基于拟剧论视角的法庭冲突话语研究
|
摘要
冲突话语作为一种普遍而复杂的语言现象,在社会互动中既是不可避免的,又是不容忽视的。一方话语与另一方话语发生冲突,这种冲突表现为交际的一方反对另一方的言行、举止,或双方持有不同意见,继而产生冲突话语。由于语料难以获取等因素的制约,冲突话语研究长期以来并没有受到语言学界的足够重视。近年来国内外的冲突话语研究呈方兴未艾之势,其研究领域涉及到医患话语、法庭话语等机构话语。
作为法律语言学的一个重要的分支学科,法庭话语研究近年来受到了越来越多的关注。冲突话语是法庭互动中普遍存在的现象,和社会互动理论紧密相关。以往大部分的冲突话语研究仅局限于语言学学科内部的纵向考察,从戈夫曼的拟剧论(Dramaturgical Theory)的角度探究法庭冲突话语的研究较为少见。
本文通过定性分析,主要从社会学中拟剧论的视角出发来宏观分析法庭冲突话语的结构。拟剧论是以戏剧要素为样板来诠释日常生活中的社会互动行为,也就是将社会互动比拟成一系列的表演。在某一社会互动中,表演者被赋予各种不同的角色,其行为举止应符合他人的期望,个人也会随着情境与观众的要求而调整形象。在法庭互动中,如何利用拟剧论的理论框架来分析法庭冲突话语的结构和特点是本文的目的所在。
本文以拟剧论为基础,从前台区域(front region)、后台区域(back region)、戏剧理想化(dramatic realization)、角色(performance roles)和印象管理(impression management)等方面阐释了法庭冲突话语的特点。研究显示,法庭冲突话语的结构多为“冲突发起-冲突应对”模式(initiation-response, I-R),不同于日常冲突话语的“起始-发展-结束”模式(initiating move—maintaining move—terminating move, I-M-T)。根据法庭话语内容的不同,法庭冲突话语有“程序性冲突话语”和“实体性冲突话语”之分;根据有无冲突话语标记语,可将法庭冲突话语分为“表层冲突话语”和“深层冲突话语”;从印象管理层次上来说,话语一方在话语互动中给对方投射出某种印象,同时对方的话语也投射出某种印象给说话人,两种印象如果相一致,话语则是合作的;如果不一致,就构成了冲突话语,这种冲突话语被标记为“非共鸣性冲突话语”,并由此勾勒出印象管理视域下的冲突话语的两个步骤:投射(projection)和归属(attribution)。
与日常会话中的冲突话语相比,法庭冲突话语除了具有拟剧性(dramaturgical feature)和目的性(goal-directed feature)之外,还有其独特之处,即双层性(duality)、权力支配性(power-manipulation)、和非反馈性(non-feedback)。法庭冲突话语的双层性展示了一些语义对立的概念,包括冲突话语的积极性(positivity)和消极性(negtivity) ,严肃性(seriousness)和嬉戏性(playfulness) ,基于内容的冲突(content-based conflict talk)和基于评价的冲突(evaluation-based conflict talk)等特点。
本研究首次将社会学理论和语言学现象结合起来,主要从宏观方面反映法庭冲突话语的特征,以期本文在一定程度上补充和丰富了现有的冲突话语分析理论。不容回避的是,语料的限制、拟剧论用于语言层面研究表现的局限性等因素,法庭冲突话语仍需进一步的探讨。
Conflict talk as a very common and intricate linguistic phenomenon in social interactions is inevitable. Such particular linguistic phenomena are naturally formed among the participants motivated with their own interests, opinions or goals. Conflict talk study has not received due attention for a long time in linguistics field due to the inaccessibility of the data and other restrictions. Recently, the research on conflict talk at home and abroad is burgeoning, most of which focus on institutional discouse such as doctor-patient discourse and courtroom discourse.
As an important sub-discipline of forensic linguistics, the research on courtroom discourse has been attracting more and more attention in recent years. Conflict talks are very pervasive in courtroom events. Courtroom conflict talks can be investigated associated with the theories of social interactions. Previously published literature of conflict talk mostly belongs to the vertical investigation of linguistics, and one theory that has received relatively little attention is Dramaturgical Theory advanced by Goffman. However, the study on courtroom conflict talks from the perspective of Dramaturgical Theory is few.
Based on a qualitative analysis, this thesis aims at analyzing courtroom conflict talk mainly centered on sociology theory, that is, Dramaturgical Theory. Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis attempts to interpret social interactions in daily life with theatrical elements. In other words, social interaction is analogous to a theatrical performance or drama in which participants act as different roles in the presence of the audience. All the performance should be conformed to others’expectations. Individuals may adjust to their images as the situation changes. This thesis has provided a grand tour of courtroom conflict talk according to what has been examined in the Dramaturgical Theory-oriented literature.
