论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】It is a universal phenomenon that people use indirect language in daily interpersonal communication. With the development of the pragmatics， scholars， abroad and home， are focusing on the use of language and making contributions to pragmatics. This paper， based on violation of Cooperative Principles and adoption of Face Theory， will analyze the phenomenon of language indirectness in In the Name of People .
【Key words】Language indirectness； Cooperative Principle； Face-saving Theory
Ⅰ. Introduction
Pragmatics does not have a long history， however， pragmatics has made quick progress in recently. Today， pragmatics has been regarded as a significant branch of linguistic studies. Many pragmatic strategies have been put into practice to deal with some problems of language use. This paper will focus on one part of pragmatics—language indirectness， to analyze the phenomenons of indirect language in In the Name of People. The framework of this paper is based on Grice’ Cooperative Principle and Face Theory proposed by Levinson and Brown.
Ⅱ. Theoretic framework
In daily life， people tend to choose a implicit way to express what they want to say， which can be seen as a phenomenon of language indirectness. There are two conditions of using indirect language：one is that people have alternative choice， but they use indirect language to express a specific intention so that they can achieve their communication purpose. The other is that they have no choice but to use indirect language. In a word， no matter what way you choose， it is a success once you achieve your communication purpose.
2.1 Cooperative Principle
American philosophy， Grice， put forward that in all language communication activities， in order to achieve specific purpose， speakers and listeners should have some principles to abide by， and Grice named this principle as Cooperative Principle. It is defined as that make your conversational such as required at the stage at which it occurs by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. And it is divided into four maxims as following：
1. Relation：be relevence.
2. Quality：do not say what you believe to be false； do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
3. Quantity：make your contribution as formative as is required； do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
4. Manner：avoid obscurity； avoid ambiguitity； be brief（avoid unnecessary prolixity）； be orderly.（Grice， 1975：307～308） According to Grice’s Cooperative Principle， once the speaker breaks any maxim， conversational implicature will appear.
2.2 Face Theory
The politeness theory of Brown and Levinson is generally called Face-saving Theory， and we can also call it—Face Theory. So， the first thing that should be figured out is what is“face” which is taken to be important to individuals in both a positive and negative aspect. To some extent， “face” can be regarded as a kind of public self-image that every social member wants to claim for himself， which includes negative face and positive face. Negative face refers to the basic claim to territories， personal preserves， rights to non-distinction， freedom of action and freedom from imposition. Positive face refers to the desire that his self-image be appreciated and approved of claimed by interaction.
Ⅲ. Realization of language indirectness
3.1 Violation of Cooperative Principle
Grice’s Cooperative Principle， as the principle people should abide by in daily communication， requires high efficiency and reasonability in people’s language communication activities. High efficiency is in that speakers express what they want to in a direct way， and listeners can understand what they say in a very quick way. Reasonability is in that such language activity is a better realization of form logic. But， actually， these principles are often violated， thus conversational meaning is generated. Based on this principle， in the following， this paper will analyze the language indirectness through Gao Yuliang’words in In the Name of People.
Gao Yuliang， a experienced man in the official field， deals with things with sophisticated and thoughtful ways. In this paper， three different situations regarding to Gao Yuliang will be chosen to analyze the purpose of using language indirectness.
Exmple 1：
高育良：都說咋们汉东省有个汉大帮，还把我编排成这个汉大帮的头头，我都不知道该怎么解释。
沙瑞金：既然你说到这个敏感的话题了，我问一句啊，在咋们省，真的有汉大帮这么一个干部小团伙吗？上次开会时有的同志提出这个问题，被你一句话就否掉了，说我们省是平原地区，没有山头。
高育良：怎么说呢，主观上没有，但客观上或许存在。我从来没有想到过把人民赋予我的权利向任何一个学生转让。可实际上了，我或许这么做了。
3.1.1 Violation of relation
This conversation is between Gao Yuling and Sha Ruijin. From what they talk about， we can easily find ou that Sha is doubting about the way of dealing things related to political work of Gao. When Sha asks him weather there exists a gang of officials， he says that our province is a area of flatland， without mountain. Obviously， it is a violation of relation. The relation maxim claims that the utterances should be relevant which suggests that Gao’s answer needs to be in great relevance to Sha’s question. However， Gao utters something which is seemingly irrelevant to the question， and he user a another way to change what Sha are focusing on. It is no doubt that Gao has a very clear understanding of what Sha says but to achieve some kinds of communicative needs he deliberately violate the maxim. 3.1.2 Violation of manner
The manner maxim claims that people should avoid ambiguity and obscurity in order to have a clear and smooth communication. In the example1， Gao aviolates this maxim many times in his conversation with others and answers question in a vague and ambiouguous way. When Sha askes whether he is partial to his students， he dos not answer this question directly. He says“I do not transfer my rights that people give to me to any student of mine”. However， he adds in the end“I may have inadvertently done because， after all， they are my students”. He uses this vague means to answer questions. In the one hand， it is a good way to avoid the embarrassment he is facing at that moment. In the other hand， at first glance， it seems that what he does is reasonable. Thus， vagueness sometimes can help speaker avoid detailed explanation and revelation of what the speaker do not want to talk about.
