权势关系的语用分析
|
摘要
本文的主要目的是从言语行为理论、合作原则、礼貌原则及面子理论的角度对权势关系进行语用分析,说明了权势关系在人际交流,尤其是情感表达中的影响作用,旨在对权势关系语境下的有效交流,即,如何使交流效果达到最佳,提供一些帮助。
在现实社会中,每个人都占有一定的社会地位,与他人构成一定的社会关系。权势关系是与一致关系相对应的一种社会关系,几乎在生活中的各个方面均有体现。本文重点从语用学角度进行了语篇分析,指出在交际过程中,尤其在真正理解,亦或表明说话人意图时,权势关系是言语行为的重要的影响力来源和违反合作原则的解释焦点;在权势关系语境中,双方遵循礼貌原则和面子理论以维持良好和谐的关系。此外,本文进一步揭示了强调权势关系的重要意义。一方面,权势情感化能够构建人际的情感语境,造成情感发生的条件;另一方面,权势关系对情感意义的表达有制约作用。
The primary objective of the study is to have a better understanding of the role of power-relation in communication, especially its influential role in the expression of affective meaning, by analyzing power-relation from the perspective of pragmatic principles: speech act theory, cooperative principle, politeness principle, and face theory, in order to communicate effectively with others and to achieve a maximum effect.
In real society, everyone has his own social status and social relation with other people. Corresponding to solidarity, power-relation is a relationship that is almost embodied in every aspect of daily life. By making discourse analysis, the author analyzes power-relation from pragmatic perspective and gets some pragmatic functions: power-relation is an essential source of influence on speech acts and the focus of explanation of the reason why cooperative principle is violated. In power-relation context, people observe the politeness principle and face theory in order to maintain good and harmonious relation. In addition, this study makes further investigations into the implication of highlighting power-relation. On the one hand, emotionalized power-relation builds affective context and catalyze the production of affection. On the other hand, power-relation restrains the expression of affective meaning.
在现实社会中,每个人都占有一定的社会地位,与他人构成一定的社会关系。权势关系是与一致关系相对应的一种社会关系,几乎在生活中的各个方面均有体现。本文重点从语用学角度进行了语篇分析,指出在交际过程中,尤其在真正理解,亦或表明说话人意图时,权势关系是言语行为的重要的影响力来源和违反合作原则的解释焦点;在权势关系语境中,双方遵循礼貌原则和面子理论以维持良好和谐的关系。此外,本文进一步揭示了强调权势关系的重要意义。一方面,权势情感化能够构建人际的情感语境,造成情感发生的条件;另一方面,权势关系对情感意义的表达有制约作用。
The primary objective of the study is to have a better understanding of the role of power-relation in communication, especially its influential role in the expression of affective meaning, by analyzing power-relation from the perspective of pragmatic principles: speech act theory, cooperative principle, politeness principle, and face theory, in order to communicate effectively with others and to achieve a maximum effect.
In real society, everyone has his own social status and social relation with other people. Corresponding to solidarity, power-relation is a relationship that is almost embodied in every aspect of daily life. By making discourse analysis, the author analyzes power-relation from pragmatic perspective and gets some pragmatic functions: power-relation is an essential source of influence on speech acts and the focus of explanation of the reason why cooperative principle is violated. In power-relation context, people observe the politeness principle and face theory in order to maintain good and harmonious relation. In addition, this study makes further investigations into the implication of highlighting power-relation. On the one hand, emotionalized power-relation builds affective context and catalyze the production of affection. On the other hand, power-relation restrains the expression of affective meaning.
引文
Archer, M. S. Students, University and Society: A Comparative Sociological
Review. London: Heinemann Education Books. 1985.
Austin, J.L. How to Do Things with Words. NY: Oxford University Press. 1965.
Bloch, M. Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. New York: Academic Press. 1975.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G.“Investigating Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: An Introductory Overview”. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (1989): 1-34.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.“Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena”. In N. Goody (Eds.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (1978): 56-310.
- - -.“Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987.
Brown, R. & Gilman, A.“The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”. American Anthropologist 4 (1960): 24-29.
