语用移情的多维视角研究
|
摘要
移情研究始于德国美学,意为情感渗透,现已超越美学领域,成为心理学、心理治疗学、语言学等领域的研究课题。何自然(1991)最早把移情研究引入语用学领域,并提出语用移情这一概念。移情在语用学上指言语交际双方情感相通,能设想和理解对方用意。它既有语用-语言的问题,也有社会-语用问题,涉及说话人如何刻意对听话人吐露心声、表达用意,听话人如何设身处地来理解说话人言谈的心态和意图。目前为止,大多数语用移情研究都只从语用-语言或社会-语用方面着手,还没有对语用移情进行过系统和深入的研究。本文以何自然提出的语用移情概念为理论基础,从社会-文化维度、认知-心理维度和表现形式三个方面研究语用移情的本质、社会文化功能、认知努力、心理代价、表现形式,以便增强人们的语用移情意识,促进交际。
从社会-文化维度看,语用移情与合作原则和礼貌原则有许多重合之处:实现语用移情的过程就是遵循合作原则的过程,说话人和听话人始终从对方立场来编码和解码就是一种合作的表现;礼貌是语用移情的生成动机,而礼貌原则则为语用移情的实现提供了一种指导。在此基础上,本文提炼出了语用移情的本质特征:(1)语用移情是相互的,强调交际过程中的“对方”倾向性和平等性:(2)语用移情体现了交际者的积极合作态度;(3)语用移情强调交际话语的礼貌性和得体性。语用移情作为一种有效交际策略,在交际中起着重要的作用。
从认知-心理维度看,语用移情的实现是需要付出认知努力和心理代价的。认知努力包括心理揣摩和换位思考,而心理代价则是要求移情一方适度抑制自己的真实情感。在此基础上,本文提出从两方面增强语用移情,即缩小交际双方的差异和积极移情。
从表现形式维度看,交际者通过刻意选择称谓、指示语、间接言语行为、模糊词语和表达方式以及情态表达都可以表露自己的态度、情感和对对方的理解,从而促进交际中语用移情的实现。
Empathy, originated in German aesthetics and meaning "feeling into", has been studied in aesthetics, psychology, psychotherapy, linguistics and so on. He Ziran (1991) first set forth the application of empathy to pragmatics and proposed the concept of pragmatic empathy. In pragmatics, empathy is that the speaker and the hearer, who are involved in the act of communication, can detect and identify the immediate affective state of each other, encode and decode the messages by stepping into the other's shoes. Pragmatic empathy can be studied from two aspects: pragma-linguistics and socio-pragmatics. Most present studies on pragmatic empathy have just focused on either of the two aspects and have not been conducted in a deep-going way. There is a lack of systematic study on pragmatic empathy. On the basis of He Ziran's concept of pragmatic empathy, this thesis attempts to investigate the nature, the socio-cultural functions, the cognitive efforts, the psychological cost, the regulating efforts and the realization of pragmatic empathy from three dimensions: social-cultural dimension, cognitive-psychological dimension and the realization. It is hoped that we can gain a deep insight into the nature and functional mechanisms of pragmatic empathy to improve our skills in achieving pragmatic empathy in the process of communication.
Socio-culturally, pragmatic empathy shares a great deal of overlap with Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle. The process of achieving pragmatic empathy is also a process of following Cooperative Principle, i.e., both speaker's accurate encoding and hearer's correct decoding from the other's perspective are cooperative efforts for successful communication. Pragmatic empathy is highly motivated by the consideration of politeness and Politeness Principle serves as an guide for achieving pragmatic empathy. Based on the above analysis, this thesis has summarized the nature of pragmatic empathy as: pragmatic empathy is reciprocal, stressing a kind of "you" orientation and equality between participants in communication; pragmatic empathy indicates a kind of co-operative effort and requires the participants' contributions to be quite polite and appropriate in communication. As an effective communicative strategy, pragmatic empathy plays an important role in communication.
From a cognitive-psychological perspective, cognitive efforts and psychological cost are required in achieving pragmatic empathy. Cognitive efforts consist of mind-reading and perspective-taking, while psychological cost requires the empathizer to suppress his true feelings properly. This paper has proposed two ways of regulating pragmatic empathy: bridging the gap between self and other, and preparing for pragmatic empathy.
