萧伯纳早期问题剧的语用文体之英语研究

本文是一篇英语论文，本文首先在人际关系管理理论和戏剧人物塑造理论的基础上构建一个词汇、句法和话语三层面的会话分析框架。其次，将所建立的框架用于分析萧伯纳的两部早期剧作（即《鳏夫的房产》和《华伦夫人的职业》），并以人际冲突为语境，在解读话语意义，尤其是人际意义的基础上对人物塑造和情节发展做出解释，并以此为基础对两部剧作的主题以及主要创作特点进行归纳。

Chapter One Introduction

1.1 Background of the Present Study
This section consists of two sub-sections which provide rationales for carryingout the present dissertation. First, the general features of Shavian Plays aresummarized to explain the choice of the research subject of the present study. Then, abrief introduction to pragmastylistic study of play texts explicates the choice ofmethodology.
1.1.1 G. B. Shaw’s Plays
George Bernard Shaw, the most well-known British playwright afterShakespeare, had written more than sixty plays in his lifetime. It has been mostdifficult to devise accurate labels to cover the bulk of the Shaw plays, by calling them,for example, “discussion plays”, or “Shavian extravaganzas” (Smith, 1970: viii).However, there is no controversy over that “exposing social problems” is a majortheme in many important plays of the great playwright such as Widower’s Houses,Mrs. Warren’s Profession, Philander, Major Barbara, Bleak House, just name a few.
Shaw attached so much importance to problem plays. In the preface to Mrs.Warren’s Profession, he argued that “Only in the Problem Play is there any realdrama.” “Shaw is actually piding drama into two categories, the frivolous and theserious, his name for the letter being Problem Play.” (Bentley, 2002:117) Problemplays play a paramount role in G. B. Shaw’s dramatist career. Early problem playsbrought Shaw drastic criticisms as well as great reputation. They occupy a veryimportant position in Shaw’s works and can be regarded as the preface of the bulk ofhis plays (Innes, 2001). Shaw tried his distinctive drama techniques in the earlyproblem plays and gradually made them the most distinctive features of his plays.Some special techniques arising in early plays are of great importance for the study ofShaw’s other plays rather than simply on problem plays, for instance, characterization,interpersonal relationships, conflicts, as well as the plot pattern.
..........................

1.2 Objectives of the Present Study
The present study aims to disclose the general aesthetic features (i.e.characterization, plot development, theme construction) of George Bernard Shaw’searly problem plays. It attempts to explore how Shaw built characters, developed plotand constructed theme in confrontational conversations.
To achieve the goal, the present dissertation forms two arguments. First,inappropriate interpersonal meanings give rise to interpersonal conflicts. Second,linguistic expressions which concern about the management of interpersonalrelationship significantly contribute to characterization, plot development and thetheme. Therefore, interpreting interpersonal meanings constitutes the primary part ofthe interpretation of implied meanings in the present dissertation.
The general goal is pided into two questions.
1. How are interpersonal conflicts presented linguistically?
2. How are characterization, plot development and theme constructions achievedin interpersonal conflicts?
The first question concerns with linguistic analysis that will bring detailedinterpretations. It will interpret how linguistic expressions give rise to interpersonalconflicts and how conflicts develop. The second question concerns with the aestheticaspects of the plays. It will explain how characterization, plot development and themeconstructions are achieved in confrontational conversations.
To achieve appropriate interpretations, relevant linguistic categories at differentlanguage levels are to be sorted out and examined in detail to uncover the impliedmeanings. On the basis of the linguistic analysis, appropriate interpretations of thegeneral aesthetic features of the two selected plays are to be obtained.
........................

Chapter Two Literature Review

2.1 Studies of Shavian Problem Plays
2.1.1 Studies of Problem Plays at Abroad
Studies on Shavian plays are quite fruitful at broad than at home. Most studiesare crouched as a company to literary studies of Shaw from different perspectives.Though “problem play” constitutes a paramount part of Shaw’s works, few studies atabroad named their research topics with it. Most studies discussed the problem playseither in terms of the theme, for instance, “unpleasant plays” by Grene (1984) and byEvans (2003), or in terms of the period the plays were created, for instance, “earlyplays” by Marker (2001). When discussed Shavian problem plays, many studiesprimarily deals with three plays, i.e. Widower’s Houses, Mrs. Warren’s Profession,Major Barbara. Most of them tend to compare the three plays in terms ofcharacterization, plot and theme. Due the limited space of the present dissertation, thepresent study primarily introduces the information about the two selected plays of thepresentation dissertation, and mentions some features of Major Barbara if the featuresare inseparable from the two selected plays.
In terms of characterization, most critics would agree that Shaw produced“Shaw’s New Woman” (Lorichs, 1977: 100). Shaw labeled the New Woman as“unwomanly woman” to contrast them to the “womanly woman”. There is a booknamed Fabian Feminist: Bernard Shaw and Woman (Weintraub, 1977). It explored“the causes and effects of the special brand of feminism” in Shaw’s work. Influencesfrom literature and myth, politics and economics, sex roles, liberation movement arediscussed. Many critics agree that Vivie Warren in Mrs. Warren’s Profession is thefirst New Woman, a real, modern, unromantic, hard-working woman (Lorichs, 1977;Marker, 2001; Powell, 2011). Wasserman (1977) argues that Shaw’s characterizationof Vivie Warren “goes far beyond a literary type” and that “Shaw’s portrayal is apsychological one, probing Vivie as a living woman, not just typing Vivie as aliberated woman” (1977:168). Wasserman also pointed out that since few critics haddiscussed how Shaw adopted psychology in his characterization, the demonstration ofShaw’s use of psychology in his characterization in Mrs. Warren’s Profession wouldbe an opportunity for critics to do. Though Mrs. Warren may not be regarded as aNew Woman, Lorichs holds that “there had never been such a personality as Mrs.Warren on the English stage” (Lorichs, 1977: 100). Therefore, the characterization ofMrs. Warren also is worth a detailed study. Evans (2003) held that the characterizationof Mrs. Warren is a sort of success since she is respectable in a special way. She isactually a loving mother who would like to shield her daughter from knowledge of herblameful past to protect her innocent daughter. Marker (2001) and Innes (2001)pointed out that the characterization of Blanche in Widower’s Houses also deserves anexamination because of her pretentious ladylike manner, unconventional savory formoney and her bravery pursuit of love.
.............................

