机构性权力：广播谈话节目中的话轮转换
|
摘要
话轮转换是日常会话中一个十分普遍的现象。它在广播谈话节目中呈现出不同于日常会话的特点。本论文以Jef Verschueren的顺应理论为基础，从语用学的角度分析了主持人与嘉宾在话轮的开启阶段、展开阶段、及终结阶段如何利用话轮转换来实现他们对各自机构性权力的顺应，以及机构性权力对广播谈话中话轮转换的影响。
在广播谈话节目中，节目的开始与结束通常由主持人来完成。在这两个阶段，主持人采用了极具机构性特点的话轮开启与终结手段。在话轮的展开阶段，主持人与嘉宾对机构性权力的顺应又表现在话轮类型的分配、以及话轮的控制策略上。
本文采用了定量和定性的研究方法。本文语料来源于中央人民广播电台《午间一小时大型谈话节目》中12期节目的录音材料。本文在定性分析的基础上采用z-test检验了主持人使用各种放弃话轮、取得话轮的方法的数量占主持人总话轮的比率与嘉宾使用各种放弃话轮、取得话轮的方法的数量占嘉宾总话轮的比率之间是否有显著差异。结果表明：在广播谈话节目中，主持人是节目的主导者、话题的引导者，在话轮的分配上起着主导作用，是节目的核心与灵魂。嘉宾是谈话节目的参与者，对话轮的控制力较弱，但嘉宾是谈话节目的焦点。
总之，机构性权力对广播谈话节目中的话轮转换产生了很大的影响。主持人与嘉宾在话轮转换的过程中都在不断地顺应他们各自的机构性角色，及其相应的机构性权力。
This thesis is a pragmatic analysis of turn-taking in radio talk shows, a particular type of institutional discourse, which is understood as a realization mechanism of the show hosts' and the show guests' adaptation to their own institutionally defined powers to achieve the goal of the program. The core of this study is the generation of an adaptation model of turn-taking analysis and a detailed analysis of the influence of institutional power on turn-taking in radio talk shows. Methodologically speaking, this study integrates both the qualitative and the quantitative research method to support the presentation of a more complete understanding of the turn-taking study. The theoretical framework of the present study is based on Jef Verschueren's Linguistic Adaptation Theory (1999).
The show hosts' and the show guests' adaptation to their own institutional powers has been studied in the phase of turn initiation, turn development and turn ending. It is the show hosts but not the show guests who announce the starting and the ending of the talk show with particular institutional introductory and ending strategies. The influence of institutional power is exhibited through turn-type allocation and turn control strategies in the phase of turn development. The whole conversation goes mainly under question-answer adjacency pair. The differences and similarities of the turn-control strategies employed by the show hosts and the show guests have been investigated. It showed that both the show hosts and the show guests have well adopted the turn-control strategies to adapt to their own institutional powers.
In short, turn-taking in radio talk shows exhibits features different from that in daily conversation. Institutional power has great influences on turn-taking in radio talk shows and both the show hosts and the show guests have adapted themselves to their own institutional powers in radio talk shows.
在广播谈话节目中，节目的开始与结束通常由主持人来完成。在这两个阶段，主持人采用了极具机构性特点的话轮开启与终结手段。在话轮的展开阶段，主持人与嘉宾对机构性权力的顺应又表现在话轮类型的分配、以及话轮的控制策略上。
本文采用了定量和定性的研究方法。本文语料来源于中央人民广播电台《午间一小时大型谈话节目》中12期节目的录音材料。本文在定性分析的基础上采用z-test检验了主持人使用各种放弃话轮、取得话轮的方法的数量占主持人总话轮的比率与嘉宾使用各种放弃话轮、取得话轮的方法的数量占嘉宾总话轮的比率之间是否有显著差异。结果表明：在广播谈话节目中，主持人是节目的主导者、话题的引导者，在话轮的分配上起着主导作用，是节目的核心与灵魂。嘉宾是谈话节目的参与者，对话轮的控制力较弱，但嘉宾是谈话节目的焦点。
总之，机构性权力对广播谈话节目中的话轮转换产生了很大的影响。主持人与嘉宾在话轮转换的过程中都在不断地顺应他们各自的机构性角色，及其相应的机构性权力。
This thesis is a pragmatic analysis of turn-taking in radio talk shows, a particular type of institutional discourse, which is understood as a realization mechanism of the show hosts' and the show guests' adaptation to their own institutionally defined powers to achieve the goal of the program. The core of this study is the generation of an adaptation model of turn-taking analysis and a detailed analysis of the influence of institutional power on turn-taking in radio talk shows. Methodologically speaking, this study integrates both the qualitative and the quantitative research method to support the presentation of a more complete understanding of the turn-taking study. The theoretical framework of the present study is based on Jef Verschueren's Linguistic Adaptation Theory (1999).
