• 全国中文核心期刊
  • 中国人文社会科学核心期刊
  • 中文社会科学引文索引（CSSCI）来源期刊
  • 国家社会科学基金学术期刊资助入选期刊
公众号 二维码

伦理语用学视阈下中美政治谴责言语行为对比研究

刘风光, 石文瑞

刘风光, 石文瑞. 伦理语用学视阈下中美政治谴责言语行为对比研究[J]. 外国语, 2022, 45(3): 71-81.
引用本文: 刘风光, 石文瑞. 伦理语用学视阈下中美政治谴责言语行为对比研究[J]. 外国语, 2022, 45(3): 71-81.
shu
LIU Fengguang, SHI Wenrui. A Contrastive Study of Chinese and American Political Speech Acts of Condemning from the Perspective of Ethical Pragmatics[J]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 2022, 45(3): 71-81.
Citation: LIU Fengguang, SHI Wenrui. A Contrastive Study of Chinese and American Political Speech Acts of Condemning from the Perspective of Ethical Pragmatics[J]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 2022, 45(3): 71-81.
shu

伦理语用学视阈下中美政治谴责言语行为对比研究

  • 1.

    大连外国语大学 英语学院, 辽宁 大连 116044

  • 2.

    大连外国语大学 东北亚研究中心, 辽宁 大连 116044

基金项目: 国家社科基金一般项目"基于语料库的中国传统语言学术语的整理、英译及双语术语知识库建设"(18BYY126);本成果受大连外国语大学学科带头人资助经费支持。
详细信息
    作者简介:

    刘风光,博士,教授。研究方向:语用学、语篇分析、政治语言学

    石文瑞,博士研究生。研究方向:语用学、语篇分析、政治语言学。

  • 中图分类号: H030

A Contrastive Study of Chinese and American Political Speech Acts of Condemning from the Perspective of Ethical Pragmatics

  • 1.

    School of English Studies, Dalian University of Foreign Languages, Dalian 116044, China

  • 2.

    Northeast Asian Research Center, Dalian University of Foreign Languages, Dalian 116044, China

