本文關(guān)鍵詞： 不禮貌的實(shí)現(xiàn)方式 公開不禮貌 非公開不禮貌 話語權(quán)勢　出處：《南京理工大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：不禮貌現(xiàn)象是社會交際中常見的語言現(xiàn)象,尤其在爭論這種社會交際行為中存在各種形式的不禮貌,而爭辯中不禮貌的策略性使用往往體現(xiàn)話語權(quán)勢的構(gòu)建。因此本研究將不禮貌和建構(gòu)性的話語權(quán)勢相結(jié)合,探討爭論過程中,不禮貌及其與話語權(quán)勢建構(gòu)的關(guān)系。 爭論是人們?nèi)粘Ｉ睢⑸鐣钪谐Ｒ姷难哉Z互動形式,爭論過程中語言的摩擦、碰撞導(dǎo)致不禮貌現(xiàn)象的產(chǎn)生,而不禮貌的使用會改變交際者的話語權(quán)勢。不禮貌在本研究中指說話人在特定語境中有意使用的威脅對方面子的言語或行為,而話語權(quán)勢則指交際參與者對他人的交際行為環(huán)境實(shí)施限制來控制或操控他人的能力。本文選取了國內(nèi)知名時事辯論民意調(diào)查節(jié)目《東方直播室》的7期節(jié)目,其圍繞道德、慈善、家庭暴力、醫(yī)患和兒童安全這五個話題展開的語料,定性、定量地探討以下3個問題： 1)在公開不禮貌和非公開不禮貌的模式下,爭論中的不禮貌有哪些實(shí)現(xiàn)方式? 2)爭論中不禮貌如何通過各種實(shí)現(xiàn)方式來構(gòu)建話語權(quán)勢? 3)在構(gòu)建話語權(quán)勢過程中,公開不禮貌和非公開不禮貌的使用是如何分布的? 根據(jù)Bousfield(2008)的不禮貌模式和前人對不禮貌實(shí)現(xiàn)方式的總結(jié),本研究建立了爭論中不禮貌實(shí)現(xiàn)方式的框架；通過對權(quán)勢的理解和對語料的分析,總結(jié)出建構(gòu)話語權(quán)勢的三種途徑,建立了不禮貌建構(gòu)話語權(quán)勢的框架；最后通過量化比較構(gòu)建話語權(quán)勢過程中公開不禮貌和非公開不禮貌的使用情況。 通過歸納發(fā)現(xiàn),爭論中主要有9種不禮貌實(shí)現(xiàn)方式,每種不禮貌都對聽話人的面子構(gòu)成威脅,其中公開不禮貌有4種,包括問答性質(zhì)問、打斷、批評和威脅；非公開不禮貌有5種,包括諷刺、反義性質(zhì)問、做不恰當(dāng)?shù)膶Ρ取?qiáng)制話題轉(zhuǎn)換和蔑視對方。 通過語料分析發(fā)現(xiàn),在爭論過程中,不禮貌的使用可以改變話語權(quán)、改變交際話題、改變交際氣氛,其中打斷可以控制話語權(quán),問答性質(zhì)問、反義性質(zhì)問和強(qiáng)制話題轉(zhuǎn)換可以控制交際話題,而批評、威脅、諷刺、做不恰當(dāng)?shù)膶Ρ群兔镆晫Ψ娇梢钥刂平浑H氣氛。 通過對各種不禮貌實(shí)現(xiàn)方式的量化研究,發(fā)現(xiàn)在爭論過程中參與者使用公開不禮貌和非公開不禮貌的頻率都很高,但是其頻率有一定差異性,其中公開不禮貌出現(xiàn)了262次,非公開不禮貌出現(xiàn)了180次,說明在爭辯中使用公開不禮貌構(gòu)建話語權(quán)勢的頻率大于非公開不禮貌,這也說明了在爭論這種社會交際中,說話人為了獲得更有利的話語權(quán)勢更傾向于直接地攻擊對方的面子來構(gòu)建自己的話語權(quán)勢。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：H03

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 賴良濤;;語言與權(quán)勢構(gòu)建[J];外國語言文學(xué);2009年03期

2 黃瑋瑩;羅長田;;不禮貌原則視角下的英漢強(qiáng)勢憤怒話語分析[J];東華理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2010年01期

3 楊朝軍;;《交際中的失禮》述評[J];外語教學(xué)與研究;2010年05期

4 李祥云;張德祿;;爭吵話語結(jié)構(gòu)特點(diǎn)研究[J];外語與外語教學(xué);2007年12期

5 張大毛;;不禮貌言語的界定和分類[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社科版);2009年S1期

6 李元勝;;漢語中不禮貌言語行為的順應(yīng)性研究[J];現(xiàn)代語文;2006年11期

7 楊子;于國棟;;漢語言語不禮貌的順應(yīng)性研究[J];中國外語;2007年04期

，

本文編號：1485756