From the perspective of Dramaturgical Theory, this thesis expounds the features of courtroom conflict talk in terms of front region, back region, dramatic realization, performance roles and impression management. The study demonstrates that most courtroom conflict talks are characterized by“I-R”mode, different from“I-M-T”mode in conflict talk of daily conversation. Courtroom conflict talk can be divided into procedural conflict talk and substantive conflict talk according to the content of courtroom discourse. And they can also be divided into surface conflict talk and deep conflict talk based on the conflicting markers. From the perspective of impression management, one participant of the trial projects some kind of impression on the other. Resonant impression management implies the interaction is cooperative. Discordant relationship sometimes results in the occurrence of conflict talk which is labeled as discordant impression management-oriented conflict talk. It figures that impression management-oriented conflict talk involves two processes, projection and attribution.
In addition to dramaturgical and goal-directed features, compared with naturally occurring conflict talks, courtroom conflict talks have distinct features, including duality, power-manipulation, and non-feedback. To be specific, the feature of duality can be sub-divided into several pairs of concepts with converse meanings at semantic level, namely, positivity and negativity, seriousness and playfulness, and content-based and evaluation-based.
This study is the first attempt to examine courtroom conflict talks by combining sociology theory with linguistic analytic approach, displaying how courtroom conflict talk is mainly constructed from the macro-level. It is hoped that this study can supplement and enrich the present findings of conflict talk research to some degree. Given the restriction based on the amount of the data and the inherent flaw of Dramaturgical Theory, when used to inspect the linguistic phenomenon, this study still calls for in-depth research.
作为法律语言学的一个重要的分支学科,法庭话语研究近年来受到了越来越多的关注。冲突话语是法庭互动中普遍存在的现象,和社会互动理论紧密相关。以往大部分的冲突话语研究仅局限于语言学学科内部的纵向考察,从戈夫曼的拟剧论(Dramaturgical Theory)的角度探究法庭冲突话语的研究较为少见。
本文通过定性分析,主要从社会学中拟剧论的视角出发来宏观分析法庭冲突话语的结构。拟剧论是以戏剧要素为样板来诠释日常生活中的社会互动行为,也就是将社会互动比拟成一系列的表演。在某一社会互动中,表演者被赋予各种不同的角色,其行为举止应符合他人的期望,个人也会随着情境与观众的要求而调整形象。在法庭互动中,如何利用拟剧论的理论框架来分析法庭冲突话语的结构和特点是本文的目的所在。
本文以拟剧论为基础,从前台区域(front region)、后台区域(back region)、戏剧理想化(dramatic realization)、角色(performance roles)和印象管理(impression management)等方面阐释了法庭冲突话语的特点。研究显示,法庭冲突话语的结构多为“冲突发起-冲突应对”模式(initiation-response, I-R),不同于日常冲突话语的“起始-发展-结束”模式(initiating move—maintaining move—terminating move, I-M-T)。根据法庭话语内容的不同,法庭冲突话语有“程序性冲突话语”和“实体性冲突话语”之分;根据有无冲突话语标记语,可将法庭冲突话语分为“表层冲突话语”和“深层冲突话语”;从印象管理层次上来说,话语一方在话语互动中给对方投射出某种印象,同时对方的话语也投射出某种印象给说话人,两种印象如果相一致,话语则是合作的;如果不一致,就构成了冲突话语,这种冲突话语被标记为“非共鸣性冲突话语”,并由此勾勒出印象管理视域下的冲突话语的两个步骤:投射(projection)和归属(attribution)。
与日常会话中的冲突话语相比,法庭冲突话语除了具有拟剧性(dramaturgical feature)和目的性(goal-directed feature)之外,还有其独特之处,即双层性(duality)、权力支配性(power-manipulation)、和非反馈性(non-feedback)。法庭冲突话语的双层性展示了一些语义对立的概念,包括冲突话语的积极性(positivity)和消极性(negtivity) ,严肃性(seriousness)和嬉戏性(playfulness) ,基于内容的冲突(content-based conflict talk)和基于评价的冲突(evaluation-based conflict talk)等特点。
本研究首次将社会学理论和语言学现象结合起来,主要从宏观方面反映法庭冲突话语的特征,以期本文在一定程度上补充和丰富了现有的冲突话语分析理论。不容回避的是,语料的限制、拟剧论用于语言层面研究表现的局限性等因素,法庭冲突话语仍需进一步的探讨。
Conflict talk as a very common and intricate linguistic phenomenon in social interactions is inevitable. Such particular linguistic phenomena are naturally formed among the participants motivated with their own interests, opinions or goals. Conflict talk study has not received due attention for a long time in linguistics field due to the inaccessibility of the data and other restrictions. Recently, the research on conflict talk at home and abroad is burgeoning, most of which focus on institutional discouse such as doctor-patient discourse and courtroom discourse.
As an important sub-discipline of forensic linguistics, the research on courtroom discourse has been attracting more and more attention in recent years. Conflict talks are very pervasive in courtroom events. Courtroom conflict talks can be investigated associated with the theories of social interactions. Previously published literature of conflict talk mostly belongs to the vertical investigation of linguistics, and one theory that has received relatively little attention is Dramaturgical Theory advanced by Goffman. However, the study on courtroom conflict talks from the perspective of Dramaturgical Theory is few.
