外国文学博士论文-蓄意歧义作为言语交际策略的语用研究-邵严毅

i Acknowledgements On the completion of this thesis, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who have given me consistent help and advice during the writing of this thesis. First of all, I am particularly grateful to my supervisor Professor Xu Yulong for his illuminating and patient guidance, tolerance and encouragement. He has all along been an incredibly supportive mentor and I have benefited greatly not only from his professional knowledge but also his scrupulous attitude towards his scholarly work. I have been fortunate to work under his supervision and am truly indebted to him. I have furthermore to thank Professor Mei Deming, Professor He Zhaoxiong and Professor Yu Dongming, from whose lectures I have benefited a lot and got some insightful thoughts for this thesis. In addition, my classmates Wu Jianwei, Li Mei and Gao Jun also supported me a lot in my research work. I want to thank them for all their help, support, interest and valuable hints. Finally, my gratitude and thankfulness also go to my parents and my husband for their love and constant support during the entire period of my study and hard work. Although the thesis has benefited greatly from all those acknowledged here, I alone am responsible for all the errors and omissions of this work. ii Abstract Ambiguity is a pervasive as well as tricky phenomenon in language. It is traditionally regarded as a kind of language misuse, which, as some scholars presume, will adversely affect our communication if it is not carefully avoided. However, ambiguity is not good for nothing. Instead, when used properly and tactfully, it will play a positive role in helping people accomplish certain communicative need or achieve some special communicative effects. The deliberate use of ambiguity in verbal communication is termed as intentional ambiguity, which is viewed as a communicative strategy. Intentional ambiguity is a commonplace in our daily communication, but the previous research on ambiguity is mostly static and largely done on the linguistic level. The dynamic study is rather sporadic and little attention has been given to the mechanisms and motivations lying behind this language phenomenon. This study, then, is launched to mainly examine how intentional ambiguity is employed in interactional conversations to facilitate the linguistic communication. The present study is primarily based on the qualitative analysis of the data. The conceptual framework is mainly constructed on the basis of Verschuerens (1999) Linguistic Adaptation Theory, supplemented by Brown and Levinsons Face Theory and Grices Theories of Cooperative Principle and Conversational Implicature. So it is considered both data-driven and theory-driven. The investigation concentrates on the variability, adaptability, and functionality of intentional ambiguity. As a communicative strategy, intentional ambiguity is obviously a kind of motivation-driven linguistic manipulation. In other words, the deliberate use of ambiguity is a highly conscious and purposeful behavior of making linguistic choices from different linguistic levels. The present study, therefore, will try to scrutinize how intentional ambiguity is manipulated in various ways. It is also found that intentional ambiguity is employed to adapt to various contextual factors. In this study, the adaptation is divided into two types: adaptation directed by “self” and adaptation directed by “others”. If the contextual variables are related to the addressor, then the adaptation is viewed as being directed by “self”; if the contextual factors are iii connected with the hearer, the adaptation is regarded as being directed by “others”. The scrutiny of the contextual correlates adapted to by intentional ambiguity enables us to conclude that the choice of intentional ambiguity is, in effect, the result of linguistic adaptation. By carefully observing the data weve collected, the present study aims to make a detailed analysis of the communicative functions intentional ambiguity may perform or is intended to perform in order to fully reveal its dynamic nature as a case of linguistic choice. As is found out, intentional ambiguity can enhance the appropriateness of the utterance, create special communicative effects, and reverse unfavorable situation. In addition, these general functions are further specified by some sub-functions. With these functions, intentional ambiguity can undoubtedly be counted as an effective communicative strategy, which can be employed to meet the language producers many communicative needs in specific situations. Key words: intentional ambiguity; verbal communication; linguistic choice; adaptability; functionality iv 中文摘要中文摘要 歧义现象在语言中普遍存在，但也常给交流制造麻烦。