交际中模糊限制语的语用研究
|
摘要
模糊限制语是一种普遍而又复杂语言应用现象。它广泛存在于各种自然语言和各种不同的语体中。在交际中,若能正确地运用,可以起到不可替代的交际作用。
随着人类社会的发展,人与人之间的交往日益频繁。作为人际交往的一种常见形式,日常会话不仅能传递信息,还能表达情感进而影响人的处世哲学,交际策略甚至人际关系,因此在日常生活中备受关注,其研究也具有十分重要的作用。
但是,迄今为止,大部分关于模糊限制语的研究对其解释还远远不能令人满意。本文从Verscheren的顺应理论出发,探讨了模糊限制语这一语言在日常交际中使用现象,以中央电视台的谈话类节目《实话实说》为语料进行分析,同时也证明了语言顺应理论的广泛适用性。作者认为模糊限制语的使用是交际者在语言交往中不断做出选择以实现交际目的的过程。这种选择之所以成为可能是因为自然语言的三个特点:变异性,商讨性和顺应性,语言使用者在交际过程中需要做出选择,就模糊限制语的选择来看,主要是使用者为了顺应物理世界,心理世界和社交世界。总的说来,顺应理论在解释语言使用现象时,将时空、文化、社会和心理等因素考虑在内,因此,它可以更好的解释模糊限制语这一语言现象。
《实话实说》节目中的语言反映了现代汉语口语的典型语言,分析此类语言有助于我们了解现代汉语中模糊限制语的使用情况,从而加深我们对本族语的了解。同时,模糊限制语是语言表达不可缺少的组成部分,在交际中起着非常重要的作用。分析此类语言,有助于我们更加清楚地意识到我们在真实的交际中,如何使用模糊限制语来达到交际目的,从而可以增强交际者的语言表现力,更好地改善和维系和谐的人际关系。此外,对电视访谈节目中模糊限制语的研究,也有助于我们对模糊限制语作进一步的认识。
Hedge is a universal and complicated phenomenon of language use. Hedges are widely used in different types of communication and exist in almost all human language. Hedges can play important roles in the interaction of human beings when being used properly and appropriately.
In communicative activities, people in everyday conversation not only transmit their information, but also exchange their feelings. They use their communicative strategies as well as their relations with others. Hence the study of everyday conversation is of great importance.
Up to now, studies of hedges are far from being satisfactory. Therefore, this paper attempts to take Adaptation Theory to analyze the use of hedges. Based on this theory, proposed by Jef Verscheren, it is held that the use of hedges is a process of continuously making choices with consciousness or not, explanations on how the adaptation is conducted are made with detailed illustration of examples. In the process of interaction, language user makes choice of hedges to achieve his communicative goals and intentions. And it is the three properties of natural language that make it possible to make continuous choices; they are viability, negotiability and adaptability. During the process of choice making, language user has to make adaptation. To be specific, physical, social and mental world have to be adapted to. Comparably speaking, Adaptation Theory provides a clearer account of the use of hedges.
The language in "Tell It Like It Is" is typical modern spoken Chinese. A case study of this interview program can offer us knowledge of how hedges operate in modern Chinese and thus deepen our understanding of communication in the language. Meanwhile, hedges are an important part of natural language and play a significant role in human communication. The research on hedges sheds light on how we use hedges to reach our communicative goals. This in turn enhances communicators' linguistic expressiveness and improves the interpersonal relationship between them. Last but not least, a detailed analysis of the pragmatic features of hedges in TV interview contributes to a better understanding of the hedging phenomenon.