As to the realization of pragmatic empathy, the intentional selection of address forms, deixis, indirect speech acts, vague words and expressions, and modality could indicate communicators's attitudes, feeling and considerations towards the other, thus facilitate communicators in conveying involvement and empathy towards the other.
从社会-文化维度看,语用移情与合作原则和礼貌原则有许多重合之处:实现语用移情的过程就是遵循合作原则的过程,说话人和听话人始终从对方立场来编码和解码就是一种合作的表现;礼貌是语用移情的生成动机,而礼貌原则则为语用移情的实现提供了一种指导。在此基础上,本文提炼出了语用移情的本质特征:(1)语用移情是相互的,强调交际过程中的“对方”倾向性和平等性:(2)语用移情体现了交际者的积极合作态度;(3)语用移情强调交际话语的礼貌性和得体性。语用移情作为一种有效交际策略,在交际中起着重要的作用。
从认知-心理维度看,语用移情的实现是需要付出认知努力和心理代价的。认知努力包括心理揣摩和换位思考,而心理代价则是要求移情一方适度抑制自己的真实情感。在此基础上,本文提出从两方面增强语用移情,即缩小交际双方的差异和积极移情。
从表现形式维度看,交际者通过刻意选择称谓、指示语、间接言语行为、模糊词语和表达方式以及情态表达都可以表露自己的态度、情感和对对方的理解,从而促进交际中语用移情的实现。
Empathy, originated in German aesthetics and meaning "feeling into", has been studied in aesthetics, psychology, psychotherapy, linguistics and so on. He Ziran (1991) first set forth the application of empathy to pragmatics and proposed the concept of pragmatic empathy. In pragmatics, empathy is that the speaker and the hearer, who are involved in the act of communication, can detect and identify the immediate affective state of each other, encode and decode the messages by stepping into the other's shoes. Pragmatic empathy can be studied from two aspects: pragma-linguistics and socio-pragmatics. Most present studies on pragmatic empathy have just focused on either of the two aspects and have not been conducted in a deep-going way. There is a lack of systematic study on pragmatic empathy. On the basis of He Ziran's concept of pragmatic empathy, this thesis attempts to investigate the nature, the socio-cultural functions, the cognitive efforts, the psychological cost, the regulating efforts and the realization of pragmatic empathy from three dimensions: social-cultural dimension, cognitive-psychological dimension and the realization. It is hoped that we can gain a deep insight into the nature and functional mechanisms of pragmatic empathy to improve our skills in achieving pragmatic empathy in the process of communication.
Socio-culturally, pragmatic empathy shares a great deal of overlap with Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle. The process of achieving pragmatic empathy is also a process of following Cooperative Principle, i.e., both speaker's accurate encoding and hearer's correct decoding from the other's perspective are cooperative efforts for successful communication. Pragmatic empathy is highly motivated by the consideration of politeness and Politeness Principle serves as an guide for achieving pragmatic empathy. Based on the above analysis, this thesis has summarized the nature of pragmatic empathy as: pragmatic empathy is reciprocal, stressing a kind of "you" orientation and equality between participants in communication; pragmatic empathy indicates a kind of co-operative effort and requires the participants' contributions to be quite polite and appropriate in communication. As an effective communicative strategy, pragmatic empathy plays an important role in communication.
From a cognitive-psychological perspective, cognitive efforts and psychological cost are required in achieving pragmatic empathy. Cognitive efforts consist of mind-reading and perspective-taking, while psychological cost requires the empathizer to suppress his true feelings properly. This paper has proposed two ways of regulating pragmatic empathy: bridging the gap between self and other, and preparing for pragmatic empathy.
As to the realization of pragmatic empathy, the intentional selection of address forms, deixis, indirect speech acts, vague words and expressions, and modality could indicate communicators's attitudes, feeling and considerations towards the other, thus facilitate communicators in conveying involvement and empathy towards the other.
引文
Afful, J. A. 2007. Address Forms and Variation among University Students in Ghana, Nordic Journal of African Studies 16 (2): 179-196.
Astington, N. J. 2003. Sometimes necessary, never sufficient: False-belief understanding and social competence. In B. Repacholi & V. Slaughter (eds.),Individual differences in theory of mind. Macquarie monographs in cognitive science. (pp. 12-38) Hove, E. Sussex: Psychology Press.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. 1981. The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 91-100.
