Pragmatic Values of Negation in English and.docx

Pragmatic Values of Negation in English and.docx

《Pragmatic Values of Negation in English and.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Pragmatic Values of Negation in English and.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

PragmaticValuesofNegationinEnglishand

PragmaticValuesofNegationinEnglishand

ChineseinSomeTypicalSituations

王璐璐、叶岚、夏鹭、王友香、董宏程

Inthecourseofcommunication,ifthespeakerandthehearerhavethesameopinion,theycanusuallytalkwitheachothersuccessfullybyapplyingthelanguagerulescorrectly.Butinsomecircumstances,thetwopeopledonotagreewitheachother.Whenthehearerhastogiveanegativeanswer,itmaybedifficulttogoonwiththeconversation,fornegatingisanimpoliteverbalbehaviorundercertaincircumstances.

IneitherEnglishorChinese,somenegativesentenceswiththenegator不、没有orno,notmaysoundharsh,stiffandunacceptable.Soinpracticaluse,peoplewilltrytomaketheunpleasingutterancetactfulinsomespecialway.Inbothlanguages,peopletrytousevariousformsofnegationsuchastransferrednegation,impliednegation,covertaffirmation,etc.toshowvariousfeelingssuchassurprise,sorrow,doubtandanger,ortomakeasuggestion,invitation,complaint,etc.Theytrytostrengthenthetonewithsomeformsandweakenthetonewithsomeotherformswhilesavingthehearer’sface.SotheEnglish-speakingpeopleandtheChinesepeopleadoptvariousformsofnegationtoachievethepragmaticaims.

However,theEnglish-speakingpeopleandChinesepeoplemaydifferinadoptinganegativeutteranceoranaffirmativeutteranceeveninthesamesituationtoshowpoliteness.Inthecourseofthisverbalbehavior,theyobservedifferentpragmaticprinciples.Sointhispresentation,theauthorwillfirstlyreviewthepragmatictheories,andthenmakeananalysisofthepragmaticvaluesofnegationinEnglishandChineseinsometypicalsituations,sothatpeoplemayapplynegationinEnglishandChineseappropriatelyincross-culturalcommunication.

1.PragmaticTheories

NessaWolfson（quotedinBi1999:

347）oncepointedout:

communicationisrulegoverned;therulesvarydependingonthecontextandthecontexthelpstodefinetherulesandsorulesareculturallydiverse.Socommunicationrulesarebothculturallyandcontextuallybound.Whatismostdifficultininterculturalcommunicationisthatcommunicationrulesarenotonlyculturespecificbutalsolargelyunconscious.Whatisworseisthatpeoplemaytransfertherulesoftheirownculturetotheinterculturalcontext,whichmaycausemisunderstandingsonbothsides（Samovar1991）.Thisjustifieswhywewillhaveareviewofthefollowingimportantpragmatictheories.

1.1Grice’sCooperativePrinciple

H.P.Grice（1975）maintainsthatthereisasetofover-archingassumptionsguidingtheconductofconversation.Heidentifiesfourbasicmaximsofconversationunderlyingtheefficientcooperativeuseoflanguage,whichjointlyexpressesageneralcooperativeprinciple.TheCooperativePrinciple（CP）isexpressedasfollows:

1.TheMaximofQuality:

Trytomakeyourcontributiononethatistrue,specifically:

（a）donotsaywhatyoubelievetobefalse;

（b）donotsaythatforwhichyoulackadequateevidence

2.TheMaximofQuantity:

（a）makeyourcontributionasinformativeasisrequiredforthecurrentpurposesoftheexchange；

（b）donotmakeyourcontributionmoreinformativethanisrequired

3.TheMaximofRelevance:

makeyourcontributionrelevant

4.TheMaximofManner;

（a）avoidobscurity:

（b）avoidambiguity;

（c）bebrief;（d）beorderly（Levinson1983:

101-102）

Thesemaximsspecifywhatparticipantshavetodoinordertoconverseinanefficient,rational,andcooperativeway.Theyshouldspeaksincerely,relevantlyandclearly,whileprovidingsufficientinformation.Butinfact,peopledonotalwaysfollowthesemaxims.Sometimesthemaximsareevenblatantlyviolated.Forexample,theEnglish-speakingpeopletendtosay,“Idon’tthinkheishonest”tomean,“Ithinkheisnothonest”.InEnglish,suchtransferringis10to1insentenceswiththink,suppose,etc.（Quirk&Svartik1980）.Inthisverbalbehavior,peopleobviouslyviolatetheMaximofQualityinCP.Theymustobserveotherpragmaticprinciples.

1.2BrownandLevinson’sFaceTheory

Withintheireverydaysocialinteractions,peoplegenerallybehaveasiftheirexpectationsconcerningtheirpublicself-image,ortheirfacewantswillberespected.BrownandLevinson（1978）analyzepolitenessasshowingawarenessoftheneedtopreserveface（publicself-image）.ThegeneralideaofBrownandLevinson’smodelofpolitenessistounderstandvariousstrategiesforinteractionalbehaviortoachievesatisfactionofcertainwants.Thewantsrelatedtopolitenessarethewantsofface,“somethingthatisemotionallyinvested,andthatcanbelost,maintained,andenhanced,andmustbeconstantlyattendedtoininteraction”（BrownandLevinson1978:

66）.Theconceptisdirectlyrelatedtothefolk-expression“loseface”,whichisaboutbeingembarrassedorhumiliated.Ifaspeakersayssomethingthatrepresentsathreattoanotherindividual’sexpectations,itisdescribedasaFaceThreateningAct.And,giventhepossibilitiesthatsomeactionmightbeinterpretedasathreattoanother’sface,thespeakercansaysomethingtolessenthepossiblethreat.ThisiscalledaFaceSavingAct.Generallyspeaking,eachparticipantinvolvedininteractionswillattempttorespectthefacewantsofothersandtherearedifferentwaysofperformingfacesavingacts.