The show hosts' and the show guests' adaptation to their own institutional powers has been studied in the phase of turn initiation, turn development and turn ending. It is the show hosts but not the show guests who announce the starting and the ending of the talk show with particular institutional introductory and ending strategies. The influence of institutional power is exhibited through turn-type allocation and turn control strategies in the phase of turn development. The whole conversation goes mainly under question-answer adjacency pair. The differences and similarities of the turn-control strategies employed by the show hosts and the show guests have been investigated. It showed that both the show hosts and the show guests have well adopted the turn-control strategies to adapt to their own institutional powers.
In short, turn-taking in radio talk shows exhibits features different from that in daily conversation. Institutional power has great influences on turn-taking in radio talk shows and both the show hosts and the show guests have adapted themselves to their own institutional powers in radio talk shows.
引文
1. Agar, M. (1985) Institutional discourse. Text 5, pp.47-68
2. Allwright, R. (1980) Turns, Topics and Tasks: Patterns of Participation in Language Learning and Teaching in Larsen Freeman (ed.) 1980
3. Atkinson, J. M. and Drew, P. (1979) Order in Court: the Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. Macmillan, London.
4. Bennet, J. (1981). Linguistic Behavior. London: Cambridge University Press
5. Cynthia, B. R. (2000). 'Turn-taking as a Discourse Process', Interpreting as a Discourse Process, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 83-107.
6. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data Analysis: A User-friendly Guide for Social Scientist. London and New York: Routledge.
7. Drew, E and Heritage, J. (1992) 'Interaction in Institutional Settings' Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Douglas, M. (1987) How Institutions Think. London: Routledge.
9. Ducan, S. (1974). "On the Structure of Speaker-auditor Interaction During Speaking Turns", Language in Society., 2.
10. Edelsky, Carole (1981). Who's got the floor? Language in Society 10. pp. 383-421
11. Flanders, N. (1970) Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley
12. French, J. R. Jr., and Raven, B. (1959), 'The Bases of Social Power', in Cartwright, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
13. Frensch, T. (2001) 'The Anchors: Who They are; What they do; The Tests They Face', Television News Anchors-an Anthology of Profiles of the Major Figures and Issues in Reporting. London: Mc Farland and Company, Inc. Publishers.
14. Gass, S. M. and Varonis, E. M. (1986) 'Sex Differences in Nonnative
Speaker-nonnative Speaker Interactions. In: Richard R. D., ed., Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. pp.327-351
15. Geoffrey, W. B., (1981). 'Interruption in Conversational Interaction, and its Relation to the Sex and Status of the Interactants'. Linguistics 19:15-35.
16. Grimes, A. J. (1978), 'Authority, Power, Influence and Social Control: 'A Throretical Synthesis,' Academy of Management Review, p. 725
17. Greatbach, D. (1988) A Turn-taking System for British News Interviews. Language in Society 17. pp.,401-430
18. Have, R T. (2000), 'Applied CA: Institutional Interaction', "Doing Conversation Analysis. London: Thousands Oaks, pp. 161-169
19. Heritage, J. and Greatbach, D. (1991) On the institutional Character of institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews. In: Talk and Social Structure, Boden, D. and Zimmermann, D. H. (eds.) Cambridge: Polity Press pp. 93-137.
20. Herzfeld, M. (1996) 'a Nation of Talkers, the Rise of Talk radio', Can We Talk? New York and London: Plenum Press. pp. 27-87.