Ervin-Tripp, S.“Ask and it Shall Be Given You: Children’s Requests.”Washington D.C.: Georgetown University. 1982.
Fairclough, N. Language and Power. London & New York: Longman. 1989.
Goffman, E. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Doubleday.1967.
Green, G.“How to Get People to Do Things with Words”. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (1975):107-42.
Grice.“Logic in Conversation”. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax & Semantics: Vol. 3. Speech Acts (1975):59-82.
Habermas, J. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.1990.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching Research Press. 1994.
Harris, S.“Pragmatics and Power”. Journal of Pragmatics 23(1995): 117-35.
Holdcroft, D.“Speech Acts and Conversation-I”. Philosophical Quarterly 29 (1979): 125-41.
Holmes, Janet. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman. 1995.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.“A Multilevel Approach in the Study of Talk-in-Interaction”. Pragmatics 7(1997): 1-20.
Kitis, E. On Relevance again:“From Philosophy of Language Across Pragmatics and Power to Global Relevance”. Journal of Pragmatics 31(1999): 643-67.
Lakoff, R. T. Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Life. USA: Basic Books. 1990.
- - -.“The Logic of Politeness, or Minding Your P’s and Q’s”. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (1973): 292-305.
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. 1983.
Liu Si.“Pragmatic Strategies and Power Relations in Disagreement Chinese Culture in High Education”. The University of Arizona. 2004.
Mey, J. L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching Research Press. 1993.
Paine, R. Politically Speaking. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. 1981.
Rees-Miller, J.“Power, Severity, and Context in Disagreement”. Journal of Pragmatics 32(1995): 1087-1111.
Rundquist, S.“Indirectness and Social Reality: The Interaction of Power with Status, Age and Gender”. In Reim, F. Selected Paper from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Antwerp, Belgium: IPRA. 1998.
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. Intercultural Communication: A DiscourseApproach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
Searle, J. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1969.
- - -.“Indirect Speech Acts”. In C. P & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Vol.3. Speech Acts (1975): 59-82.
- - -.“A Classification of Illocutionary Acts”. Language in Society 5(1976): 1-23.
Shuy, R. W. The Relation of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. New York: Plenum Press. 1987.
Stephen, C. Levinson. Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2004.
Tannen, Doborah. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow. 1990.
Vanderveken, D.“Meaning and Speech Acts”. Principles of Language Use, Cambridge University Press. 1990.
Watts, R. J. Power in Family Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1991.
Wilson, D.“Relevance and Understanding”in G. Brown (ed.) Language and Understanding. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Press. 1994.
Wolfson, N.“Intercultural Communication and the Analysis of Conversation”. In R. K. Herbert (Ed.), Language and Society in Africa (1992): 197-214.
Wrong, D. H. Power: Its Forms, Bases, and Uses. Oxford: Blackwell. 1979.
Yum, J.O.“The Impact of Confucianism on Interpersonal Relationships and Communication Patterns in East Asia”. Communication Monographs (1988): 374-88.
高桂珍,时真妹.言语行为理论与语言教学.大连理工大学学报(社会科学版). 4(2004):27-29.
何刚.情感表达——文化语境与行为.外语学刊. 1(2003):37-42. 何自然,陈新仁.当代语用学.北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2006.
姜望琪.当代语用学[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2006.
金君卫. A Probe into Request as a Speech Act.上海师范大学. 2004.
梁萍.商务环境中汉英称赞语达语用学研究.广东外语外贸大学. 2009.
秦旭.称谓言语行为的修辞学价值取向.南京理工大学学报(社会科学版). 6(2001): 54-59.
吴雁.社会权势关系与会话合作原则的背离.外语学刊.6(2004):32-35.
杨才英.论英语语篇中的人际意义衔接.西安外国语学院学报. 3(2006):1-4.
Review. London: Heinemann Education Books. 1985.
Austin, J.L. How to Do Things with Words. NY: Oxford University Press. 1965.
