会话过程中第三方作用的解释

VIP免费

3.0 牛悦 2024-11-19 4 4 603.81KB 56 页 15积分

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

ABSTRACT

中文摘要

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter One Defining a First Party and a Second Party ........................................... 4

§1.1 The Practice of a ‘Speaker’ and a ‘Hearer’ in Pragmatic Studies ......................... 4

§1.1.1 The problems with the practice of a ‘speaker’ and a ‘hearer’ ......................... 4

§1.1.2 The pragmatic studies concerning a ‘speaker’ and a ‘hearer’ ......................... 8

§1.2 The Notions of a First Party and a Second Party ...................................................9

§1.2.1 The introduction of the terms of ‘a first party’ and ‘a second party’ into the

pragmatic studies ............................................................................................ 9

§1.2.2 The linguistic data concerning more than a first party and a second party ... 10

Chapter Two Defining the Third Party ...................................................................... 12

§2.1 The Introduction of the Notion of ‘the Third Party’ ............................................12

§2.2 The Third Party and Multiparticipants ................................................................ 14

§2.3 The Third Party and Context ............................................................................... 15

Chapter Three The Relations Between the Third Party and the First Two

Parties ............................................................................................................ 17

§3.1 The Third Party Influences Dyadic Conversations ..............................................17

§3.2 Dyadic Conversations Influence the Third Party ................................................ 25

§3.3 The Third Party Bridges a First Party and a Second Party ..................................32

Chapter Four Pragmatic Approach to the Third Party Roles (TPR) ......................46

§4.1 TPR and Speech Act Theory ............................................................................... 46

§4.2 TPR and Politeness Theory ................................................................................. 47

§4.2.1 TPR and Politeness Principle ........................................................................ 47

§4.2.2 TPR and Face Theory .................................................................................... 47

§4.3 TPR and Relevance Theory .................................................................................49

§4.4 Summary of TPR in Interpersonal Communication ............................................50

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 52

Introduction

Pragmatics, formerly treated as a rag-bag or a waste-basket into which the

hard-to-explain language data could be conveniently dumped and where it could be

equally conveniently forgotten (Leech, 1983:1), goes a long way to attract the attention

of philosophers as well as linguists. However, once it was established as an approach to

linguistic analysis, pragmatics has been developing fast and has become a popular trend

as a hermeneutic science in linguistic research.

As its name implies, pragmatics studies factors that govern people’s choice of

language in social interaction and the effects of their choice on others.1To be more

specific, pragmatics deals with the special part of the meaning of an utterance that needs

to be interpreted. So far, in line with the spirit of a hermeneutic science, a number of

theories and principles are proposed in the field of pragmatics as models or frames to

explain and expound linguistic phenomena emerging in interpersonal communication

which can not be elaborated properly and satisfactorily in the traditional frameworks of

linguistics, such as syntax and semantics. Among them are speech act theory,

Cooperative Principle, Politeness Principle, relevance theory (RT), etc. All this is

concerned with the meanings of utterances communicated by a speaker (or writer) and

interpreted by a listener (or reader) in situations (Yule, 2000:127). That is to say, in the

process of seeking the meanings of utterances, especially those between lines, and

interpreting them out, we should be aware of relevant characteristics or features of any

specific spoken or written situations when we are dealing with pragmatic phenomena.

And in the following discussion, I would like to introduce an interesting linguistic

phenomenon emerging in dyadic conversations and make an effort to investigate it

within pragmatic research, i.e. the third party. I choose this topic because, interestingly

enough, it is commonly noticed in our daily life that two people will take, and

sometimes have to take the third party into consideration when they conduct

conversations; and, on the other hand, strangely enough, this phenomenon has not been

fully discussed in the scope of pragmatics. By stating this, I mean that the linguistic

phenomena concerning the third party have not attracted adequate attention, though

1David Crystal The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language CUP P.120

