【作者】 于秀成；

【导师】 张绍杰；

【作者基本信息】 东北师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2011， 博士

【副题名】Searle言语行为理论适切条件诠释与批判

【摘要】 非真诚性邀请作为汉语种一种典型的言语行为多在跨文化领域进行探讨。本研究通过在言语行为理论框架内对这种言语行为的分析,旨在对Searle的言语行为理论中适切条件进行阐释与批判,进而说明这些条件未能解释言语交际中非真诚言语行为,提出对于言语行为,无论真诚还是非真诚,成功条件更具解释力。本论文首先对于邀请行为在言语行为中的分类进行了回顾和讨论,然后研究了汉语中非真诚邀请语用特征,以及这些语用特征和Searle的言语行为理论适切条件的关系。本文还探讨了作为交际中的佯装表达方式,非真诚性言语行为与其它语言的非严肃使用的不同。在实施非真诚性言语行为时,说话人传达不同的命题态度。本论文由七章构成。第一章概述了本文的研究理论基础、研究目的、研究方法及论文的组织结构。本研究主要目的包括:(1)说明即使在传统言语行为理论框架下,根据Searle的分类标准,邀请行为也不能被划分为纯粹的指令性言语行为;(2)分析汉语中非真诚性邀请行为的语用特征及其与适切条件的关系;(3)对Searle言语行为理论适切条件进行阐释与批判,并基于对汉语非真诚性邀请的研究,对适切条件提出修订。具体的研究问题包括:(1)邀请行为的本质是什么?(2)非真诚性言语行为与其它语言的非严肃使用的差别是什么?(3)与真诚性相比,非真诚性邀请具有哪些语用特征?(4)为什么成功条件能够解释真诚与非真诚性言语行为,而适切条件只能解释真诚性言语行为?第二章主要从人类学、社会学以及语言哲学对语言使用作为行为进行评述。本部分详细回顾了哲学家及语言学家对言语行为的不同分类,总结出虽然对于言语行为的种类划分存在或多或少的差异,大多分类依然遵循Searle的标准。本章探讨了按照Searle的分类标准,邀请行为同时具有指令性与承诺性言语行为的特征,因为在邀请中,邀请者一方面在请求被邀请者做某事,另一方面,他/她也同时(隐含地)承诺接受被邀请者出席所邀请的事件中。第三章研究了汉语中非真诚性邀请的语用特征,通过对自然语料的分析,发现非真诚性邀请不同于真诚性邀请的六个特征,同时探讨了这些语用特征的作用和功能。不同于西方传统理论将邀请作为一种威胁面子的行为,在汉语文化中,邀请起到维护交际双方面子的作用。从邀请者的角度看,这些语用特征实际是他/她所采取的交际策略的体现,传递出其邀请不应按表面意义理解的意图。从被邀请者的角度看,它们也是被邀请者推测邀请者意图的理解策略,从而做出适当回应。第四章讨论了非真诚性邀请语用特征与各适切条件的关系。虽然有研究表明在非真诚性邀请中预备条件不被满足,但未见充分解释。本章通过对这些语用特征的分析,总结出在非真诚性邀请中,除了真诚条件之外,至少有一个其它条件不被满足。而这些其它条件的不被满足恰恰是为了掩盖邀请者在实施邀请行为时其真诚条件不被满足的事实。通过上述分析,作者认为,Searle的适切条件不能解释像非真诚性邀请这样的非真诚性言语行为。第五章研究语言非严肃使用的各种情形中的佯装表达问题。语言非严肃使用中的假装在哲学与心理学领域有深入的研究。在语言学领域,对于交际中的假装多见于对某些具体言语行为的研究,如反讽和夸张,在这些形式的言语交际中,通常认为说话人的假装是非欺骗性(non-deceptive)的。基于第三章的研究,本部分提出,作为语言非严肃使用的一种现象,在非真诚性邀请中既有非欺骗性的又有欺骗性的假装,虽然在后一种情况下,邀请者的意图并非要欺骗被邀请者,而是为了满足言语交际中的某些社会规约,即出于维系交际双方良好的社会关系的考虑。第六章对Searle言语行为适切条件进行了系统的阐释和批判。对于语言的严肃使用,即Searle所言的“理想化”(idealized)使用,其适切条件是有解释力的,但对于像非真诚性邀请这样的非严肃使用,即言语行为的不适切或有缺陷(“infelicitous/defective”),虽然它们在交际中能被成功实施,这些条件则无法解释。本部分提出真诚条件言语行为成功实施中并非必要条件,一个言语行为即使有缺陷,依然可以成功实施;与言语行为适切条件相比,成功条件能够充分解释无论是适切的或不适切的言语行为,因为在实施这两种性质不同的行为时,说话人实际在表达不同的命题态度,前者表示意图做某事,而后者表示假装做某事。第七章是本研究的结论部分。除了对本研究进行了简要的总结之外,指出其意义和贡献所在,并对研究中存在的问题和对于以后这个领域的发展研究进行了概括展望。本研究的主要贡献在于:第一,在言语行为理论的框架内对非真诚性言语行为,特别是非真诚性邀请进行了系统的研究;第二,发现了非真诚性邀请语用特征与各适切条件的内在关系,解释了这些条件的不被满足在言语行为实施过程中是如何体现的;第三,提出在言语行为中真诚条件并非必要条件,成功条件能够解释真诚性与非真诚性言语行为。更多还原

