Keywords: Hemingway's Mountains Like White Elephants: the psychology of the interviewee
introduce
Mountains Like White Elephants is a classic of Hemingway's short stories. The outline of the novel is: an American man and a woman are waiting for the train at the Spanish station. The man tried to persuade the girl to have an operation. As for what is a surgical novel, there is no direct explanation, but according to some details and our life experience, it can be speculated that this is an induced abortion. The story begins. The main part of this novel is the dialogue between men and women. The author doesn't make any comments on people and things. He showed us the real picture of the railway station in the form of a lens. The novel omits the identity of the characters, the background of the story and the context of the plot. The whole novel adopts a very typical purely restrictive objective narrative perspective and the artistic technique of ellipsis. The rich connotation of the novel has left readers with endless aftertaste and imagination, and different readers can have different understandings of the novel. This paper attempts to analyze the relationship between characters in a specific background from the perspective of pragmatics and the principle of conversational cooperation, and understand the author's creative theme.
1. Connotation and significance of the principle of conversational cooperation
According to Grice's theory, the so-called conversation is the result of cooperative efforts made by both parties to achieve specific communicative purposes. Both sides of verbal communication have the desire to cooperate with each other for the success of communication. Grice's principle of conversational cooperation came into being. It includes quantity standard, quality standard, relationship standard and mode standard. Grice believes that all participants in the dialogue understand and should abide by the general "cooperative principle". The standard of quantity in conversation requires providing the information needed for the purpose of conversation, but it should not contain more information than needed, that is, the quantity is moderate. Repetition or agreeing to repeat may not only be improper use of language, but also imply the purpose of the conversation. The standard of conversation quality refers to the accuracy, authenticity and reliability of information provided by both parties. In order to achieve the purpose of communication, it is necessary for both sides to abide by the principle of authenticity. However, out of courtesy, out of respect, or because of the environment and the mood of conversation at that time, people may not tell each other frankly. Therefore, euphemism, metaphor, exaggeration and other rhetorical devices (including lying) came into being, deliberately violating the qualitative norms in the cooperative principle and expressing implied meanings in a roundabout way. On the contrary, we can also combine the time, place and background of the conversation to infer the psychology and relationship between the two sides from the implied communicative dialogue. Among the four standards put forward by Grice, the relevance standard is the most basic and important one. To maintain the principle of cooperation, what people say in communication must be related to the communication tasks and topics at the moment. The key to mastering the relevance principle is to grasp the "immediate needs at a specific stage". In other words, provide the right information at the right time. Sometimes people who participate in communication deliberately change the topic or avoid the topic in order to achieve their respective communication purposes, resulting in irrelevant communication dialogue, which is a deliberate destruction of relevance principle and a special application of relevance principle. Model standard refers to the cooperative requirements of communication parties in expression. Using obscure and ambiguous words, or incoherent speech, or even keeping silent, may lead to communication failure. From this, we can understand Grice's principle of conversational cooperation in this way: the standard of quantity embodies the principle of sufficiency and economy of communication content; The standard of quality embodies the authenticity and accuracy of the content and the principle of good faith in communication; Relevance criterion embodies the principles of purpose and need in communication; Model standard embodies the principle of strategic and effective communication. These principles are interactive and inseparable. At the same time, they affect the communication effect and determine the success or failure of communication.
2. Based on the three stages of character dialogue, the author uses the cooperative principle to analyze the relationship between characters.
Sometimes, for special communication purposes, both parties intentionally or unintentionally violate the principle of conversational cooperation, which brings unexpected effects to communication. The novel Mountains Like White Elephants focuses on dialogue, and the relationship between the hero and heroine is implicit in their dialogue. The dialogue gradually entered a tense climax from the casual and relaxed surface, and then entered a dull one. Dialogue breaks the principle of cooperation in many places, from which we can see their different communicative purposes. We divide the dialogue into three stages, and at each stage, we extract some typical dialogue paragraphs and analyze them by cooperative principle, so as to explore the relationship between characters and understand the author's creative theme.
2. 1 Analysis of the relationship between characters in the first stage of the dialogue
The first stage of the conversation begins with a man and a woman waiting for a drink. This classic dialogue first appeared when the woman looked at the distant mountain. She said:
They look like a group of white elephants.
"I've never seen an elephant," the man gulped down the beer.
"You won't have seen it."
"I may have seen it," said the man. "You said I wouldn't see it. It doesn't mean anything."
For the first time, the woman metaphorically said that the mountains in the distance are like a group of white elephants. But in fact, it was midsummer, and the mountains in the distance were neither covered with snow nor icebergs. It is an abstract and vague concept for women to compare white elephants to mountains. She deliberately violated the code of conduct. Perhaps the shape of the mountain is like a white elephant, which means that its shape reminds pregnant women of their bellies. Perhaps there is no absolute connection between the white elephant and the mountain, but it is just an accident. It is women who want to hide their inner panic, to escape from the reality between them and to divert men's attention. The man said that he had never seen an elephant, and later said that he might have. What a woman says doesn't explain the problem. Obviously inconsistent, which violates the quality criterion of conversational cooperation principle. The key to the problem is not whether men have really seen elephants, but whether men and women are lovers. The woman's metaphor can't arouse the man's * * *, and the woman's tone is a little resentful, but the man is also tit for tat with her. It implies that the atmosphere between two people is unpleasant and a little nervous.