Understanding the Third Party Roles in Dyadic Conversations

pragmatic approaches lay emphasis on the relations between language and context to

account for language understanding and interpreting. After all, the third party constitutes

as such a part of context or sometimes as the most important part of context that it

should not be neglected in the course of analyzing pragmatic data. Meanwhile, by

stating this, I do not mean that the phenomena concerning the third party in

interpersonal conversations is only to be explained in the realm of pragmatics rather

than other modern frameworks of linguistics, such as cognitive approach, psychological

approach, to study linguistic data. As a matter of fact, I am on a tentative way to confine

my investigation of the roles of the third party in interpersonal communication,

especially in dyadic conversations, to the pragmatic realm to see how the third party

influences or is influenced by a first party and a second party when they are conducting

their conversations, and to reveal how we try to dig out intended meanings or functions

of utterances from their superficial forms by considering such a special element of

context. It is likely to be explored in other branches of linguistics to view the stuff from

different angles and by different methodologies. Anyhow, I am highlighting the third

party in the linguistic research and taking the qualitative approach to explore this

phenomenon in the realm of pragmatics as it concerns language use and linguistic

communication.

As the purpose of the present study is to discuss the roles or the functions of the

third party in interpersonal communication, this paper is first devoted to exhibiting

adequate dialogues and utterances concerning the third party, and then places an

emphasis on the analysis of these linguistic data by employing pragmatic theories and

principles in the hope of perceiving this linguistic phenomenon and of arousing people’s

attention to appropriately use and interpret language concerning the third party. Hence,

the allocation of the paper is designed in the following way:

Chapter One gives a detailed explanation of the notions and attributes of a first

party and a second party. Based on a discussion on the common practice of the symbols

of an ‘s’ and an ‘h’, I find several problems are naturally emerging. Meanwhile, by the

reference to present pragmatic studies on communication, I notice yet another problem

of the common practice. Thereby, the terms of ‘a first party’ and ‘a second party’ are

introduced into the pragmatic research on communication to avoid those problems.

Then it is followed by the explanation of the third party on the foundation of the careful

elaboration of a first party and a second party and its relations with the first two parties

Introduction

in the following chapters.

Chapter Two presents the notion of the third party via an example and attempts to

point out its essence. Also, compared with multiparticipants, it is made clear that their

roles are totally different in communication. Meanwhile, it indicates the third party’s

contextual characteristics by clarifying its relation to context.

Chapter Three supplies a large amount of data to show the occurrences of

representations of the third party in dyadic conversations to see what roles the third

party plays in dyadic communication. This, according to the direction of the force from

the third party, includes three major communication modules. One is that the force from

the third party influences dyadic communication. Another is that the force from either or

both of the first two parties influences the third party. And the third is either of first two

parties purposefully sets the force of the third party in between. The analysis of each

example of each category is followed to elucidate the relations between the

representations of the third party and the first two parties.

Chapter Four aims to put the roles of the third party in interpersonal

communication into examinations in the framework of pragmatic perspectives, such as

indirect speech act, Politeness Principle and Face-saving Theory, and relevance theory

(RT). Since they are major theories and principles in the domain of pragmatics, they

must have their philosophies to make sense of the roles of the third party in

interpersonal communication. However, it is found out that they do not so satisfactorily

explain the third party roles as expected. Thus, four factors are suggested to supplement

the criteria to evaluate the third party roles.

The last part of the paper is attempted to come to a conclusion after the pragmatic

survey of the phenomenon, making it clear that we should do justice to the third party in

the so-claimed universal and comprehensive pragmatic framework, and that we are to

think highly of the value of the third party in interpersonal communication and its

significance in conducting dyadic conversations so that we will achieve a better

understanding of one aspect of interpersonal communication and conduct more

successful conversations with the third party in mind.

Understanding the Third Party Roles in Dyadic Conversations

Chapter One Defining a First Party and a

Second Party

Pragmatics, as its name indicates, studies factors that govern people’s choice of

language in social interaction and the effects of their choice on others.2It is a study that

is originally proposed by Charles Morris (1983), the founding father, who distinguishes

between syntax, semantics and pragmatics in terms of three correlates: signs, the objects

to which signs are applicable, and sign users or interpreters.

