会话中言语不礼貌现象的语用研究
|
摘要
近年来,人们日益意识到不礼貌并不是一种边缘化的现象,而是应该和礼貌现象等同起来。基于这种认识,学界涌现出一批对不礼貌现象的系统化研究。然而,这些研究大都是在词汇和句子层面探讨不礼貌的言语实现策略,鲜有人从宏观的语篇层而分析不礼貌现象的动态发展,即不礼貌在会话语篇中是如何触发、发展并最终消除的。鉴于此,本文结合以往研究,不仅讨论不礼貌的言语实现策略,还阐释该现象在语篇中的动态发展过程。
参照Bousfield的不礼貌分析框架,本文对汉语戏剧会话语料进行了分析,得出了以下几点结论。首先,在具体语境中不礼貌可由具体的言语策略实现,其中一些通过直接攻击对方而子而实现不礼貌,包括使用禁忌或詈骂语、威胁、批评和负而评价,而另一些则通过言外之意实现不礼貌,包括讽刺和不执行礼貌。其次,在不礼貌的动态发展方面,研究发现不礼貌现象是由交际者所认定的冒犯性事件触发。不礼貌发生后,交际者也有一系列的言语策略保护自身而子不受损害。回应不礼貌时,大部分人会通过言语进行回应,回应策略分为两类：防御性回应和攻击性回应,其中防御性回应更易为人们采用。少部分人则是沉默以应,即言语上不再参与冲突性会话。最后,本文归纳了不礼貌的解决方式,主要有以下六种：向对方屈服,让步,僵持,退出,第三方干预和客观环境终止冲突。
最后,本文还以语言顺应论为理论基础,对使用不礼貌的语用理据进行了阐释。本文认为,不礼貌的使用及其回应都是顺应交际语境的结果。不礼貌的使用体现了“以我为主”的顺应过程,即不以对方为导向、不以维护人际关系为目标,只为满足交际者本人的交际意图；而不礼貌的回应策略则呈现出动态选择的态势,这也足顺应交际中语境相关因素的结果。
Recently, researchers have increasingly realized that, rather than a marginalized phenomenon, impoliteness is the very counterpart of politeness. As a response to this tendency, there have arisen a handful of systematic studies of impoliteness. However, these studies have mainly focused on single lexically or grammatically-based strategies. Little attention has ever been paid to investigate the dynamic development of impoliteness, namely its triggering, responding and final resolution, from the macro discourse perspective. In consideration of such inadequacy, this study, by combining the previous research, is intended to explore not only the strategic realizations but also the dynamic process of impoliteness within extended discourses.
Under Bousfield's impoliteness model, this study has analyzed data collected from Chinese dramatic discourses and reached the following three conclusions. Firstly, impoliteness can be realized by using some particular, identifiable strategies within specific contexts. They are on record impoliteness with four sub-strategies, namely, using taboo words, threats, criticism and negative evaluation, and off-record impoliteness with sarcasm and withholding of politeness under its heading. When it comes to the dynamics of impoliteness at the discourse level, it is found that impoliteness is triggered by what is perceived by the utterer to be an offending event(s). In face of impoliteness, the recipients have a number of strategies available to defend face. Most of them choose to respond, and less than one-tenth of them stay silent. In response, recipients tend to counter the face attack with offensive or defensive strategies of which the defensive countering ones are more preferable towards the defense of their face. Finally, the study has identified six impoliteness resolution formats, namely, standoff, withdraw, compromise, submission to opponent, dominant third party intervention and interruption of circumstances.
The study has also interpreted impoliteness with regards to its pragmatic motivations by resorting to Adaptation Theory. It is proved that the use of impoliteness and its responses are all the outcomes of adaptation to the contextual correlates which also change from time to time to correspond to the participants linguistic choices. For the use of impoliteness, it is due to a "self-oriented" adapting process by which interactants tend to be impolite so as to adapt to (a) communicative motivations like maintaining their self-identity and protecting their face; and (b) the needs of releasing their negative emotions. As to the responses to impoliteness, it is also due to the adaptation to both the mental worlds and the social worlds which constitute the communicative context between interactants.