In order to avoid this tension, the woman did not continue the original topic, but started another topic, talking about the painting on the curtain, and then talking about the taste of the drink. There is also an intriguing dialogue between men and women.
"This wine in My Sweetie is like licorice," said the girl.
"Everything is like this."
"Yes," the girl said, "everything in My Sweetie is like licorice. Especially those things that one has been looking forward to for a long time, just like wine. "
Here, from the perspective of successful communication, the lady deliberately broke the quantitative standard and added, "Especially those things that one has been waiting for for a long time, just like wine." What she said was more detailed than required, which violated the quantitative standard of the principle of conversational cooperation. Obviously, this woman doesn't want to be alone here. After all, she wanted to bring up the topic that she was trying to hide and really wanted to bring up. The woman compares the white elephant to a mountain for a while, proposes to try a new drink for a while, and now mentions the metaphor of wine. These jumping questions seem to deviate from the relevant standards, but they are all intentional by women. As a woman, she has some subconscious cover-ups about her worries, and at the same time, she has a strong desire to explode. She wants to talk about this depressing or disturbing thing for a long time to make herself feel better. However, the expression is tortuous, metaphorical and hidden under the literal. Therefore, she has been intentionally or unintentionally destroying the norms of etiquette and law, which is the external feature of women's psychology and the expression of her contradiction, hesitation and anxiety. She wants to talk, habitually covering up. She wants to express herself, but she is afraid of men's uneasiness or ruthless decision. Therefore, in the language role, women are passive, and in the relationship between them, women are also weak. Combined with the second half of the article, we can see that it is unreasonable for the couple to live a carefree life, such as "seeing the scenery and tasting the wine they have never drunk" and "staying in different hotels for the night". This paved the way for the conflict in the second dialogue stage.
2.2 Analysis of Character Relationship in the Second Stage of Dialogue
The classic dialogue in the second dialogue stage appeared when the girl talked about the metaphor of white elephant for the second time.
"These mountains are so beautiful that they really don't look like a group of white elephants. I just said that through the trees, the color of the mountain is white. "
The woman denied her original metaphor for the mountain, which destroyed the quality criterion of communication and was inconsistent. In fact, her feelings and emotions have changed, indicating that she began to compromise in a slightly nervous quarrel environment. This metaphor itself is not very important. The key point is that from this metaphor, we can see that women have been trying to be happy, trying to avoid the topic and trying to divert men's attention from the operation. Sure enough, the next moment, they talked about the taste of drinks. But the man suddenly said:
"This is a very simple operation, h.r.giger," said the man. "This is not even an operation. I know you won't care, Gig. It's really no big deal. It's just breathing air. I will stay with you, always with you. All they have to do is inject air, and then everything will be normal. "
The girl stared at the ground at the foot of the table and said nothing.
Obviously, men can't focus on mountains or delicious beer in the end. He didn't follow the relevance principle of communication and conversation, and brought up the matter that he had always cared about. He broke the quantitative standard and repeatedly emphasized the simplicity of operation, showing his impatience and impatience. However, women always keep silent, which does not conform to the quantitative standards and model standards of the principle of conversational cooperation. It can be seen that women's inner complexity. On the one hand, she is afraid of abortion, on the other hand, she has felt the loss of a man's love for her and is afraid of losing her relationship with this man. She is struggling, weighing, and anxious. Next, the woman deviated from the quantitative standard and sent out a series of questions asking what to do after the operation and whether the man would still love her. And the man broke the quality standard and kept coaxing and comforting her. Women are more concerned about whether a man still loves him after surgery than losing a child. She repeatedly confirmed the necessity of surgery to men, thus testing their psychology. The repeated neglect of quantitative standards shows the woman's mind. Pregnancy brings much more changes to women's body and mind than men's. A man regards his future children as a burden, and he doesn't want to take responsibility for it. He felt irritable, lost his original warmth to women, and could not bring women a sense of security. Anxiety forces a woman to re-examine and think about the man she relies on.
But if I do, then if I say something is like a group of white elephants, it will be smooth and you will like it again?
This is the third time that a woman has mentioned the metaphor of white elephant again. This is another special application of quantitative criteria in conversation principle. But here becomes a question, which can be extended to: If I say something is like a group of white elephants, will you like it? Can be interpreted as: If I disagree with you, will you like it? This problem, between men and women who love each other, is destined to be a basic puzzle, perhaps the source of trouble, or will determine the fate of this relationship. Men have repeatedly mentioned that "the operation is very convenient". While destroying the quantitative standard, it invisibly exposed his mind and moral tendency. And that woman can't help it, she said:
"I don't care about myself. I'm going to have an operation, and then everything will be fine. "
"If that's what you think, I don't want you to have an operation." The man said.
