《这一夜，Women说相声》言语幽默制笑机制的语用学分析
|
摘要
剧作家赖声川曾创作过多部经典喜剧剧本。《这一夜,Women说相声》(英文名Total Women)(下文简称《说相声》)便是其中之一。该剧于二零零五年台北首演即获得一致好评,二零零七年在大陆的巡演亦大获成功。《说相声》由序曲、骂街、大姨妈、练口才、旅程、立可肥、恋爱病、瓶中信、尾声九幕组成。故事以一个虚构的瘦身美容品牌的年终顾客答谢晚会为背景。该剧通过两位主持人Anny, Betty以及临时嘉宾Fannie之口表达出对女性心理的种种幽默看法。该剧演出时不断在观众中引起共鸣,现场笑声不断。《说相声》缘何获得如此高的认可度?归根到底,是其言语幽默的魅力。
哲学、心理学、认知科学等学界对言语幽默的研究已由来已久；语言学家也曾对言语幽默做过大量探讨,其中不乏言语幽默的语用研究。这些研究加深了我们对言语幽默的本质认识,但是也存在一些问题。首先,语言学界与其他领域关于言语幽默的研究缺乏相互借鉴。其次,针对言语幽默的语用学研究,学者多着力于语用学的某一方面,就源于不同出处、同属一个类型的言语幽默展开讨论,往往缺乏对同一语篇中不同幽默点的集中研究。第三,以往言语幽默的语用学研究,未就不同语用学分支对言语制笑机制的不同解释做出对比、对照,也未对源于同一语篇的不同言语幽默尝试做出语用学动因的归类。正是基于上述原因,本文将对同一语篇,即喜剧剧本《这一夜,Women说相声》的言语制笑机制做语用学探讨。我们试图对这一语篇的言语幽默制笑机制进行多角度详尽分析,将其与其他言语幽默理论如乖讹—释放论进行对比以发现其异同,发掘不同言语幽默制笑的具体语用学动因。
第一章是本文的引论。在此,我们提出了研究动机、研究内容以及本文的组织结构。
第二章是文献综述。首先介绍了幽默的含义以及幽默的归类；其次,我们回顾了心理学、认知以及语言学领域关于幽默的研究成果,指出其长处与不足以及本文对这些研究成果的继承与发展。
第三章是本文之重点。我们从语用预设、合作原则、关联理论以及顺应论多角度对该剧本内部不同言语幽默进行相应分析,找出不同言语幽默制笑的不同语用学动因。
第四章是讨论。首先,将不同语用学动因与乖讹—释放论进行对照；其次,将不同语用学动因的本质进行比较。最后,得出《说相声》言语制笑的语用学机制。
第五章是结论部分。我们指出了本研究的结论、不足以及对后续研究的启示。
Total Women is one of the popular comedic scripts composed by the famous playwright Lai Shengchuan. It became a great success when first played in Taipei in 2005. And it has drawn very large audience when it began its first tour show in the mainland China in 2007. Consisting of the prologue Total Women, Scolding on the Street, My Aunt, Practice Eloquence, Life Journey, Quick Weight, Romantic Disease, Women's Secret and the epilogue, it was set in a commercial "Client, thank you" party titled "Total Woman's Night" held by a company specializing female products to acknowledge its patronizers in the past one year. Various humorous opinions on female's mental state are expressed through the humorous conversation among Annie, Betty and Fannie. In the final analysis, it is no other than the charm of the humor of the script that brings the play great success.
Long since ancient times, humor has attracted scholars'attention and has been researched in various fields such as philosophy, psychology, cognitive science and linguistics, the findings of which help us have a better understanding of the essence of humor. However, previous studies are not without problems. Firstly, the study on verbal humor in linguistics, though relatively less advanced than that in other fields, has not drawn enough attention to the findings in these areas. Secondly, most previous pragmatic study on verbal humor mainly collected and analyzed verbal humors of the same type from different origin rather than focused on verbal humors of different types from the same discourse such as a script. Last but not the least, different cases of verbal humor in the same discourse are elicited by different pragmatic motives, to which few previous studies have paid enough attention. Grounded on the above consideration, this study examines the elicitation mechanism of different cases of verbal humor in the same script Total Women from the multi-angle perspective of pragmatics, comparing the analysis with Incongruity-resolution theory and aiming at finding corresponding pragmatic motives for different cases of verbal humor.
Chapter One is an introduction, revealing the rationale, objective and the layout of the study.
Chapter Two is literature review where the definition and categorization of humor, the overview of the script and the status in quo studies on verbal humor in psychological, cognitive and linguistic domains respectively.
