社会价值观的争论需要长期和大量的社会实践，所以其变化是缓慢的而且有反复的。一个时代的精英们往往难以对众多课题给出答案，即使可以可以通过若干简单原则推导出来的规则，也需要长期实践来证实，而这就是中国文化的厚重之处。儒家文化不是从今天才被质疑的，而是从其诞生的第一天就受到驳斥，历史上也始终有人质疑甚至提出尖刻的批评，但是儒家成为最终的选择是因为这是社会的选择，被大量实践所验证。

中美文化解读
对于中国和美国的社会结构我有一个简单的描述。
US stays on rules.（美国建立在规则上）
China stays on culture.（中国建立在文化上）

美国是最早开始实践把所有各种文明成果变成具体文字条文的国家，因而现在其拥有最完善的法律体系，政策制度，公共程序等，在规则之上享有个人自由，或者规则体现为个人自由之间的妥协。当规则变成条文以后，一切可以变成秩序，如果规则符合社会生产生活的需要，那么自然产生较高的执行效率，美国社会非常依赖于良好的成文的规定。

但是规则体现的只是制度层面的东西，价值观才是推动制度建立的基石。美国的价值观包含两个方面，一方面来自于法国大革命时期的在自由，平等，博爱的思想，另一方面则是西方传统基督教文化的移植。美国是一种来去自由的联盟体制，他们的力量也经常来自散漫而自由的创造。

中国没有成熟的制度，法律，政策等成文固定的规则，但是中国社会依然从整体上运转良好快速发展，而且具有强大的自省力量，就是因为中国有强大和有生机的文化。文化可以在每时每刻约束着每个人的行为，促成社会的合作。这种文化来自历史的积淀，与智慧的碰撞。

中国社会的构成依然遵从这个原则，价值观才是推动制度建立的基石。中国社会发展的复杂性与多样性，使得在文化层面远比美国深远，智慧更加深邃。但是中国发展的制度基础，经常遭受君主与外族的轮番破坏。中国成熟的文化智慧，始终处于和专制制度及外族野蛮驯化的斗争中。中国历史上的开明时期，往往能够把文化的成果确定为一些好的规则，但是随后又很容易在君王体制下遭到破坏。宋朝开始的文人朝政与新兴思想又迅速被外族侵略所破坏殆尽，造成之后上千年的思想桎梏。

文化在一个社会中是无可替代的。因为社会发展进程不可能被中断，然后被设计构造出来。社会发展是一个自然演进的不可终止，无可选择的过程。中国如何进步，就是应该鉴别正确且适合自己的传统，把他们由文化上升为规则，同时利用自己的智慧，从实践中获得新的真知，并使之与传统一起共同成为社会建立的基础制度。

中美文化之对比
从历史上看，美国不是一个传统意义上的国家，只是一个新兴的利益的联邦，而且由于历史短仍然处于发展过程，社会的兴衰周期还没有在美国身上充分体现。因此把它与传统意义的国家进行对比，有很多不可比性。一旦其形成一些固有的难以改变的自身文化属性后，才能算作一个成熟的国家。

文化层面的对比
根据对文化的理解，美国所能够继承的东西主要来自法国大革命时期的思想成果，以及传统西方的基督教义。上帝成为其与西方文明共有的共主，虽然谁也没见过。耶稣不过是用来宣传这种思想的一个教案或者工具。上帝的文明准则有什么呢，就是黑暗，欺骗，掠夺，弱肉强食。所谓的慈善，道德只是用来宽恕恶人和恶行的，偶尔的光明都是上帝带来的而不是人带来的。从这点可以看出，虽然他们继承了法国大革命的优秀成果，但是没有脱离传统西方文明的框架。从自诩传统美国人的布什的所作所为中可以看出其秉承的传统价值观，布什可以说是近代以来，与法国大革命提出的自由、平等、博爱最远的一个总统了，因而也更能充分体现美国传统价值观的另一面。

中国的文化相比是上千年变迁中历经沧桑沉淀下来的，其中不仅是一些价值观原则，还包括很多独有的智慧。这种文化积淀是在多元化（而不是一元化）的中国历史中，不同思想流派互相斗争的结果，并为长期实践所证明。我们往往说历史总是不断地重复，就是说现在的各种现象在中国历史上大都发生过了。因此其对中国人自己具有极强的说服力，对中国社会也有极强的适应力。