21. Hutchby, I. (1991) The Organization of Talk on Talk Radio. In:P. Scannell, ed., Broadcast Talk. London: Sage. pp. 119-137.
22. Hutchby, I. (1996) Power in Discourse: The Case of Arguments on a British Talk Radio Show. Discourse and Society 7(4): 481-498
23. Hunston, S. (2000). 'Institutions, Writing and Talk in Enviromental Discourse', Language at Work. Great Britain: Short Run Press Ltd, pp 3-21.
24. Ilie, C. (2001) 'Semi-institutional Discourse: The Case of Talk Shows', Journal of Pragmatics, pp. 209-254.
25. Itakura, H. (2000), 'Describing Conversational Dominance', Journal of Pragmatics, pp. 1859-1880.
26. Kanter, R. K. (1979), 'Power Failure in Management Circuits', Harvard Business Review'. p. 65
27. Kendon, A. (1967). "Some Functions of Gaze Direction in Social Interaction", Acta Psychologica, 26.
28. Krackhardt, D. (1990), 'Assessing the Political Landscape: Structure; Cognition, and Power in Organizations', Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35. p. 343
29. Lee, J. R. E., (1987). Prologue: Talking Organization. In: Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E., eds. Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 19-53
30. Leezenberg, M. (2002) 'Power in Communication: Implications for the Semantics-pragmatics Interface', Journal of Pragmatics, pp.893-908
31. Luthans, F. (1995) 'Power and Politics', Organizational Behavior. U.S.A.: R. R. Donnelley, pp. 320-328.
32. Matusow, B. (1983) 'The Triumph of the Anchor', The Evening Stars. Boston: Hough Mifflin Company, pp. 250-261.
33. McHoul, A. W. (1978) The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom. Language in Society 7: pp. 183-213
34. Murray, (1989). Women and Men Speaking at the Same Time. Journal of Pragmatics 12. pp. 103-111
25. Pfeffer, J. (1992), Managing with Power, Boston: Harvard University Press. p.30
35. Roger, D. B. (1989). Experimental Studies of Dyadic Turn-taking Behavior. In: Roger, D. and Bull, P. eds., Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Clevedon: Mulilingual Matters. pp. 75-95
36. Roger, D. B. and Schumacher, A. (1983), Effects of Individual Differences on dyadic Conversational Strategies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7:27-34
37. Sacks, H. (1992b[1968]). Lectures on Conversation, vol. 2. Edited by Jefferson, G. Cambridge MS: Blackwell.
38. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation", In Schenkein, J, (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academics Press. pp. 696-735.
39. Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975) Toward an Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford University Press.
40. Kasher, A (ed.) (1998) Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. London and New York: Routledge pp. 194-242.
41. Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Norwood, N J: Ablex
42. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London, New York, Sydney, and Auckland: Arnold.
44. Weber, M. (1947), "The Theory of Social and Economic Organization", Henderson A. M. and Parsons, T. (trans, and ed.), New York: Free Press. p.152
45. West, C. and Zimmermann, D. H. (1983) Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-sex Conversations Between Unacquainted Persons. In: Thorne, B. Kramarae, C. and Henley, N. eds. Language, Gender and Society. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. pp. 102-117
46. Whalen, M and Zimmermann, D. H. (1987) Sequential and Institutional Contexts in Calls for Help. Social Psychology Quarterly 50, pp. 172-185.
