【作者】 褚修伟；

【导师】 钱冠连；

【作者基本信息】 广东外语外贸大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 语言学、语用学、人类学和社会学等领域的学者早就注意到乔姆斯基语言研究传统中对人类语言及语言使用中的创造性的强调并不能否认语言使用中的重复性。显而易见地，在重复出现的交际情景中，结构相似的、有时甚至是同样的语言表达被用来执行重复出现的交际任务。现有的对语言使用中的重复性的研究或强调所谓整体性提取的重复使用的语言表达或把把它们从实际的交际情景中割裂开来考察，从而不能对之做出真正意义上的语用学研究。本研究通过概括出一个新的语用现象范畴，即程式性言语事件，尝试性提出一个研究语言的重复性使用的新路子：在言语事件中研究重复使用的语言表达，揭示重复出现的言语事件的程式性倾向，从而加深人们对语用本质，尤其是对语言在人的基本生活方式中的运作的理解。本研究围绕以下四个问题展开：1)什么是程式性言语事件?2)是什么因素导致了程式性言语事件的生成并使之得以保持?3)程式性言语事件在人的社会文化存在中有何功用?4)程式性言语事件中的语用机制如何?第一个问题在第三章中讨论。根据维特根斯坦的家族相似性理论，我们把程式性言语事件概括为这样一个范畴：发生在重复出现的交际情景中的言语事件，它们都有一定的程式性从而彼此相似。这些不同程度的程式性体现为以下三个方面：1)有相对稳定的一套重复使用的话语，2)有相对稳定的一套步骤顺序相对稳定的行为，3)上述话语与行为的相对稳定的配合。不同的程式性言语事件按其程式性的高低构成一个级阶，位于较高一端的是严式程式性言语事件，另一端是宽式程式性言语事件，但两者之间绝非泾渭分明。程式性言语事件要么是具有重大社会文化意义的言语事件(如婚礼、葬礼、法庭辩论等)，要么就是那些虽不重大却是构成人类基本日常生活内容的言语事件(如打招呼、生日聚会、讨价还价、医患交谈等)。它们是一个社团或文化的基本生活方式的直接体现，是人们实现生活中各种目的的主要方式。第二和第三个问题在第四章中探讨。我们论证指出，程式性言语事件的产生和保持有其认知基础，即人们有在重复出现的交际情景中参照先前经验决定当前反应的能力和倾向，也有社会文化因素的推动，既人类社会行为的规约化、制度化，和最为根本的——人对有效参与生活的追求。概而言之，程式性言语事件的一般功能有以下三个方面：1)促进交际的有效进行，2)建立或维持语言使用者的社会文化身份，3)加强文化的稳定性。第五章讨论第四个问题，探察程式性言语事件中的语用机制。从程式性言语事件中每一句话语的产出与理解都是参与者的交互作用的决策选择的结果这一事实出发，我们构建了一个以博弈论为基础的理论框架来解释程式性言语事件中的语言使用。程式性言语事件是非零和完美信息的重复性博弈；在博弈过程中，参与者根据他们对自己所处的情景的认知做出相互影响的理性选择，而他们对情景的认知受制于包括具体的场景、背景知识、个人信念、目的、预先期望和其他语境因素的综合作用。在这些语境因素中，目的的牵制和预先期望的引导最为重要，因为作为重复性博弈，程式性言语事件的顺利进展和完满实施取决于博弈参与者共享的关于进展中的事件的预先期望和在这些期望引导下朝着博弈的支配性目的的协同努力。为了有效地达到博弈的支配性目的，在重复性博弈中，理性决策者自然会选择经过时间检验的程式性决策。无论是在话语产出还是在话语理解中，偏离程式性的决策出现于以下两种情况：1)当决策者认为偏离程式性的决策更能有效实现各方为之协同努力的交际目的时，2)当参与者各方对进行中的事件或情景的认知出现偏差的时候。这种偏差的出现源于有限理性个体性差异。不管是哪种情况，偏离程式性的决策未必就能导致一个程式性言语事件的中止或崩溃。除了通过概括出程式性言语事件这一新的语用现象范畴从而拓展了重复性语言使用的研究思路之外，本研究还有望在以下两个方面对语用学研究有所贡献。1)借用博弈论的基本观点和思想，但避开其标志性的形式化或数学手段，来分析程式性言语事件的语用机制的尝试可能对如何应用博弈论对一般意义上的语言使用的研究有所启发。2)鉴于语言使用中内嵌着文化差异，本研究主要从植根于汉语文化中程式性言语事件出发从而有望对完全建立在西方语言文化基础上的语用学研究有一定的补充作用。此外，本研究对外语教学有一定的启发意义。程式性言语事件是一个社团或文化的基本生活方式，以重复性的语言使用为特征；如果把程式性言语事件纳入课程设计、课堂教学和学生的日常练习中，可以有效地提高学生在目的语言和文化方面的交际能力。更多还原