随着人类社会的发展,人与人之间的交往日益频繁。作为人际交往的一种常见形式,日常会话不仅能传递信息,还能表达情感进而影响人的处世哲学,交际策略甚至人际关系,因此在日常生活中备受关注,其研究也具有十分重要的作用。
但是,迄今为止,大部分关于模糊限制语的研究对其解释还远远不能令人满意。本文从Verscheren的顺应理论出发,探讨了模糊限制语这一语言在日常交际中使用现象,以中央电视台的谈话类节目《实话实说》为语料进行分析,同时也证明了语言顺应理论的广泛适用性。作者认为模糊限制语的使用是交际者在语言交往中不断做出选择以实现交际目的的过程。这种选择之所以成为可能是因为自然语言的三个特点:变异性,商讨性和顺应性,语言使用者在交际过程中需要做出选择,就模糊限制语的选择来看,主要是使用者为了顺应物理世界,心理世界和社交世界。总的说来,顺应理论在解释语言使用现象时,将时空、文化、社会和心理等因素考虑在内,因此,它可以更好的解释模糊限制语这一语言现象。
《实话实说》节目中的语言反映了现代汉语口语的典型语言,分析此类语言有助于我们了解现代汉语中模糊限制语的使用情况,从而加深我们对本族语的了解。同时,模糊限制语是语言表达不可缺少的组成部分,在交际中起着非常重要的作用。分析此类语言,有助于我们更加清楚地意识到我们在真实的交际中,如何使用模糊限制语来达到交际目的,从而可以增强交际者的语言表现力,更好地改善和维系和谐的人际关系。此外,对电视访谈节目中模糊限制语的研究,也有助于我们对模糊限制语作进一步的认识。
Hedge is a universal and complicated phenomenon of language use. Hedges are widely used in different types of communication and exist in almost all human language. Hedges can play important roles in the interaction of human beings when being used properly and appropriately.
In communicative activities, people in everyday conversation not only transmit their information, but also exchange their feelings. They use their communicative strategies as well as their relations with others. Hence the study of everyday conversation is of great importance.
Up to now, studies of hedges are far from being satisfactory. Therefore, this paper attempts to take Adaptation Theory to analyze the use of hedges. Based on this theory, proposed by Jef Verscheren, it is held that the use of hedges is a process of continuously making choices with consciousness or not, explanations on how the adaptation is conducted are made with detailed illustration of examples. In the process of interaction, language user makes choice of hedges to achieve his communicative goals and intentions. And it is the three properties of natural language that make it possible to make continuous choices; they are viability, negotiability and adaptability. During the process of choice making, language user has to make adaptation. To be specific, physical, social and mental world have to be adapted to. Comparably speaking, Adaptation Theory provides a clearer account of the use of hedges.
The language in "Tell It Like It Is" is typical modern spoken Chinese. A case study of this interview program can offer us knowledge of how hedges operate in modern Chinese and thus deepen our understanding of communication in the language. Meanwhile, hedges are an important part of natural language and play a significant role in human communication. The research on hedges sheds light on how we use hedges to reach our communicative goals. This in turn enhances communicators' linguistic expressiveness and improves the interpersonal relationship between them. Last but not least, a detailed analysis of the pragmatic features of hedges in TV interview contributes to a better understanding of the hedging phenomenon.
引文
[1]Bernard Spoisky.Sociolinguistics.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2002.
[2]Brown,G.& G.Yule.Discourse Analysis.Cambridge:CUP,1983.
[3]Brown,P.and Levinson,S.Universals in Language Usage:Politeness Phenomena[A].In Goody,E.N.(ed.).Questions and Politeness[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978.
[4]Brown,P.& S.C.Levinson.Politeness:Some Universals of Language Usage.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
[5]Channel,J.Vague Language.Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994.
[6]Clemen,Gedrun.The Concept of Hedging:Origins,Approaches and Definitions[A].In Markkanen,R.and Schroder,H.(eds.).Hedging and Discourse:Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Text[C].Berlin:Walter de Gruyter,1997.
[7]Cui Jia.An adaptation theory-based study of questioning in TV interview programs.Taiyuan:Shanxi University,2005.
[8]Deng Yanchang & Liu Runqing.Language and culture.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2003.
[9]Fraser,B.Hedged Performatives[A].In Cole,P.and Morgan,J.L.(eds.).Syntax and Semantics[C].New York:Academic Press,1975(3):187-210.
[10]Fraser,B."Conversational Mitigation",Journal ofPragmatics,1980,4(4):341-350.
[11]Fraser,B."An Approach to Discourse Markers",Journal of Pragmatics,1990,14(3):383-395.
[12]Hübler,A.Understatements and Hedges in English.Amsterdam and Philadelphia,PA:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1983.
[13]http://news.cctv.com/program/shss/topic/C2OO19/O2/index.shtml
[14]Hyland,K."Writing in Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles",Applied Linguistics.Oxford:oup,1996(17):433-454.