人们习惯上将歧义看作是 一种语言上的误用。正如许多学者所认为，这种误用如果不小心避开将会妨碍人们的 正常交流。然而，歧义并非一无是处。相反，如若能够对之加以恰当巧妙的运用，歧 义也会发挥积极的作用，帮助人们满足某种交际需要或是实现某些特殊交际效果。这 种在言语交际中对歧义的故意运用被称为是蓄意歧义，它也被认为是一种交际策略。 蓄意歧义的运用在人们的日常交流中极为常见。 但是之前对于歧义的研究却大多 属于静态研究，且常常是停留在语言层面上。动态研究只零星可见，此外也罕有学者 致力于探究隐藏在这种语言现象背后的各种机制及动机。因此，本研究之主要意图即 是要探究蓄意歧义是如何被应用到人们的互动会话中以增进交流的。 本研究主要基于对语料的定性分析。理论框架则是以维索尔伦（Verschueren） 的语言顺应论为依托，兼据布朗（Brown）和莱文森（Levinson）的面子理论及格莱 斯（Grice）的合作原则和会话含义理论。所以该研究是一项既有理论依据又有语料 支撑的研究。研究将集中探讨蓄意歧义的变异性、顺应性和功能性。 作为一种交际策略，蓄意歧义显然是一种动机性很强的对语言的处理运用。换言 之，对歧义的故意运用是一种高度意识的、有目的的行为，它可以在不同的语言层面 对语言作出选择。因此，本研究也将试图细究蓄意歧义是如何在不同的语言层面上被 加以处理运用的。 研究还发现，蓄意歧义常被运用以顺应不同的语境因素。本研究将顺应划分为自 我引导的顺应和他人引导的顺应。如果语境变量是涉及到说话人，那么这种顺应就是 自我引导的；如果语境因素是与听话人相关，那么这种顺应就是他人引导的。对于蓄 意歧义的语境顺应研究使得我们从中得出一个结论，即，对于蓄意歧义的选择实际上 也是语言顺应的结果。 通过仔细观察并分析我们收集到的语料， 本研究还致力于对蓄意歧义可能实现或 意图实现的功能作一个详尽的分析， 以期充分展示它作为一个语言选择结果的动态特 征。研究发现，蓄意歧义能够提高话语的适切性；制造特殊的交际效果；扭转不利局 势。同时，这几类功能下含的次类功能也得到了进一步的分析。通过对这些功能的分 v 析，蓄意歧义无疑被认为是一种有效的交际策略。运用蓄意歧义将会帮助说话人在特 定语境中实现其各种交际需要。 关键词关键词：蓄意歧义；言语交际；语言选择；顺应性；功能性 vi CONTENTS Acknowledgements.i Abstract.ii 中文摘要中文摘要 iv Chapter One Introduction .1 1.1 The object of the present study.1 1.2 Motivation3 1.3 The objective of the study4 1.4 The research methodology and source of data.5 1.5 The use of the terms “speaker/hearer” and other synonymous terms 6 1.6 Overview7 Chapter Two A Review of Previous Studies on Ambiguity .9 2.1 Introduction9 2.2 Definition of ambiguity9 2.3 Different approaches to the study of ambiguity.12 2.3.1 The philosophical approach.12 2.3.2 The linguistic approach14 2.3.3 The psycholinguistic approach 19 2.3.4 The pragmatic approach.24 2.4 Summary 25 Chapter Three A Description of the Conceptual Framework 26 3.1 Introduction26 3.2 The delimitation of intentional ambiguity26 3.2.1 The working definition of intentional ambiguity.26 3.2.2 Intentional ambiguity vs. pragmatic vagueness.31 vii 3.2.3 Intentional ambiguity vs. pun33 3.2.4 Intentional ambiguity vs. deliberate misinterpretation34 3.3 A discussion of the theoretical basis of the framework36 3.3.1 Verschuerens linguistic adaptation theory36 3.3.2 Brown and Levinsons face theory 40 3.3.3 Grices cooperative principle and conversational implicature.42 3.4 Characterization of the conceptual framework 44 3.4.1 Intentional ambiguity as a result of linguistic choice-making.44 3.4.2 Intentional ambiguity as a product of negotiation and adaptation.46 3.4.3 Intentional ambiguity as a way to satisfy communicative needs.52 3.5 Summary 53 Chapter Four Manipulation of Intentional Ambiguity.56 4.1 Introduction56 4.2 The notion of linguistic manipulation56 4.3 Linguistic manipulation for intentional ambiguity.58 4.3.1 Linguistic manipulation on the phonological level60 4.3.2 Linguistic manipulation on the lexical level63 4.3.3 Linguistic manipulation on the syntactic level65 4.3.4 Linguistic manipulation on the pragmatic level 67 4.4 Summary 70 Chapter Five Adaptability of Intentional Ambiguity71 5.1 Introduction71 5.2 The notion of adaptability 71 5.3 Adaptation realized through intentional ambiguity72 5.3.1 Adaptation directed by “self”.74 5.3.2 Adaptation directed by “others”.78 5.4 Summary 82 Chapter Six Functionality of Intentional Ambiguity.83 6.1 Introduction83 viii 6.2 Defining the notion of functionality.84 6.3 The communicative functions of intentional ambiguity.85 6.3.1 Enhancing the appropriateness of the utterance 85 6.3.2 Creating special communicative effects 91 6.3.3 Reversing unfavorable situation 96 6.4 The mechanism for the performance of the special functions99 6.4.1 Intentional ambiguity: loose use of language99 6.4.2 Intentional ambiguity: lower degree of accessibility and more functions.100 6.5 Summary 101 Chapter Seven Conclusion.103 7.1 Introduction103 7.2 Major findings103 7.2.1 Intentional ambiguity: a highly motivated linguistic manipulation.104 7.2.2 Intentional ambiguity: a result of linguistic adaptation.104 7.2.3 Intentional ambiguity: an effective communicative strategy in verbal communication105 7.2.4 Intentional ambiguity: a revelation of the dynamic process of language use106 