прагматика и медиа дискурс / 语用学关键概念 Key Notions for Pragmatics (2009)
.pdf
Debds 129
22 |
|
(0.6) |
23 |
Bus: |
Were we? |
24 |
|
(1.0) |
25 |
Pya: |
Oh> out here |
26 |
Bus: |
Yeah.= |
27 |
Pya: |
=Yeah. Yeah. rught. Right.= |
28 |
Bus: |
=Yeah. Annie's gonna have a baby. |
29 |
Pya: |
Oh really? |
30 |
Bus: |
Yeah. |
31 |
Pya: |
.1,\<\7e:ll: congratulations. |
Here Pyatt has called Bush to inquire after a nlUtual friend. After it becomes clear that Bush is not informed with respect to the friend's whereabouts, Pyatt explains that he received a message saying that the missing friend was ''out in the desert an' he ran out of gas:· A few turns later. Bush asks if Pyatt "went out there last week· end?" TI1ere apparently refers to a shared house in the desert. In the fragment we are looking at, Bush begins a new sequence saying "Oh you didn· you didn hear thuh the news didju.="1° Clearly. such a way of beginning strongly projects the telling of some news by Bush. Indeed, anything that occurs after such a ''pre-announcernenr' is vulnerable for being heard as the news projected. So when Bush follows imme· diately with, "vVe were out there before Thanksgiving," Pyatt is set with the task of deciding how this next installment fits with the rest of the talk. There are at least three alternatives. First, ..VI/e were out there before TI1anksgiving'' might be heard as the news itself. Secondly. it could be heard as the beginning of the news-delivery but not itself the news whose telling has been projected (e.g.• ·•we were out there before Thanksgiving and we saw an enormous...."). Thirdly, it could be an account of why Pyatt has not heard the news. These alternative understandings ofhow the talk here fits into the sequence ofwhich it is a part have consequences for the interpretation ofthere in line 18. Specifically, if the talk in question is heard either as the news itselfor as the beginning of the news delivery. out there can be heard as referring 10 "in the desert'' a place for which neither of the co-participants is, at the time of speaking, present. Call this
om lilt' ' = ..The: desert" Speaker _ ._ _ Recipient
'k.cferc:n·(,
" .. .. ,
On this hearing, this out tlrerc and previous uses of there to refer to the desert are co· referential. Alternati\rely. if this "\file were out there before Thanksgiving.•> is heard as
10. It is not possible here: to examine how this rcaJization is occassioncd.
130 Jc1ck Sldnell
the account for why Pyatt has not heard the news, there can be heard to mean ''\vith Pyatt:' that is, this there is Pyatt's ..here.''
out tht:fl'!
Speaker
-"with Pptt"" |
|
|
|
,'··· |
. .. . . . . . ..... .. |
|
|
R«ipie i'-. |
|||
\Referent |
-·-'· |
/ |
|
" ' " |
|
||
|
|
||
Pyatt's initial response what Maynard (2003) calls a "news receipt" - suggests that he hears the talk at lines 17 18 as some kind ofnews delivery. However, Pyatt appar· ently discovers his own error and subsequently revises his understanding of'out there' at line 25. At this point then, the relation of"Vve were out there before Thanksgiving" to the sequence as a whole becomes clear - it is. in fact, an account ofwhy Pyatt does not already know the news (Bush and his wife Annie who is the likely recipient ofthe talk at line 23 have held offtelling people about her pregnanq' until after Thanksgiving and they saw Pyatt last when they visited him before Thanksgiving).
This fragment illustrates that participants' understanding of deictic terms is dependent on the sequential context ofaction in which they occur.
Much recent work on deixis has developed, from a number of theoretical per spectives, Schegloffs (1 972) notion of a commonsense geography. Schegloff (1 972) originally discussed the idea of a commonsense geography in relation to political boundaries. This is but one possible geographic framework which may be invoked in and presupposed by place formulating practices. l11e spatial knowledge which pro vides the surface upon which deictic usages operate is an area which deserves seri
ous empirical investigation of both an ethnographic and interactional sorL It is this concern with the ethnography of geographic knowledge which makes Hanks' (1990) description of the Yucatec deictic system so valuable. In Hanks's account the formal characteristics of the deictic system are elaborated and illustrated through the use of examples which are contextualized in their indigenous settings. As such it is possible to see the severe limits ofthe glosses so frequent in the typological literature (proximate/ distal etc.). Other work has continued this investigation of the articulation of deictic forms and local geographies within situated courses of human action. Sidnell (1997) discusses the way in which forms glossed as ..here" and "there" are interpreted as refer ring to spaces bounded by property divisions. Because space 1s understood as reflect· ing pre-existing r lations of kinship. the use ofa deictic term such as "here" can have broad reaching significance in this context.
