прагматика и медиа дискурс / 语用学关键概念 Key Notions for Pragmatics (2009)

Introduction 19

s. A functional perspective on language

It will be clear that the foregoing presentation is biased towards a preference for inter·

preting pragmatics as a generalJtmctiottalperspective ott (mty aspect of) language, i.e., as an approacl1 to language wl1icll takes into account tltcfullcomplexityof its cogttitive, social, and cultural (i.e.. 'meaningful')fuuctioning itt tile lives oflmmmt beings.

ote that the terminology may lead to serious misinterpretation. In the social sci­ ences. afunctionalist approach JS usually contrasted with an interpretive approach. the former being associated with an emphasis on relatively mechanical processes (in the tradition of Parsonian sociology which posits functions as tl1e links between relatively stable structural categories), the latter with 'meaning' (in a tradition leaning towards Winch. with Coffman's symbolic interactionism and Garfinkel's ethnometl1odology as just two of the representatives). It should be clear that when pragmatics is defined as a functional perspective on language and language usage. it is more analogous to inter· pretivism (remember the emphasis we just placed on meaning) than to functionalism in the social sciences. However, in relation to language, it would be confusing to define a pragmatic perspective as 'interpretive' because this wouldbiasthe attention towardsonly one poleofthe interpretation- production dichotomr Both oftheseare ofcourse equally important in language use; hence, e.g.• Clark's (1996) etnphasis on joint action.

Though 1t is not the mtention to impose a specific theoretical model on the field of pragmatics, a brief illustration may be useful ofhow a functional perspective ofthe type envisaged can be given substance. The following is just one possible proposal. It serves the purpose of demonstrating that coherent theory formation. and the result· ing principled empirical research. is possible even when we take the broad view of pragmatics we have been advocating, a possibility underscored by the fact that early and rudimentary versions of the proposal in question (later developed more fully in Verschueren 1999) found their W3)'• e.g.• into Bertuccelli Papi's pragmatics textbook and into Bernicot's ( 1992) pragmatic account of language acquisition.

Going back to theshorthand definition oflinguistic pragmatics as the study oflan· guage use. the most basic question is: What is it to use language?As already indicated. an unsophisticated but correct answer could be that communicating with language - whether on a face to·face basis or on a widersocietal level consists essentially in the continuous making of communicative choices, both in speaking and in interpreting. When viewing pragmatics as a general functional perspective on language and Ian guage use. an additional question should be: Whatdocs la tguage doforlwma11 beit gs.

or what do human beings dofor tltemsclves by mea11s of usit g language? Keeping this

further question in mind. at least three, hierarchically related, notions are needed to understand the 'making ofchoices'.

First, variabilityis tllepropertyoflanguage determining the rangeofpossiblechoices (at everylevel ofstructure). As earlyas 1974, Hymes said that "in the study oflanguage as

20 JefVerschueren

a mode ofaction,variation is a due anda key·• (75). This notionshould be taken so seri ouslythatthe rangeof possibilities it defines cannot beseen asanythingstatic: the range of possible choices itself is notfixed once and for all; rather) it is constantlychanging.

Second, there is negotiability involved. This notion implies that thechoices arenot made mechanically or according to strict rules or fixed form-function relationships, but on the basis of highly flexible principles and strategies. Negotiability thus also implies the indeterminacy of the choices made: making one choice does not ahva}'S and not necessarily exclude the alternatives from the world of interpretation; speakers simply operate under the constraint of having to make a choice no matter whether it corresponds exactly to one·s needs.

Third,adaptllbility(anotion towhichoneof the chapters in thisvolumeisdevoted) is the property of language which enables hwnan beings to make negotiable choices from thevariable range of possibilities in such a way as to satisfy basic human commu nicative needs. In this context. 'basic• does not mean 'general•; i.e., the communicative needs in question always arise in context and may therefore be quite specific. The posi­ tive formulation concerning the 'satisfaction' of those communicative needs does not preclude the incidence of serious communication failure, nor is it intended to deny the possibilityof an occasional need for non communication or even miscommunication.