[15]Hyland,K.hedging in scientific research Article.in Andrews H.J.(ed),Pragmatic and beyond New Series[C],Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1998.
[16]Jef Verschueren.Understanding Pragmatics.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
[17]Kasper,G."Linguistic Politeness:Current Research Issues",Journal of Pragmatics,1994(14):193-218.
[18]Lakoff,G."Hedges:a Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts",Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.1972:183-228.Reprinted in:Journal of Philosophical Logic,1973,2(4): 458-508.
[19]Leech,G.Principles of Pragmatics.London:Longman,1983.
[20]Levinson,S.C.Pragmatics.London:Cambridge University Press,1983.
[21]Markkanen,R.and Schroder,H.Hedging:A Challenge for Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis[A].In Markkanen,R.and Schroder,H.(eds.).Hedging and Discourse:Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Text[C].Berlin:Walter de Gruyter,1997.
[22]Markkanen,R.and Schroder,H.Hedging and its Linguistic Realization in German,English,and Finnish Philosophical Texts:A Case Study[A].In Nordmann,M.(ed.).Fachsprachliche Miniaturen(Scandinavian University Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences)[C].Frankurt am Main:Peter Lang Verlag,1992:121-130.
[23]Myers,G."The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles",Applied Linguistics,1989(10):1-35.
I24]Nikula,T.lnterlanguage view on hedging.In Hedging and Discourse,ed.R.Markkanen & H.Schroder.Walter de Gruyter,1998.
[25]Ron Scollon.Intercultural Communication:A Discourse Approach.Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
[26]Zadeh,L.A."Fuzzy Sets",Information and Control,1965,8(3).
[27]Zadeh,L.A."Fuzzy-Set-Theoretic Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges",Journal of Cybernetics,1972,2(3):4-34.
[28]Zhang,Q/张乔."Fuzziness - vagueness - generality - ambiguity",Journal of Pragmatics,1998(29):13-31.
[29]陈林华,李福印,交际中的模糊限制语,《外国语》,1994(5):55-59。
[30]陈治安,冉永平,模糊限制语及其语用分析,《四川外语学院学报》,1995(1):18-24。
[31]陈治安,文旭,刘家荣,《模糊语言学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社,1997。
[32]崔永元,《精彩实话-实话实说话题精选》,北京:中国摄影出版社,2003。
[33]冯光武,模糊限制语与交际目的,《福建外语》,1999(4):20-23。
[34]何刚,论语用的文化语境制约,《山东外语教学》,1997(2):16-20。
[35]何兆熊,《语用学文献选读》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003。
[36]何自然,《语用学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社,1988。
[37]何自然,浅论语用含糊,《外国语》,1990(3):30-34+43。
[38]何自然,再论语用含糊,《外国语》,2000(1):7-13。
[39]侯国金,语用含糊的标记等级和元语用意识,《外国语》,2005(1):41-47。
[40]黄成夫,从顺应理论看英汉文化的含糊语言,《外语学刊》,2007(4):86-88。
[41]黄小苹,学术论文中模糊限制语的语篇语用分析,《四川外国语学院学报》,2002(4):85-88。
[42]姜望琪,《当代语用学》,北京:北京大学出版社,2003。
[43]蒋有经,《模糊修辞浅说》,北京:光明日报出版社,1991。
[44]李佐文,试论模糊限制语的人际功能,《北京第二外国语学院学报》,2001(6):5-13。
[45]刘国辉,言语礼貌·认知期待·语境文化规约,《外语教学》,2005,26(2):22-25。
[46]钱冠连,论维索尔伦的元语用选择,《外国语》,1990(4):25-30。
[47]钱冠连,《语用学:语言适应理论》--Verschueren语用学新论述评,《外语教学与研究》,1991(1):63-68。
[48]钱冠连,《汉语文化语用学》,北京:清华大学出版社,1997。
[49]钱冠连,语用学:统一连贯的理论框架--J.Verschueren《如何理解语用学》述评,《外语教学与研究》,2000(3):230-244。
[50]钱冠连,语用学:中国的位置在哪里?--国内外语用学选题对比研究,《外语学刊》,2001(4):7-16。
[51]冉永平,《语用学:现象与分析》,北京:北京大学出版社,2006。
[52]束定芳,《中国语用学研究论文精选》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001。
[53]文旭,《话语理解的语用学》,四川:四川辞书出版社,2004。
[54]伍铁平,模糊语言初探,《外国语》,1979(4):39-44。
[55]伍铁平,《模糊语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
[56]夏玉琼,韦汉,《实话实说》节目中模糊限制语的维护面子功能,《暨南大学华文学院学报》,2005(1):68-73。
[57]徐畅贤,英语模糊限制语的语用功能,《外语教学》,2006,27(4):37-39。
[58]徐盛桓,礼貌原则新拟,《外语学刊》,1992(2):1-7。
[59]杨慧萍,科技论文中的模糊限制语,《四川外国语学院学报》,2001(1):84-87。