In a number of recent papers Charles Goodwin has elaborated the notion of a semiotic grid which llla)' be seen as a highly local instantiation of a commonsense geography. Semiotic grids such as munsell color charts ( l999b), hopscotch patterns (2000), maps (2000), graphic representations of human action (1994), archaeological sites (1994), and even a kitchen table (2003) are features of the human built envi romnent which otfer a highl)' structured set of possible denotata for deictic referring
Delxi 131
practices. As Goodwin has demonstrated on a number ofoccassions, knowledge ofthe properties and uses of these semiotic grids is often associated with a particular disci· pline and its experts. Deictic usages may thus presuppose significant training and are similarly irTiplicated in practices ofsocialization to a professional community. Deictic usages and the semiotic grids they operate upon then can also be seen as embedded within particular "ways of seeing:· Furthermore the notion of a semiotic grid allows one to significantly elaborate concepts of transposition and relativization by investi· gating the formal properties of the media upon which such detctic usages operate. For instance in a recent paper on pointing, Goodwin illustrates the ways in which the archaeologists combine moving points, demonstrative deictics and directional deictic verbs to delineate complex shapes and patterns in the surfaces upon which they work.
Earlier work by the Goodwins (Goodwin 1980 Goodwill 1986). had established tl1e interactional importance ofdeictic terms combined with gestme. Charles Goodwin noted that:
ftlhe organization of a relevant and appropriate framework of mutual visual orit'ntalion comes a practical problem for participants, a problem that they must work out together in the course of thdr mteraclion (1986: 29).
Although the focus ofthat paper was gesture tt is dearl)' the case that deictic terms are particularly important in this regard as well. The following example is offered as an illustration ofone function ofdeictic terms in interaction. In particular the fragment exemplifies the way in which deictics. combined with gestures. function to organize co
participation within situated contexts of multi-party action. The larger context is a dinner party attended by eight people and hosted by two university students (Beth and Ann). 1he following analysis focuses on Roger's use of 'anticipatory' this in line 27 and the role this deictic plays in creating a conversational opening in which Roger delivers his telling.
Jeopardy Question (JS.V:9:34.06)
5 |
Beth: |
oh: honey. What \1\'Z the jeopardy question |
6(Ann): hhhmph
7 |
Beth: |
ma}•be somebody could answer it. |
8 |
|
(0.2} |
9 |
Beth: |
we watch jeopardy.=we play together. |
10 |
|
an: he was late coming home so he called me |
l l |
|
to say: tape it. |
12 |
|
(.) |
13 |
|
anso I taped it. |
14 |
Ann: |
lheh.ihih |
1 JackSldnell
15 |
Beth: |
[1 got home, |
16 |
|
{0.2) |
17 |
|
an I ( ) think its over. |
18 |
|
an I turn the teevee on:, |
19 |
|
(0.2) |
20 |
|
an it wasn't over |
21it was like the final jeopardy question?
22Roger: so she pressed stop.
23 |
Beth: |
so 1 |
(pressed stop on] the video recorder |
||
24 |
Roger: |
|
Ion the recorder] |
||
25 |
Beth: |
instead a (turning the teeve.e back off! |
|||
26 |
Ann: |
|
I( |
) |
oh::: no::::: I |
27 |
Beth: |
(AN SO \1\!E'I re watch ling the whole jeopardy! |
|||
28 |
Ann: |
(( |
|
)I |
!he he he h heh heh heh] |
29 |
Beth: |
{an feelin' (soo dumb)I? |
|||
30 |
Roger: |
|
Iit goes like this |
||
31 |
|
they got the question |
|
||
32 |
|
an then they-they turned up |
|||
33the f(irst person>
34Ann: r that is soo funny
35Roger: who got it wrong.