These three notions are fundamentally inseparable. They do not represent topics of invec;tigation.but merelyinterrelated propertiesof theoverallobjectof investigation for linguistic pragmatics, the functionality of language. Their hierarchical ranking is but a conceptual tool to come to grips with the complexity of pragmatic phenornena, which allows us to use the higher-order notion 'adaptability• as the point of reference in further theory-formation and empirical research. keeping in mind that it has no content without both variability and negotiability. Using adaptability as the starting point, we can assign four clear tasks not necessarily to be performed in the order in which they are listed below to pragmatic descriptions and explanations.

First,contextualobjects of adaptabilityhavetobeidentified. ThesepotentiaUrinclude all the ingredients ofthe communicative context which communicative choiceshave to be interadaptable with. The range goes from aspects of the physical surroundings (e.g., distance as an influence on loudness of voice) to social relationships between speaker and hearer and aspects of the interlocutors· state of mind. It goes without sa}'ing that these 'objects' are not seen as static extralinguistic realities, but that they are themselves subject to variation and negotiation. both autonomously and in interaction with aspects of the communicative event in relation to which theycan beseen to function.5

;. Sherzer's (1987) description of Bhojpuri bargaining, in which even the identit)' of the barr­ gaining object is verbally negotiated, serves as an excellent c amiPic to warn against a static and unidirectional interpretation ofthe contextual objectsofadaptabilit)' in language usc.

Introduction 21

Second, the processes in question have to be situated v.'ith reference to the differ­ ent structural lnyers ofadaptability. Since the making of co1nmunicative choices takes place at all possible levels of linguistic structure that involve variability of any kind, pragmatic phenomena can be related to an)' level of structure, from sound feature and phoneme to discourse andbeyond, or toan)' type of interleveJ relationship.

Third, any pragmatic description or explanation must account for the dynamics of ndnptnbility as manifested in the phenomenon under investigation. in other words the development of adaptation processes over time. By its verynature. this task cannot be performed without lending full force to the negotiability of choices. It involves an account of the actual functioning of adaptation processes.TI1at is. questions have to be answered about the ways in which communication principles and strategies are used in the making and negotiating of choices of production and interpretation.

Fourth, we have to take into consideration differences in the saliet ce of lite adnptation processes. Not all choices are made equall)r consciousl}r or purposefully. Some are virtually automatic, others are highly motivated. The)' involve different ways of processing in the medium of adaptability, the human ·mind in society' (a clumsy term to avoid the suggestion that either the individual or society would be primary, or to emphasize what could be called the non-dichotomous dual nature of the medium of adaptation). It is with reference to this issue that the distinction between explicitly communicated meaning and implicit information will take on special relevance.6

These four tasks can be seen as necessary it1gredients of n11 adequate pragmntk perspective on nny given linguistic plwmnnenon. But these four tasks for pragmatic investigations are not to be situated all on a par with each other. TI1eir contributions are not only complementary. they have different functional loads ro carry within the overall framework ofthe pragmatic perspective.

First,a combination ofcontextualobjectsandstructural/ayers of adaptabilitycan be used ro define the lows ofadaptation phenomena, i.e., they describe the combination of linguistic and extra-linguistic coordinatesin thecommunicative space ofa speech event Tims. our topic of inquiry may concern children's socialization processes in relation to choices at the code level, or hearer involvement in relation to information structuring

6. In earlierversions ofthis theoretical framework,thetermncassibibl)' was used. lhisterm was abandoned because ofits interference with traditional usage in psychology where, for instance,a term or catcgor)' with a high level of accessibility will be said to be chosen with a lower degree of awareness because of the ease of access. What l meant with Jcvcls of accessibility was simpl)• degrees of awareness. In order to avoid confusion, it was therefore more appropriate to simpl)• substitute theoriginal term.'Salience'was suggested to me by i\•fichacl Meeuwis,who was inspired in this by Errington (1988).

lnttoduction 25

Hilbert, ItA. {1992}. 'fire cla$SJcaf rootsof 1/mom lhodology.

Holden, C. ( 1993}. New life ahead forsocial sciences. Scicllc:c 261: 17961798. Huang. Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Hutchby, I. & R. Wooffitt (1998}. Conv rsation analysis: Pri11cipfrs. pmcriccs, andapplicatiom. Polity Press.