中国文化的理性与凝聚力是核心。儒家的思想如果从孔子算起（实际上更早，从多部落共处和农业生产中逐渐产生），也已经经历过很多变革与思想征战了，之所以其能够很好的存在下来，就是因为自身具有的极强的理性。孔子在总结前人智慧中，最重要的选择就是“子不语怪力乱神”。

孔子在论述社会制度建设的核心是“和”。在社会制度层面强调放弃征战，文明共处，依靠理论解决纷争。而对于个人而言，孔子强调“仁”和“学”，通过“仁”构建和谐的讲理的环境，通过“学”来提高自己的认识，避免为无意义的错误目标去争，且能够参与理论的过程中。智是学的成果，信是相处的境界，勇是个人进取的勇气，义是个人对大众责任的推行。礼仪不过是基于这些建立的合情合理的需要共同遵守的规则，是思想与智慧的表现形式。如果看孔子或者儒家文化，只知“仁”“礼”就会陷入知其然而不知其所以然的难堪境地。

中国的智慧来自自然环境以及人文环境的恩赐。中国的自然环境是世界上唯一一个相对独立，又能够不断吸纳新鲜力量的大陆。从地理上说三面环山，一面环水，周围大多是不毛之地，而中原地区独享最佳的地理位置，因而自然形成趋于中央的向心力。从气候上说，中国的温带气候最适合人类居住发展，而且充分表现出气候循环反复周而复始的规律，体现出整个大陆相对一致的气候环境，这使得各个部族之间容易对自然和社会的认识产生共识，利于融合与迁移。在融合中不同部落各自的鬼神崇拜已经不再重要，也无法存在下去，代之以祖先崇拜，文化崇拜，智慧崇拜。这些才是中国文化的根。

中国大陆这种作为海纳百川的文化终极站的得天独厚的条件，构成了中国文化相对独立又能吸取其他种族文化营养，注重整体、稳定、和谐、长久。总结为开放而又独立，吸收而又高贵的特点。中国大陆上的社会变迁是一个完整的世界运转变化的缩影。现在很多所谓国际外交争端可以从当时的中国内部诸侯各国之间的争端中都可以看到相似性。有了上面的条件，“易”思想的产生也就不足为奇了，以“易”作为智慧的发端与归宿，很好的体现了中国文化的哲学观。

中美文化差异

中国跟美国在有些文化及社会差异上是根深蒂固的，下文提出我观察到的一些例子。笔者在这里要强调这些观点是一般性的，当然仍有个别之特例。

一、个人主义

美国人相当崇尚个人主义，东方社会 （当然包括中国人） 则强调家族及阶级层次。这是一个非常重要及有影响力的分别。美国人崇尚个人特质的例子很多，父母较少伸手干预子女的发展。

二、隐私权

美国人通常很尊重别人的隐私。就是知己之间也很少问到别人太"切身"的问题，例如年龄、薪水及婚姻状况等。也应当少谈论第三者的事情。不请自来的访客（包括父母亲）是绝对不受欢迎的。

三、不拘礼

美国人在衣着娱乐方面，都比较随便。最重要的是人与人之间的交往都比较不拘礼，即使双方在年纪上或地位上有很大分别也不例外。这方面的例子多不胜数，例如很多学生对教授，及晚辈对老人家都直接称呼first name可见一斑。这种"越代"，"越身份"的不拘礼表现，在很多东方人眼中则认为是失礼的行为。

四、开放与直接

美国人是相当开放和直接的，尤其在专业的讨论，往往秉持着不同意见而争论（注意：是争论，不是拍桌子，摔麦克风的吵架）。相反地，东方人往往不会直接冲突，而是婉转地通过地位比较高的第三者来疏通。

五、独立性

美国人通常较不喜欢依靠别人，甚至父母的帮忙也不一定乐于接受，而父母亦鼓励子女早早离家，独立地生活与发展。我国青少年在这方面就发展得较慢。对留学生来说，要注意到指导教授非常重视研究生能够独立做研究的能力。而对英文不灵光的留学生来说，当你向美国人借笔记时如被拒绝，不一定表示他们讨厌你，极有可能是他们将心比心，认为你应该独立而已。