What both men and women say is not true, and they are intentionally or unintentionally destroying quality standards. On the surface, the conflicts have subsided and the communication goals tend to be consistent. But in fact, this shows that women are in a weak position in abortion and relations with men. She kept asking questions, hoping that the man's answer would bring her comfort, but she knew that even if the man said he loved her, she would not be happy, because the truth had been answered in her heart. Here she has almost accepted the fait accompli in despair. Therefore, the second stage of the dialogue is the climax of showing women's inner thoughts, which is a direct confrontation between women's thinking and men's thinking, and shows the huge gap between the two sides in feelings, understanding and needs.
2.3 Analysis of Character Relationship in the Third Stage of Dialogue
The third stage of the dialogue is mainly the woman's last struggle against the fait accompli, and the dialogue is over. The girl stood up and walked to the end of the station.
"We could have enjoyed it all," she said. "We could have enjoyed everything in life comfortably, but as the days passed, it became increasingly impossible for us to live a comfortable life."
"What did you say?"
"I said that we could have enjoyed everything in life comfortably."
"We can do this."
"No, we can't."
"We can have the whole world."
"No, we can't."
"We can go around."
"No, we can't. The world is no longer ours. "
"It's ours."
"No, it isn't. Once they take it away, you will lose it forever. "
A series of denials by women intentionally undermined the quantitative standards and expressed their positions and ideas. Happy love and bright future will disappear, and men's old-fashioned answers and explanations also make women very tired.
"Go back to the shade," he said. "You shouldn't have that idea."
"I don't know," said the girl. "I only know the facts."
In despair, the woman accepted the cruel truth. It is useless for men to coax and comfort again. She just doesn't want to mention this sad thing. She suggested another glass of wine. The man doesn't understand a woman's mind, and then says that if a woman doesn't want to have an operation, he will endure it to the end, but the operation itself is so easy. This way of speaking completely destroys the quality criterion and the way criterion, which is both urgent and clumsy. He tried his best to hide his true thoughts, but the fact is that he has been emphasizing one point: surgery must be done and women must be willing. Invisible, he is exerting a kind of violence on women. Although it is not a fist or a murder weapon, it objectively shows the passive coercive relationship between men and women. Finally, women's emotions have reached the point where they can't stand it:
"Then please, please, please, please, please, stop talking, okay?"
The woman used seven words "please" to ask the man to stop talking, which inadvertently destroyed the quantitative criteria, indicating that the woman's mood has gradually reached its peak and the internal tension of the novel has gradually reached its climax.
At this time, the man really received the feelings and emotions of the woman. He deliberately violated the relevant standards and used the opportunity of packing to ease the atmosphere.
He came back from packing, lifted the bead curtain and came out to find her sitting at the table, throwing a smile at him.
"Are you feeling better?" He asked.
"I feel great," she said. "There's nothing wrong with me. I think it's great. "
In the end, the woman deliberately disobeyed the quality standards and told a lie against her will. In this way, the novel quickly slipped at the peak and came to an abrupt end. In fact, women suppressed greater disappointment in their hearts and predicted the next greater conflict. The foundation of their relationship has collapsed, and the relationship between men and women seems destined to split.
label
The above is an analysis of the relationship between men and women in The Mountain Like a White Elephant. The method used is the principle of conversational cooperation. The conversation between men and women in this article basically violates the principle of cooperation, which is determined by the relationship between men and women. So what is the relationship between the two? From the perspective of pragmatics, the relationship between two people can be summarized by one word in the article, that is "unreasonable". They wander around without a fixed residence, and the hotel on the trip is their temporary home. All they do is taste different drinks. This insecure relationship is very easy to destroy. Sure enough, once a woman is pregnant, this relatively stable relationship is on the verge of breaking down. Men and women have different views on "abortion". The relationship between women's passivity and bondage can also be seen from the fact that men are stronger than women. It can be seen that the cooperative principle is not blindly followed, nor should it be regarded as a regulation that restricts or regulates conversational behavior, but a theoretical construction that communicators rely on to express and understand meaning, and a mechanism for establishing conversational coherence and deducing conversational meaning. Only in this way can we better understand its theoretical value and use it in our communication and analysis.
References:
[1] Shao Jindi, Bai. Introduction to literature [M]. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2006+092- 196.
[2] Gui Shichun. Applied linguistics [M]. Hunan Education Press, 1987.
[3] Hemingway translation [EB/OL]. http://web.liceobrocchi.vi.it/sgarbos/2bca/tasks/hills.htm. .
[4] Milan? Kundera Betrayal will [M]. Oxford University Press, Shanghai University Press, 195+04.
[5] Master's thesis: On the relationship between characters in Cat in the Rain from the politeness principle [EB/OL]. http://blog。 ellipsis/s/blog _ 4c 00 a2 AC 0 1008 q 9 . html . 2007-03-26 19:36:29。
An argumentative essay on the topic of high school bosom friends
When Xiao Mu saw it for the first time, there was an inexplicable warm