語言文化論文-用語言學(xué)的方法分析短消息語言和行為.doc

語言文化論文-用語言學(xué)的方法分析短消息語言和行為Abstract：Thispaperbeginswithanintroductiontomobile-basedshortmassage,orSMforshort.AlthoughthearrivalofSMbringsconvenienceandhappinesstopeopleslife,thecharacteristicsofSMlanguageresultinitsvulnerabilitytomisunderstanding.Fromalinguisticperspective,factorsresponsibleforthemisunderstandingofSMareanalyzed.Firstly,SMlanguageviolatestheco-operativeprinciple.Peopleadoptacooperativeprinciplewhentheycommunicatewitheachother:theytrytogetalongwitheachotherbyfollowingcertainconversational“maxims”.TheviolationofthesemaximsmakesthefunctionsofSMindefiniteandSMusershavetointerpretSMbasedontheirownexperience.Secondly,incontrastwithface-to-faceconversationsandtelephonecalls,SMlacksbodylanguage,facialexpressions,properstressandintonation.Thirdly,SMlanguageismorecasualthanwrittenlanguage.Inconclusion,thispapersuggestssomesolutionstotherelatedproblem.Keywords:shortmassageorSM,misunderstanding,cooperativeprinciple,bodylanguage,facialexpression,intonation,stress,writtenlanguage摘要：本文的開頭對移動(dòng)電話的短消息（又稱短信）作了簡要的介紹。盡管短消息的出現(xiàn)給人們帶來了方便，短消息自身語言的特點(diǎn)導(dǎo)致了它容易被人們誤解。從語言學(xué)的角度，本文分析了導(dǎo)致短信被誤解的幾個(gè)因素。第一，短消息語言違背了合作原則。人們在交際過程中，常常會(huì)采用一種準(zhǔn)則。為了很好的交流，人們回遵守“會(huì)話準(zhǔn)則”。而短信語言對準(zhǔn)則的違背，導(dǎo)致了短信的作用不明確。并且，人們在解釋短信內(nèi)容時(shí)，往往只根據(jù)自己的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。第二，與面對面的談話和電話通訊相比，短信缺少肢體語言、表情、適當(dāng)?shù)闹匾艉驼Z調(diào)。第三，短信語言與書面語言相比，具有隨意性。文章的結(jié)尾對相關(guān)的問題提出了解決的辦法。關(guān)鍵詞：短消息或短信、誤解、合作原則、肢體語言、表情、重音、語調(diào)、書面語言AnAnalysisofShortMessageLanguageandBehaviorswithaLinguisticApproachThesisstatement:Shortmessageisvulnerabletomisunderstanding,whichcanbeexplainedbytheviolationofthecooperativeprinciple,andincontrastwithtraditionalconversationandwrittenlanguage,thedeficiencyofshortmessageisanalyzed.OutlineIIntroductionIIThevulnerabilityofSMtomisunderstandingfromtheperspectiveofthecooperativeprincipleA.IntroductionofcooperativeandtheviolationofmaximsB.ThreekindsofmisunderstandingTheindefinitenatureofthesendersmessageAnumberoffactorsaffectingtheinterpretationofSMThequeryconcerningtheendofSMconversationIIIThedeficiencyofSMincontrastwithface-to-faceconversationandTELcallA.ThelackofbodylanguageandexpressionB.ThelackofstressandintonationIVThecasualnessofSMincontrastwithwrittenlanguageA.SMprocessedatrandomB.ThedifferencesbetweenSMlanguageandwrittenlanguageVConclusionIIntroductionShortMessageService(SMS)isanewcommunicationaltoolthatcombinesthefunctionsofmobilephoneandpager.AccordingtothestatisticsfromGlobalGPSAssociation,thetotalnumberofSMshasreached510billionin2003,andChinaaccountsforonethirdofthem,soaringto170billion.SMisregardedasaconvenient,highlydemocratic,informationalmediumforconveyingmessagesthatconformswelltohumanneeds.Asamoderncommunicationtool,SMhasmanyadvantageswhichareabsentinothercommunicationmedias.Forexample,SMenablesdumbpeopletocommunicatefreelywithhealthypeople；SMmakesnonoisewhichmaybotherothers；SMprotectsprivacy,becausenothirdpartyknowsthecontentofSMconversation.However,thecharacteristicsofSMlanguagealsobringnegativeeffectstopeopleslife.PeoplefindthatSMisnotsopowerfulandpleasant,anditcanbeeasilymisunderstood.Withthehelpoflinguisticapproaches,factorsthatareresponsibleforthemisunderstandingofSMareanalyzed:1).theviolationofthecooperativeprinciple.2)SMcannottaketheplaceofface-to-faceconversation.3)SMismorecasualthanwrittenlanguage.IIThevulnerabilityofSMtomisunderstandingfromtheperspectiveofthecooperativeprincipleTheprocessofsendingSMissoeasyandinformalthatpeopletreatitastheydoconversation.SMisabitlikeaconversationatthewatercoolerthatcanbeinstantlyforwardedto50people.Foraconversationtobesuccessful,inmostsocialcontexts,theparticipantsneedtofeeltheyarecontributingsomethingtoitandaregettingsomethingoutofit.Forthistohappen,certainconditionsmustapply.Everyonemusthaveanopportunitytospeak:nooneshouldbemonopolizingorconstantlyinterrupting.Theparticipantsneedtomaketheirrolesclear；theyneedtohaveasenseofwhentospeakorstaysilent；whentoprofferinformationorholditback；whentostayalooforbecomeinvolved.Thesuccessofaconversationdependsnotonlyonwhatspeakerssaybutontheirwholeapproachtotheinteraction.