Bell, R. 1987. Social Involvement. In J. McCroskey & J. Daly, eds. Personality and Interpersonal Communication. (Newbury Park, CA: Sage), 205.
Bennett, M. J.1998. Intercultural communication: A Current Perspective. In M. J.Bennett.(ed.). Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication. Yarmouth,Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.
Braun, F. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. (M) Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. pp: 49.
Brown, H. D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness Phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, D. & J. Strayer. 1996. Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison youth. Developmental Psychology, 32, 988-998.
Davis, M. H. et al.1996. Effect of Perspective Taking on the Cognitive Representation of Persons: A Merging of Self and Other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 713.
Davis, M. & T. Stone. 2003. Synthesis: Psychological understanding and social skills. In B. Repacholi & V. Slaughter (eds.), Individual differences in theory of mind. Macquarie monographs in cognitive science. Hove, E. Sussex:Psychology Press.
Dodd, C. H. 1995. Dynamics of Intercultural Communication. Wm C. Brown Communication, Inc.
Eisenberg, N. & J. Strayer. 1987. Empathy and its development. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Epley, N. et al. 2004. Perspective Taking as Egocentric Anchoring and Adjustment Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 336.
Fasold, R. 2000. The Sociolinguistics of Language, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Blackwell Publisher Ltd.
Fredsted, E. 1998. On Semantic and Pragmatic Ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics,30,527-541.
Goldman, A. 1993. The psychology of folk psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 15-28.
Goldstein, A. P. & G Y. Michaels. 1985. Empathy: Development, Training, and Consequences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbraum Associates.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation, In Cole, P. & J. Morgan. (eds.). Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2000, An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. Peking:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Jack, D. 1987. Silencing the self: The power of social imperatives in female depression. In R. Formanek & A. Gurian (eds.), Women and Depression: A Life Span Perspective. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Katz, R. L. 1963. Empathy: its nature and uses. London: Free Press of Glencoe.
Kohler, W. 1929. Gestalt Psychology. Oxford: Liveright.
Kohut, H. 1959. Introspection, empathy, and psychoanalysis: An examination of the relationship between mode of observation and theory. In P. H. Omstein (ed.),The search for the self. Vol.1. New York: International University Press.
Kohut, H. 1980. Selected problems in self-psychological theory. In P. H. Ornstein (ed.), The search for the self. Vol.4. New York: International University Press.
Kuno, S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy [M],Chicago: The University of Chicgo Press.
Leech, G. H. 1983. Principle of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman Group Limited.
Levinson, S. C. 1987. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moskowitz, G. B. 2005. Social Cognition. New York: The Guilford Press, 277.
Ossowski, S. 1978. The Foundation of Aestherics. Boston: U.S.S., D, Keidel Publishing Company.
Paal, T & T. Bereczkei. 2007. Adult theory of mind, cooperation, Machiavellianism:The effect of mindreading on social relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 541-551.
Parkinson,M.1985.The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identitv.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Perkins,M.R.1983.Modal Expressions in English.London:Frances Printer.
Plutchik,R.1987.Evolutionary bases of empathy.In N.Eisenberg & J.Strayer (eds.),Empathy and its development(pp.38-46).New York:Cambridge University Press.
Premack,D.,& P.A.James.1994.Why animals have neither culture nor history.In T.Ingold(ed.),Companion encyclopedia of anthropology.London:Routledge.
Premack,D.,& G.Woodruff.1978.Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,1,512-526.
Rogers,C.R.1959,A theory of therapy,personality and interpersonal relationships,as developed in the client-centered framework.In S.Koch(ed.),Psychology:A study of science,Vol.3(pp.184-256).New York:Mc Graw Hill.
Rogers,C.R.1975.Empathic:An unappreciated way of being.Counseling Psychologist,5,2-10.
Ruben,B.D.1977.Human communication and cross-culutal effectiveness.In Samovar,L.A.& R.E.Porter.1988.Intercultural Communication:A Reader.5th eds.Belmont,California:Wadsworth Publications.
Rubin,D & L.P.Stewart.1998.Communication and Human Behavior,4th ed.Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
Samovar,L.A.1998.Oral Communication:Speaking Across Cultures.London:McGraw Hill Company.