Syntactical rules determine the sign relations between sign vehicles; semantical

rules correlate sign vehicles with other objects; pragmatical rules state the conditions in

the interpreters under which the sign vehicle is a sign. Any rule when actually in use

operates as a type of behavior, and in this sense there is a pragmatical component in all

rules.3

Since there are a large number of linguistic resources, it is certain that people

pragmatically make linguistic choices, consciously or not, for language-internal and/or

language-external reasons when they are using language. That is to say, when people

communicate with each other, they always tend to choose the most appropriate

linguistic forms from sounds, words, sentences to languages to achieve an expected

communicative effect. In the following, I will introduce a linguistic phenomenon

emerging from people’s interactive communication and try to investigate its roles and

functions in the process of people’s pragmatically choosing and pragmatically

interpreting linguistic forms. It is the third party.

But before we go any further to the problems of the third party involved in

utterances, we should first deal with its notion by clearly stating its pragmatic attributes.

And in order to clarify the attributes the third party owns we might as well primarily

come to those of a first party and a second party.

§1.1 The Practice of a ‘Speaker’ and a ‘Hearer’ in Pragmatic Studies

§1.1.1 The problems with the practice of a ‘speaker’ and a ‘hearer’

Following the common practice of Searle, Leech and others, we often mention

2David Crystal The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language CUP P.120

3Verschueren Understanding Pragmatics Edward Arnold Limited P.6

Chapter One Defining a First Party and a Second Party

speakers and hearers or addressers and addressees in the discussion of discourses and

utterances. They are shorthanded as ‘s’ and ‘h’ for the convenience. But the use of the

abbreviations ‘s’ and ‘h’ does not restrict pragmatics to the spoken language (Leech,

1983:13) since they can be the representatives of both speaker(s) and writer(s) and both

hearer(s) and reader(s) respectively. However, as far as my paper is concerned,

‘speaker’, and ‘hearer’ in the spoken language are the main topic and ‘writer’ and

‘reader’ in the written discourse will be left out in the discussion for the purpose of

putting forward the study of this paper in the straightforward and explicit way.

There is no ambiguity in the notion of a ‘speaker’ who is commonly regarded as a

person starting to convey meaning by means of language. But the notion of a ‘hearer’ is

a bit confusing. Lyons points out that there is a significant distinction between a receiver

and an addressee or a hearer as the former one is a person who just receives and

interprets the message and the latter is a person who is an intended receiver of the

message (Lyons, 1977:34). In this sense, an addressee or a hearer is a person whom a

speaker conducts communication with, while we seem to be just receivers who try to

make sense of the contents of discourses uttered by a speaker or a hearer according to

any available contextual evidence (Leech, 1983:13). From this point of view, we regard

a speaker and a hearer as the conversational facts as the essential parts to fulfill a

conversational contract. But is this all that we, as receives of message, recognize from

the symbols ‘s’ and ‘h’?

Let’s first look at the following example.

[1] 党支部书记：有什么不同意见吗？[Secretary of Party Branch: Are there any

suggestions or objections to the motion?]

众学生党员：没有。[Party Members: No. We all agree with it.]

党支部书记：没有的话，我们鼓掌表示同意这两位同志担任学生党支委。

[Secretary of Party Branch: Ok. Then we congratulate these two members on their

appointments as Committeemen of Party Branch of Students with a warm applause.]

[In the conference room of Foreign Language School in USST, 2004-3-12]

This is a realization of one kind of conversational form, i.e. one to a multitude, as

there is only one speaker and more than one audience. We may notice that we are prone

to take it for granted that the Party Secretary takes the salient role as a speaker or an

addresser to initiate a topic or a motion and the rest are Party Members as the hearers or

addressees who are supposed to give a response to the stimulating information. Then out

文档加载中……请稍候！
如果长时间未打开，您也可以点击刷新试试。

下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便

15 积分 4人已下载

立即下载 VIP免费下载

摘要：

ICONTENTSAcknowledgementsABSTRACT中文摘要Introduction....................................................................................................................1ChapterOneDefiningaFirstPartyandaSecondParty...........................................4§1.1ThePracticeofa‘Speaker’anda‘Hearer’inPragm...

展开>> 收起<<

会话过程中第三方作用的解释.pdf

共56页,预览6页

还剩页未读，继续阅读

会话过程中第三方作用的解释

相关推荐

开通VIP享超值会员特权

作者详情

相关内容

推荐作者

热门标签

举报选择: