1、 沈阳师范大学硕士学位论文电影非诚勿扰中的会话含义从礼貌理论角度的分析姓名：刘莹申请学位级别：硕士专业：外国语言学及应用语言学（语言学）指导教师：任承科20100301摘要从语用学角度对人物之间会话含义的分析不胜枚举本文尝试从语用学的角度来详细剖析冯小刚贺岁电影非诚勿扰中的会话含义本文从电影中精选了主要角色与不同角色之间的大量典型的使用间接表达的对话并根据布朗和列文森的礼貌理论中的礼貌策略在语言上的实现方式如暗喻暗示反问模糊语等把这些对话明确归类进行比较分析以期待解释会话含义是如何产生的又为电影本身带来哪些影响通过分析不难发现电影中人物在对话时采用间接表达方式制造会话含义的原因是他们顾及到交谈
2、者的面子问题为了减少对交谈者的面子威胁说话者往往使用看似礼貌的言语隐讳地表达自己的真是想法和情感而这同时又为电影增添了幽默轻松的气氛对于推动情节的发展吸引观众的注意和兴趣起到了意想不到的作用关键词会话含义礼貌理论间接礼貌策略7AbstractThis thesis is a detailed analysis of the conversational implicature in the movieIf You Are the One from the politeness theory. The off-record strategies illustratedifferent lingu
3、istic realizations of utterances which invite conversational implicatureand do the face-threatening-act (FTA) implicitly. These pragmatic theories arecombined to serve as the theoretical framework to facilitate the conversationalanalysis in If You Are the One. The main body of the thesis is the elab
4、oration of theconversational implicature produced by the selected examples from If You Are theOne. The illustrations are classified into different categories in accordance with thelinguistic realization types of the off-record strategies and made a comparativeanalysis. Through the study, we can foun
5、d how the implicature produces and theeffect it brings to the movie.Key Words: conversational implicature, politeness theory, off-record politenessstrategies6沈阳师范大学研究生处制学位论文独创性声明本人郑重声明所呈交的硕士学位论文是本人在指导教师的指导下独立进行研究工作所取得的成果除文中已经注明引用的内容外本论文不包含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写过的作品成果对本文的研究做出重要贡献的个人和集体均已在文中以明确的方式标明本人完全意识到本
6、声明的法律结果由本人承担作者签名 日期学位论文使用授权声明本人授权沈阳师范大学研究生处将本人硕士学位论文的全部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索有权保留学位论文并向国家主管部门或其指定机构送交论文的电子版和纸质版允许论文被查阅和借阅有权可以采用影印缩印或扫描等复制手段保存汇编学位论文保密的学位论文在解密后适用本规定2AcknowledgmentsWith all my heart, I am greatly indebted to a number of people. I wish toexpress my sincere gratitude, appreciation, and thanks
7、 to all the people who havehelped me so much in the process of composition for this thesis.Firstly, my special gratitude goes to my supervisor, Professor. Ren Chengke, forthe support and inspiration he gave me during the course of my thesis writing.Without his patient instruction, insightful critici
8、sm as well as painstaking work on thedrafts of the thesis, it would be impossible to complete the thesis.Secondly, I am grateful to all the teachers who teach me in the School ofForeign Languages of SYNU. Their lectures enlightened me on my interest oflinguistics and greatly widened my horizons.Last
9、 but not least, my genuine thanks must be given to my family and myfriends. Their constant support and love have always encouraged me in my life and inthe writing of the thesis.5Chapter 1 Introduction1.1 Background of the Study Pragmatics, as an area of linguistics, has received considerable attenti
10、on fromlinguists. Abundant efforts are made to study pragmatic phenomena and differenttheories are established. Grice, H. P. (1975) firstly proposes the Cooperative Principle(CP), which illustrates the rules people should abide by in communication. However,more often than not, people violate the CP
11、and therefore produce conversationalimplicature. That is, what they really mean is different from what they actually say.They indirectly express their true mind.Politeness, as one of the reasons why indirectness is often in use, has beenexplored ardently. Geoffrey Leech, Penelope Brown and Stephen L
12、evinson found theprincipal politeness theory. In terms of principles and maxims, Leech (1983)formulates his politeness theory, which is expected to rescue Grices CP and explainconversational implicature. Leechs Politeness Principle (PP) and maxims areregarded as components of the Interpersonal Rheto
13、ric, describing the indirectrelationship between “sense and force” of human communication. More talked aboutis the politeness theory put forward by Brown and Levinson. They classify the notionof face into two types: the negative face and the positive face. Negative face refers tothe need to be indep
14、endent, to have freedom from action, and not to be imposed on byothers. By contrast, the positive face refers to the need to be treated as a member of8the same group, and to know that ones wants are shared by others (Brown many researchers are interested in politeness. Ofall the researchers studies,
15、 GuYueguos Politeness Principle is one of the mostinfluential. Gu is the first to propose the Politeness Maxims with Chinesecharacteristics based on Chinese culture and Chinese data. His theory is really anoriginal and its impact on the linguistic world is profound and far-reaching.In order to get b
16、etter understandings of the conversational implicature,conversations in many works including classical novels, famous speeches or popularTV plays are analyzed from the pragmatic perspective. These analyses are oftenstudied from the aspect of Grices Cooperative Principle, Gu Yueguos ChinesePoliteness