3.1.3 Violation of quantity
The quantity maxim requires people to make their contribution as formative as is required and not to make their contribution more informative than is required.
Example 2：
钱同志：高书记，在我们汉东省，山头主义，团团伙伙还是存在的吗，这一点你不得不承认吧。
高育良：不要扣帽子吗，咱们省是平原地区，哪来那么多山头。不是所有铺的好干部，都要提上来做大官。当年少奇同志跟掏粪工人时船祥聊天的时候就这样说过，我做国家主席，你掏粪，都是为人民服务吗。
This dialogue comes from Li Dakang and Gao Yuling where Li Dakang is questioning of Gao Yuliang’s appointment system. Li believes Gao is building his own small political groups so that Gao always promotes his familiar people， and puts those people who are really willing to dedicate themselves to working for Chinese aside. Gao tactfully answers the question. In addition， in order to cover up what he has done， he deliberately adds some informations irrelevant to the question to speak for himself. For example， He has been using the example of Liu Shaoqi to avoid Gao’s questioning of him， so that the attention of those people can be transferred and thus he achieves his communicative purpose. However， these are more informative than is required.
3.1.4 Violation of quality
The quality maxim claims that we should not say that for which you lack adequate evidence and what we believe is false. For example， in other words， when doing social activities， I hope your help is sincere and not hypocritical. If you’re helping me make a cake， when I need the sugar， and I hope you won’t pass the salt to me.（Grice， 1975：308～309）
Example 3：
高育良：找老師兴师问罪来了？
钟小艾：高老师，以您对亮平的了解，你觉得，他会干那些贪赃枉法的事吗？ 高育良：誰也没说他一定贪赃枉法，就是停职反省嘛，这事情查清楚了，该干什么干什么。这事情有人举报了。而且举报人还是他发小。
侯亮平：对对对，有报必查嘛，公事公办。小艾，这也不能怪高老师。
高育良：你看，还是亮平有度量，真金不怕火炼。小艾，说实话，其实我一直到现在都不相信对亮平的举报。我这心里，纠结的很呐。
This conversation comes from the questioning of Gao Yuliang’s students. The couple wants to figure out why Hou Liangping is suspended. However， Gao don’t give them the answer， and he just says“it’s none of my business”. It is no doubt that he is not sincere in social activities， besides， he will not tell them the truth but make up some reasons to convince them， which is a violation of quality. It is easily understood that by violating the quality maxim in cooperative principle， which is good way to avoid the awkward questions that may embarrass him.
3.2 Adoption of Face Theory
Face and facework can be considered as the metaphor which presents the self-image of the interactors. Face is connected to avowed identity in some sense. Basically， we have two kinds of facework. The first one is self-directed. The second one is other-directed. So to speak， people from all cultures strive to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations.
In the example of 3， Teacher Gao considers himself as the higher-level in the communication. So he can convert his passive situation into active situation. He puts his face in the first place. Then he would consider his student Hou’s face. In his talking， we can see clearly that he tries to mitigate the Hou’s feeling about this matter by understating the suspensin. But soon he expresses his dilemma. For Hou is an outstanding student. But Gao has his duty to carry， and the evidence is so clear that he has to do something.
Ⅳ. Conclusion
Rolloff proposed that interpersonal communication is a“symbolic process by which two or more people bound together in a relationship provides each other with resources and negotiates the exchange with resources”（Roloff， 1981：30）. There is no doubt that the use of the indirect language plays a crucial role in communicative activities， which can not be ignored. If the speakers use indirect language properly in the specific context， which will make the language more polite and effective. Exploring the reasons why speakers violate cooperative principles， whether in order to save the listener’s face， or maintain relationship between speakers and listeners， or to ease atmosphere， its purpose is to make the communication more harmonious， and more fluent. What’s more， the indirectness of language has become an important expression of euphemism.
References：
[1]Grice，H.P.Meaning，Philosophical Review 67，1957.
[2]Grice，Syntax and Semantics：Speech Acts，New York：Academic Press，1975.
