Keywords: labeling theory; Context; Indirect speech act; Conversation analysis; Adaptation theory;
Abstract: Since the establishment of Prague School, markedness theory has been an important theory in various branches of linguistics and has been applied to other research fields. This paper first briefly analyzes the concept and development of this theory, and emphatically expounds its theoretical and practical value in pragmatics.
Keywords: tagging theory; Context; Indirect speech act; Conversation analysis; Adaptation theory
1. Introduction
According to the definition of Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards, 2000: 276), markedness theory holds that "in all languages in the world, some language components are more basic, more natural and more common than other language components (unmarked components), and these other language components are called marked components." Markedness is embodied in all levels of language, such as phoneme, morphology, vocabulary, grammar, syntax and so on. Let's take the phoneme level as an example. Phoneme is the basic unit of phonetics analysis, which refers to the smallest phonetic unit that can distinguish two words in a language. For example, a pair of tiny pairs, such as pin and bin, can be distinguished into two different words because of the difference between [p] and [b] at the beginning. The marked and unmarked phenomena of phoneme layer do not appear in all phonemes, but only in pairs. The related characteristics of two phonemes are related to the appearance or absence of a certain phonetic feature. Marked components are components with relevant marks, while unmarked components are components without relevant marks. For example, [t] and [d] in English; [k] and [g]; [p] and [b]; [s] and [z], etc. In phoneme groups [t] and [d], [t] is an unmarked component because [t] is an unvoiced consonant and [d] is a marked component because [d] is a voiced consonant. In other words, the voiced features of consonants constitute relevant markers. Similarly, in the above example, the former is unmarked and the latter is marked. (Can this part shown in red also be omitted? Markedness can also be seen everywhere at the pragmatic level. At this time, the markedness of language units is manifested as pragmatic markedness. For example, in English communication, we should say "thank you" to others' compliments, but if we don't admit or even deny compliments for modesty like China people, it is a pragmatic failure and a marked expression. Similarly, some foreigners will make pragmatic failures due to cultural differences when communicating with China people. For example, in the communication between China people, China people are used to greeting each other by asking or guessing what the other person is doing or preparing to do, such as "watching TV" and "going to buy food?" , and so on. These expressions are common greetings of China people, and the listeners simply don't have to pay attention to them. He only needs to answer casually according to the specific situation, and does not need to give a clear answer. However, westerners who have just arrived in China are puzzled by this. First of all, they want to know why China people choose trivial things in daily life as the topic of communication; Second, I feel uncomfortable and my words and deeds are watched by others, because in the eyes of westerners, what I am doing or what I am going to do is purely personal privacy, and others have no right to ask. Therefore, Westerners unfamiliar with China culture often ask "Really?" , or you're welcome to "back" 1 "none of your business? ! "Such a reaction is unnatural, abnormal and unconventional, and it is a remarkable performance. Next, we will discuss the theoretical and practical value of markedness theory in various fields of pragmatics.
2. Pragmatic interpretation of markedness theory
Since Tru Becko Yi put forward the concept of markedness, linguists such as Jakobson, Chomsky and Lyon have developed and perfected it. Markedness theory plays an important role in all aspects of language analysis, from phoneme, morphology, syntax to grammar. Markup theory can help us correctly analyze the characteristics of language and use it correctly. Markedness theory, with its unique methodological advantages, plays an important role in contemporary linguistic research, especially in grammar, semantics, pragmatics, category and typology, sociolinguistics, language acquisition and foreign language teaching, cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics. This paper will explain this theory from the pragmatic perspectives of context, indirect speech act, conversation analysis and adaptation theory.