47．曹可凡，王群，《节目主持人语言艺术》上海：上海人民出版社，1997。
48．段建庄 阎炜，电视谈话节目主持人，走好，《新闻爱好者》第9期，第32-33页，2001。
49．韩宝成，《外语教学科研中的统计方法》北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1998。
50．何伟，《中国外语课堂中的话轮转换体系与话语分析》，太原，1996。
51．何兆熊，《新编语用学概要》．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000。
52．黄国文，《语篇分析概要》．湖南：湖南教育出版社，1997．
53．贾砚萍，话轮转换中的技巧与英语口语教学，《外语界》第3期，第1-5页，1995。
54．李华东 俞东明，从话轮转换看权势关系、性格刻画和情节发展，《解放军外语学院学报》第2期，第26-30页，2001。
55．王得杏，《英语话语分析与跨文化交际》．北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，1998。
56．王群，说话节目主持人的言语地位，《语言文字应用》第4期，第13-17
页，1997。
57．王群，曹可凡，《谈话节目主持艺术》 上海：上海社会科学出版社，2002。
58．吴郁，直面主持人现实，研究主持人语言规律，《语言文字应用》第4期，第3-9页，1997。
59．杨连瑞，话轮转换机制与英语会话能力，《山东外语教学》第2期，第22-24，2002。
60．于国栋，《英汉语码转换的语用学研究》 太原：山西人民出版社，2001．
61．钟新，美国电视脱口秀主持人特征分析，《中国青年政治学院学报》第4期，第77-82页，2000。
2. Allwright, R. (1980) Turns, Topics and Tasks: Patterns of Participation in Language Learning and Teaching in Larsen Freeman (ed.) 1980
3. Atkinson, J. M. and Drew, P. (1979) Order in Court: the Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. Macmillan, London.
4. Bennet, J. (1981). Linguistic Behavior. London: Cambridge University Press
5. Cynthia, B. R. (2000). 'Turn-taking as a Discourse Process', Interpreting as a Discourse Process, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 83-107.
6. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data Analysis: A User-friendly Guide for Social Scientist. London and New York: Routledge.
7. Drew, E and Heritage, J. (1992) 'Interaction in Institutional Settings' Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Douglas, M. (1987) How Institutions Think. London: Routledge.
9. Ducan, S. (1974). "On the Structure of Speaker-auditor Interaction During Speaking Turns", Language in Society., 2.
10. Edelsky, Carole (1981). Who's got the floor? Language in Society 10. pp. 383-421
11. Flanders, N. (1970) Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley
12. French, J. R. Jr., and Raven, B. (1959), 'The Bases of Social Power', in Cartwright, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
13. Frensch, T. (2001) 'The Anchors: Who They are; What they do; The Tests They Face', Television News Anchors-an Anthology of Profiles of the Major Figures and Issues in Reporting. London: Mc Farland and Company, Inc. Publishers.
14. Gass, S. M. and Varonis, E. M. (1986) 'Sex Differences in Nonnative
Speaker-nonnative Speaker Interactions. In: Richard R. D., ed., Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. pp.327-351
15. Geoffrey, W. B., (1981). 'Interruption in Conversational Interaction, and its Relation to the Sex and Status of the Interactants'. Linguistics 19:15-35.
16. Grimes, A. J. (1978), 'Authority, Power, Influence and Social Control: 'A Throretical Synthesis,' Academy of Management Review, p. 725
17. Greatbach, D. (1988) A Turn-taking System for British News Interviews. Language in Society 17. pp.,401-430
18. Have, R T. (2000), 'Applied CA: Institutional Interaction', "Doing Conversation Analysis. London: Thousands Oaks, pp. 161-169
19. Heritage, J. and Greatbach, D. (1991) On the institutional Character of institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews. In: Talk and Social Structure, Boden, D. and Zimmermann, D. H. (eds.) Cambridge: Polity Press pp. 93-137.
20. Herzfeld, M. (1996) 'a Nation of Talkers, the Rise of Talk radio', Can We Talk? New York and London: Plenum Press. pp. 27-87.
21. Hutchby, I. (1991) The Organization of Talk on Talk Radio. In:P. Scannell, ed., Broadcast Talk. London: Sage. pp. 119-137.
22. Hutchby, I. (1996) Power in Discourse: The Case of Arguments on a British Talk Radio Show. Discourse and Society 7(4): 481-498
23. Hunston, S. (2000). 'Institutions, Writing and Talk in Enviromental Discourse', Language at Work. Great Britain: Short Run Press Ltd, pp 3-21.