Chapter Three is the core of the study, examining thoroughly the pragmatic motives for the verbal humor elicitation of the script under the guidance of pragmatic presupposition, cooperative principle, Relevance Theory and Adaptation Theory.
Chapter Four is discussion. Contrast of Incongruity-resolution theory and pragmatic analysis of verbal humor elicitation of Total Women is expected there and a multi-dimensional verbal humor elicitation mechanism is to be offered in this chapter.
Chapter Five is conclusions. The conclusions, limitation of the study and suggestions for further study is given.
哲学、心理学、认知科学等学界对言语幽默的研究已由来已久；语言学家也曾对言语幽默做过大量探讨,其中不乏言语幽默的语用研究。这些研究加深了我们对言语幽默的本质认识,但是也存在一些问题。首先,语言学界与其他领域关于言语幽默的研究缺乏相互借鉴。其次,针对言语幽默的语用学研究,学者多着力于语用学的某一方面,就源于不同出处、同属一个类型的言语幽默展开讨论,往往缺乏对同一语篇中不同幽默点的集中研究。第三,以往言语幽默的语用学研究,未就不同语用学分支对言语制笑机制的不同解释做出对比、对照,也未对源于同一语篇的不同言语幽默尝试做出语用学动因的归类。正是基于上述原因,本文将对同一语篇,即喜剧剧本《这一夜,Women说相声》的言语制笑机制做语用学探讨。我们试图对这一语篇的言语幽默制笑机制进行多角度详尽分析,将其与其他言语幽默理论如乖讹—释放论进行对比以发现其异同,发掘不同言语幽默制笑的具体语用学动因。
第一章是本文的引论。在此,我们提出了研究动机、研究内容以及本文的组织结构。
第二章是文献综述。首先介绍了幽默的含义以及幽默的归类；其次,我们回顾了心理学、认知以及语言学领域关于幽默的研究成果,指出其长处与不足以及本文对这些研究成果的继承与发展。
第三章是本文之重点。我们从语用预设、合作原则、关联理论以及顺应论多角度对该剧本内部不同言语幽默进行相应分析,找出不同言语幽默制笑的不同语用学动因。
第四章是讨论。首先,将不同语用学动因与乖讹—释放论进行对照；其次,将不同语用学动因的本质进行比较。最后,得出《说相声》言语制笑的语用学机制。
第五章是结论部分。我们指出了本研究的结论、不足以及对后续研究的启示。
Total Women is one of the popular comedic scripts composed by the famous playwright Lai Shengchuan. It became a great success when first played in Taipei in 2005. And it has drawn very large audience when it began its first tour show in the mainland China in 2007. Consisting of the prologue Total Women, Scolding on the Street, My Aunt, Practice Eloquence, Life Journey, Quick Weight, Romantic Disease, Women's Secret and the epilogue, it was set in a commercial "Client, thank you" party titled "Total Woman's Night" held by a company specializing female products to acknowledge its patronizers in the past one year. Various humorous opinions on female's mental state are expressed through the humorous conversation among Annie, Betty and Fannie. In the final analysis, it is no other than the charm of the humor of the script that brings the play great success.
Long since ancient times, humor has attracted scholars'attention and has been researched in various fields such as philosophy, psychology, cognitive science and linguistics, the findings of which help us have a better understanding of the essence of humor. However, previous studies are not without problems. Firstly, the study on verbal humor in linguistics, though relatively less advanced than that in other fields, has not drawn enough attention to the findings in these areas. Secondly, most previous pragmatic study on verbal humor mainly collected and analyzed verbal humors of the same type from different origin rather than focused on verbal humors of different types from the same discourse such as a script. Last but not the least, different cases of verbal humor in the same discourse are elicited by different pragmatic motives, to which few previous studies have paid enough attention. Grounded on the above consideration, this study examines the elicitation mechanism of different cases of verbal humor in the same script Total Women from the multi-angle perspective of pragmatics, comparing the analysis with Incongruity-resolution theory and aiming at finding corresponding pragmatic motives for different cases of verbal humor.
Chapter One is an introduction, revealing the rationale, objective and the layout of the study.
Chapter Two is literature review where the definition and categorization of humor, the overview of the script and the status in quo studies on verbal humor in psychological, cognitive and linguistic domains respectively.
Chapter Three is the core of the study, examining thoroughly the pragmatic motives for the verbal humor elicitation of the script under the guidance of pragmatic presupposition, cooperative principle, Relevance Theory and Adaptation Theory.