【Abstract】 This study investigates insincere invitations, a typical case of insincere speech acts in the Chinese context, within the framework of speech act theory (hereafter referred to as SAT), with a view to offering a critique of the felicity conditions in the Searlean SAT. It starts with a discussion and revision of what type of speech act inviting is by nature and then the pragmatic features of insincere invitations are explored, followed by an investigation of the relations of these features and the felicity conditions. It argues that insincere speech acts as pretence in communication are different from other types of non-serious use of language, in which the intention to express demonstrates different attitudes, rather than the intention to do something, hence the felicity conditions in the Searlean tradition fail to account for insincere speech acts, as illustrated by the case of insincere invitations in Chinese (hereafter referred to as IICs). It is proposed that the felicity conditions have to be replaced by the success conditions so that both insincere and insincere speech acts will be accounted for.The dissertation is composed of seven major chapters.Chapter One provides a brief introduction of the objectives, the rationale, the significance, as well as the general layout of the study, stating that the current study aims to (1) elucidate that the act of inviting is not purely a directive act, as proposed in the traditional speech act theory, but rather a commissive directive, (2) analyze the pragmatic features of insincere invitations in Chinese and their relations with each of the felicity conditions, and (3) make a critical analysis of the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech act theory, and make tentative amendments according to what has been discovered in the analysis of insincere invitations in Chinese. The present research explores the following four questions: (1) What is the act of inviting by nature as one of the illocutionary acts? (2) How are insincere invitations realized, as apposed to sincere ones, with respect to their pragmatic features? (3) How are insincere speech acts manifested as pretence in communication? (4) Why do the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech act theory fail to explain ISAs?Chapter Two reviews the history of using language as action in anthropology, sociology, as well as the philosophy of langauge. A detailed review is also made on the various taxonomies of speech acts. Although there have been different versions in the classification of speech acts, most of them have followed the Searlean tradition, with slight modifications and/or amendments. It is proposed in this chapter that, following Searle’s criteria, inviting bears the features of both directives and commissives, for in issuing an invitation, the speaker requests the hearer to do some future action on the one hand, and meanwhile commits himself/herself to the obligation of accepting the hearer’s presence on the other.Chapter Three analyzes the pragmatic features of insincere invitations in Chinese. Based on the data collected from real life experience, a comparative analysis is made to find out in what aspects insincere invitations are distinct from sincere ones. Six features are concluded, and statistic analyses have indicated that all of them show significant difference. The general functions of insincere invitations are also discussed. It is indicated that, contrary to the western cultures in which they are taken as face-threatening acts, insincere invitations are in fact face-caring acts in the Chinese culture. These pragmatic features, seen from a communicative perspective, are actually communication strategies the inviters adopt to express propositional attitudes rather than to express the intention to do what is literally meant by the utterances. On the other hand, they also function as comprehension strategies by which the invitees make inferences about the inviters’intentions, according to which appropriate responses are made.Chapter Four discusses the relationship between the pragmatic features of insincere invitations and the felicity conditions of the act of inviting. The discussions reveal that, besides the sincerity condition, at least one other condition is not satisfied in the performance of insincere invitations. The defectiveness of the other one or more conditions is employed to cover up the insincerity of the inviter’s performance of the act per se. This chapter draws the conclusion that the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech act theory fail to account for insincere invitations.Chapter Five provides an analysis of pretence in various non-serious use of language, including insincere speech acts in specific. The study of pretence has long been explored in philosophy and psychology. Linguistic studies have focused on some particular types of the non-serious use of language, e.g. irony and/or hyperbole, which involve non-deceptive pretence. Contrary to the traditional view of taking insincere speech acts as involving non-deceptive pretence, it is found that, based on the analysis of insincere invitations in Chinese, insincere speech acts involve both deceptive and non-deceptive pretence, though the intention behind the pretence is not meant to deceive.Chapter Six makes a critique of the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech acts theory. It is concluded that Searle’s felicity conditions have explanatory power in analyzing serious use of language, i.e. the“felicitous/non-defective”performance of speech acts, but fail to provide a sound account of the“infelicitous/defective”performance, which are nevertheless successful in communication. A comparison is made between the felicity conditions and the success conditions, which leads to the conclusion that sincerity of the speaker in the performance of illocutionary acts is not a prerequisite, i.e. a necessary condition. In performing speech acts, either sincere or insincere, the speakers actually express two different propositional attitudes. In the former case, it is the intention to do something, and in the latter, the pretence to do. A tentative revision of Searle’s felicity conditions is also made to account for both sincere and insincere speech acts.Chapter Seven is the concluding part of the study, which points out the contributions the present study has made. It also summarizes the major findings of the research, the limitations, and gives a brief account of the possible trends and/or orientations in further studies in the topic explored in this research.The following contributions have been made in the present study: First, it has provided a comprehensive analysis of insincere speech acts in general, and insincere invitations in particular, within the framework of speech act theory. Second, the study has found the interrelation between the pragmatic features and the felicity conditions, hence providing an account on how each of the conditions is violated in the case of insincere invitations. And third, the success conditions are proposed based on the tentative revision of the felicity conditions by claiming that sincerity is not a necessary condition for the performance of speech act.更多还原