六、竞争性

美国社会的发展依靠竞争来作为推动力。"Work hard, play hard"是大部分人的作风。他们在言语争辩时都喜欢压倒对手，这种"getting the last word in"的作风当然是竞争性的一种表现。他们的竞争挑战精神也显露在体育比赛方面，即使是他们所谓的"playing for fun"时也是蛮认真的。一般美国人对于一个球队都十分狂热，往往藉此发泄情绪。例如校队比赛时校警常常要检查进场的观众，不让他们带酒进场。球赛比赛时，观众都喧哗冲天，往往乱抛东西。有些助兴表演也有点莫名其妙，例如有一招是将一个女啦啦队员，从观众席的底层抛起，一级级的人将她接着又再抛上去，直到最高层又再抛下来；偶然也有失手受伤的事情发生。笔者也算是球迷，但都是在家看电视，免得在现场活受罪。而且要算准时间，当球赛完时避免走在路上，因为球迷在赢球时欢天喜地（如果你看到开车的人在乱按喇叭，你不用听报告就知道赢球），输球时则沮丧愤怒，两种结果都是疯狂毕露。有些血气方刚的小伙子更常做一些奇怪的事。有一点要强调的是，如果不是在发泄情况下，绝大部分的美国人都是很守规矩、不骚扰别人的。

七、公众场合应有的礼数

美国人通常都能尊重别人的安宁。在歌剧院不用说，就是在戏院也都能噤声欣赏。在餐厅吃饭时的交谈声音也相当低，跟中国有划拳斗酒的吵闹大不相同。排队时都很守秩序，插队是不被接受的，蜂拥上车的事情绝对很少发生。开车的人通常很守交通规则，例如在夜深无人时也不闯红灯，尊重行人，让路人先过马路等。来自较不遵守交通规则国家的留美学生尤其要特别小心。

八、朋友模式

美国人囗中的朋友定义比较广泛，而且有区隔性；譬如说工作上的朋友、打球的朋友、学校的朋友、喝酒的朋友等等。 另外美国地域广大，人口流动性也高，而且朋友之间绝少吐露私人的事情，所以友情是比较"温水"性。中国人的友情通常是"牵一发而动全身"，一言不合就尽量避免跟对方碰面，"起落"性比较大。中国人朋友之间借钱是相当普遍的，而美国人朋友之间借钱是凤毛麟角的。

九、金钱的运用模式

中国人通常做的预算都比较保守，而美国的预算则比较接近"极限"，而且往往有消费超过预算的倾向（跟美国社会大量使用信用卡也有关系）。美国人很舍得买东西，尤其是在购房及汽车上，对于吃喝方面，尤其是请客，则比较"犹太"；而中国人则比较舍得花钱在请客方面。

十、世界观

可能因为美国多年来的兴盛及教育重点在某方面仍有偏颇，美国人多数 "以本国为中心"，对于别国的认识十分肤浅。美国人对世界地理的无知是令美国国家地理学会 （National Geographic Society） 十分痛心的事情。在美国流传一个笑话：东北部的某一个州的某居民，写信去州政府询问关于New Mexico的情形，答复居然是：关于别国的情况我们不大熟悉，无可奉告。

对中美文化对比的初步认识
最近认识了一个美国人。谈了很多东西。突然对美国很有兴趣。 关于教育，美国16岁之前是必须要去学校的。全部免费，不去都不可以。可中国的9年义务教育还是需要钱的，国情原因没有办法。美国的教育资金是税的一部分。她们从来不知道还有希望学校这回事，上学还需要捐款，无法想象。 关于环境，在中国，他们觉得无法呼吸，有烟的味道，不能跑步。路上虽然我们已经觉得干净多了比以前，但他们觉得为什么到处都是垃圾，sigh。觉得我们不注重public。还有公共产所吸烟等。 关于自由，她们会感觉到很多网站都会被屏蔽，美国网站很多上不了。他们对很多事情看法比较随意，原因在于没有历史，只有300年，而我们是受长期传统影响的。 关于婚姻，在美国3个结婚就有1个离婚，所以step father or mather 是十分normal的。但在中国她们很奇怪，为什么有人要离婚，还有人会劝她们不要离。他们比较注重隐私，最多两个人一个宿舍，要不觉得很不舒服，还是人少啊。他们不会有两个人想开房间还要出去，都在自己的宿舍里，所有人都明白。我们还是需要找学生旅馆的呵呵。 关于来了之后的改变，原来在美国总会受到中国是敌人的说法，说中国发展很快，马上就要赶上美国了，但来了中国后，他们觉得确实还有很大的差距，根本不是一个类型的事情，怎么能放到以前说能不能赶上。还有中国很传统，中国对女人会不公平，这都是人权方面的问题，但来了觉得不是这样的，还是比想象中要开放得多，男女也很平等。 关于种族歧视，美国确实存在种族歧视现象，有很多人就是看不惯其他肤色的人，还有就是会有只允许白人参加的party。 关于家庭，美国很多人只要不要孩子，就不结婚，只生活在一起，因为知道也会离婚的，反正不要孩子，就省事一点得了。他们难以想象我们还需要考虑我们的父母。因为他们从18岁开始就被赶出家门，所以他们根本不会管她们的父母，当父母老的时候。所以当我说，我要为父母做什么的时候，他们觉得很奇怪。 关于开玩笑，他们真是什么玩笑都开，男女一起，就取消别人自慰，模仿异性自慰，谈论最喜欢的做爱姿势，都才20岁。和我们真是有差别啊。平均第一次年龄在18、19岁。 关于娱乐，周末我们大都在宿舍待着，他们是一定会去bar或者club的。 还有等等等等，总之太多方面有差别，但是本质都在于历史，我还是比较喜欢她们的自由和观念的开放的。我一定会去美国一次，见识见识。当看到transporter2里的迈阿密海滩时，她说她家就在佛罗里达的海滩边，简直太美了。还有个体会，他们出生很多都不在美国，还碰到一个小时候和我老家在几个地方的，但都相处得很好，没有任何异样感。真是移民国家