“Ourtalkexchangesdonotnormallyconsistofasuccessionofdisconnectedremarks,andwouldnotberationaliftheydid.Theyarecharacteristically,tosomedegreeatleast,cooperativeefforts；andeachparticipantrecognizesinthem,tosomeextent,acommonpurposeorsetofpurposes,oratleastamutuallyaccepteddirection”(Grice1975:45).Peopleadopta“cooperativeprinciple”whentheycommunicatewitheachother:theytrytogetalongwitheachotherbyfollowingcertainconversational“maxims”thatunderlietheefficientuseoflanguage.Fourbasicmaximshavebeenproposed.Themaximofqualitystatesthatspeakerscontributionstoaconversationoughttobetrue.Theyshouldnotsaywhattheybelievetobefalse,norshouldtheysayanythingforwhichtheylackadequateevidence.Themaximofquantitystatesthatcontributionsshouldbeasinformativeasisrequiredforthepurposesoftheconversation.Oneshouldsayneithertoolittlenortoomuch.Themaximofrelevancestatesthatconversationsshouldclearlyrelatetothepurposeoftheexchange.Themaximofmannerstatesthatthecontributionshouldbeperspicuous,inparticular,thatitshouldbeorderlyandbrief,avoidingobstructingambiguity.Inshort,thesemaximsspecifywhatparticipantshavetodoinordertoconverseinamaximallyefficient,rational,co-operativeway:theyshouldspeaksincerely,relevantlyandclearly,whileprovidingsufficientinformation.Buttheuseoftermsprincipleandmaximdoesnotmeanthatthecooperativeprincipleanditsmaximswillbefollowedbyeverybodyallthetime.Ifpeopleviolatethesemaximsdeliberately,listenersmaydrawinferencefromwhatspeakershavesaidandworkouttheimplicatureoftheutterance.ButforSMusers,violationofmaximsisdonepassively.Thenletustakealookatthefollowingshortmessagesrecordedintheauthorsmobilephone.No.1.A:“Stillbusy?”-9:40pm(Conversationstarted,butAspurposeisconfusing)No.2.B:“Nottoobusy,whatsup?”-9:41pm(ActuallyBwasverybusyinhisessay,maybewriting,butBinferredthatAmusthavesomethingimportanttotell.)No.3.A:“WhenyouworkedintheComputerAssociation,haveyoueverfailedtonegotiatewithsponsors?”-9:46pm(IttakesA5minutestorespond.Heattemptstomakehiswordsappropriate.Bhastosuspendhisworkandwaitforadirectanswer.Butthisanswerseemssoirrelevant.)No.4.B:“No”-9:47pm(Btriestoconcentrateonhiswork,soherespondsbriefly.Aisquitefrustratedbythefailednegotiationandneedssomeonetocomforthim.Thesingleword“No”makeshimthinkthatifBisnotbusy,howBcouldbesocold.)No.5.A:“Sorry,Ithoughtyoudid,then,goodnight.”-9:49pm(Conversationhastobeendedupunpleasantly)No.6.B:“Goodnight.”-9:50pm(BisstillunawareofAsintention.Hecandonothingbutendconversation.)Thetwoparticipantsofthisshortconversationviolatethefourmaximsviolationsofmaxims.No.1violatesMofquantity.Hesaystoolittle.Heshouldstatehispurposeclearly.No.2violatesMofquality.Hesayssomethingthatisfalse,buthehasto.No.3HereAscontributioninitsliteralmeaning,failstoanswerBsquestion,andthusseemstoviolateatleastthemaximsofquantityandrelevance.WemightthereforeexpectAsutterancetobeinterpretedasanon-co-operativeresponse.Yetitisclearthatdespitethisapparentfailureofco-operation,wetrytointerpretAsutteranceascooperativeatsomedeeperlevel.WecanassurethattherecouldbesomepossibleconnectionbetweenNo.2andNo.3.However,sinceitisaSMconversation,AandBcouldnotseeeachother.Bisactuallyinahurryandhewantstogotothetopicdirectly,butAwantsaeuphemisticway.HereSMisnotpowerfulenoughtoconnectthestatesofmindofthetwopersons.No.4alsoviolatesMofquantity.Bissupposedtobeconsiderate.No.5violatesMofmanner.Twosentencesseemnotorderly.However,inourdailyconversation,theimplicaturesofwordsareeasilydeduced.Sowhydoestheviolationofco-operativeprincipleinSMfailtoenablepeopletoworkouttheexactimplicatures?Theremustbesomeotherfactorscontributingtotheunderstandingofwords.Weshallfurtherdiscussthispointinthethirdsection.Althoughthetwoparticipantsofthisshortconversationdonotviolatemaximsdeliberatelyandpurposefully,theirwordsaremisconstrued.AndthemisconstructionsofSMcanbesortedintothree.Firstly,thepurposeofSMlanguageisnotdefinite,i.e.,thefunctionsofSMlanguagearenotclear.Linguiststalkaboutthefunctionsoflanguageinanabstractsense,thatis,notintermsofusinglanguagetochat,tothink,tobuyandsell,toreadandwrite,togreetpeople,etc.Tocommunicateourideasistheusualanswertothequestion“whydoweuselanguage?”Indeed,thismustsurelybethemostwidelyrecognizedfunctionoflanguage.Wheneverwetellpeopleaboutourcircumstancesorourselvesoraskforinformationaboutotherselves,weareusinglanguageinordertoexchangefactsandopinions.Theuseoflanguageisoftencalled“ideationalorreferential”.Butitwouldbeproblematictothinkofitastheonlywayweuselanguage.Linguistssummarizethesepracticalfunctionsoflanguagelikefollowing:informative,interpersonal,performative,emotive,phatic,recreationalandmetalingual(Hu2001:10).HallidayproposesatheoryofmetafunctionsoflanguagethatislanguagehasIDEATIONAL,INTERPERSONAL,andTextualfunctions.Ideationalfunctionconstructsamodelofexperienceandconstructslogicalrelations,interpersonalfunctionenactssocialrelationshipsandtextualfunctioncreatesrelevancetocontext(Halliday1985:VIII).Amongthem,thefirsttwofunctionsareoftenmixedupinSMlanguage.Formostpeople,theinformativefunctionispredominantlythemajorroleoflanguage.Languageistheinstrumentofthoughtandpeopleoftenfeeltheneedtospeaktheirthoughtsaloudaswhentheyareworkingonamathproblem.Andthemostimportantsociologicaluseoflanguageistheinterpersonalfunction,bywhichpeopleestablishandmaintainacomfortablerelationinasociety.SMisamediumwhosefunctionisratherconfusing.Peopleuseittoconveyinformation,keepintouchwitheachother,sharejokes,expressemotionsorevenpassanger.Buttherecipientcannottellwhichfromwhich,hemightdealwithhisshortmessageswithanattitudethatisunexpectedbyitssender.Letsseethefollowingexample.A:“Iplayedfootballthisafternoon,howtiredIam.”B:“Oh,really?Youreenergetic!”Theconversationendshere.Afeelstiredafterplayingfootball,andsendsaSMtooneofhisfriendsBtoexpresshisexcitement.ButthisconfusesBastohowtorespondappropriately,orhemaysimplybroodaboutitforquitealongtime.Secondly,therecipientsofSMmaketheirowninterpretationsbasedonsituationaleffectsandschemata.Thefirstandthesecondsortofmisunderstandingscanbesomewhatoverlapping.BecausefunctionofSMlanguageisnotclear,peoplebegantointerpretmessageswiththeirownexperience.Besides,thequantityofinformationconveyedisofteninadequate,SMleavesalotofblankspacesinwhatpeoplesay,whichtherecipienttendstofillwiththemostnegativeinterpretations.Thirdly,howtoendSMconversationandwhenistherighttimetoenditalsobotherSMusersalot.NomatterhowpeopleenjoySM,writingitisverytimeconsuming.Ifonewantstoenditandtheotherdoesnot,atleastonewillbeunpleasant.ItisunlikelythatbothofthemarereadyforSMconversationatthesametime,becausetwopeopleareintwoenvironments.IIIThedeficiencyofSMincontrastwithface-to-faceconversationandTelcallPeoplecanhidethemselvesbehindthetinyscreens,andtherefore,theyarebraverandtheycantellwhatevertheylike.Somanypeoplearenowabusingit.Butisitsuperiortoface-to-faceconversationsandtelephonecalls?Theanswermightbeno.Firstly,SMlacksbodylanguageandfacialexpressions.Thecommunicativeuseofthevisualandtactilemodesisoftenreferredtoas“nonverbalcommunication”,especiallyinacademicdiscussion.Ineverydayterms,itistheareaof“bodylanguage”(Crystal1997:403).Mostpeoplemaynotbeawareoftheimportanceofitwhentheymessageeachother,becausetheydoitsubconsciously.Thefieldofnon-verbalvisualcommunication,kinesics,canbebrokendownintoseveralcomponents:facialexpression,eyecontact,gesture,andbodyposture.Eachcomponentperformsavarietyoffunctions.Movementsofthefaceandbodycangivecluestoapersonspersonalityandemotionalstate.Theface,inparticular,signalsawiderangeofemotions,suchasfear,happiness,sadness,anger,surprise,interest,anddisgust.Manyoftheexpressionsvaryinmeaningfromculturetoculture.Inaddition,thefaceandbodysendsignalsaboutthewayasocialinteractionisproceeding.Patternsofeyecontactshowwhoistalkingtowhom；facialexpressionprovidesfeed-backtothespeaker,expressingsuchmeaningsaspuzzlementordisbelief；andabodypostureconveysapersonsattitudetowardstheinteraction(e.g.relaxation,interest,boredom).Severalkindsofsocialcontextareassociatedwithspecificfacialorbodybehaviors(e.g.wavingwhiletakingleave.)Ritualorofficialoccasionsareoftenprimarilymarkedbysuchfactorsaskneeling,orblessing.WhileSMonlyprovidesitsrecipientscoresofcharacters(oneshortmassagecontainsnomorethan70Chinesecharacters),thesendersfacialexpressionorevenhisattitudetowardswhathesaidonlydependsontherecipientspersonalimagination.TherealmeaningofSMandintentionthusareoftenmisunderstood.Besides,comparedwithtraditionalconversation,SMlacksproperstressandintonation.Stressreferstothedegreeofforceusedinproducingasyllable.Intranscription,araisedverticallikeisusedjustbeforethesyllableitrelatesto.Abasicdistinctionismadebetweenstressedandunstressedsyllables,theformerbeingmoreprominentthanthelatterusuallyduetoanincreaseinloudness,lengthorpitch.Thismeansthatstressisarelativenotion.(Hu2001:71)Atthewordlevel,itonlyappliestowordswithatleasttwosyllables.StresspatterninChineseiseasier,becausewecanjustfocusonsentencelevel,whereamonosyllabicwordmaybesaidtobestressedrelativetootherwordsinthesentence.Sentencestressisoftenusedtoexpressemphasis,surprise,etc,sothatinprinciplestressmayfallonanywordoranysyllable.Forexample,aSMconversationbeginswithasentencelikethis,“IwentshoppingaroundJiefangbeithewholeday.Iboughtnothing.”Thesentenceisquiteclear,butwhichworddoesthesenderemphasize?Ifthissentenceiscarriedonatelephoneorface-to-faceconversation,itwillnotcauseanypuzzle.Intonation,andothersuprasegmentalfeaturesoflanguage,performsavarietyofdifferentfunctions.(Crystal1992:173)Themostobviousfunctionistoexpressawiderangeofattitudinalmeanings-excitement,boredom,surprise,friendliness,reserve,andmanyhundredsmore.Intonationconveysagreatdealaboutwhatisreferredtoasthe“informationstructure”oftheutterance.Intonationcanhelptoorganizelanguageunitsthataremoreeasilyperceivedandmemorized.IVThecasualnessofSMincontrastwithwrittenlanguageHowever,wecannotsimplysaythewrittenformofspeechislesspowerfulincommunication.OnethingthatdiffersSMlanguagefromletters,andE-mailisthecasualnessofSM.SMisoftenprocessedunderarandomcondition.Theusermaydoitwhileheishavinglunch,takingawalk,readingbooks,talkingtoothers,orwatchingTV,etc.Hecouldnotfocusallhisattentiononwritingwhathewantstosay.Hehastodoitwithlittlethought.Besides,sometimes,oneSMusermaymessagethreeothersormoreatthesametime.Theoverloadeduserhastospeeditup,andthequalityofSMdecreases.Butwhenpeoplewriteletters,theyaremuchmoreconsiderate.UnlikeSM,sendinglettersisdemanding,sincewecannotwriteletterswhereverandwheneverwelike.Oncealetterissent,littlechanceleftfortheaddressertoexplainit.Thus,SMismorelikearecordofspokenlanguage,andthenumberofitscharactersisquitelimited(nomorethan70,includingpunctuations).Inthefollowingparts,wefocusondifferencebetweenSMlanguageandwrittenlanguage.Thepermanenceofwri