【Abstract】 Researchers from the fields of linguistics, pragmatics, anthropology, sociology,etc. have long noted that the emphasis of the creativity of human language andlanguage use in the Chomskyan tradition can by no means deny repetition inlanguage use. Noticeably, in recurring communicative situations, similar andsometimes identical expressions are used to perform repetitive tasks. Existing studieson repetitive language use fail to make a real pragmatic account for it, due to theiremphasis on the so-called holistically retrieved linguistic expressions and/or theirisolating the repeated expressions from the actual situations within which they areembedded. The present research blazes a trail in the study of repetitive language useby identifying a new category of pragmatic phenomena, formulaic speech event(FSE for short), so as 1) to provide a more comprehensive pragmatic perspective, i.e.,the event-oriented perspective, into repetitive language use than the previous studies,and 2), more significantly, to unveil the inclination of recurrent speech events tobecome formulaic, offering insight into the nature of language use and particularlyhow language functions in the basic ways of man’s being in the world. The project isconducted around the four questions: 1) What are FSEs? 2) What are the causes ofthe emergence and maintenance of FSEs? 3) What functions do FSEs have in man’ssocio-cultural being? and 4) What is the mechanism of language use in FSEs?The first question is addressed in Chapter Three. In line with Wittgenstein’stheory of family resemblance, formulaic speech events are categorized as thosespeech events embedded within recurring communicative situations, which resembleeach other in that they are all characterized by a certain degree of formulaicity whichis embodied by: 1) a relatively fixed set of recurrent phrasings, 2) a relatively fixedset of actions in relatively fixed move orders, and 3) relatively fixed co-occurrenceof the two. There are various degrees of formulaicity and hence a continuum offormulaicity along which all FSEs are located. FSEs are either the speech events thatare of great social-cultural significance (such as weddings, funerals, courtroominteractions, etc.) or the ones that constitute the essential aspects of human everyday life (such as greetings, birthday parties, bargaining events, doctor-patient interactions,etc.). They are the direct embodiment of the basic forms of life of a community orculture, and the principal means through which people attain various goals in life.The second and third questions are tackled in Chapter Four. As to the emergenceand maintenance of FSEs, there are both cognitive foundations, i.e., the ability andtendency to consider the prior experiences in deciding the present reaction inrepetitive situations, and socio-cultural impetuses, namely, the conventionalizationand the institutionalization of human social behavior, with human pursuit forefficient participation in life being the root one. The general functions of FSEs areintegrated under three categories: 1) facilitating communication, 2) establishing orpreserving socio-cultural identity, and 3) reinforcing cultural stability.Chapter Five is dedicated to the exploration of the pragmatic mechanism of FSEs.That both the production and the interpretation of each utterance in FSEs are the resultof interactive choice-making by the participants leads us to the development of agame-theoretic framework to account for the language use in FSEs. An FSE is arepeated positive-sum game of perfect information, in which agents make rationallinguistic choices (both in production and interpretation) on the basis of theirperception of the situation they are involved in, derived from a combination of setting,background knowledge, personal beliefs, goals, expectation and other contextualfactors. Among all the contextual factors, the constraint of goals and the guidance ofexpectation are of most prominent importance, for an FSE depends on the agents’collaboration oriented towards the dominant goal(s) pre-established by the respectivesituation and a commonality of expectations about the on-going game for its smoothprogress and completion. To reach their goals efficiently in a particular repeated game,the rational agents will naturally take the time-tested formulaic strategies. Deviationsfrom the formulaic elements of the event, either in utterance production or inutterance interpretation, may arise 1) when the agent believes his deviant choices canhelp attain the shared communicative goal of the event with higher efficiency, and 2)when the agents have different perceptions of the on-going game or the currentsituation, as a result of the individual differences in their bounded rationality. In either case, deviations from the formulaicity of an FSE will not necessarily lead to itsbreakdown.In addition to identifying a new category of pragmatic phenomena, i.e. FSE, andthus broadening the horizon of the study of repetition in language use, the presentstudy also contributes to the pragmatic field in the following aspects. First, withoutusing the formal or mathematical tools that characterize game theory as well as theexisting studies applying game theory to pragmatic issues, our way of applying gametheory to account for the pragmatic mechanism of FSEs may yield some insights intohow it can be applied to the study of language use in general. Second, considering thatthere are cultural discrepancies embedded in language use, the present study,primarily based on reflections on the real-life FSEs embedded within the recurringcommunicative situations rooted in Chinese culture, may hopefully complement thepragmatic studies that are based ethnocentrically on Western languages and cultures.Besides, the present study may also yield some insights into foreign language teachingand learning. Now that FSEs, characterized by repetitive language use, are the basicforms of life of a community or culture, by incorporating FSEs in the foreignlanguage into curriculum design, classes, and students’ everyday practices, teachersmay efficiently help the students increase their communicative competence in thetarget language and culture.更多还原