Samovar,L.A.& R.E.Porter.1988.Intercultural Communication:A Reader.5th eds.Belmont,California:Wadsworth Publications.
Samovar,L.A.& R.E.Porte.1995.Communication between Cultures.Belmont,California:wadsworth Publishing Company.
Samovar,L.A.& R.E.Porter.2000.Communication Across Cultures.3rd ed.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Samovar,L.A.& R.E.Porter.2004.Communication Between Cultures.5th ed.Peking University Press.
Spencer-Oatey,H.2002.Managing Rapport in Talk:Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.Journal of Pragmatics 34,529-545.
Thomas,J.1995.Meaning in interaction:An Introduction to pragmatics.London/New York:Longman.
Trenholm,S.& A.Jensen.1992.Interpersonal Communication.2~(nd) ed.Belmont,CA:Wadsworth.
Wynn.R.& M.Wynn.2006.Empathy as an Interactionally achieved phenomenon in Psychotherapy:Characteristics of Some Conversational Resources Journal of Pragmatics 38,1385-1397.
Yule,G.2000.Pragmatics.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
柴改英,2006,传情达意:语言的移情透视,中北大学学报(社会科学版)第5期。
耿德本,1996,“移情”理论与并列结构中人称代词的顺序问题,《现代外语》第3期。
郭兆康,2000,《饭店情景英语》,上海:复旦大学出版社。
梁锦祥,1990,移情原则略说,《山东外语教学》第2期。
何自然,1990,浅论语用含糊,《外国语》第3期。
何自然,1991,言语交际中的语用移情,《外语教学与研究》第4期。
何自然,1997,《语言学与英语学习》,上海外语教育出版社。
文旭,2002,功能句法学中的移情原则及其认知解释,福建外语第3期。
俞森林,2006,从语用移情看翻译中文化意象的取舍,西南交通大学学报(社会科学版)第4期。
张俊,苗兴伟,2004,语言移情的人际功能视角,《外语教学》第5期。
Astington, N. J. 2003. Sometimes necessary, never sufficient: False-belief understanding and social competence. In B. Repacholi & V. Slaughter (eds.),Individual differences in theory of mind. Macquarie monographs in cognitive science. (pp. 12-38) Hove, E. Sussex: Psychology Press.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. 1981. The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 91-100.
Bell, R. 1987. Social Involvement. In J. McCroskey & J. Daly, eds. Personality and Interpersonal Communication. (Newbury Park, CA: Sage), 205.
Bennett, M. J.1998. Intercultural communication: A Current Perspective. In M. J.Bennett.(ed.). Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication. Yarmouth,Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.
Braun, F. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. (M) Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. pp: 49.
Brown, H. D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness Phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, D. & J. Strayer. 1996. Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison youth. Developmental Psychology, 32, 988-998.
Davis, M. H. et al.1996. Effect of Perspective Taking on the Cognitive Representation of Persons: A Merging of Self and Other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 713.
Davis, M. & T. Stone. 2003. Synthesis: Psychological understanding and social skills. In B. Repacholi & V. Slaughter (eds.), Individual differences in theory of mind. Macquarie monographs in cognitive science. Hove, E. Sussex:Psychology Press.
Dodd, C. H. 1995. Dynamics of Intercultural Communication. Wm C. Brown Communication, Inc.
Eisenberg, N. & J. Strayer. 1987. Empathy and its development. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Epley, N. et al. 2004. Perspective Taking as Egocentric Anchoring and Adjustment Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 336.
Fasold, R. 2000. The Sociolinguistics of Language, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Blackwell Publisher Ltd.
Fredsted, E. 1998. On Semantic and Pragmatic Ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics,30,527-541.
Goldman, A. 1993. The psychology of folk psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 15-28.
Goldstein, A. P. & G Y. Michaels. 1985. Empathy: Development, Training, and Consequences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbraum Associates.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation, In Cole, P. & J. Morgan. (eds.). Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2000, An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. Peking:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Jack, D. 1987. Silencing the self: The power of social imperatives in female depression. In R. Formanek & A. Gurian (eds.), Women and Depression: A Life Span Perspective. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Katz, R. L. 1963. Empathy: its nature and uses. London: Free Press of Glencoe.