中美文化对比清单
发表时间: 2006-4-23 12:56 作者: 白丁 来源: 漯河信息港·蓝沸空间

字体: 小 中 大 | 打印

（美国） （中国）
“我的”，“你的” “我们的”，“你们的”
享受服务 请求批准
制服厌恶 制服崇拜
东西各就各位 人各就各位
收信人地址在信封下方 收信人地址在信封上方
底层楼 一层楼
黑色的葬礼 白色的葬礼
地图上法国是世界中心 地图上中国是世界中心
“亚洲人长的全一个模样” “欧洲人长的全一个模样”
“我”（手势指胸脯） “我”（手势指鼻子）
巴黎人瞧不起外省人 北京人瞧不起外地人
晒黑 美白
抬手叫出租车 抬胳膊叫出租车
走在狗屎成堆的大街上 吃狗肉
刀叉和面包 筷子和米饭
向坟墓上送鲜花 向坟墓送食品
甜早点 咸早点
安静而灰暗的餐馆 吵闹而明亮的餐馆
“你好，走得好吗？” “你好，吃了吗？”
勤洗澡 勤洗衣服
让别人丢面子 保全自己的面子
吹嘘所送礼物的价值 贬低所送礼物的价值
当客人面大呼小叫拆礼物 客人走后悄悄地看礼物
穿体恤杉旅游 穿西装旅游
“新年好” “恭喜发财”
溜狗 遛鸟
照景物相 照人物相
坐在地上 蹲在地上
汽车为责备他人而鸣笛 汽车为警告他人而鸣笛
女人吸烟时尚 男人吸烟时尚

中美文化对比

中国

只用动嘴说好听的话。。。（假）

相声：吹捧的游戏

小品：呼哟的把戏

武侠：挂上钢丝飞来飞去，其实什么功夫都不会，任何人都可以模仿，优势背台词。

美国

行为艺术（要付出行动）加上竞技哲学理念（真）

橄榄球：强壮男人的游戏

冰球：体验速度与激情

篮球：技巧和配合，速度与对抗

棒球：聪明人的游戏

动作片：都是真功夫，哥们够强壮吗？在健身房练过吗？人家是从小就练起来的，为什么你会觉得不真实呢？因为你模仿不了。

UFC：真人无限流格斗，谁的精神意志强？谁是真正的英雄，先签生死状。地球上最危险最真实的格斗，几乎场场KO，场场受伤。

美试摔跤：也是强壮男人的游戏

所以说这个世界上热爱竞技强身建体的，并且争强好胜的男人都比较真实。

中国人需要锻炼身体，强壮自己，让自己勇敢起来，自信起来。中国人需要争第一，而不是友谊第一，比赛第二。这才是真正的民族精神。中国人需要寻找目标，认识自己追求理想。去改造社会。而不是为了生存论为奴隶。

而那些喜欢朗诵诗歌的男人就很假，因为他总是拿古代和现代做对比。其实我们更应该学习现代学，而不是古文学。