争论中的不礼貌及话语权势构建

发布时间：2018-02-02 23:26

本文关键词： 不礼貌的实现方式公开不礼貌非公开不礼貌话语权势　出处：《南京理工大学》2013年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：不礼貌现象是社会交际中常见的语言现象,尤其在争论这种社会交际行为中存在各种形式的不礼貌,而争辩中不礼貌的策略性使用往往体现话语权势的构建。因此本研究将不礼貌和建构性的话语权势相结合,探讨争论过程中,不礼貌及其与话语权势建构的关系。争论是人们日常生活、社会生活中常见的言语互动形式,争论过程中语言的摩擦、碰撞导致不礼貌现象的产生,而不礼貌的使用会改变交际者的话语权势。不礼貌在本研究中指说话人在特定语境中有意使用的威胁对方面子的言语或行为,而话语权势则指交际参与者对他人的交际行为环境实施限制来控制或操控他人的能力。本文选取了国内知名时事辩论民意调查节目《东方直播室》的7期节目,其围绕道德、慈善、家庭暴力、医患和儿童安全这五个话题展开的语料,定性、定量地探讨以下3个问题： 1)在公开不礼貌和非公开不礼貌的模式下,争论中的不礼貌有哪些实现方式? 2)争论中不礼貌如何通过各种实现方式来构建话语权势? 3)在构建话语权势过程中,公开不礼貌和非公开不礼貌的使用是如何分布的? 根据Bousfield(2008)的不礼貌模式和前人对不礼貌实现方式的总结,本研究建立了争论中不礼貌实现方式的框架；通过对权势的理解和对语料的分析,总结出建构话语权势的三种途径,建立了不礼貌建构话语权势的框架；最后通过量化比较构建话语权势过程中公开不礼貌和非公开不礼貌的使用情况。通过归纳发现,争论中主要有9种不礼貌实现方式,每种不礼貌都对听话人的面子构成威胁,其中公开不礼貌有4种,包括问答性质问、打断、批评和威胁；非公开不礼貌有5种,包括讽刺、反义性质问、做不恰当的对比、强制话题转换和蔑视对方。通过语料分析发现,在争论过程中,不礼貌的使用可以改变话语权、改变交际话题、改变交际气氛,其中打断可以控制话语权,问答性质问、反义性质问和强制话题转换可以控制交际话题,而批评、威胁、讽刺、做不恰当的对比和蔑视对方可以控制交际气氛。通过对各种不礼貌实现方式的量化研究,发现在争论过程中参与者使用公开不礼貌和非公开不礼貌的频率都很高,但是其频率有一定差异性,其中公开不礼貌出现了262次,非公开不礼貌出现了180次,说明在争辩中使用公开不礼貌构建话语权势的频率大于非公开不礼貌,这也说明了在争论这种社会交际中,说话人为了获得更有利的话语权势更倾向于直接地攻击对方的面子来构建自己的话语权势。
[Abstract]:The phenomenon of impoliteness is a common language phenomenon in social communication, especially in the debate of this kind of social communication behavior there are various forms of impoliteness. The strategic use of politeness in argument often reflects the construction of discourse power. Therefore, this study combines impolite with constructive discourse power to explore the process of argument. Impoliteness and its relationship with discourse power construction. Argument is a common form of verbal interaction in people's daily life and social life. The friction and collision of language in the process of argument lead to the phenomenon of impoliteness. However, the use of impoliteness can change the power of the communicator. In this study, impoliteness refers to the face-threatening speech or behavior deliberately used by the speaker in a specific context. Discourse power refers to the ability of communicative participants to control or manipulate others by restricting their communicative environment. Focusing on the five topics of morality, charity, domestic violence, doctor-patient and child safety, the paper discusses the following three questions qualitatively and quantitatively: 1) under the mode of public impoliteness and non-public impoliteness, what are the ways to realize the politeness in the debate? 2) how to construct discourse power through various ways of realizing impoliteness in the debate? 3) how does the use of public impoliteness and non-public impoliteness distribute in the process of constructing discourse power? Based on Bousfield / 2008)'s model of impoliteness and the previous summary of impoliteness, this study establishes the framework of politeness in the debate; Through the understanding of the power and the analysis of the corpus, three ways to construct the power of discourse are summarized, and the frame of constructing the power of utterance with impoliteness is established. Finally, the use of public impoliteness and non-public impoliteness in the process of constructing discourse power is compared quantitatively. It is found that there are 9 ways of realizing impoliteness in the debate, and each kind of impoliteness poses a threat to the face of the hearer, among which there are four kinds of public impoliteness, including question and answer, interruption, criticism and threat; There are five types of non-public impoliteness, including sarcasm, antithetical questions, inappropriate comparisons, forced topic switching, and contempt for each other. Through the corpus analysis, it is found that the use of impoliteness can change the right of speech, change the topic of communication and change the atmosphere of communication, in which interruptions can control the right of speech and the nature of question and answer. The antonymy question and the compulsory topic change can control the communication topic, but the criticism, the threat, the satire, the improper contrast and the contempt can control the communication atmosphere. Through the quantitative study of various ways of realizing impoliteness, it is found that the frequency of public impoliteness and non-public impoliteness is very high in the process of argument, but the frequency is different to some extent. Among them, there are 262 times of public impoliteness and 180 times of non-public impoliteness, which shows that the frequency of using public impoliteness to construct discourse power is more frequent than that of non-public impoliteness. This also shows that in this social communication, the speaker is more inclined to directly attack the face of the other party to build his own discourse power in order to gain more favorable discourse power.
【学位授予单位】：南京理工大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：H03

【参考文献】