Based on a qualitative analysis, this thesis aims at analyzing courtroom conflict talk mainly centered on sociology theory, that is, Dramaturgical Theory. Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis attempts to interpret social interactions in daily life with theatrical elements. In other words, social interaction is analogous to a theatrical performance or drama in which participants act as different roles in the presence of the audience. All the performance should be conformed to others’expectations. Individuals may adjust to their images as the situation changes. This thesis has provided a grand tour of courtroom conflict talk according to what has been examined in the Dramaturgical Theory-oriented literature.
From the perspective of Dramaturgical Theory, this thesis expounds the features of courtroom conflict talk in terms of front region, back region, dramatic realization, performance roles and impression management. The study demonstrates that most courtroom conflict talks are characterized by“I-R”mode, different from“I-M-T”mode in conflict talk of daily conversation. Courtroom conflict talk can be divided into procedural conflict talk and substantive conflict talk according to the content of courtroom discourse. And they can also be divided into surface conflict talk and deep conflict talk based on the conflicting markers. From the perspective of impression management, one participant of the trial projects some kind of impression on the other. Resonant impression management implies the interaction is cooperative. Discordant relationship sometimes results in the occurrence of conflict talk which is labeled as discordant impression management-oriented conflict talk. It figures that impression management-oriented conflict talk involves two processes, projection and attribution.
In addition to dramaturgical and goal-directed features, compared with naturally occurring conflict talks, courtroom conflict talks have distinct features, including duality, power-manipulation, and non-feedback. To be specific, the feature of duality can be sub-divided into several pairs of concepts with converse meanings at semantic level, namely, positivity and negativity, seriousness and playfulness, and content-based and evaluation-based.
This study is the first attempt to examine courtroom conflict talks by combining sociology theory with linguistic analytic approach, displaying how courtroom conflict talk is mainly constructed from the macro-level. It is hoped that this study can supplement and enrich the present findings of conflict talk research to some degree. Given the restriction based on the amount of the data and the inherent flaw of Dramaturgical Theory, when used to inspect the linguistic phenomenon, this study still calls for in-depth research.
引文
Adler, P. A., Adler, P. & Fontana, A. 1987. Everyday life sociology [J]. Annual review of sociology (1): 217-235.
Al-Akash, S. M. 2010. Disagreement in Arabic discourse as exhibited in unscripted televised debates [R]. Paper presented at the conference of the Sociolinguistics Symposium 18: Negotiating Transnational Space and Multilingual Encounters, University of Southampton, UK, September 2010.
Androutsopoulos, J. & Georgakopoulou, A. 2008. Youth, discourse, and interpersonal management [A]. In G. Antos, E. Ventola & T. Weber (eds.). Handbook of Interpersonal Communication [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 457-480.
Baker, P. 1998. A conversation analysis approach to conflict in student-lecturer talk [EB/OL]. Http: //www. ling.lancs.ac.uk/ pubs/clsl/ clsl100.pdf (accessed 16/11/2010).
Bilbow, G. T. (1996). Managing impressions in the multicultural workplace: An impression management-based model for cross-cultural discourse analysis and awareness training for the workplace [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. City University of Hong Kong.
Bilbow, G. T. & Yeung, S. 1998. Learning the pragmatics of“successful”impression management in cross-cultural interviews [J]. Pragmatics (3): 405-417.
Brock, B. L., Burke, K., Burgess, P. G. & Simons, H. W. 1985. Dramatism as ontology or epistemology: A symposium [J]. Communication Quarterly (33): 17-33.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomenon [A]. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. 56-289.
Burke, K. 1945. A Grammar of Motives [M]. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Burke, K. 1978. Questions and answers about the pentad [J]. College Composition and Communication (4): 330-335.
Collett, J. L. & Childs, E. 2009. Meaningful performances: Considering the contributions of the dramaturgical approach to studying family [J]. Sociology Compass (4): 689-706.
Conley, J. M. & O’Barr, W. M. 1990. Rules versus relationships in small claims disputes [A]. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 178-209.
Corsard, W. A. & Rizzo, T. A. 1990. Disputes in the peer culture of American and Italian nursery-school children [A]. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 21-66.
Crable, B. 2000. Burke’s perspective on perspectives: Grouding dramatism in the representative anecdote [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech (86): 318-333.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D. & Wichmann, A. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (10-11): 1545-1579.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (eds.). 1992. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eder, D. 1990. Serious and playful disputes: Variation in conflict talk among female adolescents [A]. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 67-84.
Eisenberg, A. R. & Garvey, C. 1981. Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts [J]. Discourse Processes (2): 149-170.
Farris, C. 2000. Cross-sex peer conflict and the discursive production of gender in a Chinese preschool in Taiwan [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (5): 539-568.
Flannes, S. & Levin, G. 2005. Essential People Skills for Project Managers [M]. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.
García Gómez, A. 2000. Discourse, politeness and gender roles: An exploratory investigation into British and Spanish talk show verbal conflicts [J]. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense (8): 97-125.
