电视调解话语中不礼貌策略及语用功能之语言学研究--以“四大名助”为例

本文是一篇语言学论文，本文以 Culpeper（1996） 和 Bousfield（2008）的不礼貌理论为框架，对调解话语中调解员及当事人的不礼貌话语进行了对比研究。本研究主要回答四个问题：（1）调解话语中当事人所使用的不礼貌策略及语用功能有哪些？（2）调解话语中调解员使用的不礼貌策略及语用功能有哪些？（3）当事人和调解员所使用的不礼貌策略有什么异同点？（4）当事人和调解员使用不礼貌策略所实现的语用功能有什么异同点？

Chapter One Introduction

1.1 Background of the study
Over the last thirty years, numerous politeness studies have been conducted in thefield of sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics and pragmatics. In 1973, Lakoff publishedher seminal paper concerning about a pragmatic approach to politeness. Since that,thousands of studies have appeared. Then there are many politeness theories proposed,such as Grice’s Cooperative Principle, Leech’s Politeness Principle and Brown andLevinson’s politeness strategies. Leech states that conflictive illocution tends,thankfully, to be rather marginal to human linguistic behavior in normal circumstances(1983:105). Some researchers hold that there is no need to study impoliteness. However,the phenomenon of being impolite in communication has been paid more attention inrecent years. Some researchers gradually clarify the notion of impoliteness with deepexploration.
According to Culpeper, when the vulnerability of face is unequal, motivation tocooperate is reduced (1996:154). The phenomenon of being impolite obviously presentsin the discourse of army training, because of the inequality of power and stricthierarchies which could cause the face damage in the army. When there are conflictsbetween the interlocutors, one may offend the other to protect his interests. In the court,two participants attack the face of each other to win the case. In daily communication,although each interlocutor tends to maintain the relationship with others, there are stillinevitable conflicts because of the different interests and unequal power, which maycause the face damage and impoliteness. So impoliteness plays a significant part ininteraction and is worthy of further study.
...........................

1.2 Purpose of the study
It has to be admitted that there have been many studies on impoliteness strategiesand their functions, but little attention is paid to the impoliteness in mediation discourse.This thesis explores the similarities and differences of impoliteness strategies used byguests and hosts, and their functions.
There are two purposes in the study. On the top of it, one objective of the study isto find the pattern of host’s employing impoliteness strategies, which would provide thehost more information about how to use strategies of impoliteness to realize hisintention appropriately. “Si Da Ming Zhu” is a TV program aiming to solve all kinds ofproblems between guests in daily life. The hosts’ intention is to help guests solve theirproblems. Then the hosts need to know more about the guests’ intention of usingimpoliteness strategies, which is the second purpose of the study. Through exploringimpoliteness strategies used by guests and their functions and comparing the similarities band differences between them, hosts would have a better knowledge of guests’ attitudetoward the conflict and appropriately solve problems in a way that could satisfy guestsboth.
.....................

Chapter Two Literature Review

2.1 Definition of impoliteness
When comes to the notion of impoliteness, people generally think about being rudeor aggressive. We are often educated by our parents that it is impolite to speak loudly inpublic and to open our mouth to talk or laugh during the meal. We should not say toothers something that could hurt others’ feelings, which is impolite. People areforbidden to do these behaviors that make others uncomfortable, which is impolite. Thisis the initial knowledge to impoliteness in our mind. In the progress of developing ourharmonious society, the research on impoliteness has been paid more attention. The firstthing needs to figure out is the definition of impoliteness, because we have to have aclear knowledge of research object without any confusion before deep exploration. Inthis part, the literature on the definition of impoliteness is reviewed.
Some researchers, like Craig et al. (1986), Eelen (2001), Fraser (1990,1999),Kasper (1990) and Tracy (1990), amongst others, argue that to provide an adequateaccount of the dynamic of interpersonal communication, such hostile behaviour shouldbe viewed as the complementary to politeness (Bousfield, 2008a:71). Culpeper et al.(2003) note that although the notion of impoliteness is mentioned in many leadingstudies, they all focus on politeness, which are descriptively inadequate andconceptually biased (Bousfield, 2008a:71).
Impoliteness is defined in view of the first order and second order impoliteness.First order impoliteness is a folk definition of impoliteness given by the social actor.Second order impoliteness is a concept given by sociolinguist. The second order is thedevelopment of the first order. Locher and Watts claim that “impoliteness” should beseen as a first order concept. They view impoliteness as a judgment made by aparticipant in an interaction to an inappropriate social behavior of co-participants(Locher and Watts, 2008:77). Keinpointner (2008) studies the definition of impolitenessin view of the second order. He regards impoliteness as a technical term in the filed ofpragmatics and sociolinguistics. Kienpointner (2008) gives the definition ofimpoliteness, but he mentions that impoliteness is the same with rudeness. However, inthe next part, it would be clear that impoliteness is not equal to rudeness.
......................