24. Ilie, C. (2001) 'Semi-institutional Discourse: The Case of Talk Shows', Journal of Pragmatics, pp. 209-254.
25. Itakura, H. (2000), 'Describing Conversational Dominance', Journal of Pragmatics, pp. 1859-1880.
26. Kanter, R. K. (1979), 'Power Failure in Management Circuits', Harvard Business Review'. p. 65
27. Kendon, A. (1967). "Some Functions of Gaze Direction in Social Interaction", Acta Psychologica, 26.
28. Krackhardt, D. (1990), 'Assessing the Political Landscape: Structure; Cognition, and Power in Organizations', Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35. p. 343
29. Lee, J. R. E., (1987). Prologue: Talking Organization. In: Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E., eds. Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 19-53
30. Leezenberg, M. (2002) 'Power in Communication: Implications for the Semantics-pragmatics Interface', Journal of Pragmatics, pp.893-908
31. Luthans, F. (1995) 'Power and Politics', Organizational Behavior. U.S.A.: R. R. Donnelley, pp. 320-328.
32. Matusow, B. (1983) 'The Triumph of the Anchor', The Evening Stars. Boston: Hough Mifflin Company, pp. 250-261.
33. McHoul, A. W. (1978) The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom. Language in Society 7: pp. 183-213
34. Murray, (1989). Women and Men Speaking at the Same Time. Journal of Pragmatics 12. pp. 103-111
25. Pfeffer, J. (1992), Managing with Power, Boston: Harvard University Press. p.30
35. Roger, D. B. (1989). Experimental Studies of Dyadic Turn-taking Behavior. In: Roger, D. and Bull, P. eds., Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Clevedon: Mulilingual Matters. pp. 75-95
36. Roger, D. B. and Schumacher, A. (1983), Effects of Individual Differences on dyadic Conversational Strategies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7:27-34
37. Sacks, H. (1992b[1968]). Lectures on Conversation, vol. 2. Edited by Jefferson, G. Cambridge MS: Blackwell.
38. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation", In Schenkein, J, (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academics Press. pp. 696-735.
39. Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975) Toward an Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford University Press.
40. Kasher, A (ed.) (1998) Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. London and New York: Routledge pp. 194-242.
41. Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Norwood, N J: Ablex
42. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London, New York, Sydney, and Auckland: Arnold.
44. Weber, M. (1947), "The Theory of Social and Economic Organization", Henderson A. M. and Parsons, T. (trans, and ed.), New York: Free Press. p.152
45. West, C. and Zimmermann, D. H. (1983) Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-sex Conversations Between Unacquainted Persons. In: Thorne, B. Kramarae, C. and Henley, N. eds. Language, Gender and Society. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. pp. 102-117
46. Whalen, M and Zimmermann, D. H. (1987) Sequential and Institutional Contexts in Calls for Help. Social Psychology Quarterly 50, pp. 172-185.
47．曹可凡，王群，《节目主持人语言艺术》上海：上海人民出版社，1997。
48．段建庄 阎炜，电视谈话节目主持人，走好，《新闻爱好者》第9期，第32-33页，2001。
49．韩宝成，《外语教学科研中的统计方法》北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1998。
50．何伟，《中国外语课堂中的话轮转换体系与话语分析》，太原，1996。
51．何兆熊，《新编语用学概要》．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000。
52．黄国文，《语篇分析概要》．湖南：湖南教育出版社，1997．
53．贾砚萍，话轮转换中的技巧与英语口语教学，《外语界》第3期，第1-5页，1995。
54．李华东 俞东明，从话轮转换看权势关系、性格刻画和情节发展，《解放军外语学院学报》第2期，第26-30页，2001。
55．王得杏，《英语话语分析与跨文化交际》．北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，1998。
56．王群，说话节目主持人的言语地位，《语言文字应用》第4期，第13-17
页，1997。
57．王群，曹可凡，《谈话节目主持艺术》 上海：上海社会科学出版社，2002。
58．吴郁，直面主持人现实，研究主持人语言规律，《语言文字应用》第4期，第3-9页，1997。
59．杨连瑞，话轮转换机制与英语会话能力，《山东外语教学》第2期，第22-24，2002。
60．于国栋，《英汉语码转换的语用学研究》 太原：山西人民出版社，2001．
61．钟新，美国电视脱口秀主持人特征分析，《中国青年政治学院学报》第4期，第77-82页，2000。