[3]Roloff，E.（1981）.Interpersonal Communication：The Social Exchange Approach.Beverly Hills：Sage Publication.
【Key words】Language indirectness； Cooperative Principle； Face-saving Theory
Ⅰ. Introduction
Pragmatics does not have a long history， however， pragmatics has made quick progress in recently. Today， pragmatics has been regarded as a significant branch of linguistic studies. Many pragmatic strategies have been put into practice to deal with some problems of language use. This paper will focus on one part of pragmatics—language indirectness， to analyze the phenomenons of indirect language in In the Name of People. The framework of this paper is based on Grice’ Cooperative Principle and Face Theory proposed by Levinson and Brown.
Ⅱ. Theoretic framework
In daily life， people tend to choose a implicit way to express what they want to say， which can be seen as a phenomenon of language indirectness. There are two conditions of using indirect language：one is that people have alternative choice， but they use indirect language to express a specific intention so that they can achieve their communication purpose. The other is that they have no choice but to use indirect language. In a word， no matter what way you choose， it is a success once you achieve your communication purpose.
2.1 Cooperative Principle
American philosophy， Grice， put forward that in all language communication activities， in order to achieve specific purpose， speakers and listeners should have some principles to abide by， and Grice named this principle as Cooperative Principle. It is defined as that make your conversational such as required at the stage at which it occurs by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. And it is divided into four maxims as following：
1. Relation：be relevence.
2. Quality：do not say what you believe to be false； do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
3. Quantity：make your contribution as formative as is required； do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
4. Manner：avoid obscurity； avoid ambiguitity； be brief（avoid unnecessary prolixity）； be orderly.（Grice， 1975：307～308） According to Grice’s Cooperative Principle， once the speaker breaks any maxim， conversational implicature will appear.
2.2 Face Theory
The politeness theory of Brown and Levinson is generally called Face-saving Theory， and we can also call it—Face Theory. So， the first thing that should be figured out is what is“face” which is taken to be important to individuals in both a positive and negative aspect. To some extent， “face” can be regarded as a kind of public self-image that every social member wants to claim for himself， which includes negative face and positive face. Negative face refers to the basic claim to territories， personal preserves， rights to non-distinction， freedom of action and freedom from imposition. Positive face refers to the desire that his self-image be appreciated and approved of claimed by interaction.
Ⅲ. Realization of language indirectness
3.1 Violation of Cooperative Principle
Grice’s Cooperative Principle， as the principle people should abide by in daily communication， requires high efficiency and reasonability in people’s language communication activities. High efficiency is in that speakers express what they want to in a direct way， and listeners can understand what they say in a very quick way. Reasonability is in that such language activity is a better realization of form logic. But， actually， these principles are often violated， thus conversational meaning is generated. Based on this principle， in the following， this paper will analyze the language indirectness through Gao Yuliang’words in In the Name of People.
Gao Yuliang， a experienced man in the official field， deals with things with sophisticated and thoughtful ways. In this paper， three different situations regarding to Gao Yuliang will be chosen to analyze the purpose of using language indirectness.
Exmple 1：
高育良：都說咋们汉东省有个汉大帮，还把我编排成这个汉大帮的头头，我都不知道该怎么解释。
沙瑞金：既然你说到这个敏感的话题了，我问一句啊，在咋们省，真的有汉大帮这么一个干部小团伙吗？上次开会时有的同志提出这个问题，被你一句话就否掉了，说我们省是平原地区，没有山头。
高育良：怎么说呢，主观上没有，但客观上或许存在。我从来没有想到过把人民赋予我的权利向任何一个学生转让。可实际上了，我或许这么做了。
3.1.1 Violation of relation
This conversation is between Gao Yuling and Sha Ruijin. From what they talk about， we can easily find ou that Sha is doubting about the way of dealing things related to political work of Gao. When Sha asks him weather there exists a gang of officials， he says that our province is a area of flatland， without mountain. Obviously， it is a violation of relation. The relation maxim claims that the utterances should be relevant which suggests that Gao’s answer needs to be in great relevance to Sha’s question. However， Gao utters something which is seemingly irrelevant to the question， and he user a another way to change what Sha are focusing on. It is no doubt that Gao has a very clear understanding of what Sha says but to achieve some kinds of communicative needs he deliberately violate the maxim. 3.1.2 Violation of manner
The manner maxim claims that people should avoid ambiguity and obscurity in order to have a clear and smooth communication. In the example1， Gao aviolates this maxim many times in his conversation with others and answers question in a vague and ambiouguous way. When Sha askes whether he is partial to his students， he dos not answer this question directly. He says“I do not transfer my rights that people give to me to any student of mine”. However， he adds in the end“I may have inadvertently done because， after all， they are my students”. He uses this vague means to answer questions. In the one hand， it is a good way to avoid the embarrassment he is facing at that moment. In the other hand， at first glance， it seems that what he does is reasonable. Thus， vagueness sometimes can help speaker avoid detailed explanation and revelation of what the speaker do not want to talk about.