2.2 Drama Stylistics
2.2.1 Brief History of Drama Stylistics
Studies of drama started long before the birth of stylistics which we regard as aseparate discipline today (Shen, 2000). The time can be dated back to Aristotle’s time.The long period is called ‘pre-stylistic period’ by Li (Li, 2008).
In ‘pre-stylistic period’, analysis of drama was primarily carried outby drama critics and served as a compensational means to theinterpretation of theatrical effects to facilitate stage performance.Interpretation of dramatic texts mainly came from critics’ understandings.In other words, how critics felt about the play decides the interpretation.Though critics sometimes analyzed language features, linguistic analysisdid not play an important role in drama research. Thus, it was notuncommon that there were various interpretations to the same dramatictext. The practice was personal and less systematic and is called“impressionism” criticism by many stylistic researchers.
After the ‘pre-stylistic period’, modern linguistic theories were applied to literaryanalysis. The practice is like what we do today to a large extent and is what we calledmodern stylistic analysis. However, the analysis of dramatic texts did not arouse theinterest of drama critics and stylisticians until the theories of pragmatics and discourseanalysis (conversational analysis, in particular) were adopted. Two factors hamperedcritics’ and stylisticians’ interests in drama analysis. The first factor concerns thetypical language feature of drama. Drama is a genre largely filled with conversations(Short:1989,1996). It is in conversations that characterization, interpersonalrelationship, conflict development, play theme and irony can be achieved (Wang andDing, 1987; Yu, 1996). However, conversations (or parole in Saussure’s term) aregiven little attention because they are messy and show no regularity. Culpeper et al.(1998:3) argued that the neglect of drama analysis mainly results from the fact that“spoken language has for many centuries been commonly seen as a debased andunstable form of language”. The bias against conversation obstructs the study ofdrama dialogue. The second factor lies in the fact that no proper linguistic theoriescan be applied to drama language analysis before (Yu, 1994, 1996; Culpeper, 1995;McIntyre, 2013; Yu and Li, 2014). It was only in the late 1970s and in 1980s that thedevelopment in pragmatics, discourse analysis and conversational analysis promotedthe stylistic analysis of dramatic texts.
............................
Chapter Three Analytical Framework............................ 45
3.1 Introduction..................................45
3.2 Rapport Management Theory....................... 46
Chapter Four Relations in Family..................................... 84
4.1 Trench and Sartorius............................... 85
4.1.1 Person Deixis................................87
4.1.2 Turn-taking.................................. 91
Chapter Five Romantic Relations............................... 112
5.1 Blanche and Trench......................113
5.1.1 Person Deixis.........................113
5.1.2 Hedges...........................119

Chapter Six Business Relations

6.1 Sartorius and Lickcheese
In Act I, Lickcheese works for Sartorius as a rent collector. He is depicted as apoor creature in Act I since he has to support his family with a small salary fromSartorius. And in order to collect rent, he is forced to screw or even bully the peoplewho are as unfortunate as he is. When he used some of the rent to repair the steps of aslum house without asking permission from Sartorius, he is fired no matter what heexplains.
In Act II, Lickcheese becomes a rich man. He goes to Sartorius’ house and wantsto talk business with him like an old friend, which displeases Sartorius. At thebeginning of their conversation, Sartorius does not believe Lickcheese sinceLickcheese does not reveal any information about the important business. Therefore,Sartorius speaks impolitely and even threatens to drive Lickcheese out of his house.However, Sartorius immediately changes his hostile attitude after he learns thebusiness. He becomes friendly and even addresses Lickcheese ‘our old friend’ in thepresence of his daughter, Blanche.
In Act II, in the opening of the conversation, Lickcheese and Sartorius have aserious confrontation. Lickcheese talks to Sartorius like an old friend, but Sartorius(who is his previous employee) refuses to treats Lickcheese equally. In the selectedconversation, Lickcheese keeps calling Sartorius’s name in all his utterances(altogether five times), while Sartorius only address Lickcheese two times and hedoes not address Lickcheese at the beginning of the conversation, though he initiatesthe talk. The following is the talk between the two persons. After it, how thecharacters use person deixis is to be examined in detail.
............................

Chapter Seven Conclusion

7.1Major Findings
7.1.1 Characterization

reference(omitted)