7.3 Implications106 7.4 Limitations .107 7.5 Suggestions for further study .108 References.109 ix List of Figures Figure 2.115 Figure 2.215 Figure 2.317 Figure 2.417 Figure 3.128 Figure 3.238 Figure 3.349 Figure 3.450 Figure 3.551 Figure 3.655 1 Chapter One Introduction 1.1 The object of the present study Ambiguity is a pervasive as well as tricky phenomenon in language. It is traditionally regarded as a kind of language misuse, which, as some scholars presume, will adversely affect our communication if it is not carefully avoided. However, ambiguity is not good for nothing. Instead, when used properly and tactfully, it will play a positive role in helping people accomplish certain communicative needs or achieve some special communicative effects. We dub this kind of deliberate use of ambiguity intentional ambiguity. Intentional ambiguity, in terms of research object, here simply refers to a kind of special language use. In accordance with Grices Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975, 1978), communicators ought to make every effort to make sure that what they say is true, as informative as required, relevant and not ambiguous, but it is not always the case in our daily communication. Equivocal and ambiguous utterances appear frequently in interactional conversations. Lets first look at some examples. (1) He is eating / nais / cake. A. He is eating an ice cake. B. He is eating a nice cake. (2) He is a / bi: fi:d /. A. He is a bee feeder. B. He is a beef eater. (3) 山那边有许多杜鹃杜鹃。 A. 山那边有许多杜鹃花。 (There are many azaleas on the other side of the mountain.) B. 山那边有许多杜鹃鸟。 (There are many cuckoos on the other side of the mountain.) (4) 那家小店关门关门了。 A. 那家小店营业时间结束，打烊了。 2 (That small shop has closed.) B. 那家小店经营不善，停业了。 (That small shop has closed down.) (5) 同学某甲骑车接载他弟弟回家，途中发生意外。弟弟伤势不重，只是皮外伤； 某甲可没有那么幸运，一颗门牙撞坏了，还伤了舌头。他弟弟随后打电话向妈妈报平 安，妈妈紧张地问： “哥哥怎么样呢？“ 弟弟脱口而出： “哥哥？他已经不能说话了他已经不能说话了。” 妈妈顿时晕了过去。 A.（字面意义）已经失去开口说话的能力。 B.（特定语境中的语用意义）已经死亡，无法开口说话。 All the above examples are typical ambiguous sentences but they are not within the scope of the present study, because they are either sentences read out of context or sentences of which the ambiguous meaning is not intended by the speaker. They are, therefore, called unintentional ambiguity, which is considered a pervasive phenomenon in the natural language. In sentence (1) and sentence (2), the type of ambiguity is mainly caused by the similarity in the super-segmental features. Sentence (3) and sentence (4) are made ambiguous by the speakers unintentional use of the homonymous words “杜鹃” and “关门”. In sentence (5), “他已经不能说话了” is also considered ambiguous, though the sentence itself is not an ambiguous one, because of its conventionalized pragmatic meaning in a specific context. Literally, “不能说话” means “losing the ability to speak”, but when uttered in a certain context, it can also be interpreted as an euphemistic expression equivalent to “being dead”. Both interpretations happen to make sense in sentence (5), thus causing ambiguity. As concerning the research object of the present study, what draw our attention are not the above cases, but the cases in which the speaker deliberately employs certain ambiguous expressions to achieve some special communicative purpose or effect. Although clarity is normally considered desirable for smooth communication, the deliberate use of ambiguity may serve as a more effective communicative strategy in certain circumstances. 3 The following example may well illustrate this point. (6) Mother: What is your mark, Tom? Tom: Oh, under the sea level. Obviously, Tom did very badly in the exam. When his mother asked about his mark, he really didnt want his mother to get angry. He, then, deliberately used the word “sea” which shares the same phonetic feature as the letter “C” (phonological ambiguity), thus he temporarily steered the conversation away from such an unpleasant topic and avoided being blamed by her mother. In this case, intentional ambiguity plays an important pragmatic role in getting Tom out of an unpleasant situation and saving his face as well. Actually, in many cases like this, intentional ambiguity will play an active strategic role which can help us facilitate our communication. This thesis, then, will explore the deliberate use of ambiguity, i.e. intentional ambiguity, as a communicative strategy in verbal communication from a pragmatic perspective. 