[60]杨毓隽,模糊限制语与言语交际,《外语教学》,2002,23(4):49-53。
[61]杨平,英汉范围变动型模糊限制语的对比研究,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2001(6):13-17。
[62]俞东明,语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究,《外国语》,1997(3):29-35。
[63]曾文雄,国内外模糊限制语的语言学研究,《山东外语教学》,2005(3):23-26。
[64]曾瑜薇,胡芳,英语学术论文摘要中的模糊限制语,《山东外语教学》,2005(2):40-42
[65]张乔,《模糊语义学》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998。
[66]周瑞琪,模糊限制语间接性的语用分析,《山东外语教学》,2001(3):13-15。[5]
[2]Brown,G.& G.Yule.Discourse Analysis.Cambridge:CUP,1983.
[3]Brown,P.and Levinson,S.Universals in Language Usage:Politeness Phenomena[A].In Goody,E.N.(ed.).Questions and Politeness[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978.
[4]Brown,P.& S.C.Levinson.Politeness:Some Universals of Language Usage.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
[5]Channel,J.Vague Language.Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994.
[6]Clemen,Gedrun.The Concept of Hedging:Origins,Approaches and Definitions[A].In Markkanen,R.and Schroder,H.(eds.).Hedging and Discourse:Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Text[C].Berlin:Walter de Gruyter,1997.
[7]Cui Jia.An adaptation theory-based study of questioning in TV interview programs.Taiyuan:Shanxi University,2005.
[8]Deng Yanchang & Liu Runqing.Language and culture.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2003.
[9]Fraser,B.Hedged Performatives[A].In Cole,P.and Morgan,J.L.(eds.).Syntax and Semantics[C].New York:Academic Press,1975(3):187-210.
[10]Fraser,B."Conversational Mitigation",Journal ofPragmatics,1980,4(4):341-350.
[11]Fraser,B."An Approach to Discourse Markers",Journal of Pragmatics,1990,14(3):383-395.
[12]Hübler,A.Understatements and Hedges in English.Amsterdam and Philadelphia,PA:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1983.
[13]http://news.cctv.com/program/shss/topic/C2OO19/O2/index.shtml
[14]Hyland,K."Writing in Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles",Applied Linguistics.Oxford:oup,1996(17):433-454.
[15]Hyland,K.hedging in scientific research Article.in Andrews H.J.(ed),Pragmatic and beyond New Series[C],Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1998.
[16]Jef Verschueren.Understanding Pragmatics.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
[17]Kasper,G."Linguistic Politeness:Current Research Issues",Journal of Pragmatics,1994(14):193-218.
[18]Lakoff,G."Hedges:a Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts",Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.1972:183-228.Reprinted in:Journal of Philosophical Logic,1973,2(4): 458-508.
[19]Leech,G.Principles of Pragmatics.London:Longman,1983.
[20]Levinson,S.C.Pragmatics.London:Cambridge University Press,1983.
[21]Markkanen,R.and Schroder,H.Hedging:A Challenge for Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis[A].In Markkanen,R.and Schroder,H.(eds.).Hedging and Discourse:Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Text[C].Berlin:Walter de Gruyter,1997.
[22]Markkanen,R.and Schroder,H.Hedging and its Linguistic Realization in German,English,and Finnish Philosophical Texts:A Case Study[A].In Nordmann,M.(ed.).Fachsprachliche Miniaturen(Scandinavian University Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences)[C].Frankurt am Main:Peter Lang Verlag,1992:121-130.
[23]Myers,G."The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles",Applied Linguistics,1989(10):1-35.
I24]Nikula,T.lnterlanguage view on hedging.In Hedging and Discourse,ed.R.Markkanen & H.Schroder.Walter de Gruyter,1998.