Bloch, M. Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. New York: Academic Press. 1975.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G.“Investigating Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: An Introductory Overview”. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (1989): 1-34.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.“Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena”. In N. Goody (Eds.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (1978): 56-310.
- - -.“Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987.
Brown, R. & Gilman, A.“The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”. American Anthropologist 4 (1960): 24-29.
Ervin-Tripp, S.“Ask and it Shall Be Given You: Children’s Requests.”Washington D.C.: Georgetown University. 1982.
Fairclough, N. Language and Power. London & New York: Longman. 1989.
Goffman, E. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Doubleday.1967.
Green, G.“How to Get People to Do Things with Words”. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (1975):107-42.
Grice.“Logic in Conversation”. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax & Semantics: Vol. 3. Speech Acts (1975):59-82.
Habermas, J. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.1990.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching Research Press. 1994.
Harris, S.“Pragmatics and Power”. Journal of Pragmatics 23(1995): 117-35.
Holdcroft, D.“Speech Acts and Conversation-I”. Philosophical Quarterly 29 (1979): 125-41.
Holmes, Janet. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman. 1995.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.“A Multilevel Approach in the Study of Talk-in-Interaction”. Pragmatics 7(1997): 1-20.
Kitis, E. On Relevance again:“From Philosophy of Language Across Pragmatics and Power to Global Relevance”. Journal of Pragmatics 31(1999): 643-67.
Lakoff, R. T. Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Life. USA: Basic Books. 1990.
- - -.“The Logic of Politeness, or Minding Your P’s and Q’s”. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (1973): 292-305.
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. 1983.
Liu Si.“Pragmatic Strategies and Power Relations in Disagreement Chinese Culture in High Education”. The University of Arizona. 2004.
Mey, J. L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching Research Press. 1993.
Paine, R. Politically Speaking. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. 1981.
Rees-Miller, J.“Power, Severity, and Context in Disagreement”. Journal of Pragmatics 32(1995): 1087-1111.
Rundquist, S.“Indirectness and Social Reality: The Interaction of Power with Status, Age and Gender”. In Reim, F. Selected Paper from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Antwerp, Belgium: IPRA. 1998.
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. Intercultural Communication: A DiscourseApproach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
Searle, J. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1969.
- - -.“Indirect Speech Acts”. In C. P & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Vol.3. Speech Acts (1975): 59-82.
- - -.“A Classification of Illocutionary Acts”. Language in Society 5(1976): 1-23.
Shuy, R. W. The Relation of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. New York: Plenum Press. 1987.
Stephen, C. Levinson. Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2004.
Tannen, Doborah. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow. 1990.
Vanderveken, D.“Meaning and Speech Acts”. Principles of Language Use, Cambridge University Press. 1990.
Watts, R. J. Power in Family Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1991.
Wilson, D.“Relevance and Understanding”in G. Brown (ed.) Language and Understanding. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Press. 1994.
Wolfson, N.“Intercultural Communication and the Analysis of Conversation”. In R. K. Herbert (Ed.), Language and Society in Africa (1992): 197-214.
Wrong, D. H. Power: Its Forms, Bases, and Uses. Oxford: Blackwell. 1979.
Yum, J.O.“The Impact of Confucianism on Interpersonal Relationships and Communication Patterns in East Asia”. Communication Monographs (1988): 374-88.
高桂珍,时真妹.言语行为理论与语言教学.大连理工大学学报(社会科学版). 4(2004):27-29.
何刚.情感表达——文化语境与行为.外语学刊. 1(2003):37-42. 何自然,陈新仁.当代语用学.北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2006.
姜望琪.当代语用学[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2006.
金君卫. A Probe into Request as a Speech Act.上海师范大学. 2004.
梁萍.商务环境中汉英称赞语达语用学研究.广东外语外贸大学. 2009.
秦旭.称谓言语行为的修辞学价值取向.南京理工大学学报(社会科学版). 6(2001): 54-59.
吴雁.社会权势关系与会话合作原则的背离.外语学刊.6(2004):32-35.
杨才英.论英语语篇中的人际意义衔接.西安外国语学院学报. 3(2006):1-4.