36Beth: right
37Roger: they turned up the second person
38 |
Beth: |
who got it (Y.'l'O:ng |
39 |
Roger: |
(who got it wrong |
40 |
|
an it goes off. |
41 |
Beth: |
an then it wentoffan |
Here a story isjointly told bytwo participants. vVhile the detailsofthe telling need not concern us here. it is important to note that Beths question to Roger (line 5) becomes a warrant for a stoq' telling, in the form of an account.11 Furthermore the question
11. 1hereason forthis is fair!)'straightforward. Ouringtheshowinquestiona hostoffers"answers" (e.g.,'fhe largest bod)•ofwater in NorthAmerica)and the contestantsmust respondwith theappro priatc«qucstion"'(e.g.,What is Lake Superior?).The rcle\·antpointhereis that,when Beth asks about the question she ac.tuaUy means the "answer'' from the point of view of the game's organization. At the same time the fact that Beth seems to know the"question" but not the answer is somewhat counter to the cxpcc.tations ofanybody who knows something about this game-show. As such she isaccountablefor herqueryhereand in fact thestorr that foUows has nothing to do with the actual question/answerbut is rather an account ofthe state ofher partial knowledge(and Roger's).
134 JclckSldnell
hertelling.bringshergaz.e toRogerdirectlyovertheself-repair hitch ''they·they" in line 32 (see Goodwin 1981).
Goodwin (pc) remarks, ''the deictic tltis (or like tl1is as aspecial construction) by proposing the relevance ofvisual orientation to a particular place can be used as a tool toget others to redirect theirgaze, and this in turn isimplicated in largerparticipation structures through which basic discourse identities such as Speaker and Hearer are organized as interactive phenomena and made visible:'
When we look at short sequences of video recorded talk·in-interaction such as this onewe find deictics tl1oroughlyembedded in coordinated coursesofaction. I ha,•e (following Goodwin 1986) illustrated one function of deictics in interaction 
that of reorganizing co-participation and providing a framework for mutual orientation. Whilewe may usefullyabstract away to the universal semantic and pragmatic compo· nents ofdeixis for the purposes ofcross-linguistic typology, investigation oftheir place in interaction involves us in aset ofissues having to do with tl1e structure of the built environment (commonsense geographies and semiotic grids), and the organization of participation and orientation through gesture, gaze and rolk. Deictics thus provide a strikingillustrationofthe rootednessoflanguage forms in both the phenomenal world and situated course.; ofaction ofthe participants who produce them.
A number of philosophers have asked whether it might be possible to substitute objective (i.e., non-indexical) for subjective (indexical) expressions. The research reviewed here, based on audio-visual records of human interaction, shows how and whysucha substitution would never be able to preserve the sense and significance of the original, indexically formulated expressions (see Sacks 1992).
4· Directions for further re-search
The past few years have seen a florescence ofstudies ofdeixis. StiH, many questions remain completely or partially unanswered. In terms of pragmatic theory) we find in the literature a number of different accounts ofdeict:ic functions. This diversity. while perhaps indicative of a healthy debate, also makes comparisons which draw from the accounts of different authors complicated. In the discussion here I ha,•e drawn on Hanks' (1992) elaboration ofthefigure-ground-relation terminology. Frorn the perspective of typology, we do not at this point have a complete description of cross-linguistic variation. More importantly we have no typological explanation for the extent and limits of the variation which has been documented. However, initial inspection reveals some strong implicational universals (see Comrie 1980). Thus, as 1 have noted above, although we find some deictic systems which include a horizontal dimension ofcontrast but not an explicitly vertical one, the opposite does not hold.
Delxis 13s
It seems likely that such implicational relationships hold universally for many other dimensionsofcontrast within deictic systems.
While the prospect ofsuch work isexciting) even more promising is the continu ingworkon deictics in interaction.vVe canonlyhopethat future researchers will con tinuetoexploretherelation between interaction.lived spaceand linguistic form which hasbeen so cogently illustrated for the Mayaby Hanks (1990). Such work contributes both to our understanding ofdeictic function in particularand our understanding of interaction in general. Further work in this vem will no doubt also aid in ourattempts to build a more descriptively adequate framework for typolog1cal studies.
Acknowledgements
This paperhas b nefitted from the helpful suggestions ofa number ofpeople includ· ing Allison Greene and \"/arrenOlivo. I<iespeciallyliketothankChuckGoodwinand Bill Hanks for their detailed written comments on a earlierversion ofthis report. Any shortcomingsofthe final version remain the responsibility oftheauthor.
References
Abney. S.P. (1987). fhc English NounPhrasein its Sentential Aspect. Ph. Diss. MIT Press.
Agha. A. Schema and superposition in spatial deixis. 1\ntltropologicn/ Unguislics 38(4): 6-B-682.