17、 Principle, Grices Cooperative Principle maximize(other things being equal) the expression of polite beliefs. “It has the function ofregulating what we say so that it contributes to some assumed illocutionary ordiscoursal goal(s). It could be argued, however, that the PP has a higher regulativerole
18、than this: to maintain the social equilibrium and the friendly relations which13enable us to assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in the first place”(Leech, 1983, p. 82).According to Geoffrey Leech, there is a politeness principle with conversationalmaxims. He lists six maxims: tact,
19、generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, andsympathy, each consisting of two sub-maxims. Tact maxim is to minimize cost toother and maximize benefit to other. Generosity maxim is to minimize benefit to selfand maximize cost to self. Approbation maxim is to minimize dispraise of other andmaximize
20、 praise of other. Modesty maxim is to minimize praise of self and tomaximize dispraise of self. Agreement maxim is to minimize disagreement betweenself and other and maximize agreement between self and other. Sympathy maxim is tominimize antipathy between self and other and maximize sympathy between
21、 self andother. These maxims vary from culture to culture: what may be considered polite inone culture may be strange or downright rude in another. Here “self” is identified withspeaker and “other” usually with hearer or the third party who is or isnt in theconversational interaction.In Leechs view,
22、 the PP carries heavier weight and is more powerful in certainoccasion in explaining why speakers often breach the conversational maxims andconvey indirectly the force of their utterance.2.2 Brown and Levinsons Politeness Theory Like Leechs point of view, Brown and Levinson take a broadlysocially-or
23、iented and speaker-oriented approach to study politeness and regard14politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon. They interpret politeness as strategies used byspeakers to reach certain goals in given situations (Thomas, 1995, p. 158). Brown andLevinson have established the most influential theory about p
24、oliteness.2.2.1 The Concept of FaceGoffman proposes the face theory and defines “face” as “the positive socialvalue a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has takenduring a particular contact (Goffman, 1967, p. 5).” According to him, face is a publicimage that is on loa
25、n to individuals from society, and that will be withdrawn fromthem if prove unworthy of it (ibid., p.10). To save this public image, people must dothe “face-work (ibid., p.12).”The central concept of Brown and Levinsons politeness theory is “face”. Thenotion of “face” is derived from that of Goffman
26、 (1967), which ties face up withnotions of being embarrassed or humiliated, or “losing face”. Within politeness theory“face” is understood as individuals self-worth or self-image. It can be maintained,damaged, or enhanced through interaction with others. One has positive and negativeface. Positive f
27、ace is the desire to be liked, approved, respected and appreciated byothers. Negative face is the desire not to be imposed on and to have freedom of action.According to Brown and Levinson (1987), positive and negative faces existuniversally in human culture. In social interactions, FTAs are at times
28、 inevitable basedon the terms of the conversation. A face threatening act is an act that inherentlydamages the face of the addressee or the speaker by acting in opposition to the wantsand desires of the other. Negative face is threatened when an individual does not15avoid or intend to avoid the obst
29、ruction of their interlocutors freedom of action. Itcan cause damage to either the speaker or the hearer, and makes the one of theinterlocutors submit their will to the other. Positive face is threatened when thespeaker or hearer does not care about their interactors feelings, wants, or does notwant
30、 what the other wants. Positive face threatening acts can also cause damage to thespeaker or the hearer. When an individual is forced to be separated from others so thattheir well being is treated less importantly, positive face is threatened. Inconversational interaction speakers are sensitive abou
31、t each others face. In order notto threaten face or to reduce the degree of face damage, speakers may adopt certainstrategies. These strategies are determined by the size of the FTA. Brown andLevinson (1987) outline four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record,negative politeness, positi
32、ve politeness, and off-record (indirect).2.2.2 Bald On-record StrategiesBald on-record strategies usually do not attempt to minimize the threat to thehearers face, although there are ways that bald on-record politeness can beused in trying to minimize FTAs implicitly. Often using such a strategy wil
33、lshock or embarrass the addressee, and so this strategy is most often utilized insituations where the speaker has a close relationship with the audience, such asfamily or close friends. Brown and Levinson outline various cases, in whichone might use the bald on-record strategy, including: (Brown whe