García Gómez, A. 2006. British and American expressions of politeness in anger-evoking contexts: A cultural-relativistic approach [J]. Culture, Language and Representation (3): 145-159.
García Gómez, A. 2009. Don’t get mad, get persuasive!: Anger management and persuasion in TV discourses [J]. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses (22):79-98.
Gardner, W., Peluchette, L., VanEck, J. & Clinebell, S. K. 1994. Valuing women in management: An impression management perspective of gender diversity [J]. Management Communication Quarterly (2): 115-164.
Garvey, C. & Shantz, C. U. 1992. Conflict talk: Approaches to adversative discourse [A]. In C. Shantzs & W. Hartup (eds.), Conflict in Child and Adolescent Development [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 93-121.
Georgakopoulou, A. 2001. Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (12): 1881-1900.
Glissmeyer, M., Bishop, J. W. & Fass, R. D. 2007. Role conflict, role ambiguity, and intention to quit the organization: The case of law enforcement officers’[R]. Paper presented at the conference of the 38th Southwest Decision Sciences Institute Annual Conference, Boston University, Arizona, November 2007.
Goethals, N. 2008. A Dramaturgical Perspective on Impression Management [D]. M. A. Thesis. Maastricht University.
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life [M]. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. 1990. Interstitial argument [A]. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 85-117.
Goodwin, M. H. 1983. Aggravated corrections and disagreements in children’s conversations [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (6): 657-677.
Goodwin, M. H., Goodwin, C. & Yaeger-Dror, M. 2002. Multi-modality in girls’game disputes [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (10-11): 1621-1649.
Gregson, S. I. 2005. Narrative, Spectacle, Performance: A Dramaturgical Investigation into the Relationship between an Aesthetic Event and the Social World in Rock and Pop Culture [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. Brunel University.
Griffin, Em. 2006. A First Look at Communication Theory [M]. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Grimshaw, A. D. (ed.). 1990. Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Argument in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grove, S. J. & Fisk, R. P. 2001. Service theatre: An analytical framework for servicemarketing [A]. In C. Lovelock (ed.), Service Marketing (4th ed.) [C]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International Inc. 83-92.
Hacker, K. L. 1996. Political linguistic discourse analysis: Analyzing the relationships of power and language [A]. In M. E. Stuckey (ed.), The Theory and Practice of Political Communication Research [C]. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 28-55.
Hammond, H. 2009. Critically assess Goffman’s analysis of the presentation of self [EB/OL]. Http: //www.essex.ac.uk/ sociology/ student_journals/ ug_journal/ Vol2_summer2009.aspx (accessed 16/4/2009).
Hasund, I. K. & Stenstr?m, A-B. 1997. Conflict talk: A comparison of the verbal disputes between adolescent females in two corpora [A]. In M. Ljung (ed.), Corpus-based Studies in English: Papers from the Seventeenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 17) Stockholm, May 15-19, 1996 [C]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi. 119-134.
Holzbauer, N. 2007. Power Relations in Phone-in Programmes: A Case Study [D]. M. A. Thesis. Vienna University.
Honda, A. 2002. Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (5): 573-608.
Hong, Y. J. 2003. Interactional sociolinguistic analysis of argumentative strategies between Japanese and Korean graduate students and their instructors [R]. Paper presented at the conference of the 8th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, Kibi International University, Okayama, Japan, August 2003.
Hutchby, I. 1996. Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
John, J. 1996. A dramaturgical view of the health care service encounter: Cultural value-based impression management guidelines for medical professional behavior [J]. European Journal of Marketing (9): 60-74.
Kakavá, C. 2002. Opposition in modern Greek discourse: Cultural and contextual constraints [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (10-11): 1537-1568.
Kakavá, C. 2003. Discourse and conflict [A]. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C]. Oxford: Blackwell. 650-670.
Kivisto, P. & Pittman, D. 2010. Goffman’s dramaturgical sociology: Personal sales and service in a commodified world [A]. In P. Kivisto & P. J. Kivisto (eds.), Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited (5th ed.) [C]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. 326-348.
Kopperschmidt, J. 1985. An analysis of argumentation [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Dimensions of Discourse [C]. New York: Academic Press. 159-168.
Kotthoff, H. 1993. Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures [J]. Language in Society (2): 193-216.
Lemert, C. & Branaman, A. 1997. The Goffman Reader [M]. Cambridge: Blackwell. Leung, S. 2002. Conflict talk: A discourse analytical perspective [J]. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics. Special Issue, 93-112.
Lin, C. Y. 1999. Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese Conversation [D]. M. A. Thesis. National Chengchi University.
Liu, J-Y. 2009. Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese: A Sociopragmatic Analysis [D]. M. A. Thesis. National Chengchi University.
Locher, M. A. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication [M]. Berlin /New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lyons, J. 1981. Language and Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maltz, D. N. & Borker, R. A. 1982. A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication [A]. In J. J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 196-216.
Maynard, D. W. 1985. How children start arguments [J]. Language in Society (1): 1-29.
Mayr, A. 2008. Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse [M]. London/New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
McCoy, J. & Mateas, M. 2009. The computation of self in everyday life: A dramaturgical approach for socially competent agents [EB/OL]. Http: // www. aaai. org/ Papers/ Symposia/ Spring/ 2009/ SS-09-06/ SS09-06-023. pdf (accessed 12/11/2010).
Merriam-Webster Inc. 1995. Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of Literature [M].Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc.
Muntigl, P. & Turnbull, W. 1998. Conversational structure and facework in arguing [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (3): 225-256.
Musolf, G. R. 2003. Structure and Agency in Everyday Life: An Introduction to Social Psychology [M]. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Olausen, K. R. 2007. Protests without Tear Gas: Portrayals of Campus Activism in the Print Media 1996-2004 [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. North Carolina State University.
Overington, M. A. 1977. Kenneth Burke and the method of dramatism [J]. Theory and Society (4): 131-156.
Pagliai, V. 2010. Introduction: Performing disputes [J]. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology (1): 63-71.
Panteli, N. 2002. Trust performance and dramaturgical plays in virtual teams [R]. Paper presented at the conference of ECIS, Gdańsk, Poland, June 2002.
Pujolar, J. (ed.). 2001. Gender, Heteroglossia and Power: A Sociolinguistic Study of Youth Culture [C]. Berlin/New York: Monton de Gruyter.
Putnam, L. 2001. The language of opposition [A]. In W. F. Eadie & P. E. Nelson (eds.), The Language of Conflict and Resolution [C]. London: Sage. 10-20.
Quinn, B. A. 2005. A dramaturgical perspective on academic libraries [J]. Libraries and the Academy (3): 329-352.
Rees-Miller, J. 2000. Power, severity, and context in disagreement [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (8): 1087-1111.
Ribeiro, B. T. 1996. Conflict talk in a psychiatric discharge interview: Struggling between personal and official footings [A]. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M.
Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis [C]. London: Routledge. 179-193.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J. & Lirtzman, S. I. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly (2): 150-163.
Scott, S. 2002. Linguistic feature variations within disagreements: An empirical investigation [J]. Text (2): 301-328.
Seedhourse, P. & Richards, K. 2007. Describing and analyzing institutional varieties of interaction [A]. In H. Bowles & P. Seedhouse (eds.), Conversation Analysis and Language for Specific Purpose, (Vol. 63) [C]. Bern, Germany: Lang. 17-36.
Spitz, A. 2005. Power Plays: The Representation of Mother-daughter Disputes in Contemporary Plays by Women. A study in discourse analysis [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Saarland.
Stenstr?m, A-B., Andersen, G. & Hasund, I. K. 2002. Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus Compilation, Analysis, and Findings [M]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stewart, K. A. 2008. Interactive Construction of Dispute Narratives in Mediated Conflict Talk [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. the University of Texas at Austin.
Stryker, S. 1968. Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for family research [J]. Journal of Marriage and the Family (30): 558-564.
Uitdewilligen, S. 2005. Impression Management in Group Situations: Effects of Self-presentations on Formation of Positive Impressions and Influence in Project Teams [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. Maastricht University.
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Toward Solving Conflicts of Opinion [M]. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
Vuchinich, S. 1990. The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict [A]. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 118-138.
Walker, A. G. 1987. Linguistic manipulation, power, and the legal setting [A]. In L. Kedar (ed.), Power through Discourse [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 57-80.
Wooffitt, R. 2005. Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction [M]. London: Sage Publications.
陈金诗. 2010.庭审中冲突的化解——法官语篇信息处理的框架分析[R].法律语言学学术研讨会暨第六届中国法律语言学研究年会,西南政法大学, 11月, 2010年.
杜领利. 2006.网络聊天室中冲突话语的分析[D].重庆:西南大学.
高萍. 2006.剧本中冲突性话语研究[D].延吉:延边大学.
黄学武. 2005.法庭语言表达的基本原则和理念要求[N].江苏法制报. 2005-08-30(7).
贾婕婷. 2007.话语冲突的顺应性研究[D].太原:山西大学.
李祥云,张德禄. 2007.争吵话语结构特点研究[J].外语与外语教学(12): 4-7.
廖美珍. 2003.法庭回答及其互动研究[M].北京:法律出版社.
廖美珍. 2004.目的原则与法庭互动话语合作问题研究[J].外语学刊(5): 43-52.
廖美珍. 2005.法庭语言技巧[M].北京:法律出版社.
吕万英. 2005.司法调解话语中的冲突性打断[J].解放军外国语学院学报(6): 22-26.
毛颖哲. 2009.家庭成员间冲突性话语的顺应性研究[J].西安文理学院学报(社会科学版)(4): 64-66.
冉永平. 2010.冲突性话语趋异取向的语用分析[J].现代外语(2):150-157.
孙云雯. 2008.《老友记》中的冲突性话语分析[D].上海:上海交通大学.
王林海,赵海燕. 2008.交际口语中人际冲突话语的隐喻类型及频率分析[J].外语电化教学(4): 54-58.
吴鹏. 2007.中国法庭话语中的打断现象研究——目的、权力与打断[D].南京:江苏大学.
