摘要

饮食是人类生存与发展的第一需要，也是社会生活的基本形式之一。不同的文化背景有着不同的饮食习俗，最终形成不同的饮食文化。而这些饮食文化又可以反映出各个民族的价值观以及思维方式。了解这些差异，有助于我们在跨文化交际中更好的学习和交流。
研究饮食文化一方面是通过它来了解其文化背后的思维，反过来也可以通过研究他的思维、心理活动来理解饮食文化的表现。语言与文化的相互影响，可以同时引申出其饮食文化的差异及背后的影响。中式菜名的英译应予以足够的重视，从而使中国的饮食文化得到更广泛的传播。中国饮食文化的合理性，对西方友人营养观有着重要的实用意义。对于美国文化中典型的快餐文化，它的供应模式与产生背景有所讲解，并把这个经济强国的饮食特点讲出，即虽然饮食的口味没有中国的丰富出色，但是他们极其强调营养与健康。文中介绍了英国的饮食中独特的下午茶文化、酒类以及各类食物风味。英美饮食文化自身的对比，并把这种差异与英国的国家地理，复杂的人文联系起来。现在流行的观念中，几乎大部分学者都认为饮食结构和人文意识是影响中英饮食方式形成差异的主要原因,同时也是由于它们的作用而形成了迥异的中英饮食文化。
中西方饮食文化差异明显而各有长处。随着经济全球化及信息传播的加快,中西饮食文化将在碰撞中融合,在融合中互补。人们之间的跨文化交际也是如此。在学习语言的过程中,要对不同的文化表现形式有敏锐的洞察力,注意各种文化之间的差异才能深入的了解一种文化,学好一种语言,从而消除交流障碍.

关键词：饮食文化，中西方，文化现象，思考方式

1    Introduction
Catering culture is the first need of the human's survival and development，and is the basic form of social life. In my thesis, I write out some appearing of the food culture, and then I get some regulations and suggestions. There are different customs in different cultures, and there are different diet styles in different food cultures. These food cultures can reflect national values and the mode of thinking. Cultural differences between Chinese and Western catering have obvious advantages. With the speed of the economic globalization and the information dissemination become fast, the catering culture will get together and complement in the collision. Cross-cultural communication between people is also the same.
In the book, Using Individualism and Collectivism to Compare Cultures: A Critique of the Validity and Measurement of the Constructs, Alan P. Fiske tells us analyzing national and ethnic differences in individualism and collectivism, that showed the small differences in scales or samples produce markedly divergent results, challenging the validity of these constructs. The author examines the following limitations of research on individualism and collectivism: It treats nations as cultures and culture as a continuous quantitative variable, and conflates all kinds of social relations and distinct types of autonomy; ignores contextual specificity in norms and values; measures culture as the personal preferences and behavior reports of individuals; rarely establishes the external validity of the measures used; assumes cultural invariance in the meaning of self-reports and anchoring and interpretation of scales, and reduces culture to explicit, abstract verbal knowledge.