摘要

    摘要
  • 摘要: 政治谴责在维护国际道义、传达政治立场以及引导公众舆论等方面具有重要作用。本研究在阐释政治谴责言语行为内蕴的基础上,以中美政治媒体话语为语料,分别从内容与形式维度探讨中美谴责言语行为的异同。研究表明,在内容维度上,中国主要谴责"暴力冲突"等主题,提倡和平发展与法律制度;而美国多就"全球问题"等进行谴责,倡导有效执政与道德秩序;在形式维度上,中美谴责言语行为均借助谴责重陈语、负评强化语、谴责凸显语等内部策略实施,但在起始语、辅助行为语等调整谴责语力的外部策略层面多存在显著性差异。此外,本研究在伦理语用学视阈下进一步探讨以上结果所蕴含的文化范式与伦理秩序,揭示谴责在中美语言文化中异同的动因,并为政治话语研判及传播提供启示。
    Abstract: Political condemnation plays an important role in upholding international morality, conveying political statements and guiding public opinions.Based on an explanation of the connotations of political condemnation, this study examines the similarities and differences between Chinese and American condemnations in their content and linguistic forms.In terms of content, Chinese condemnations mainly focus on "violent conflicts" and advocate peaceful development and legal system, while American condemnations mostly relate to "global issues" and promote effective governance and moral order.In terms of linguistic forms, both Chinese and American speech acts of condemning are realised by means of internal strategies such as overstatement, intensifiers and amplifiers.Yet, there are significant differences in various aspects of alerters and supportive moves in external strategies to adjust the force of speech act of condemning.Furthermore, the study explores the cultural paradigms and moral orders behind these results from the perspective of ethical pragmatics.The study provides insights for the assessment and dissemination of political language use.
    • HTML全文
    • 参考文献(44)
  • [1] Austin, J.How to Do Things with Words[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1962.
    [2] Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K.& K.Knafl.Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis[J].Qualitative Health Research, 2003, 13(6):871-883.
    [3] Banczerowski, J.Some contrastive considerations about semantics in the communication process[C]//Fisiak, J.Theoretical Issues in Contrastive Linguistics.Amsterdam:John Bengjamins, 1980.
    [4] Bergmann, J.R.Introduction:Morality in discourse[J].Research on Language & Social Interaction, 1998, 31:279-294.
    [5] Blum-Kulka, S.& E.Olshtain.Requests and apologies:A cross-cultural study of speech act realisation patterns[J].Applied Linguistics, 1984, (3):196-213.
    [6] Braithwaite, J.Crime, Shame and Reintegration[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989.
    [7] Buttny, R.Social Accountability in Communication[M].London:SAGE Publications Ltd., 1993.
    [8] Dixon, J.& K.Durrheim.Contact and the ecology of racial division:Some varieties of informal segregation[J].British Journal of Social Psychology, 2003, 42:1-23.
    [9] Dovey, J.Freakshow:First Person Media and Factual Television[M].London:Pluto Press, 2000.
    [10] Edmondson, W.& J.House.Let's Talk and Talk About It[M].München:Urban and Schwarzenberg, 1981.
    [11] Ervin-Tripp, S.Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives[J].Language in Society, 1976, 5(1):25-66.
    [12] Finlay, W.M.L.Denunciation and the construction of norms in group conflict:Examples from an Al-Qaeda-supporting group[J].The British Journal of Social Psychology, 2014, 53(4):691-710.
    [13] Fitzpatrick, S.& R.Gellately.Introduction to the practices of denunciation in modern European history[J].The Journal of Modern History, 1996, 68:747-767.
    [14] Gee, J.An Introduction to Discourse Analysis:Theory and Method[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
    [15] Hall, E.Beyond Culture[M].New York:Anchor Books, 1976.
    [16] Hansson, S.Discursive strategies of blame avoidance in government:A framework for analysis[J].Discourse & Society.2015, 26(3):297-322.
    [17] Kádár, D.& S.Zhang.(Im)politeness and alignment:A case study of public monologues[J].Acta Linguistica Academica, 2019, 66(2):229-249.
    [18] Kampf, Z.Political speech acts in contrast:The case of calls to condemn in news interviews[J].Journal of Pragmatics, 2021, 180:203-218.
    [19] Kampf, Z.& N.L wenheim.Rituals of apology in the international arena[J].Security Dialogue, 2012(1):43-60.
    [20] Krauss, S.E.Research paradigms and meaning making:A primer[J].The Qualitative Report, 2005, 10(4):758-770.
    [21] Leech, G.N.The Principles of Pragmatics[M].New York:Longman, 1983.
    [22] Liu, F.& W.Shi.Political advice in Chinese public discourse(s)[J].Acta Linguistica Academica, 2019, 66(2):209-228.
    [23] Longacre, R.E.The Grammar of Discourse:Notional and Surface Structures[M].New York:Plenum Press, 1983.
    [24] Malle, B.F., Guglielmo, S.& A.E.Monroe.A theory of blame[J].Psychological Inquiry, 2014, 25(2):147-186.
    [25] Márquez-Reiter, A.& M.Haugh.Denunciation, blame and the moral turn in public life[J].Discourse, Context & Media, 2019, 28:35-43.
    [26] McKenna, M.Directed blame and conversation[C]//Coates, D.J.& N.A.Tognazzini.Blame:Its Nature and Norms.New York:Oxford University Press, 2013.
    [27] Noy, C.'I was here!':Addressivity structures and inscribing practices as indexical resources[J].Discourse Studies, 2009, 11(4), 421-440.
    [28] Scollon, R.& S.W.Scollon.Intercultural Communication:A Discourse Approach[M].Oxford UK & Cambridge USA:Blackwell, 1995.
    [29] Taylor, S.E.Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events:The mobilization-minimization hypothesis[J].Psychological Bulletin, 1991, 110:67-85.
    [30] Verschueren, J.Understanding Pragmatics[M].London and New York:Arnold, 1998.
    [31] Walker, M.U.Moral Repair:Reconstructing Moral Relations after Wrongdoing[M].New York:Cambridge University Press, 2006.
    [32] Warner, M.Publics and Counterpublics[M].New York:Zone Books, 2005.
    [33] Wodak, R.Blaming and denying:Pragmatics[C]//Brown, K.Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (Second Edition).New York:Oxford University Press, 2006.
    [34] 查尔斯·斯蒂文森.伦理学与语言[M].姚新中、秦志华等, 译.中国社会科学出版社, 1991.
    [35] 陈新仁.跨学科前沿研究:伦理语用学[J].中国外语, 2017, 14(3):9-10.
    [36] 韩丹.构式视阈下外交拒绝言语行为研究[J].外语与外语教学, 2021, (5):37-46.
    [37] 何兆熊.英语语言的间接性[J].外国语, 1984, (3):9-13.
    [38] 李玉良.《论语》翻译与美国当代政治哲学[J].外国语, 2022, 45(1):103-110.
    [39] 刘风光, 石文瑞, 邓耀臣.中美政治建议言语行为对比研究——以外交话语为例[J].外语教学, 2019, 40(2):44-50.
    [40] 彭文钊.哲学阐释学视域下的政治语言学:哲学基础、语言观与政治观问题[J].外语与外语教学, 2017, (2):26-37.
    [41] 阎学通.大国领导力[M].北京:中信出版集团, 2020.
    [42] 叶蜚声, 徐通镪.语言学纲要(修订版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2010.
    [43] 尤尔根·哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 2018.
    [44] 朱贻庭.伦理学大辞典[M].上海辞书出版社, 2010.
    • 相关文章
    • 施引文献
    • 资源附件(0)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  806
  • HTML全文浏览量:  12
  • PDF下载量:  27
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2021-08-31
  • 刊出日期:  2022-05-19

目录

摘要
HTML全文
    参考文献(44)
    相关文章
    施引文献
    资源附件(0)

    /

    返回文章
    返回
    邮件订阅 RSS

    本系统由 北京仁和汇智信息技术有限公司 开发  百度统计