2. 1 markedness theory and context
Context is a core concept of pragmatics, and pragmatic research cannot be separated from context. This has become common sense. Many scholars have defined pragmatics from the perspective of context, such as: "Pragmatics is usually regarded as contextualism, which studies how the explicit content (meaning) and implicit content (meaning) of a language are related through context" (Xiong Xueliang, 1999), "Pragmatics is a discipline that specializes in the role of context in communication" (Peng Zeng 'an, 65439
When talking about the role of context, He Ziran and others (2002:118-121) think that from the speaker's point of view, context will affect the speaker's choice of speech content, expression methods and means. From the listener's point of view, context helps the listener to determine the assignment of reference, eliminate ambiguity and enrich semantics. In short, context will affect the expression and understanding of meaning.
American linguist Ji Feng has made a comprehensive discussion on markedness at the pragmatic level. His representative view is that markedness depends on context, and the same structure may be marked in this context and may not be marked in another context (quoted from Zhang Feng, 1999). In other words, marked and unmarked can be transformed into each other, and context plays a decisive role in the transformation process. This phenomenon is called marker inversion, that is, the marker value of a category will be inverted in different contexts. Therefore, markedness and unmarked will change with the dynamic change of context. For example:
A.would you mind closing the window?
B.can you close the window?
C.would you please close the window?
D. close the window.
The above four sentences all express the same proposition-asking the receiver to close the window, but they have different communicative functions and are suitable for different contexts. Take sentence A as an example, if it is obviously inappropriate and unconventional to say this sentence to a good friend, it is a marked expression at this time; But if you say this to your superiors, elders or strangers, it is very appropriate and natural, and this is an unmarked expression. It can be seen that at the pragmatic level, the markedness of language units, like context, is a completely dynamic concept.
2.2 Markedness Theory and Indirect Speech Acts
Searle defined an indirect speech act as "an act indirectly carried out by carrying out another act" in his article Indirect Speech Act. He thinks that the simplest way to express meaning is that when the speaker says a word, he means what he literally means. However, in indirect speech acts, the speaker's discourse meaning and sentence meaning are inconsistent. This is because indirect speech act embodies two kinds of illocutionary acts at the same time, namely primary illocutionary act and secondary illocutionary act. In addition, he believes that the illocutionary act of a discourse depends not only on the intention, but also on the statute. Therefore, based on the relationship between primary illocutionary acts and secondary illocutionary acts, he divided indirect speech acts into conventional indirect speech acts and unconventional indirect speech acts. In conventional indirect speech acts, the main illocutionary act and the secondary illocutionary act are closely related, and have the characteristics of conventionality, habituation and stylization (Wang Dechun et al., 1995: 74). So this is a regular expression and an unmarked item. For example, in "Can you pass me the salt?" In short, the listener does not need to pay attention to the literal meaning of "inquiry" (secondary illocutionary act), but directly understands it as the indirect intention of "request" (primary illocutionary act). This kind of understanding of conventional indirect speech acts does not require much pragmatic reasoning, but only a general inference of literal meaning, so that the speaker's real intention can be known, which seems to have become a kind of * * in daily life. In the following dialogue:
Do you want to drink coffee?
Coffee will sober me up.
B express the indirect intention of "refusal" with the literal meaning of "statement". The main illocutionary act ("refusal") is not closely related to the secondary illocutionary act ("statement"), and it has the characteristics of unconventional, unaccustomed and non-stylized, so it belongs to unconventional indirect speech act. According to Searle (1975), understanding unconventional indirect speech acts requires roughly ten logical reasoning steps, which mainly depends on the language information known by both speakers and the contextual factors when speaking, so it is more complicated and unstable, and it is an unconventional, unnatural and marked expression.
