论文部分内容阅读
Abstract:Fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure can not be completely avoided in the daily life. Accordingly, this article puts forward the Principle of Relative Exactness on the basis of relatively exact understanding of fuzzy meanings so as to remedy fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure. According to this principle, the communicators are expected to be tolerant and open-minded in the communication. They don’t exact an identical view about a fuzzy concept from the other side. As long as their understandings are both within the same semantic range of the fuzzy concept, the interpersonal relationships between the communicators don’t become worse as a result, and the communicative effect is produced at least partially, the communication is successful.
Key Words:fuzzy language; fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure; Principle of Relative Exactness
1Fuzziness-caused Pragmatic Failure
Thomas (1983,p.91) defines pragmatic failure as “the inability to understand what is meant by what is said”. She (ibid.,p.94) holds that pragmatic failure occurs on any occasion “on which H (the hearer) perceives the force of S’s (the speaker’s) utterance as other than S intended s/he should perceive it.” According to her (ibid.,p.94), pragmatic failure will occur if:
(i) H perceives the force of S’s utterance as stronger or weaker than S intended s/he should perceive it;
(ii) H perceives as an order an utterance which S intended s/he should perceive as a request;
(iii) H perceives S’s utterance as ambivalent where S intended no ambivalence;
(iv) S expects H to be able to infer the force of his/her utterance, but is relying on the system of knowledge or beliefs which S and H do not share.
Many factors lead to pragmatic failure and linguistic fuzziness is one of them. Fuzzy language in the broad sense includes fuzzy phonetics, fuzzy grammar and fuzzy words which reflect the property of objective things of being uncertain, unclear and being “both this and that” in their belongingness to a category and in their attributes. The research of this thesis is limited to fuzzy language in its narrow sense, that is, fuzzy words which reflect the property of objective things of being uncertain, unclear and being “both this and that” in their belongingness to a category and in their attributes. Now let’s look at several examples of fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure.
Example 1:
有一个外商到河南某市考察，问陪同者：“你们这里有机场吗？”答曰：“没有。”外商又问：“有旅游的地方吗？”答曰：“有个山，还有个水库，没啥玩头。”外商兴趣索然。这位外商又来到与之紧邻的另一个市，同样问道：“你们这里有机场吗？”答曰：“有，往北150公里处，有一大型机场，顺京深公路，两个多小时就到。”“有旅游的地方吗？”“有。往南60多公里处，有一嵖岈山，山峰奇秀，小巧玲珑，有桂林山水之灵气，是中原旅游胜地。”外商点头称好。
（Zhang Dongli, 1992）
In this example, the two entourages have different ideas about the range of 这里. The one from the second city believes that the places 60 km, even 150 km away, can still be taken as“这里”, so when asked whether there are any airport and tourist attractions here, he replies “yes”; while for the one from the first city, the places more than 100 km away are not “这里”; as a result, he answers “no”.
Example 2:
30岁的大男孩不想结婚。
(Xiao Xiao,2000,p.35)
When reading this subheading, the author and her friends are confused. As the old Chinese saying goes, “A man should be well established at thirty”. It means that a man as old as thirty is supposed to have his own family and career. His little son is surely a boy, but how can he, a 30 year old man, be called a boy? This does not come singly but in pairs. Not long ago, a newly married actress who is over 30 called herself girl in an interview and invited numerous oppugners. Maybe we should not be so harsh. After all, it is self-evident that no two speakers share precisely the same linguistic system.
Example 3:
A: I’ve at last finished my research paper.
B: Oh, really. Do you mind I have a look at that?
A: Of course not. There you go.
B: What? You call this a finished research paper? It’s a far cry from that.
(Yu Han,2002,p.6)
Example 4:
A: David is such a chicken. He doesn’t even dare to walk back from the library alone at night. It’s only a five-minute walk.
B: Being afraid of the dark is not the same thing as being timid. Everyone has some weakness.
(ibid.,p.44)
Example 5:
A: James, you’ve got to study harder in order to pass. Your mid-term exam doesn’t look promising at all.
B: I’m indeed studying very hard, Prof. Wills.
A: I don’t see it that way. You don’t even come to classes regularly.
B: Well, I’ like to come very much, but I just can’t do it. I can explain.
A: Go ahead, I’m all ears.
(ibid.,p.16)
Example 6:
A: Heidi is really a great speaker. You should hear the way she talks in class.
B: We, I don’t really think much of that. I bet you could do that as well if you wanted.
A: I don't think so. I would like to give my eyeteeth to be able to.