参照Bousfield的不礼貌分析框架,本文对汉语戏剧会话语料进行了分析,得出了以下几点结论。首先,在具体语境中不礼貌可由具体的言语策略实现,其中一些通过直接攻击对方而子而实现不礼貌,包括使用禁忌或詈骂语、威胁、批评和负而评价,而另一些则通过言外之意实现不礼貌,包括讽刺和不执行礼貌。其次,在不礼貌的动态发展方面,研究发现不礼貌现象是由交际者所认定的冒犯性事件触发。不礼貌发生后,交际者也有一系列的言语策略保护自身而子不受损害。回应不礼貌时,大部分人会通过言语进行回应,回应策略分为两类：防御性回应和攻击性回应,其中防御性回应更易为人们采用。少部分人则是沉默以应,即言语上不再参与冲突性会话。最后,本文归纳了不礼貌的解决方式,主要有以下六种：向对方屈服,让步,僵持,退出,第三方干预和客观环境终止冲突。
最后,本文还以语言顺应论为理论基础,对使用不礼貌的语用理据进行了阐释。本文认为,不礼貌的使用及其回应都是顺应交际语境的结果。不礼貌的使用体现了“以我为主”的顺应过程,即不以对方为导向、不以维护人际关系为目标,只为满足交际者本人的交际意图；而不礼貌的回应策略则呈现出动态选择的态势,这也足顺应交际中语境相关因素的结果。
Recently, researchers have increasingly realized that, rather than a marginalized phenomenon, impoliteness is the very counterpart of politeness. As a response to this tendency, there have arisen a handful of systematic studies of impoliteness. However, these studies have mainly focused on single lexically or grammatically-based strategies. Little attention has ever been paid to investigate the dynamic development of impoliteness, namely its triggering, responding and final resolution, from the macro discourse perspective. In consideration of such inadequacy, this study, by combining the previous research, is intended to explore not only the strategic realizations but also the dynamic process of impoliteness within extended discourses.
Under Bousfield's impoliteness model, this study has analyzed data collected from Chinese dramatic discourses and reached the following three conclusions. Firstly, impoliteness can be realized by using some particular, identifiable strategies within specific contexts. They are on record impoliteness with four sub-strategies, namely, using taboo words, threats, criticism and negative evaluation, and off-record impoliteness with sarcasm and withholding of politeness under its heading. When it comes to the dynamics of impoliteness at the discourse level, it is found that impoliteness is triggered by what is perceived by the utterer to be an offending event(s). In face of impoliteness, the recipients have a number of strategies available to defend face. Most of them choose to respond, and less than one-tenth of them stay silent. In response, recipients tend to counter the face attack with offensive or defensive strategies of which the defensive countering ones are more preferable towards the defense of their face. Finally, the study has identified six impoliteness resolution formats, namely, standoff, withdraw, compromise, submission to opponent, dominant third party intervention and interruption of circumstances.
The study has also interpreted impoliteness with regards to its pragmatic motivations by resorting to Adaptation Theory. It is proved that the use of impoliteness and its responses are all the outcomes of adaptation to the contextual correlates which also change from time to time to correspond to the participants linguistic choices. For the use of impoliteness, it is due to a "self-oriented" adapting process by which interactants tend to be impolite so as to adapt to (a) communicative motivations like maintaining their self-identity and protecting their face; and (b) the needs of releasing their negative emotions. As to the responses to impoliteness, it is also due to the adaptation to both the mental worlds and the social worlds which constitute the communicative context between interactants.
引文
Austin, P. (1990). Politeness revisited-the dark side. In B. Allen & H. Janet (Hds.), New Zealand ways of speaking English (pp.277-293). Philadelphia:Multilingual Matters.
Beebc, L. M. (1995). Polite fictions:Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In Linguistics and the Education of Language Teachers:Ethnolinguistics. Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistics Aspects (pp.154-168). Geoigetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Georgetown: Cieorgetown University Press.
Benoit, P.J. (1983). The use of threats in children's discourse. Language and Speech 26:305-329.
Bousfield, D. (2004). Impoliteness in interaction. Unpublished PHD thesis. Lancaster University, UK.
Bousfield, D. (2007). Beginnings, middles and ends:A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatic 3:2185-2216.
Bousfield, D. (2008a). Impoliteness in interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing Company.
Bousfield, D. (2008b). Impoliteness in the struggle for power. In D. Bousfield & M. Lochcr (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.127-153). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Bousfield, D.& Culpeper, J. (2008). Impoliteness:electieism and diaspora. An Introduction to the Special Edition. Journal of Politeness Reseach 4:161-168.