杨锐. 2005.刑事法庭话语中的角色互动研究[D].武汉:华中师范大学.
赵英玲. 2004.冲突话语分析[J].外语学刊(5): 37-42.
赵英玲. 2008.汉语冲突话语语用修辞研究[D].长春:东北师范大学.
赵忠德,张琳. 2005.从关联理论看话语冲突[J].外语教学(1): 17-21.
朱晓琴. 2008.《疯狂主妇》中夫妻间冲突话语的语用分析[D].厦门:厦门大学.
①The full name of the corpus is the Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language.
①In the master thesis, Gao Ping (2006) proposes Chen Xiaochun is the first one to study aspects of conflict talk in China.
②If put it in the courtroom interaction,“symbol”can be regarded as a process of managing or eliminating conflict talk.
①As to the Chinese version of Extract 3, see it on pp.80-81.
①As to the Chinese version of Extract 3, see it on pp.80-81.
①“Q”stands for question, and“R”stands for response.
①The word-by-word gloss for Extract 1 in Figure 4.4 is omitted. See the Chinese version on p.80.
①“I”means initiation,“R”means response, and“F”means follow-up.
Al-Akash, S. M. 2010. Disagreement in Arabic discourse as exhibited in unscripted televised debates [R]. Paper presented at the conference of the Sociolinguistics Symposium 18: Negotiating Transnational Space and Multilingual Encounters, University of Southampton, UK, September 2010.
Androutsopoulos, J. & Georgakopoulou, A. 2008. Youth, discourse, and interpersonal management [A]. In G. Antos, E. Ventola & T. Weber (eds.). Handbook of Interpersonal Communication [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 457-480.
Baker, P. 1998. A conversation analysis approach to conflict in student-lecturer talk [EB/OL]. Http: //www. ling.lancs.ac.uk/ pubs/clsl/ clsl100.pdf (accessed 16/11/2010).
Bilbow, G. T. (1996). Managing impressions in the multicultural workplace: An impression management-based model for cross-cultural discourse analysis and awareness training for the workplace [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. City University of Hong Kong.
Bilbow, G. T. & Yeung, S. 1998. Learning the pragmatics of“successful”impression management in cross-cultural interviews [J]. Pragmatics (3): 405-417.
Brock, B. L., Burke, K., Burgess, P. G. & Simons, H. W. 1985. Dramatism as ontology or epistemology: A symposium [J]. Communication Quarterly (33): 17-33.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomenon [A]. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. 56-289.
Burke, K. 1945. A Grammar of Motives [M]. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Burke, K. 1978. Questions and answers about the pentad [J]. College Composition and Communication (4): 330-335.
Collett, J. L. & Childs, E. 2009. Meaningful performances: Considering the contributions of the dramaturgical approach to studying family [J]. Sociology Compass (4): 689-706.
Conley, J. M. & O’Barr, W. M. 1990. Rules versus relationships in small claims disputes [A]. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 178-209.
Corsard, W. A. & Rizzo, T. A. 1990. Disputes in the peer culture of American and Italian nursery-school children [A]. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 21-66.
Crable, B. 2000. Burke’s perspective on perspectives: Grouding dramatism in the representative anecdote [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech (86): 318-333.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D. & Wichmann, A. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (10-11): 1545-1579.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (eds.). 1992. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eder, D. 1990. Serious and playful disputes: Variation in conflict talk among female adolescents [A]. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 67-84.
Eisenberg, A. R. & Garvey, C. 1981. Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts [J]. Discourse Processes (2): 149-170.
Farris, C. 2000. Cross-sex peer conflict and the discursive production of gender in a Chinese preschool in Taiwan [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (5): 539-568.
Flannes, S. & Levin, G. 2005. Essential People Skills for Project Managers [M]. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.
García Gómez, A. 2000. Discourse, politeness and gender roles: An exploratory investigation into British and Spanish talk show verbal conflicts [J]. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense (8): 97-125.
García Gómez, A. 2006. British and American expressions of politeness in anger-evoking contexts: A cultural-relativistic approach [J]. Culture, Language and Representation (3): 145-159.
García Gómez, A. 2009. Don’t get mad, get persuasive!: Anger management and persuasion in TV discourses [J]. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses (22):79-98.
Gardner, W., Peluchette, L., VanEck, J. & Clinebell, S. K. 1994. Valuing women in management: An impression management perspective of gender diversity [J]. Management Communication Quarterly (2): 115-164.
Garvey, C. & Shantz, C. U. 1992. Conflict talk: Approaches to adversative discourse [A]. In C. Shantzs & W. Hartup (eds.), Conflict in Child and Adolescent Development [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 93-121.
Georgakopoulou, A. 2001. Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (12): 1881-1900.
Glissmeyer, M., Bishop, J. W. & Fass, R. D. 2007. Role conflict, role ambiguity, and intention to quit the organization: The case of law enforcement officers’[R]. Paper presented at the conference of the 38th Southwest Decision Sciences Institute Annual Conference, Boston University, Arizona, November 2007.
Goethals, N. 2008. A Dramaturgical Perspective on Impression Management [D]. M. A. Thesis. Maastricht University.