(ibid.,p.77)
Example 3-6 are all fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure from which we can see the belief effect of prototype. In Example 3, A and B have different ideas about what a finished research paper should be. A thinks he has finished his research paper, but B doesn’t think so. For B, A’s paper is far away from being finished (it’s a far cry from that). In Example 4, A and B don’t see eye to eye with each other about what being timid should be. For A, being afraid of the dark is a sign of being timid; while B doesn’t think so. B thinks it is only a weakness. In the following two examples, A and B have different views about how hard a man should study so as to be called studying hard and what a great speaker should be like.
2Principle of Relative Exactness
Fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure is very difficult to avoid because people can not do without verbal communication in their daily lives. So why do we have to set such a high standard for ourselves to ask for a precise understanding? On the basis of Wang Yin’s relative exactness in understanding fuzzy words (2001,p.172), this article puts forwards the Principle of Relative Exactness in remedying fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure and promoting successful communication. Taking into consideration the fact that communicators come from different social and cultural backgrounds and have different experiences, believes and ways of cognizing and categorizing the world which may well exert great obstacles in the process of communication, it is more practicable for them to accept that, at the very time and in the very place of the communication, as long as the communicators have a similar understanding of a fuzzy concept and the prototypes they choose for this concept are close to each other, that is, as long as they reach relative exactness in the comprehension of this fuzzy concept, they reach a common understanding and the communication is considered to be successful.
Example 7:
A：你今天买了多少书？
B：我今天买了十几本书。
(Wang Yin,2001,p.173)
A: How many books have you bought today?
B: I’ve bought more than ten of them.
In our daily lives, B’s answer is informative enough because he excludes the parts less than ten and more than twenty. For A, this answer is relatively exact because it is just a greeting and he does not have to get the exact number.
3A Case Study
When teaching English in the city KM, the author of this thesis heard the following dialogue between two students:
Example 8: （城市KM很少下雪。但有一个冬天的早晨下雪了。两个学生冲进了教室……）
A：太冷了，我的耳朵和手指都没有知觉了。
B：你太夸张了，才零下两度。
A：才零下两度？你是《蝙蝠侠》里的那个iceman吗？
B：我没开玩笑。在我的家乡，最低温度可以达到零下40度。
A：哦，我忘了你是北方人。
B：我敢肯定，在KM，你从生下来还没见过下雪呢。
(It seldom snows here in the city KM. However, it was snowing one winter morning. Two students rushed into the classroom……)
A: Oh, it’s freezing cold. I can’t even feel my ears and fingers!
B: You are exaggerating! It is only two below zero after all.
A: Only two below zero? Are you iceman in the film Batman?
B: I’m not joking. In my hometown, the temperature can drop as low as 40 degrees below zero.
A: Oh, I forgot that you come from the north.
B: I am sure it is the first time that you have ever seen snow since your birth here in KM.
Obviously, this is a fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure. As what Oxford Advanced Lerner’s English-Chinese Dictionary defines, when related with temperature, cold means “having a lower than usual temperature; having a temperature lower than the human body”. No one denies this definition because we all know what being cold is. Being cold is certainly not hot. When we feel cold we have to put on more clothes. So, the intension of cold is clear. However, there is not a definite condition, that is, a fixed prototype, in which all people agree it is cold. Different people from different places feel differently about being cold; people from the same region may also feel differently; even the same person, at different stages of his/her life and in different health conditions, may feel differently about being cold. In Example 10, the dynamic character of the prototype of cold causes the pragmatic failure. A and B are from different regions and have different feelings about being cold. For A, a person who has been born and brought up in a place where it seldom snows, two below zero is freezing cold; while for B, a person from the northern city where the lowest temperature reaches 40 degrees below zero, two below zero is simply nothing at all.
Finally, the Principle of Relative Exactness functions. After the occurrence of pragmatic failure, both A and B interact tolerantly and open-mindedly. They find that the fact they come from different regions is the root of this communicative failure, and recognize that it is totally unnecessary for them to figure out who is right. As a result, the pragmatic failure in the example is remedied and the relationship between the two communicators keeps unaffected.
All in all, relative exactness is a kind of mental and cognitive state in which the communicators don’t ask the other side to have exactly the same understanding over a fuzzy concept with them and in which the communicators are tolerant and open to any ideas which are moderately and reasonably different from their own. As long as their understanding is in a certain limit and they come into a common understanding, the communication is successful.
References
Thomas,J.(1983).Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.Applied Linguistics,4(2),91-112.