As can be seen from the above, at the pragmatic level, the judgment and establishment of marker items are often relative. For example, conventional indirect speech acts are unmarked relative to unconventional indirect speech acts, but marked relative to general speech acts (such as explicit performative sentences). Austin divides the sentence of performance into explicit sentence and implicit sentence according to whether it contains the verb of performance. Explicit causative sentences are sentences with causative verbs. He Ziran and others (2002: 6 1) believe that action verbs are just like the names or labels of action intentions expressed in speech acts or action sentences, that is, what kind of action verbs have what kind of speech acts. In other words, the speech act expressed by the explicit performance sentence belongs to the direct speech act. For example, the sentence "I command you to pass me the salt" clearly and directly expresses the speech act of "instruction" by acting as the verb "command". "Can you pass me the salt?" Due to the lack of specific verbs, the speaker's speech behavior or intention really becomes more hidden and vague, and the listener needs to think hard when understanding. First, he must make a judgment: Is the speaker "requesting" or "requesting"? Therefore, we believe that compared with explicit performative sentences, conventional indirect speech acts are marked.
2.3 Tagging Theory and Conversation Analysis
Pragmatics is the study of language use. Conversation is the most primitive form of language use and the most basic and important form of discourse. Therefore, conversation analysis is an important field of pragmatics. In the following, we will discuss the adjacent pairs and preference organization in conversation, and discuss the situation of markedness theory in conversation analysis.
2.3. 1 Labeling Theory and Adjacent Pairs
Harvey Sacks and others pointed out that a conversation is characterized by turn-taking. A conversation consists of at least two turns or turns, and the conversation is in pairs. He said, "The answer is often followed by the question" (quoted from Coulthard, 1985: 69). In other words, questions and answers often form turn-taking or exchange. Similarly, generally speaking, in a round, greetings are often followed by greetings, suggestions are often followed by adoption, apologies are often followed by comfort, suggestions are often followed by warning-recognition, and complaints are often followed by apologies. This kind of sentence is called "adjacency pair". "Adjacent pair" is the basic unit of conversation structure and plays an important role in revealing conversation structure. Shcheglov and Sachs believe that adjacent pairs have the following characteristics: adjacent pairs are a sequence of two discourses:
(i) Adjacent;
(ii) By different people;
(iii) in the order of Part I and Part ii;
(4) According to different categories, different first parts need different second parts (or series of second parts), such as matching suggestions with adoption or rejection, and matching greetings with greetings.
(quoted from levinson, 1983: 303-304)
Jiang (2003: 22 1) thinks that adjacent pairs are a common phenomenon in daily conversation. "Question and answer" and "You have something to say, I have something to say" are universal laws that speakers and listeners abide by together. The author thinks that adjacent pairs are common conversation phenomena in daily life, and they are basic, natural and conventional expressions, so they belong to unmarked expressions. For example:
A: What will the weather be like tomorrow? (q)
B: It's sunny. (1)
Good morning, Mr. Wang! (greetings)
Good morning, Mr. Zhou! (greetings)
Shall we go to the movies tonight? (suggested)
That's a good idea. (adopt)
It hurt your foot. I'm really sorry. (Apologize)
B: That's all right. (appeasement)
In the above four dialogues, the turn-taking from A to B is natural, and the two are closely related, with almost no gap. B's response structure is simple, which meets the requirements of A and the cooperative principle and politeness principle that people generally follow in communication. However, if B doesn't respond or reply to A's speech like that, the situation will be very different:
A: What will the weather be like tomorrow? (q)
B: Are you going on a business trip? (rhetorical question)
Good morning, Mr. Wang! (greetings)
B: It's still early? I almost ate it. (rhetorical question+statement)
Shall we go to the movies tonight? (suggested)
B: You still have time to watch movies. It's really leisurely. (statement)
It hurt your foot. I'm really sorry. (Apologize)
B': ouch! It hurts like hell. (statement, not clear statement)
In our opinion, such responses are also available in daily conversations, but compared with the adjacent pairs mentioned above, they are obviously not so natural and routine, so they belong to marked expressions.
2.3.2 Markedness Theory and Preference Organization in Conversation
In the study of adjacent pairs, there is a question about the series or range of the second part. When discussing preference organization, levinson thinks that the first part of adjacent language pairs will match the second part series with different preference degrees. For example, in the following dialogue, there are various responses to the "questions" in the first part, including "answers", which together constitute the second part series:
What does Tom do?