Brown, P.& Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness:Some Universals in language usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349-367.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D.& Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited:With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1545-1579.
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show:The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1:35-37.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness:Using Language to Cause Offense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Helen, D. (2001). A critique of politeness:A critical analysis. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual:essays in face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole& J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics Ⅲ:Speech Acts (pp.41-58). New York:Academic Press.
Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite:Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society 12:451-472.
Hochman, B. (1985). Character in literature. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.
Holmes,.1. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8:345-365.
Hunston, S.& Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction in Discourse. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Jay, W. (1992). Cursing in America:a psycholinguist ic study of dirty language in the courts, in the movies, in the schoolyards and on the streets. Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Jay, W. (2000). Why we curse:A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kienpointner, M. (1997). Varieties of rudeness:Types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language 4:251-287.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City:Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Oxford:Blackwell.
Lachenicht, L. G. (1980). Aggravating language:A study of abusive language and insulting language. International Journal of Human Communication 13: 607-688.
Lakoff, R. (1989). The limits of politeness. Multilingua 8:101-129.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London:Longman.
Limberg, H. (2008). Threats in conflict talk:Impoliteness and manipulation. In I). Boustleld and M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.155-179). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1376-1394.
Locher, M.& Boustleld, D. (2008). Impoliteness and Power in Language. In I). Boustleld and M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.1-13). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Lowe, C. (2009). Book review on Impoliteness in language:on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Journal of Pragmatics 41:1865-1869.
Locher. M.& Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness:Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield and M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.77-99). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Piazza, R. (1999). Dramatic discourse approached from a conversational analysis perspective:Catherine Hayes's Skirnishes and other contemporary plays. Journal of Pragmatics J2:1001-1023.
Quirk, R., Grcenbaum, S., Leech, G.,& Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehansive grammar of the English language. London:Longman.
Rudanko, J. (2006). Aggravated impoliteness and two types of speaker intention in an episode in Shakespcar's Timon of Athen. Journal of Pragmatics 38:829-841.
Terkourafi, M. (2008). Towards a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness and rudness. In D. Boustleld and M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.45-74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction. London:Longman.
Tracy, K.& Tracy, S, J. (1998). Rudeness at 911:reconceptualizing face and face attack. Human Communication Research 25:225-251.
Turner, K. (1996). The principal principles of pragmatic inference:Politeness. Language leaching 29:1-13.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatic. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press.
Vuchinich, S. (1990). The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In D. G. Allen (Ed.) Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments and conversations (pp.108-133). Cambridge:Cambridge University.
Watts, R, J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Watts, R, J. (2008). Rudeness, conceptual blending theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research:Language. Behaviour and Culture 4 (2): 289-317.
Werkhofer, K. T. (1992). Traditional and modern views:The social constitution and the power of" politeness. In R. J. Watts, I. Sachiko & E. Konrad (Eds.), Politeness in Language:Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp.43-69). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
丁崇明(2001).论词语叠连式不礼貌语言.语言文字应用,3,64-69.
龚双沸(2009).《交际中的不礼貌》评介.现代外语(季刊),4,431-433.
龚双萍(2011).冲突性话语回应策略与权势的语用分析.外语学刊,5,76-81.
赖小玉(2012).婆媳冲突中有意不礼貌语言现象的语用分析.广东外语外贸大学学报,2,37-41.
钱冠连(1997),汉语文化语用学.北京：清华大学出版社.
冉水平、杨巍(2011).人际冲突中有意冒犯性话语的语用分析.外国语,3,49-55.
杨朝军(2010).《交际中的得失礼》述评.外语敦学与研究(外国语文双月刊),5,394-396.
杨子、于国栋(2007).汉语言语不礼貌的顺应性研究.中国外语,4,23-28.
张大毛(2009).不礼貌言语的界定和分类.西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),3,204-208.
Beebc, L. M. (1995). Polite fictions:Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In Linguistics and the Education of Language Teachers:Ethnolinguistics. Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistics Aspects (pp.154-168). Geoigetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Georgetown: Cieorgetown University Press.
Benoit, P.J. (1983). The use of threats in children's discourse. Language and Speech 26:305-329.
Bousfield, D. (2004). Impoliteness in interaction. Unpublished PHD thesis. Lancaster University, UK.