王寅.(2001).语义理论与语言教学.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
晓筱.(2000).美丽“小女巫”的爱情疗法.青年文摘,4,35.
于涵.(2002).美国口语俚语.北京:世界图书出版公司北京公司.
张东黎.(1992).爬上屋顶看风景.人民日报.9-8.
Key Words:fuzzy language; fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure; Principle of Relative Exactness
1Fuzziness-caused Pragmatic Failure
Thomas (1983,p.91) defines pragmatic failure as “the inability to understand what is meant by what is said”. She (ibid.,p.94) holds that pragmatic failure occurs on any occasion “on which H (the hearer) perceives the force of S’s (the speaker’s) utterance as other than S intended s/he should perceive it.” According to her (ibid.,p.94), pragmatic failure will occur if:
(i) H perceives the force of S’s utterance as stronger or weaker than S intended s/he should perceive it;
(ii) H perceives as an order an utterance which S intended s/he should perceive as a request;
(iii) H perceives S’s utterance as ambivalent where S intended no ambivalence;
(iv) S expects H to be able to infer the force of his/her utterance, but is relying on the system of knowledge or beliefs which S and H do not share.
Many factors lead to pragmatic failure and linguistic fuzziness is one of them. Fuzzy language in the broad sense includes fuzzy phonetics, fuzzy grammar and fuzzy words which reflect the property of objective things of being uncertain, unclear and being “both this and that” in their belongingness to a category and in their attributes. The research of this thesis is limited to fuzzy language in its narrow sense, that is, fuzzy words which reflect the property of objective things of being uncertain, unclear and being “both this and that” in their belongingness to a category and in their attributes. Now let’s look at several examples of fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure.
Example 1:
有一个外商到河南某市考察，问陪同者：“你们这里有机场吗？”答曰：“没有。”外商又问：“有旅游的地方吗？”答曰：“有个山，还有个水库，没啥玩头。”外商兴趣索然。这位外商又来到与之紧邻的另一个市，同样问道：“你们这里有机场吗？”答曰：“有，往北150公里处，有一大型机场，顺京深公路，两个多小时就到。”“有旅游的地方吗？”“有。往南60多公里处，有一嵖岈山，山峰奇秀，小巧玲珑，有桂林山水之灵气，是中原旅游胜地。”外商点头称好。
（Zhang Dongli, 1992）
In this example, the two entourages have different ideas about the range of 这里. The one from the second city believes that the places 60 km, even 150 km away, can still be taken as“这里”, so when asked whether there are any airport and tourist attractions here, he replies “yes”; while for the one from the first city, the places more than 100 km away are not “这里”; as a result, he answers “no”.
Example 2:
30岁的大男孩不想结婚。
(Xiao Xiao,2000,p.35)
When reading this subheading, the author and her friends are confused. As the old Chinese saying goes, “A man should be well established at thirty”. It means that a man as old as thirty is supposed to have his own family and career. His little son is surely a boy, but how can he, a 30 year old man, be called a boy? This does not come singly but in pairs. Not long ago, a newly married actress who is over 30 called herself girl in an interview and invited numerous oppugners. Maybe we should not be so harsh. After all, it is self-evident that no two speakers share precisely the same linguistic system.
Example 3:
A: I’ve at last finished my research paper.
B: Oh, really. Do you mind I have a look at that?
A: Of course not. There you go.
B: What? You call this a finished research paper? It’s a far cry from that.
(Yu Han,2002,p.6)
Example 4:
A: David is such a chicken. He doesn’t even dare to walk back from the library alone at night. It’s only a five-minute walk.
B: Being afraid of the dark is not the same thing as being timid. Everyone has some weakness.
(ibid.,p.44)
Example 5:
A: James, you’ve got to study harder in order to pass. Your mid-term exam doesn’t look promising at all.
B: I’m indeed studying very hard, Prof. Wills.
A: I don’t see it that way. You don’t even come to classes regularly.
B: Well, I’ like to come very much, but I just can’t do it. I can explain.
A: Go ahead, I’m all ears.
(ibid.,p.16)
Example 6:
A: Heidi is really a great speaker. You should hear the way she talks in class.
B: We, I don’t really think much of that. I bet you could do that as well if you wanted.
A: I don't think so. I would like to give my eyeteeth to be able to.
(ibid.,p.77)
Example 3-6 are all fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure from which we can see the belief effect of prototype. In Example 3, A and B have different ideas about what a finished research paper should be. A thinks he has finished his research paper, but B doesn’t think so. For B, A’s paper is far away from being finished (it’s a far cry from that). In Example 4, A and B don’t see eye to eye with each other about what being timid should be. For A, being afraid of the dark is a sign of being timid; while B doesn’t think so. B thinks it is only a weakness. In the following two examples, A and B have different views about how hard a man should study so as to be called studying hard and what a great speaker should be like.