Kohler, W. 1929. Gestalt Psychology. Oxford: Liveright.
Kohut, H. 1959. Introspection, empathy, and psychoanalysis: An examination of the relationship between mode of observation and theory. In P. H. Omstein (ed.),The search for the self. Vol.1. New York: International University Press.
Kohut, H. 1980. Selected problems in self-psychological theory. In P. H. Ornstein (ed.), The search for the self. Vol.4. New York: International University Press.
Kuno, S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy [M],Chicago: The University of Chicgo Press.
Leech, G. H. 1983. Principle of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman Group Limited.
Levinson, S. C. 1987. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moskowitz, G. B. 2005. Social Cognition. New York: The Guilford Press, 277.
Ossowski, S. 1978. The Foundation of Aestherics. Boston: U.S.S., D, Keidel Publishing Company.
Paal, T & T. Bereczkei. 2007. Adult theory of mind, cooperation, Machiavellianism:The effect of mindreading on social relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 541-551.
Parkinson,M.1985.The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identitv.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Perkins,M.R.1983.Modal Expressions in English.London:Frances Printer.
Plutchik,R.1987.Evolutionary bases of empathy.In N.Eisenberg & J.Strayer (eds.),Empathy and its development(pp.38-46).New York:Cambridge University Press.
Premack,D.,& P.A.James.1994.Why animals have neither culture nor history.In T.Ingold(ed.),Companion encyclopedia of anthropology.London:Routledge.
Premack,D.,& G.Woodruff.1978.Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,1,512-526.
Rogers,C.R.1959,A theory of therapy,personality and interpersonal relationships,as developed in the client-centered framework.In S.Koch(ed.),Psychology:A study of science,Vol.3(pp.184-256).New York:Mc Graw Hill.
Rogers,C.R.1975.Empathic:An unappreciated way of being.Counseling Psychologist,5,2-10.
Ruben,B.D.1977.Human communication and cross-culutal effectiveness.In Samovar,L.A.& R.E.Porter.1988.Intercultural Communication:A Reader.5th eds.Belmont,California:Wadsworth Publications.
Rubin,D & L.P.Stewart.1998.Communication and Human Behavior,4th ed.Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
Samovar,L.A.1998.Oral Communication:Speaking Across Cultures.London:McGraw Hill Company.
Samovar,L.A.& R.E.Porter.1988.Intercultural Communication:A Reader.5th eds.Belmont,California:Wadsworth Publications.
Samovar,L.A.& R.E.Porte.1995.Communication between Cultures.Belmont,California:wadsworth Publishing Company.
Samovar,L.A.& R.E.Porter.2000.Communication Across Cultures.3rd ed.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Samovar,L.A.& R.E.Porter.2004.Communication Between Cultures.5th ed.Peking University Press.
Spencer-Oatey,H.2002.Managing Rapport in Talk:Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.Journal of Pragmatics 34,529-545.
Thomas,J.1995.Meaning in interaction:An Introduction to pragmatics.London/New York:Longman.
Trenholm,S.& A.Jensen.1992.Interpersonal Communication.2~(nd) ed.Belmont,CA:Wadsworth.
Wynn.R.& M.Wynn.2006.Empathy as an Interactionally achieved phenomenon in Psychotherapy:Characteristics of Some Conversational Resources Journal of Pragmatics 38,1385-1397.
Yule,G.2000.Pragmatics.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
柴改英,2006,传情达意:语言的移情透视,中北大学学报(社会科学版)第5期。
耿德本,1996,“移情”理论与并列结构中人称代词的顺序问题,《现代外语》第3期。
郭兆康,2000,《饭店情景英语》,上海:复旦大学出版社。
梁锦祥,1990,移情原则略说,《山东外语教学》第2期。
何自然,1990,浅论语用含糊,《外国语》第3期。
何自然,1991,言语交际中的语用移情,《外语教学与研究》第4期。
何自然,1997,《语言学与英语学习》,上海外语教育出版社。
文旭,2002,功能句法学中的移情原则及其认知解释,福建外语第3期。
俞森林,2006,从语用移情看翻译中文化意象的取舍,西南交通大学学报(社会科学版)第4期。
张俊,苗兴伟,2004,语言移情的人际功能视角,《外语教学》第5期。