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life [M]. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. 1990. Interstitial argument [A]. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 85-117.
Goodwin, M. H. 1983. Aggravated corrections and disagreements in children’s conversations [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (6): 657-677.
Goodwin, M. H., Goodwin, C. & Yaeger-Dror, M. 2002. Multi-modality in girls’game disputes [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (10-11): 1621-1649.
Gregson, S. I. 2005. Narrative, Spectacle, Performance: A Dramaturgical Investigation into the Relationship between an Aesthetic Event and the Social World in Rock and Pop Culture [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. Brunel University.
Griffin, Em. 2006. A First Look at Communication Theory [M]. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Grimshaw, A. D. (ed.). 1990. Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Argument in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grove, S. J. & Fisk, R. P. 2001. Service theatre: An analytical framework for servicemarketing [A]. In C. Lovelock (ed.), Service Marketing (4th ed.) [C]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International Inc. 83-92.
Hacker, K. L. 1996. Political linguistic discourse analysis: Analyzing the relationships of power and language [A]. In M. E. Stuckey (ed.), The Theory and Practice of Political Communication Research [C]. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 28-55.
Hammond, H. 2009. Critically assess Goffman’s analysis of the presentation of self [EB/OL]. Http: //www.essex.ac.uk/ sociology/ student_journals/ ug_journal/ Vol2_summer2009.aspx (accessed 16/4/2009).
Hasund, I. K. & Stenstr?m, A-B. 1997. Conflict talk: A comparison of the verbal disputes between adolescent females in two corpora [A]. In M. Ljung (ed.), Corpus-based Studies in English: Papers from the Seventeenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 17) Stockholm, May 15-19, 1996 [C]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi. 119-134.
Holzbauer, N. 2007. Power Relations in Phone-in Programmes: A Case Study [D]. M. A. Thesis. Vienna University.
Honda, A. 2002. Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (5): 573-608.
Hong, Y. J. 2003. Interactional sociolinguistic analysis of argumentative strategies between Japanese and Korean graduate students and their instructors [R]. Paper presented at the conference of the 8th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, Kibi International University, Okayama, Japan, August 2003.
Hutchby, I. 1996. Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
John, J. 1996. A dramaturgical view of the health care service encounter: Cultural value-based impression management guidelines for medical professional behavior [J]. European Journal of Marketing (9): 60-74.
Kakavá, C. 2002. Opposition in modern Greek discourse: Cultural and contextual constraints [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (10-11): 1537-1568.
Kakavá, C. 2003. Discourse and conflict [A]. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C]. Oxford: Blackwell. 650-670.
Kivisto, P. & Pittman, D. 2010. Goffman’s dramaturgical sociology: Personal sales and service in a commodified world [A]. In P. Kivisto & P. J. Kivisto (eds.), Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited (5th ed.) [C]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. 326-348.
Kopperschmidt, J. 1985. An analysis of argumentation [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Dimensions of Discourse [C]. New York: Academic Press. 159-168.
Kotthoff, H. 1993. Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures [J]. Language in Society (2): 193-216.
Lemert, C. & Branaman, A. 1997. The Goffman Reader [M]. Cambridge: Blackwell. Leung, S. 2002. Conflict talk: A discourse analytical perspective [J]. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics. Special Issue, 93-112.
Lin, C. Y. 1999. Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese Conversation [D]. M. A. Thesis. National Chengchi University.
Liu, J-Y. 2009. Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese: A Sociopragmatic Analysis [D]. M. A. Thesis. National Chengchi University.
Locher, M. A. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication [M]. Berlin /New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lyons, J. 1981. Language and Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maltz, D. N. & Borker, R. A. 1982. A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication [A]. In J. J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 196-216.
Maynard, D. W. 1985. How children start arguments [J]. Language in Society (1): 1-29.
Mayr, A. 2008. Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse [M]. London/New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
McCoy, J. & Mateas, M. 2009. The computation of self in everyday life: A dramaturgical approach for socially competent agents [EB/OL]. Http: // www. aaai. org/ Papers/ Symposia/ Spring/ 2009/ SS-09-06/ SS09-06-023. pdf (accessed 12/11/2010).
Merriam-Webster Inc. 1995. Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of Literature [M].Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc.
Muntigl, P. & Turnbull, W. 1998. Conversational structure and facework in arguing [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (3): 225-256.
Musolf, G. R. 2003. Structure and Agency in Everyday Life: An Introduction to Social Psychology [M]. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Olausen, K. R. 2007. Protests without Tear Gas: Portrayals of Campus Activism in the Print Media 1996-2004 [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. North Carolina State University.
Overington, M. A. 1977. Kenneth Burke and the method of dramatism [J]. Theory and Society (4): 131-156.
Pagliai, V. 2010. Introduction: Performing disputes [J]. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology (1): 63-71.
Panteli, N. 2002. Trust performance and dramaturgical plays in virtual teams [R]. Paper presented at the conference of ECIS, Gdańsk, Poland, June 2002.