2Principle of Relative Exactness
Fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure is very difficult to avoid because people can not do without verbal communication in their daily lives. So why do we have to set such a high standard for ourselves to ask for a precise understanding? On the basis of Wang Yin’s relative exactness in understanding fuzzy words (2001,p.172), this article puts forwards the Principle of Relative Exactness in remedying fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure and promoting successful communication. Taking into consideration the fact that communicators come from different social and cultural backgrounds and have different experiences, believes and ways of cognizing and categorizing the world which may well exert great obstacles in the process of communication, it is more practicable for them to accept that, at the very time and in the very place of the communication, as long as the communicators have a similar understanding of a fuzzy concept and the prototypes they choose for this concept are close to each other, that is, as long as they reach relative exactness in the comprehension of this fuzzy concept, they reach a common understanding and the communication is considered to be successful.
Example 7:
A：你今天买了多少书？
B：我今天买了十几本书。
(Wang Yin,2001,p.173)
A: How many books have you bought today?
B: I’ve bought more than ten of them.
In our daily lives, B’s answer is informative enough because he excludes the parts less than ten and more than twenty. For A, this answer is relatively exact because it is just a greeting and he does not have to get the exact number.
3A Case Study
When teaching English in the city KM, the author of this thesis heard the following dialogue between two students:
Example 8: （城市KM很少下雪。但有一个冬天的早晨下雪了。两个学生冲进了教室……）
A：太冷了，我的耳朵和手指都没有知觉了。
B：你太夸张了，才零下两度。
A：才零下两度？你是《蝙蝠侠》里的那个iceman吗？
B：我没开玩笑。在我的家乡，最低温度可以达到零下40度。
A：哦，我忘了你是北方人。
B：我敢肯定，在KM，你从生下来还没见过下雪呢。
(It seldom snows here in the city KM. However, it was snowing one winter morning. Two students rushed into the classroom……)
A: Oh, it’s freezing cold. I can’t even feel my ears and fingers!
B: You are exaggerating! It is only two below zero after all.
A: Only two below zero? Are you iceman in the film Batman?
B: I’m not joking. In my hometown, the temperature can drop as low as 40 degrees below zero.
A: Oh, I forgot that you come from the north.
B: I am sure it is the first time that you have ever seen snow since your birth here in KM.
Obviously, this is a fuzziness-caused pragmatic failure. As what Oxford Advanced Lerner’s English-Chinese Dictionary defines, when related with temperature, cold means “having a lower than usual temperature; having a temperature lower than the human body”. No one denies this definition because we all know what being cold is. Being cold is certainly not hot. When we feel cold we have to put on more clothes. So, the intension of cold is clear. However, there is not a definite condition, that is, a fixed prototype, in which all people agree it is cold. Different people from different places feel differently about being cold; people from the same region may also feel differently; even the same person, at different stages of his/her life and in different health conditions, may feel differently about being cold. In Example 10, the dynamic character of the prototype of cold causes the pragmatic failure. A and B are from different regions and have different feelings about being cold. For A, a person who has been born and brought up in a place where it seldom snows, two below zero is freezing cold; while for B, a person from the northern city where the lowest temperature reaches 40 degrees below zero, two below zero is simply nothing at all.
Finally, the Principle of Relative Exactness functions. After the occurrence of pragmatic failure, both A and B interact tolerantly and open-mindedly. They find that the fact they come from different regions is the root of this communicative failure, and recognize that it is totally unnecessary for them to figure out who is right. As a result, the pragmatic failure in the example is remedied and the relationship between the two communicators keeps unaffected.
All in all, relative exactness is a kind of mental and cognitive state in which the communicators don’t ask the other side to have exactly the same understanding over a fuzzy concept with them and in which the communicators are tolerant and open to any ideas which are moderately and reasonably different from their own. As long as their understanding is in a certain limit and they come into a common understanding, the communication is successful.
References
Thomas,J.(1983).Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.Applied Linguistics,4(2),91-112.
王寅.(2001).语义理论与语言教学.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
晓筱.(2000).美丽“小女巫”的爱情疗法.青年文摘,4,35.
于涵.(2002).美国口语俚语.北京:世界图书出版公司北京公司.
张东黎.(1992).爬上屋顶看风景.人民日报.9-8.