Bousfield, D. (2007). Beginnings, middles and ends:A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatic 3:2185-2216.
Bousfield, D. (2008a). Impoliteness in interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing Company.
Bousfield, D. (2008b). Impoliteness in the struggle for power. In D. Bousfield & M. Lochcr (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.127-153). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Bousfield, D.& Culpeper, J. (2008). Impoliteness:electieism and diaspora. An Introduction to the Special Edition. Journal of Politeness Reseach 4:161-168.
Brown, P.& Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness:Some Universals in language usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349-367.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D.& Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited:With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1545-1579.
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show:The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1:35-37.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness:Using Language to Cause Offense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Helen, D. (2001). A critique of politeness:A critical analysis. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual:essays in face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole& J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics Ⅲ:Speech Acts (pp.41-58). New York:Academic Press.
Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite:Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society 12:451-472.
Hochman, B. (1985). Character in literature. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.
Holmes,.1. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8:345-365.
Hunston, S.& Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction in Discourse. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Jay, W. (1992). Cursing in America:a psycholinguist ic study of dirty language in the courts, in the movies, in the schoolyards and on the streets. Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Jay, W. (2000). Why we curse:A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kienpointner, M. (1997). Varieties of rudeness:Types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language 4:251-287.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City:Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Oxford:Blackwell.
Lachenicht, L. G. (1980). Aggravating language:A study of abusive language and insulting language. International Journal of Human Communication 13: 607-688.
Lakoff, R. (1989). The limits of politeness. Multilingua 8:101-129.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London:Longman.
Limberg, H. (2008). Threats in conflict talk:Impoliteness and manipulation. In I). Boustleld and M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.155-179). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1376-1394.
Locher, M.& Boustleld, D. (2008). Impoliteness and Power in Language. In I). Boustleld and M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.1-13). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Lowe, C. (2009). Book review on Impoliteness in language:on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Journal of Pragmatics 41:1865-1869.
Locher. M.& Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness:Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield and M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.77-99). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Piazza, R. (1999). Dramatic discourse approached from a conversational analysis perspective:Catherine Hayes's Skirnishes and other contemporary plays. Journal of Pragmatics J2:1001-1023.
Quirk, R., Grcenbaum, S., Leech, G.,& Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehansive grammar of the English language. London:Longman.
Rudanko, J. (2006). Aggravated impoliteness and two types of speaker intention in an episode in Shakespcar's Timon of Athen. Journal of Pragmatics 38:829-841.
Terkourafi, M. (2008). Towards a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness and rudness. In D. Boustleld and M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.45-74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction. London:Longman.
Tracy, K.& Tracy, S, J. (1998). Rudeness at 911:reconceptualizing face and face attack. Human Communication Research 25:225-251.
Turner, K. (1996). The principal principles of pragmatic inference:Politeness. Language leaching 29:1-13.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatic. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press.
Vuchinich, S. (1990). The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In D. G. Allen (Ed.) Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments and conversations (pp.108-133). Cambridge:Cambridge University.
Watts, R, J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Watts, R, J. (2008). Rudeness, conceptual blending theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research:Language. Behaviour and Culture 4 (2): 289-317.
Werkhofer, K. T. (1992). Traditional and modern views:The social constitution and the power of" politeness. In R. J. Watts, I. Sachiko & E. Konrad (Eds.), Politeness in Language:Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp.43-69). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
丁崇明(2001).论词语叠连式不礼貌语言.语言文字应用,3,64-69.
龚双沸(2009).《交际中的不礼貌》评介.现代外语(季刊),4,431-433.
龚双萍(2011).冲突性话语回应策略与权势的语用分析.外语学刊,5,76-81.
赖小玉(2012).婆媳冲突中有意不礼貌语言现象的语用分析.广东外语外贸大学学报,2,37-41.
钱冠连(1997),汉语文化语用学.北京：清华大学出版社.
冉水平、杨巍(2011).人际冲突中有意冒犯性话语的语用分析.外国语,3,49-55.
杨朝军(2010).《交际中的得失礼》述评.外语敦学与研究(外国语文双月刊),5,394-396.
杨子、于国栋(2007).汉语言语不礼貌的顺应性研究.中国外语,4,23-28.
张大毛(2009).不礼貌言语的界定和分类.西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),3,204-208.