3.1.3 Violation of quantity
The quantity maxim requires people to make their contribution as formative as is required and not to make their contribution more informative than is required.
Example 2：
钱同志：高书记，在我们汉东省，山头主义，团团伙伙还是存在的吗，这一点你不得不承认吧。
高育良：不要扣帽子吗，咱们省是平原地区，哪来那么多山头。不是所有铺的好干部，都要提上来做大官。当年少奇同志跟掏粪工人时船祥聊天的时候就这样说过，我做国家主席，你掏粪，都是为人民服务吗。
This dialogue comes from Li Dakang and Gao Yuling where Li Dakang is questioning of Gao Yuliang’s appointment system. Li believes Gao is building his own small political groups so that Gao always promotes his familiar people， and puts those people who are really willing to dedicate themselves to working for Chinese aside. Gao tactfully answers the question. In addition， in order to cover up what he has done， he deliberately adds some informations irrelevant to the question to speak for himself. For example， He has been using the example of Liu Shaoqi to avoid Gao’s questioning of him， so that the attention of those people can be transferred and thus he achieves his communicative purpose. However， these are more informative than is required.
3.1.4 Violation of quality
The quality maxim claims that we should not say that for which you lack adequate evidence and what we believe is false. For example， in other words， when doing social activities， I hope your help is sincere and not hypocritical. If you’re helping me make a cake， when I need the sugar， and I hope you won’t pass the salt to me.（Grice， 1975：308～309）
Example 3：
高育良：找老師兴师问罪来了？
钟小艾：高老师，以您对亮平的了解，你觉得，他会干那些贪赃枉法的事吗？ 高育良：誰也没说他一定贪赃枉法，就是停职反省嘛，这事情查清楚了，该干什么干什么。这事情有人举报了。而且举报人还是他发小。
侯亮平：对对对，有报必查嘛，公事公办。小艾，这也不能怪高老师。
高育良：你看，还是亮平有度量，真金不怕火炼。小艾，说实话，其实我一直到现在都不相信对亮平的举报。我这心里，纠结的很呐。
This conversation comes from the questioning of Gao Yuliang’s students. The couple wants to figure out why Hou Liangping is suspended. However， Gao don’t give them the answer， and he just says“it’s none of my business”. It is no doubt that he is not sincere in social activities， besides， he will not tell them the truth but make up some reasons to convince them， which is a violation of quality. It is easily understood that by violating the quality maxim in cooperative principle， which is good way to avoid the awkward questions that may embarrass him.
3.2 Adoption of Face Theory
Face and facework can be considered as the metaphor which presents the self-image of the interactors. Face is connected to avowed identity in some sense. Basically， we have two kinds of facework. The first one is self-directed. The second one is other-directed. So to speak， people from all cultures strive to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations.
In the example of 3， Teacher Gao considers himself as the higher-level in the communication. So he can convert his passive situation into active situation. He puts his face in the first place. Then he would consider his student Hou’s face. In his talking， we can see clearly that he tries to mitigate the Hou’s feeling about this matter by understating the suspensin. But soon he expresses his dilemma. For Hou is an outstanding student. But Gao has his duty to carry， and the evidence is so clear that he has to do something.
Ⅳ. Conclusion
Rolloff proposed that interpersonal communication is a“symbolic process by which two or more people bound together in a relationship provides each other with resources and negotiates the exchange with resources”（Roloff， 1981：30）. There is no doubt that the use of the indirect language plays a crucial role in communicative activities， which can not be ignored. If the speakers use indirect language properly in the specific context， which will make the language more polite and effective. Exploring the reasons why speakers violate cooperative principles， whether in order to save the listener’s face， or maintain relationship between speakers and listeners， or to ease atmosphere， its purpose is to make the communication more harmonious， and more fluent. What’s more， the indirectness of language has become an important expression of euphemism.
References：
[1]Grice，H.P.Meaning，Philosophical Review 67，1957.
[2]Grice，Syntax and Semantics：Speech Acts，New York：Academic Press，1975.
[3]Roloff，E.（1981）.Interpersonal Communication：The Social Exchange Approach.Beverly Hills：Sage Publication.