Hymes, D. {1972). On communicative competence. ln J.13. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds), Soctolinguislics: Penguin.

-- ( 1974}. Foundations msociolinguistics. Tavistock.

Jakobson, R. (1960}. Concludingremarks: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas A. Scbcok (Ed.),Styl in language: 350-377. ·liT Press.

-- ( 1970). Main rmulsin tirescienceoflmrgrurgc. l{arpcr & Row.

Jas:zczolt. K. (2005}.

tiou. Oxford University Press.

Jaworski, A. . • . Coupland & D. Galasinslo (Eds) (2004). Mclalmrguagc Social mrdideological pmp«· Mouton deGruyter.

Johansen, J.D. & H. Sonne{&is) (1986). Pragmatics andlinguistics. Odense Universit)' Press. Kates. C..A. (1980). Pragmmics ands mmllics. Cornell University Press.

Kempson, R. ·t. ( 197.3). f>'nsuppztionsmzdthedt!limitation of s mautics.Cambridge University Press. Kerbrat-Orccchioni. C. (1980}. unonciation. Colin.

-- (1986). L'implzcit . Colin.

Krosknty. P., B. Schieffdin & K. Woolard (E.ds) (1992). Special issue on language ideologks. Pragmatics

2(3}:235-449.

Lakofl', G. (1972). linguistics and nntul"al logic. In 0. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds): 3--15-665. Johnson ( 1980}. M.:taplrors wt• liveb)'. University ofChicago Press.

L!koff, R. (1989). The waywe were. Journal of Pmgmatics 13(6): 939-988.

L!nga,ker, R. (1987). Formdations of cognit1vcgrammar. Stanford Universityf>rcss. Latraversc, f. ( 1987). Lapmgmatiqu . Mardaga.

Leech. G. (1983). Principles of pragmarifs. Longman. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pmgmatzcs. Cambndge Univcrs1ty Press.

--(2000}. Pn7s umptwc meanings. ·fiT Press.

--(2003). Space in fat1guage and cognition: £xplonrt1ons m t'ognitivc diversity. Cambridge

University Press.

L.ucr. J.A. (Ed.} ( 1993). Rt:fl xi e language. Ulmbridgc Univcrsit)' Press. Lyons, J. (1977). Smranlics. Cambridge Universit)' Press.

Martin, R.M. (1979). Pragmatics, lrrttlr. and lmrgrurgc. Reidd.

Mathesius, V. (1928). On linguistic characterology with illustrations from modern English.

Proceedings of tlw Ist lnt rnnlionalCottgrt>55 of Lingwsts: .36-63.

McCawley, J.D. (1972). A program for logic. In D. Ua\'1dson & G. Harman {Eds): -198-54-1. Mer. j.l.. ( 1985). W/zos lauguag ?John Benjamins.

-- (1993). Pragmatics. Blackwell.

Minsk)'. M. ( 1977). frame-system theorr. In P.. . Johnson-laird & P.C Wason (£ds). 'Jirmking: 355-376. Ca. mbridge University Press.

Mocschler, J. ( 1996). 'JJzfori;:pragmaliqu ctprngmattqm: ,·onvcrsatiomrelk Armand Colin. Moeschler, J. & A. Rcbou) (1994}. Dictionnairt• encyclopfdiquc deprngmatiqru.·. E.ditionsdu Seuil. Montague, It (1974). hmnalplrilosophy. Yale University Press.

Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of 1/u· theory of signs (- foundations of the unity of science 1:2) Univcrsit)' ofChicago Press.

Introduction 2.7

Talm)'. l. (1978). Pigurt' and ground in complex sentences. In J.H. Greenberg (£d.) Univl.'rsals of lumum language, vol. 4: 625-649. Stanford Universit)" Press.

'Ihayer, H.S. (Ed.) (1970). Pragmatism. Mentor.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaningin iuternct1ow Au mtroduction topragmatics. Longman. Todorov.T. (1981). Mikl!ni11Jaklztine. Editions du Scuil.

Vandcrveken. 0. (1988). Lcsacte-s de discours. Mardaga.