Allen. \·V.S. (1956). Structur and system in the Ahaza \'Crbal complex. TrmzS(tcltons of rite PIJilologmli
Society: 127-176.
Anderson. S. & E. Keenan (1985). Oeixis. In T. Sho n (Ed.). Language Typology aud S}'tztactic
Dcscriptioll.' Grammatical C{ltegorit·s andthe Lexicon: 259-307. Cambridge UnivcrsitrPress.
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1954). Indexical f prcssions. 1\find 63: 3.59-379.
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problemesde liuguisttqm·gencmle. Gallimard.
Uerlin, B. & P. Kay(1969). Basiccalm· terms: llrcirrmiverS(tfity and i!Volu tion. UniversityofCalifornia
Press.
Boas, F. (1947). Kwakiutl gr.lmmar. withaglossaryofthesuffixes. TmusactiotlS oftheAmerrcau Pltilo·
soplticalSocie·ty 37: 203-377.
Brown, P. & S.C. le\'inson(1993). 'Uphill' and 'Downhjll' in Tultal. }ournal ofl.ingui!otic Amhropology
3()). 46-7·1.
Uuhlcr, K. (1934). Spraclztlrt•ot·ie. Fischer. (extracts in R.J. Jan·clla & W. Klein (f.ds) (1982). Spceclt. Place mrd 1\ction. John Wiler & Sons ltd.]
Uybcc. J., R. Pcrkms & \V. Paghuca (1994). 71zc I;l•olution of Grammar: Tcuse. Aspect and Modality m tltc Language!- of tlrt• World. Chicago Univcrsit)' Press.
Comrie. B. (1981). Language· Umvl!rsals and linguistic Typology. Blackwdl.
Dixon, R.M.W.(1972). 11re D}'irbal Langrcagt• of Nortlt Qucemland. CambridgeUnivcrsit)' Press.
-- (1977). A grammar ofYidin. Cambridge Univcrsit)' Press.
Delxls 137
Kataoka, K. (1998). Gravit)'orlc:vity: Vertical space inJapanese rockclimbinginstructions.Journal
of LiugttistilAuOtropology 8{2): 222-248.
Kita, S. (Ed.) (2003). Pointing. When: language, wlture. andcognition met•t. Erlbaum.
Kristeva, J. (1971). Ou sujet en linguistique. In J. Kristeva (Ed.), Epistemologic de Ia linguistique: 107-126. Didier & Larouss<:.
Keating, E. (1994). Language,gender. rank and social spac Hcmorifics in Pohn i. Micronesia. Cul
tural Pe (ormanCL-s. Proct!eding of tlte third fkrkelcy Wome11 and Language Conft> ncc: 367-3n.
Berkclcy Women and Language l'ress.
Levinson, S.C. Cambridge University i'rcss.
--(1992). Primer for the fidd investigation of spatial description and conception. Pmgmatics
2(1): 5-47.
--(1994}. l)ebcis. In flE. Asher (Ed.}, E!JJcyclopcdm of Language andLinguistics, \'Ol. 2: 8.}3-57.
Pergamon.
--(l996a). frames ofreference and lolrneuxsquestion: cross-linguisticevidence. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, l. >Jadcl & M. Garrett (F.ds), LangttageandSpace: 109-169. MIT Press.
--(J996b).LanguageandSpace. Amuwl Reviewof Antltl·opology 25. 353-382.
--(2000)Presumptive. memrings: Tite tlteoryofgmaalizeda;mversmional implicnwrc. M11'Press.
--(2004). Deixis. In LR. Hom & G. Ward (Eds), 'lh Handbookof Pragmatics:97-12L Blackwcll.
Levinson,S.C. & P. Brown (1994). Immanuel Kant among theTenejapans: anthropologyasempirical philosophy·. Ethos 22(1): 3-41.
Lyons, C.(1999}. Di!fiuiteuess. Cambndge University Press. Lyons. J. (1977).Semantics. voL 2. Cambridge University Press.
-- (1982). Deixis and subjc<tt\"ity: l<>quor, ergo sum? ln R.J. JarveUa & W. Klein (Eds), Spuclt, PlaceandAction: JOJ-124. John Wiley& Sons ltd.
Marnard, D. (2003). Bad nt·ws. good news . com•amt1onal order iu eve1)'day talk aud ciuucal set-
tlugs. University ofChicago l'rcss.
tvhhalic, F. (19"57). Grammar anddictionaryofNeo-Mdnuesimt. tission Pr .