Chapter Four is discussion. Contrast of Incongruity-resolution theory and pragmatic analysis of verbal humor elicitation of Total Women is expected there and a multi-dimensional verbal humor elicitation mechanism is to be offered in this chapter.
Chapter Five is conclusions. The conclusions, limitation of the study and suggestions for further study is given.
引文
Fillmore. C. Verbs of judging [A]. Fillmore C, Langendoen T. Studies in Linguistic Semantics [C]. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.1971:276.
Francisco. Yus. Humor and the search for relevance [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 2003,35: 1295-1331.
Givon. T. On Understanding Grammar [M]. New York:Academic Press.1979.
Huang. Yan. Pragmatics [M]. London:Oxford University Press.2007:68-72.
Kadmon. N. Formal Pragmatics [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.2001.
Kant. I. (1892) Excerpt from Critique of Judgment in Morreall, J. (Ed.) The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor [M], Albany, NY: SUNY Press,1987.
Keenan. E. Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. In Fillmore C. & D. Langendoen (eds.) Studies in linguistic semantics. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.1971.
Krikmann. Arvo. Contemporary linguistic theories of humor [M]. Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore,2006:33.
Levinson. S. C. Pragmatics [M]. Oxford:Cambridge University.1983.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.4th Edition. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Pearson Longman,2009.
Mahadev. L. Apte. Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach [M]. Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1985.
Morreall. J. (Ed.) The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor [M], Albany, NY: SUNY Press,1987.
Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary.4th Edition. The Commercial Press. Oxford University Press,2002:726.
Rachel. Giora. On the cognitive aspects of the jok(?) [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 1991,16: 465-485.
Raskin. Victor. Semantic mechanisms of humor [M]. Dordrecht:Reidel.1985.
Raskin. Victor. The sense of humor and the truth. The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic, ed. by Willibald Ruch,93-108. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.1998.
Raskin. Victor, Salvatore Attardo. Toward an Empirical Verification of the General Theory of Verbal Humor [J]. Humor 6-2:123-136.
Ritchie. Graeme. The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes [M]. Rout ledge, London.2004.
Rod. A. Martin. The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach [M]. Elsevier Academic Press:Burlington, MA.2007.
Salvatore. Attardo. Semantics and Pragmatics of Humor [J]. Language and Linguistics Compass 2/6:1203-1215,2008.
Salvatore. Attardo. Festschrift for Victor Raskin. HUMOR:International Journal of Humor Research [J] 2004,17(4):351-352 (Special issue).
Salvatore. Attardo. Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis [M]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.2001.
Salvatore. Attardo. Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of pragmatics [J] 2000, 32:793-826.
Salvatore. Attardo. Linguistic theories of humor [M]. Mouton De Gruyter.1994.
Salvatore. Attardo & V. Raskin. Script theory revisited: joke similarity and joke representation model. HUMOR. Internationa! Journal of Humor Research 1991, 4(3/4):293-347.
Sigmund. Freud. Jokes and their relation to the unconscious [M]. New York:Norton. 1905 (1960).
Sperber. D&D. Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M].Blackwell, Oxford.1995.
Sperber. D&D. Wilson. Handbook of Pragmatics [M]. Oxford:Blackwell,2004.
Suls. J.M. Cognitive and disparagement theories of humor: a theoretical and empirical synthesis, in Chapman, A.J. and Foot, H.C. (Eds) (1977) It's a Funny Thing, Humor. Oxford:Pergamon Press.1977.
The Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Macmillan Publishers Limited.2002.
Vandaele. Jeroen. Humor Mechanism in Film Comedy: Incongruity and Superiority [J]. Poetics Today Durham:Duke University Press.2002:221-249.
Verschueren. Jef. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.1999.
Yule. George. Pragmatics [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.1999:64.
何自然.认知语用学---言语交际的认知领域[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006：04.
胡壮麟.语言学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
赖声川.这一夜,Women说相声[M].北京：东方出版社,2008.
蓝纯.现代汉语预设引发项初探[J].外语研究,1999(3)11-19.
吕叔湘.把外国语言科学推向前进[A].吕叔湘语文论集[C].北京：商务印书馆,1983：8.
钱冠连,霍永寿.语用学诠释[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003.
石安石.语义研究[M].北京：语文出版社,1990：180.
徐立新.幽默语篇研究[M].开封：河南大学出版社,2003：38-4.
王荣斌,邹笃双.语境顺应性与<这一夜,Women说相声>幽默性机制的构建[J].河南理工大学学报社科版.2009(4)：691-695
王欣.文化语境顺应对言语交际的阐释力[J].外语学刊,2008(4)：301.