AccordingtoBrownandLevinson（1978）,therearetwoaspectsofface.Oneis“positiveface”,thepositiveconsistentself-imagethatpeoplehaveandwanttobeappreciatedandapprovedofbyatleastsomeotherpeople.Theotheris“negativeface”,ortherighttoterritories,freedomofactionandfreedomfromimposition;essentiallythewantthatone’sactionsarenotimpededbyothers.So,afacesavingactwhichisorientedtotheperson’snegativefacewilltendtoshowdeference,emphasizetheimportanceoftheother’stimeorconcerns,andevenincludeanapologyfortheimpositionorinterruption.Thisisalsocallednegativepoliteness.Afacesavingactwhichisconcernedwiththeperson’spositivefacewilltendtoshowsolidarity,emphasizethatbothspeakerswantthesamething,andthattheyhaveacommongoal.Thisiscalledpositivepoliteness（Yule2000:

61-62）.

Actually,theCooperativePrincipleandFaceTheorycannotsatisfactorilyexplainsomeapparentexpectations.Basedontheformer,LeechproposestheconceptofthePolitenessPrinciple（PP）.

1.3Leech’sPolitenessPrinciple

Leech’sviewofpolitenessinvolvesasetofpolitenessmaxims.Amongtheseare:

1.TactMaxim

（a）minimizecosttoother;（b）maximizebenefittoother

2.GenerosityMaxim

（a）minimizebenefittoself;（b）maximizecostofself

3.ApprobationMaxim

（a）minimizedispraiseofother;（b）maximizepraiseofother

4.ModestyMaxim

（a）minimizepraiseofself;（b）maximizedispraiseofself

5.AgreementMaxim

（a）minimizedisagreementbetweenselfandother;（b）maximizeagreementbetweenselfandother

6.SympathyMaxim

（a）minimizeantipathybetweenselfandother;（b）maximizeagreementbetweenselfandother（Leech1983:

132）

LeecharguesthattheCooperativePrincipleisnotsufficienttoexplaintheindirectnessinconversationandbothCPandPParerequiredtoaccountforinterpretationofindirectnessintheauthenticcommunication.SoPolitenessPrinciplecanberegardednotjustasanotherprincipletobeaddedtotheCooperativePrinciple,butasanecessarycomplement,whichrescuestheCooperativePrinciplefromserioustrouble.TheCooperativePrinciplecanhelpustoregulatewhatwesaysothatitcontributestosomeassumedillocutionaryordiscoursegoals.However,thePolitenessPrinciplehasahigherregulativerolethanthis,tomaintainthesocialequilibriumandfriendlyrelations,whichenableustoassumethatourinterlocutorsarebeingcooperativeinthefirstplace.

“Modesty”isemphasizedinEnglishculture,anditisevenmoreimportantinChineseculture.ThecoreofChinesepolitenessisshownbydenigratingselfandrespectingother.However,theculturalconnotationsofChinesemodestyaredifferentfromthatofLeech’s“modesty”inhis“ModestyMaxim”:

ChinesemodestyistoputdownselfandtobuildupotherwhereasLeech’s“ModestyMaxim”isavoidingself-praise;ChinesemodestyisacoreofChinesepolitenesswhereasthe“ModestyMaxim”isnotmoreimportantthantheothermaximsofLeech’sPolitenessPrinciple;Chinesemodestyisavirtueofself-cultivationthatisthefoundationonwhichpolitenessisbuiltwhereasEnglishmodestyisastrategyofminimizingpraiseofself.SoChinesepolitenesshasitsowncharacteristics.Basedonthis,顾曰国（1990and1994）proposedtheChinesepolitenesstheory（CPT）.

1.4GuYueguo’sChinesePolitenessTheory

Chinaisacountryfamousforheruniquemodesty—self-depreciationforshowingrespecttoother.GuYueguo（1990）pointsoutthefouroutstandingcharacteristicsofChinesepoliteness,theyare:

respectforother（respectfulness）,denigrationofself（modesty）,warmthtowardsother（attitudinalwarmth）andrefinementinlanguageuse.Respectforotherisself’spositiveappreciationoradmirationofotherconcerningthelatter’sface,socialstatus,andsoon.Denigrationofselfisself’swayofshowingmodesty.Warmthtowardotherisself’sdemonstrationofkindness,consideration,andhospitalitytoother.Refinementinlanguageusereferstoself’sbehaviortootherwhichmeetcertainstandards（Gu1990:

239）.FollowingLeech’sframework,Gu（1994:

496-511）hasformulatedfivepolitenessmaxims.

1.Self-depreciationMaxim

（a）depreciateself;（b）raiseother

2.AddressingMaxim

addressotherproperlyaccordingtohisorhersocialrank,economicstatusandage

3.RefinementMaxim

（a）berefinedinspeech;（b）avoidobs