1.2 Motivation Ambiguity in language is an extremely interesting phenomenon and one that applies to all the fields of linguistics. What motivated me most to devote my thesis to the subject of intentional ambiguity are as follows. First of all, the deliberate use of ambiguity is quite a commonplace in our daily communication, but unfortunately, little attention has been given to the mechanisms and motivations lying behind this language phenomenon. The previous research on ambiguity is largely done on the linguistic level. Most linguists, when dealing with ambiguity, seem to have just concentrated on the source of ambiguity and how to analyze it. The dynamic study, however, is rather sporadic and unsystematic without a uniform framework. Therefore, how intentional ambiguity is adopted in interactional conversations to facilitate the linguistic communication and ultimately serve to reach the intended purposes is still not satisfactorily explained. Thus, it is worthy of a thorough exploration. Secondly, pragmatics does not confine itself to merely describing what people do with language, but also concerns itself with how to help them become better users (Mey, 1994). 4 Therefore, the study of intentional ambiguity, as we presume, may reflect the communicative competence1 of language users, because it is the result of language users choice among numerous communicative strategies. A thorough study of intentional ambiguity may reveal the motivations behind it and the effects it may have on communication. In the present study, we define intentional ambiguity as a communicative strategy, which means that by using intentional ambiguity we can better control a speech situation and make it work in our favor. So the study of intentional ambiguity, as we hoped, will help to promote our strategic use of language in general and accelerate our process of socialization as well. On the basis of the above-mentioned reasons, the present study is intended to probe into this conversational phenomenon from the pragmatic perspective. 1.3 The objective of the study Pragmatics, in Verschuerens point of view, is neither a component discipline of linguistics such as phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, or semantics, each of which is related to a specific unit of analysis, nor does it fit into the set of interdisciplinary fields such as neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and anthropological linguistics. Instead, pragmatics is a perspective on linguistic research, which may provide an answer to the following questions and the like: What do people do when using language? Or, what do they do by means of language? Or, what happens to people when using language? 1 Communicative competence defined by Hymes was a challenge to Chomskys concept of linguistic competence. Hymes argued that the notion of competence should not include only grammatical competence and assumed uniform competence within the individual and the language group. Instead, the notion of competence should be extended to include the “rules of use” as well as the “rules of grammar”. Later, Canale and Swain proposed a modular framework of four components (Canale Canale, 1983; Swain, 1984) for describing communicative competence: (a) grammatical competence, including vocabulary, word formation, sentence formation, pronunciation, spelling and linguistic semantics; (b) sociolinguistic competence, addressing the extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately in different sociolinguistic contexts depending on contextual factors such as status of participants, purposes of the interaction, and norms or conventions of interaction; (c) discourse competence, concerning mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres; (d) strategic competence, composed of mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to limiting conditions in actual situations or to insufficient competence in one or more of the other areas of communicative competence and to enhance the effectiveness of communication. 5 (Verschueren, 1999: 55) In other words, pragmatics should be conceived as the study of the mechanisms and motivations behind the linguistic choices and of the effects they have and are intended to have (Verschueren, 1987: 14) Intentional ambiguity is a common phenomenon in our daily communication. Based on the previous researches and supported by r