Montague, R.{1974).Pragmatics. ln R.H.Thomason (Ed.). Fonnall'ltilosoplty. Yale Uniwrsit)' Mufwene. S. (1986). >Jotcs on durativc constructions in Jamaican and Guranesc Creoles. In
M. Gorlach & J. Holm (Eds). Varietti!S of English Around tile World: Focu: on the Canbbenn:
162-187. Benjamins.
Murane, E. (1974). Daga gmmmm from morplt.:me to discourse. Summer Institute oflinguisticsof the Univcrsit)'ofOklahoma.
Ochs, E..(1988).Culturt' andLanguageD.:velopmcut LnuguageAt·quisitioumrdLanguageSocinlizatiou in
aSamomr Village. Cambridge Uni\'crsity Press..
P:annentier, R.J. (1994). l'circc divested for nonitiates. In Signs ;, society: studies in semiotic nulltro pology. Indiana Univcrsit)' 1->rcss.
Peirce,C.S. (19"5"5/1940}. InJ. Buchler (Ed.). Philosopltical Wntings ofPeirce: Selected Writings. Dover.
Piau, M. Social nonns and lexical acquisition: A stud)" of deictic verbs in Samoan child
language. In B. Schieffdin & £. Ochs (Eds), Language Sot·iali=mion Across Culwres: 127-152.
Cambridge Univcrsit)' Prc.s.s.
P'lltnam, H.(1975). 1he Meamng of'Mcamnl( In K.Gundcr.;on (Ed.), Language. MindrmdlVtowledge.
MimwsotnStudies iutltePltilosophy ofScience 7: 131-193. U:niycr.;it)" ofMinncsotli Press. Radford, A. (1997).S)'utnctic111 oryaudtlteStntctureofF.ngiJSit; A MinimalistApproach.Cambridge
Uni\'ersity Press.
Rchg,K.L. (1981). Pouapcau Rf!fimmce Grammar. UniversityofHawaii Press.
138Jack Sldnell
Sacks. H., E. Schc-glotf & G. Jefferson (1974). A simplest S) tematacs for the organi7..ation of turn taking forconver.s.ation. umgrcagt? 50.696-735.
Schegloff, f.. ( 1972). Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), 75-119. free Press.
Sherzer. f. ( 1973). Verbal and non-\·erbal deixis: The pomted lip gesture among the San BJas Cuna.
Lnnguagt' in Soctcty2: 1 17-131.
Sidnell, J. (1997). Eltcatations as a resource for organizmg social and spataal location an an 1ndo Guyanese Village. Journalof LinguisticAnthropology 7(2). 143-165.
--(l998a). c;cmfcr. Space andLinguisticPractice mau Jndo-Cuyancsc Village. Ph. Diss. Umvcrsit)' ofToronto.
--(1998b). Collaboration and contestation an a dispute about space m an Indo-Guyanese Village. Prngmmics 8(3): 315-338.
SJI\'erstrin, M. ( 1976). • hiftcrs. verbal categories and cultural description. In K. Basso & H. Sdbr
(Eds). Meamng m Aut!Jropology:11-57. School ofAmerican Research.
-- (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. ln J. l.ucy (Ed.), Reflexive Lnnguag.:: R.cportt:dSpc.:clr and Mctaprgamatics: 33-58. Cambridge Umversity l'rcss.
Story. G.L. & C.M. Naish {1973). 'flingit Verb Dictiouary. UnaversatyofAlaska.
l'anz, C. (1980). Studi ;,. t!Jeacquisition of deictic tams. Cambridge Una\·ersity Press. Trudgill, (1990). '11rc D1t1lectsof [£ngftmd. lJiackwdl.
Wales, R..(1986).Dcixis. ln P. Fletcher&M. Garman (£ds). LanguageAcqm tron,2ndedition: 401-428. Cambridge Umversaty l'rcss.
Weinreich, U. (1963). On the semantic structure of language. In J. Grcen rg (Ed.). Uniw:rsnls of LAnguage: 1 14-171. MIT press.
Wclmers. W.f:. (1973). Afn can Lmaguagi' Slructrtrcs.. Univcrsit)' ofCaliforma Press.
(1941). In J.B. Carroll (Ed.). Language. 11rouglrt andR.:alrty. &lcclt'd WrllmgsofiJen;amm L.·c \'l'lr01f Ml'l Press.