34、re did you get it?18Avoid DisagreementYes, its rather long; not short certainly.JokeWow, thats a whopper! (ibid.)2.2.4 Negative Politeness StrategiesNegative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearers negative faceand emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer. These strategies pres
35、umethat the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potentialfor awkwardness or embarrassment than in bald on record strategies andpositive politeness strategies. Negative face is the desire to remain autonomousso the speaker is more apt to include an out for the listener, thr
36、ough distancingstyles like apologies. Examples from Brown and Levinson include: (ibid.)Be indirectWould you know where Oxford Street is?Use hedges or questionsPerhaps, he might have taken it, maybe.Could you please pass the rice?Be pessimisticYou couldnt find your way to lending me a thousand dollar
37、s, could you?Minimize the impositionIts not too much out of your way, just a couple of blocks.Use obviating structures, like nominalizations, passives, or statements of19general rulesI hope offense will not be taken.Visitors sign the ledger.Spitting will not be tolerated.ApologizeIm sorry; its a lot
38、 to ask, but can you lend me a thousand dollars?Use plural pronounsWe regret to inform you. (ibid.)2.2.5 Off-record StrategiesThe final politeness strategy outlined by Brown and Levinson is the indirectstrategy; this strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from thepotential to be imp
39、osing. For example, a speaker using the indirect strategy mightmerely say “wow, its getting cold in here” insinuating that it would be nice if thelistener would get up and turn up the thermostat without directly asking the listener todo so. In the actual interaction, Brown and Levinson have summariz
40、ed 15 strategieswhich invite conversational implicatures(Brown Adam is as loyal as a dog; Adam is notfriendly to strangers like a dog. The implication seems to safeguard the speakersnegative intention, but in certain contexts the hearer can easily infer the impliedmeaning. In spite of the implicatur
41、e, the face damage can be reduced and theconversation becomes entertaining and lively.2.2.5.2 Being Ambiguous or VagueBeing ambiguous or vague can invite implicature, which does the FTAindirectly. By being vague about who the object of the FTA is or what the offence is,speaker can go off record with
42、 an FTA. For example:Perhaps someone made a joke.The speaker could maintain the positive face for him by not identifying theperson on whom the FTA will be imposed.2.2.5.3 Over-generalizing or Displacing HearerIn these two strategies, speaker does not address FTA to Hearer directly butleaves Hearer t
43、o consider about it. By saying some generalized rules, speaker canleave hearer to consider whether the general rule applies to him. This is similarly forthe use of proverbs. In this way, the object of FTA can be left vaguely off record.When displacing hearer, speaker will pretend to address the FTA
44、to someone whom it21would not threaten, and hope that the real target will see that the FTA is aimed at him.2.2.5.4 Giving Hints or Association CluesIf speaker says something that is not explicitly relevant, he invites hearer tosearch for an interpretation of the possible relevance. By stating motiv
45、es or reasonsfor doing something, speaker can give hints to hearer. A related kind of implicature isprovided by mentioning something associated with the act required of hearer. Specificor mutual knowledge extrinsic to the desired act of hearer is required. For example:A: Would you like to go to the
46、party tonight?B: I have so much homework to do.The implicature is invited by stating the reason why the speaker cannot go tothe party tonight.2.2.5.5 Being Incomplete and Using EllipsisThe speaker gives less information as the situation requires and leaves an FTAhalf undone, the hearer has the choic
47、e to determine the speakers real intention bychecking the unfinished utterance. For example:Im afraidThe unfinished the sentence can be used as an excuse for refusal. The speakeravoids refusing the hearer directly and thus preserves his positive face by givingincomplete information.2.2.5.6 Using Rhe
48、torical QuestionsTo ask a rhetorical question, a speaker has no intention of obtaining an answerfrom a hearer. The answer is quite obvious to both speaker and hearer. Brown and22Levision claim that rhetorical question breaks a sincerity condition on questions andspeaker wants hear to provide him wit
49、h the indicated information. By askingrhetorical questions, speaker can convey his means indirectly to do FTA implicitly.For example:How could I bear it?This may serve as a criticism indirectly delivered by means of implicature. Thespeaker actually means he can not stand it any more. The indirect accusation couldreduce the face damage to some extent and comply with the politeness norm.2.2.5.7 Understatement or OverstatementBy saying m