He runs a factory.
Do you need to know?
I don't know. You can ask David.
(d) What does it matter?
(e) he didn't.
In the above dialogue, B's five different reactions constitute the second part of turn-taking. Hu Zhuanglin et al. (1988: 280) think that in this series, various responses do not have the same status, some are "preferred" or "preferred", and some are "non-preferred" or "not preferred". In addition, in comparison, "non-preferred second part" is more routine and normal, because the listener meets the speaker's expectations, while "non-preferred second part" is a marked expression, because it is not the part expected by the speaker. For example, in the following two sessions:
Can you turn on the light for my room?
B: Yes. (Suo Zhenyu, 2000: 196)
A: If you want to come and see me for a while this morning, I'll give you a cup of coffee.
Well, that's very kind of you. I don't think I can come this morning. Well, I advertise in the newspaper. Well, I have to stay by the phone. (Jiang, 2003: 232-238).
The second part of example (1) is called "preferred second part" and the second part of example (2) is called "non-preferred second part". Levinson thinks that preference and non-preference are closely related to markedness. The second part of preference is unmarked, and the second part of non-preference is marked. These two parts are very different in structure. The structure of the "second part preference" is very simple, and sometimes a "yes" is enough, which conforms to the "labor-saving principle" or "economic principle" of human communication behavior, that is, people always want to get the best communication effect with the least communication investment. In the example (1), B agrees to A's request without delay. The structure between the speaker and the responder is compact and the communication effect is satisfactory to both parties. In contrast, the "non-preferred second part" has a complex structure. Example (2) includes deliberate procrastination such as "Hehe" and thanks such as "Hmm" and "That's very kind of you", and the form of refusal is not the simplest, so it is not used directly. On the contrary, I use the euphemism "I don't think I can come this morning", and finally a long list of explanations, such as "I am advertising in the newspaper, well, I have to stay by the phone". According to Grice's cooperative principle, this complex "non-preferred second part" also violates the quantitative criterion, that is, the information provided by the listener is more than the actual communication needs. This adds a burden to the listener's acceptance and understanding, and gives the listener an accident. This unconventional usage has thus produced marks.
2.4 Markup Theory and Adaptation Theory
People can flexibly choose different text types according to different communication purposes and communication occasions. In the author's view, whether the two sides of a discourse use marked expression or unmarked expression is actually a language choice. According to Verschueren (1999: 58-61), this language is chosen because it has a series of characteristics, namely: language has the possibility of choice-variability; This choice is not mechanically fixed, but based on pragmatic principles and pragmatic strategies-negotiation; In order to meet the needs of communication as much as possible, language users make certain choices-adaptation. For example, when someone tries to give advice to a boastful, eloquent and reckless friend, he is actually faced with the following expressions:
Because of the variability of language itself, he is given some freedom in his choice, but his choice must follow certain pragmatic principles (such as cooperative principle and politeness principle) and pragmatic strategies (in order to take care of his friends' face, he must avoid explicit expression of language and adopt indirect euphemism). With such interaction and negotiation between the speaker and his friends, they will choose the fourth sentence that best meets the requirements of the context, thus complying with each other's requirements. Compared with the first three sentences, sentence (4) not only uses the rhetorical device of ending rhyme, thus increasing the attention value and memory value of the text, but also adopts an unconventional expression, that is, a marked expression, thus producing a defamiliarization effect, which is convenient for listeners to wake up and accept and adopt convincingly.
3. Conclusion
This paper focuses on several specific fields of markedness theory in pragmatics, such as context, indirect speech act, conversation analysis and adaptation theory, in order to show its theoretical and practical value. Of course, the research depth of many problems is not enough, and the pragmatic research of markedness theory goes far beyond this. Therefore, people still have a lot of work to do in the study of this important theory.