魏在江.语用预设的元语用分析[J].外语研究,2000(1)：20-23.
http://baike.baidu.com/view/6749.htm#2
http://www.google.cn/dictionary?hl=zh-CN&q=incongruity&langpair=en|en
http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humor.htm
Francisco. Yus. Humor and the search for relevance [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 2003,35: 1295-1331.
Givon. T. On Understanding Grammar [M]. New York:Academic Press.1979.
Huang. Yan. Pragmatics [M]. London:Oxford University Press.2007:68-72.
Kadmon. N. Formal Pragmatics [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.2001.
Kant. I. (1892) Excerpt from Critique of Judgment in Morreall, J. (Ed.) The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor [M], Albany, NY: SUNY Press,1987.
Keenan. E. Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. In Fillmore C. & D. Langendoen (eds.) Studies in linguistic semantics. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.1971.
Krikmann. Arvo. Contemporary linguistic theories of humor [M]. Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore,2006:33.
Levinson. S. C. Pragmatics [M]. Oxford:Cambridge University.1983.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.4th Edition. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Pearson Longman,2009.
Mahadev. L. Apte. Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach [M]. Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1985.
Morreall. J. (Ed.) The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor [M], Albany, NY: SUNY Press,1987.
Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary.4th Edition. The Commercial Press. Oxford University Press,2002:726.
Rachel. Giora. On the cognitive aspects of the jok(?) [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 1991,16: 465-485.
Raskin. Victor. Semantic mechanisms of humor [M]. Dordrecht:Reidel.1985.
Raskin. Victor. The sense of humor and the truth. The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic, ed. by Willibald Ruch,93-108. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.1998.
Raskin. Victor, Salvatore Attardo. Toward an Empirical Verification of the General Theory of Verbal Humor [J]. Humor 6-2:123-136.
Ritchie. Graeme. The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes [M]. Rout ledge, London.2004.
Rod. A. Martin. The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach [M]. Elsevier Academic Press:Burlington, MA.2007.
Salvatore. Attardo. Semantics and Pragmatics of Humor [J]. Language and Linguistics Compass 2/6:1203-1215,2008.
Salvatore. Attardo. Festschrift for Victor Raskin. HUMOR:International Journal of Humor Research [J] 2004,17(4):351-352 (Special issue).
Salvatore. Attardo. Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis [M]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.2001.
Salvatore. Attardo. Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of pragmatics [J] 2000, 32:793-826.
Salvatore. Attardo. Linguistic theories of humor [M]. Mouton De Gruyter.1994.
Salvatore. Attardo & V. Raskin. Script theory revisited: joke similarity and joke representation model. HUMOR. Internationa! Journal of Humor Research 1991, 4(3/4):293-347.
Sigmund. Freud. Jokes and their relation to the unconscious [M]. New York:Norton. 1905 (1960).
Sperber. D&D. Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M].Blackwell, Oxford.1995.
Sperber. D&D. Wilson. Handbook of Pragmatics [M]. Oxford:Blackwell,2004.
Suls. J.M. Cognitive and disparagement theories of humor: a theoretical and empirical synthesis, in Chapman, A.J. and Foot, H.C. (Eds) (1977) It's a Funny Thing, Humor. Oxford:Pergamon Press.1977.
The Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Macmillan Publishers Limited.2002.
Vandaele. Jeroen. Humor Mechanism in Film Comedy: Incongruity and Superiority [J]. Poetics Today Durham:Duke University Press.2002:221-249.
Verschueren. Jef. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.1999.
Yule. George. Pragmatics [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.1999:64.
何自然.认知语用学---言语交际的认知领域[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006：04.
胡壮麟.语言学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
赖声川.这一夜,Women说相声[M].北京：东方出版社,2008.
蓝纯.现代汉语预设引发项初探[J].外语研究,1999(3)11-19.
吕叔湘.把外国语言科学推向前进[A].吕叔湘语文论集[C].北京：商务印书馆,1983：8.
钱冠连,霍永寿.语用学诠释[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003.
石安石.语义研究[M].北京：语文出版社,1990：180.
徐立新.幽默语篇研究[M].开封：河南大学出版社,2003：38-4.
王荣斌,邹笃双.语境顺应性与<这一夜,Women说相声>幽默性机制的构建[J].河南理工大学学报社科版.2009(4)：691-695
王欣.文化语境顺应对言语交际的阐释力[J].外语学刊,2008(4)：301.
魏在江.语用预设的元语用分析[J].外语研究,2000(1)：20-23.
http://baike.baidu.com/view/6749.htm#2
http://www.google.cn/dictionary?hl=zh-CN&q=incongruity&langpair=en|en
http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humor.htm