[25]Ron Scollon.Intercultural Communication:A Discourse Approach.Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
[26]Zadeh,L.A."Fuzzy Sets",Information and Control,1965,8(3).
[27]Zadeh,L.A."Fuzzy-Set-Theoretic Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges",Journal of Cybernetics,1972,2(3):4-34.
[28]Zhang,Q/张乔."Fuzziness - vagueness - generality - ambiguity",Journal of Pragmatics,1998(29):13-31.
[29]陈林华,李福印,交际中的模糊限制语,《外国语》,1994(5):55-59。
[30]陈治安,冉永平,模糊限制语及其语用分析,《四川外语学院学报》,1995(1):18-24。
[31]陈治安,文旭,刘家荣,《模糊语言学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社,1997。
[32]崔永元,《精彩实话-实话实说话题精选》,北京:中国摄影出版社,2003。
[33]冯光武,模糊限制语与交际目的,《福建外语》,1999(4):20-23。
[34]何刚,论语用的文化语境制约,《山东外语教学》,1997(2):16-20。
[35]何兆熊,《语用学文献选读》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003。
[36]何自然,《语用学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社,1988。
[37]何自然,浅论语用含糊,《外国语》,1990(3):30-34+43。
[38]何自然,再论语用含糊,《外国语》,2000(1):7-13。
[39]侯国金,语用含糊的标记等级和元语用意识,《外国语》,2005(1):41-47。
[40]黄成夫,从顺应理论看英汉文化的含糊语言,《外语学刊》,2007(4):86-88。
[41]黄小苹,学术论文中模糊限制语的语篇语用分析,《四川外国语学院学报》,2002(4):85-88。
[42]姜望琪,《当代语用学》,北京:北京大学出版社,2003。
[43]蒋有经,《模糊修辞浅说》,北京:光明日报出版社,1991。
[44]李佐文,试论模糊限制语的人际功能,《北京第二外国语学院学报》,2001(6):5-13。
[45]刘国辉,言语礼貌·认知期待·语境文化规约,《外语教学》,2005,26(2):22-25。
[46]钱冠连,论维索尔伦的元语用选择,《外国语》,1990(4):25-30。
[47]钱冠连,《语用学:语言适应理论》--Verschueren语用学新论述评,《外语教学与研究》,1991(1):63-68。
[48]钱冠连,《汉语文化语用学》,北京:清华大学出版社,1997。
[49]钱冠连,语用学:统一连贯的理论框架--J.Verschueren《如何理解语用学》述评,《外语教学与研究》,2000(3):230-244。
[50]钱冠连,语用学:中国的位置在哪里?--国内外语用学选题对比研究,《外语学刊》,2001(4):7-16。
[51]冉永平,《语用学:现象与分析》,北京:北京大学出版社,2006。
[52]束定芳,《中国语用学研究论文精选》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001。
[53]文旭,《话语理解的语用学》,四川:四川辞书出版社,2004。
[54]伍铁平,模糊语言初探,《外国语》,1979(4):39-44。
[55]伍铁平,《模糊语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
[56]夏玉琼,韦汉,《实话实说》节目中模糊限制语的维护面子功能,《暨南大学华文学院学报》,2005(1):68-73。
[57]徐畅贤,英语模糊限制语的语用功能,《外语教学》,2006,27(4):37-39。
[58]徐盛桓,礼貌原则新拟,《外语学刊》,1992(2):1-7。
[59]杨慧萍,科技论文中的模糊限制语,《四川外国语学院学报》,2001(1):84-87。
[60]杨毓隽,模糊限制语与言语交际,《外语教学》,2002,23(4):49-53。
[61]杨平,英汉范围变动型模糊限制语的对比研究,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2001(6):13-17。
[62]俞东明,语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究,《外国语》,1997(3):29-35。
[63]曾文雄,国内外模糊限制语的语言学研究,《山东外语教学》,2005(3):23-26。
[64]曾瑜薇,胡芳,英语学术论文摘要中的模糊限制语,《山东外语教学》,2005(2):40-42
[65]张乔,《模糊语义学》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998。
[66]周瑞琪,模糊限制语间接性的语用分析,《山东外语教学》,2001(3):13-15。[5]