Pujolar, J. (ed.). 2001. Gender, Heteroglossia and Power: A Sociolinguistic Study of Youth Culture [C]. Berlin/New York: Monton de Gruyter.
Putnam, L. 2001. The language of opposition [A]. In W. F. Eadie & P. E. Nelson (eds.), The Language of Conflict and Resolution [C]. London: Sage. 10-20.
Quinn, B. A. 2005. A dramaturgical perspective on academic libraries [J]. Libraries and the Academy (3): 329-352.
Rees-Miller, J. 2000. Power, severity, and context in disagreement [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (8): 1087-1111.
Ribeiro, B. T. 1996. Conflict talk in a psychiatric discharge interview: Struggling between personal and official footings [A]. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M.
Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis [C]. London: Routledge. 179-193.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J. & Lirtzman, S. I. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly (2): 150-163.
Scott, S. 2002. Linguistic feature variations within disagreements: An empirical investigation [J]. Text (2): 301-328.
Seedhourse, P. & Richards, K. 2007. Describing and analyzing institutional varieties of interaction [A]. In H. Bowles & P. Seedhouse (eds.), Conversation Analysis and Language for Specific Purpose, (Vol. 63) [C]. Bern, Germany: Lang. 17-36.
Spitz, A. 2005. Power Plays: The Representation of Mother-daughter Disputes in Contemporary Plays by Women. A study in discourse analysis [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Saarland.
Stenstr?m, A-B., Andersen, G. & Hasund, I. K. 2002. Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus Compilation, Analysis, and Findings [M]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stewart, K. A. 2008. Interactive Construction of Dispute Narratives in Mediated Conflict Talk [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. the University of Texas at Austin.
Stryker, S. 1968. Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for family research [J]. Journal of Marriage and the Family (30): 558-564.
Uitdewilligen, S. 2005. Impression Management in Group Situations: Effects of Self-presentations on Formation of Positive Impressions and Influence in Project Teams [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. Maastricht University.
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Toward Solving Conflicts of Opinion [M]. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
Vuchinich, S. 1990. The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict [A]. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 118-138.
Walker, A. G. 1987. Linguistic manipulation, power, and the legal setting [A]. In L. Kedar (ed.), Power through Discourse [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 57-80.
Wooffitt, R. 2005. Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction [M]. London: Sage Publications.
陈金诗. 2010.庭审中冲突的化解——法官语篇信息处理的框架分析[R].法律语言学学术研讨会暨第六届中国法律语言学研究年会,西南政法大学, 11月, 2010年.
杜领利. 2006.网络聊天室中冲突话语的分析[D].重庆:西南大学.
高萍. 2006.剧本中冲突性话语研究[D].延吉:延边大学.
黄学武. 2005.法庭语言表达的基本原则和理念要求[N].江苏法制报. 2005-08-30(7).
贾婕婷. 2007.话语冲突的顺应性研究[D].太原:山西大学.
李祥云,张德禄. 2007.争吵话语结构特点研究[J].外语与外语教学(12): 4-7.
廖美珍. 2003.法庭回答及其互动研究[M].北京:法律出版社.
廖美珍. 2004.目的原则与法庭互动话语合作问题研究[J].外语学刊(5): 43-52.
廖美珍. 2005.法庭语言技巧[M].北京:法律出版社.
吕万英. 2005.司法调解话语中的冲突性打断[J].解放军外国语学院学报(6): 22-26.
毛颖哲. 2009.家庭成员间冲突性话语的顺应性研究[J].西安文理学院学报(社会科学版)(4): 64-66.
冉永平. 2010.冲突性话语趋异取向的语用分析[J].现代外语(2):150-157.
孙云雯. 2008.《老友记》中的冲突性话语分析[D].上海:上海交通大学.
王林海,赵海燕. 2008.交际口语中人际冲突话语的隐喻类型及频率分析[J].外语电化教学(4): 54-58.
吴鹏. 2007.中国法庭话语中的打断现象研究——目的、权力与打断[D].南京:江苏大学.
杨锐. 2005.刑事法庭话语中的角色互动研究[D].武汉:华中师范大学.
赵英玲. 2004.冲突话语分析[J].外语学刊(5): 37-42.
赵英玲. 2008.汉语冲突话语语用修辞研究[D].长春:东北师范大学.
赵忠德,张琳. 2005.从关联理论看话语冲突[J].外语教学(1): 17-21.
朱晓琴. 2008.《疯狂主妇》中夫妻间冲突话语的语用分析[D].厦门:厦门大学.
①The full name of the corpus is the Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language.
①In the master thesis, Gao Ping (2006) proposes Chen Xiaochun is the first one to study aspects of conflict talk in China.
②If put it in the courtroom interaction,“symbol”can be regarded as a process of managing or eliminating conflict talk.
①As to the Chinese version of Extract 3, see it on pp.80-81.
①As to the Chinese version of Extract 3, see it on pp.80-81.
①“Q”stands for question, and“R”stands for response.
①The word-by-word gloss for Extract 1 in Figure 4.4 is omitted. See the Chinese version on p.80.
①“I”means initiation,“R”means response, and“F”means follow-up.