Vcrschucrcn. J. (1978). Reflections on presupposition failure.Journalof l>ragmali<s 2(2): 107-1Sl.

--(1985). ReviewarticleonGeoffreyN. leech.Pl·inciplt·s ofprngmmks. andStephenC. Levinson.

Pragmatics. }oumalof linguistics 21:459--170.

--(1994a). lhcpragmatic return to meaning. Ms.

--( 1994b). Meaning in a theory of pragmatics. /'row:dings of tlr · 20th Annual Meeting of tire: Merkde)' Linguistit-s Soclc:l)'.

--(1995). Linguistic pragmaticsand semio.tics. Semiotica 104(1/2).

--(1999). UJJdcrstandmg pmgmat1cs. Edward Arnold I Oxford Umversity f'rcss.

--(2008). C.o ntext and structure m a theoryofpragmatics.Studies m Pmgmalics I0: J4-24.

Verschuercn, J. (Ed.) (1991a). Pragmatics at issrte. John Benjamins.

-- (Ed.) (1991b). Levels of lmguistic adapttuion. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benj:unins.

Verschucrcn, ). & M. Bertuccdli l'api (Eds) {!987). 11zeprngmatic perspective. John Bcnjamins. Vygotsky. l. (1986). 'IIzought audlanguage. MIT Press.

\\ratzlawick, P.• J. Beavin Ravdas & O.D. Jackson ( 1967). Pmgmatics of lwmmr commzmicatiou. Norton & Companr.

\·Veiser, A. (1974). Deliberate ambiguity. Papersfrom tire IOtlr Rcgioual M7ctiug of tire Clricago LiuguisticsSocict)': 723-731.

Winch. P. (1958). Tire idea ofasocznlsdcnceand its mallOll tophilosophy. Routledge & Keg31n Paul. Winkin, \'. (1981). La uouvef/1! commmricntiOII. F.ditions du S4:uil.

Wittgenstcin, L (1953). Plzilosoplrisclzc Uutasuclumgcu. Blackwell.

Wunderlich. 0. (Ed.) (1972). Linguislisdre Pragmat1k. Athenaum. Yul . G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Adaptability

JefVerschueren & Frank Brisard

UniversityofAnt\"'erp

1.Introduction

The notion ofadaptation or adaptability inevitabl}' triggers associations with evolu· tionary theory. In a discussion oflanguage, this link is both a useful and a potentially pernicious one. It is useful. since the emergence and development oflanguage are no doubt part ofa wider adaptive process. This will be briefly discussed in Section 2.1 ofthe present contribution. But there is more. Having emerged. language can also be said to function adaptive)}' in its everyday manifestations. This will be the topic of Section 2.2. The pernicious nature of the intuitive link between the notion of adaptabilityand evolutionary theory manifests itselfwhen it isall too easily assumed, as happens regularly. that the originally biological notion remains unchanged when used as in thesecond partofthis exposition.Therewe will firstpresent abriefaccount of a proposaltoturnadaptability into akeyconceptforatheoryofpragmatics(Seclion 3.1), followed bya quickglanceatsomeofthe waysinwhich an adaptabilityperspective has been. or isbeing.applied to a variety oftopics in the field ofpragmatics (Section 3.2).

Through the contrast between the first (Sections 2. 1 & 2.2) and the second part (Sections 3.1 & 3.2). we v.rish to indicate the problematic status ofa straightforward identificationofthese two usesofthe term 'adaptation:asentertained in biological and socialinteractive accounts of linguistic behavior, respectively. Generally. this paper aims to discuss howwe adapt to language (or. in other words, how humansdeveloped a predisposition for language) and howlanguageadaptsto us.once wehavea linguistic repertoire to choose from. The first question is one where language is considered the product of largely causal biological processes, while the second focuses on reasotls speakers may have in selecting this or the other form ofexpression in language use.

2.Biological adaptability and language

In what follows, we will use the term 'emergence: closely tied to that of 'adaptation', in both a loose and a somewhat stricter sense. First. emergence, as a mathematical concept, refersto the development ofproperties in an information system ofsufficient complexity that cannot be reduced to the composing elements of that system. e.g.. the brain. In addition. emergence can also be understood as an ongoing process of