2.2 Studies on mediation discourse
This thesis analyzes impoliteness strategy in TV mediation discourse. In thestudies on mediation, researchers mainly focus on two kinds of mediation discourse:judicial mediation and TV mediation, for the data on these two institutions are publicand available.
2.2.1 Studies in judicial mediation discourse
In China, mediation discourse is a highly valued field. The analysis conducted byChinese scholars is mainly concerned with the judicial mediation.
Some of the studies are theoretical studies in judicial mediation. Lv Wanying(2005) analyzes the conflicting interruption in terms of its categories, pragmaticfunctions and interaction features with regard to the interrupter’s power and points outthat conflicting interruption is an important conversational strategy, which would helpmediation participants to achieve their expected goals. Cheng Zhaoyang (2006)analyzes the frequency of “Is It?/!” in three court mediation cases and finds out itsfunctions in conveying a hope for agreement and making suggestions. He insists thatthe power in discourse is achieved by some language strategies, such as repetition,interruption. Tong Shan (2013) analyzes the structure of people’s mediation sessionand finds out that the mediators assume their role through interactive moves byemploying a data-driven qualitative micro analytic approach, and primarily by using thetools of conversation analysis in the framework of institutional discourse.
........................
Chapter Three Theoretical Considerations and Analytic Framework..........................17
3.1 Politeness....................................17
3.1.1 Grice’s Cooperative Principle.............................. 17
3.1.2 Leech’s Politeness Principle...........................19
Chapter Four Research Methodology.................................. 31
4.1 Research questions...................................31
4.2 Data collection.........................................31
4.3 Research procedures.............................32
4.4 Summary.................................. 33
Chapter Five Results and Discussion...............................34
5.1 Impoliteness strategies used by guests in mediation..................34
5.1.1 Types of impoliteness strategies used by guests...................................... 34
5.1.2 Pragmatic functions of impoliteness strategies used by guests................44

Chapter Five Results and Discussion

5.1 Impoliteness strategies used by guests in mediation
This part would present how impoliteness strategies employed by guests in “Si DaMing Zhu” and the functions realized by guests.
5.1.1 Types of impoliteness strategies used by guests
This table shows the frequency and percentage of output strategies used by guests.

.....................

Chapter Six Conclusion

6.1 Major findings and implications of the present study
Four research questions are answered through the analysis of impolitenessstrategies in “Si Da Ming Zhu”. On the top of it, the guests’ and hosts’ deployments ofimpoliteness strategies are explored. The guests use 9 kinds of impoliteness outputstrategies except the strategies of using taboo language, disassociating, and sarcasm.The amount of impoliteness output strategies used by guests is 76. The hosts use 12kinds of impoliteness output strategies, and the amount of impoliteness output strategiesused by hosts is 121.
Pragmatic functions of impoliteness strategies are concluded through the deepanalysis of the impoliteness strategies, but not all impoliteness strategies could clearlyrealize their functions. Three types of functions are realized by guests, showingdisagreement, criticizing, and threatening. The amount of functions realized by guests is24, so almost 70% of impoliteness strategies do not clearly realize function. Five typesof functions are realized by hosts, entertaining, showing disagreement, criticizing,showing power, and belittling. The amount of functions realized by hosts is 60, so onlyalmost 50% of impoliteness strategies clearly realize their functions.
Additionally, the differences between the hosts’ and guests’ employingimpoliteness strategies are discussed. First, the amount of impoliteness strategies byhosts is more than those used by guests, due to the speaking power of hosts. Second, themost frequently used strategy by guests is hindering, while the most frequently usedone by hosts is bald on record impoliteness. The strategy of hindering occupies almosthalf of the impoliteness output strategies used by guests, which far exceeds the times ofhindering used by hosts, which is unexpected.
reference(omitted)