网络话语研究

发布时间:2019-04-03 14:17浏览数:2306评论数:0 收藏

随着信息技术的普及与升级,人类的学习方式、交往方式与沟通方式发生了全方位的变化,互联网进一步促进一种超越地球物理空间的网络空间的形成。网络作为未来社会的神经系统,使得人类在娱乐、物质、文化、健康等各个层面的活动悄然发生变化,给社会业态和社会伦理带来前所未有的冲击。随之而来的问题是,基于地球物理空间语言/话语实践的理论能否解释网络交际空间的人类行为呢?本期热点聚焦“网络话语研究”应运而生,旨在从宏观、微观和中观略览相关研究,分别涉及网络中的不礼貌与道德准则、指示语与建议言语行为以及网络语言与网络文化安全等话题,后续将集中关注网络话语研究的具体方面以飨读者。

谢朝群  教授 专家简介

(Im)politeness, morality and the internet

 

Recent years have witnessed an enthusiastic shift to the moral dimension of (im)politeness, acknowledging the vital role of morality in (im)politeness (meta)theorizing and recognizing, to some extent or in a sense, the view that “politeness or impoliteness is first and foremost a matter of morality and ethics” (Xie, He and Lin 2005: 439; Xie 2011: 105). Turning to moral aspects of (im)politeness will not only lead to new ways of thinking about (im)politeness, but also help to revisit or revise classic or traditional topics in the field.

Influenced to an arguably large extent by Wittgenstein’s (1980: 46e) axiom, “Words are deeds.”, and Austin’s (1962) now orthodox question, “How to do things with words?”, numerous researchers and scholars have over the past decades approached politeness phenomena and issues roughly from mainly linguistic perspectives and a great deal of attention has been paid to the instrumentality of words and utterances. This is especially true of the first wave/generation of politeness research where politeness is usually defined “as a set of strategies for maintaining good relations and avoiding interpersonal conflict” (Haugh and Watanabe 2018: 66). Such a way with words and politeness has greatly contributed to presenting the instrumentality of words and politeness accordingly. Consequently, polite words are, more often than not, a means rather than an end, or a means to an end; politeness turns out be something practical, instrumental and, for some people at least, superficial. A pragmatic (in the sense of ‘practical’) and instrumental approach to politeness usually aims to satisfy human self-oriented desires of various sorts in social life and interaction.

Such a practical conceptualization of politeness often involves cost-benefit calculations and favors reciprocity. Practical politeness may arguably encode or embed a practical and instrumental way with life. Such practical politeness is ‘politeness without’. Practical politeness, which is not always true or truthful, is not necessarily a negative attribute; after all, many of us regularly need it and resort to it. Practical politeness is a game, and we may often find ourselves in “the game of polite interaction” (Goffman 1959: 211; italics added), (co)constructing “the polite appearance of consensus” (Goffman 1959: 210). Practical politeness or politeness without is not the same as true politeness or ‘politeness within’ in the sense that the latter necessarily takes self out of consideration and requires, among other things, “the identification and corroboration of the supreme principle of morality” (Kant 2011: 13; italics in the original). True politeness may be in when self is out; without self, politeness within is possible. Politeness within is true and truthful, but practical politeness is not necessarily true or truthful. Ultimately, the heart of politeness is politeness of the heart. Politeness of the heart is a kind of true politeness; it is politeness within.

It can be said that (im)politeness phenomena are both simple and complex, familiar and foreign. In fact, (im)politeness can be viewed as a complex system in the sense that (im)politeness production, perception, and evaluation may involve various components, linguistic, behavioral, cognitive, social, contextual, emotional, moral, historical, cultural and ethical (Xie and Yus 2017; Xie 2018). This special issue of Internet Pragmatics can be regarded, to some extent, as an attempt to further reveal the complexity of (im)politeness by focusing on the morality of (im)politeness in internet-mediated interactions. The internet has offered ‘a new vision of sociality’ (Mey 2018) and the growing interest in (im)politeness in internet-mediated communication in recent years has produced a number of important publications (see Graham and Hardaker 2017 for an overview). This special issue further expresses the growing importance of (im)politeness and morality in contemporary pragmatics research by looking at relevant issues in online interactions that have become an indispensable part of life for most of us. It includes studies on how the moral order is made explicit and salient in the production and perception of online impoliteness as social practice and how impoliteness is able to perform positive social and communicative functions (see also Xie 2016). It is impossible to present within the page limit of one issue a full picture of (im)politeness and moral order in online interactions, and one will probably feel that there are a number of topics that should be further explored and expounded. Still, it is hoped that this issue will contribute to foregrounding the link between (im)politeness and morality in people’s social interaction, revealing something about ourselves and our life-worlds. After all, “Die Welt und das Leben sind Eins” (Wittgenstein 1979: 77).

摘自:Xie, Chaoqun. 2018. Introduction: (Im)politeness, morality and the internet. Internet Pragmatics 1(2): 205-214.

顶票:0; 踩票:0    

毛延生  教授 专家简介

网络话语研究的最终目的就是在分析网络语境中语言使用特点的基础上,探讨如何借鉴相关语言学的理论研究原则、基本研究方法和语言规范观来构建网络话语研究的学科体系。随着网络话语研究不断走向成熟,网络话语研究需要充分考虑自身研究目标的解释性升级、研究视角的多元化综观以及研究方法的动态化转型。网络话语的多元界面研究意义在于,它不仅有助于系统认知与驾驭新时期网络语言生活的时代脉络与发展趋势,还有利于破译当下不断丰富和发展的网络话语背后的社会文化特征与内涵,但这一切必须落实到微观语言结构之上。

以网络语境下的指示语为例,女性指示语表现出能指膨胀特点揭示了意识形态属性开始从绝对确定性走向相对不确定性;女性指示语表现出语言暴力倾向表明意识形态监测要求从一元的语义分析走向多元的语用解构;女性指示语表现出语用期望压制显示意识形态引导需要跳出微观的语言语境限制,进入宏观的文化语用维度。 

就网络语境下的建议行为来说,网络语境下建议行为的表征方式存在多样化特点,在句法维度和话语维度上同英语建议行为的分布结构完全不同;在情感维度上,未见符号型表情的伴生性使用,建议行为的多模态属性并未得以充分显现;在性别维度上,男女两性在句法维度未见显著性差异,但是在话语维度和情感维度却表现出明显的表征性差异。

就网络语境下的(不)礼貌现象而言,从宏观上讲,汉语不礼貌话语的不礼貌实现形式主要是正向不礼貌,其次负向不礼貌以及间接不礼貌。从微观上讲,并不是每一个不礼貌话语的实现形式均享有同样的使用机率,但总体上表现出一定的格局性以及语用化特征。主位与客位研究方法相结合对于学界讨论网络语境下(不)礼貌现象具有一定的参考意义。

参考文献

[1]毛延生.网络语言学研究需要“语用学转向”[N]. 中国社会科学报,2017-08-08(003).

[2]毛延生、何刚.网络时代女性镜像的意识形态批评:基于文化语用学视角[J].深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版),2017(5):134-138+147.

[3] 毛延生、黄倩倩. 网络语境下建议行为的语用机制研究[J].语言教学与研究,2016(3):102-112.

[4] 毛延生. 汉语不礼貌话语的语用研究[J].语言教学与研究,2014(2):94-102.

顶票:0; 踩票:0    

袁周敏  教授 专家简介

“网络语言暴力是指在互联网络上,以话语霸权的形式,采取诋毁、蔑视、谩骂、侮辱等手段,侵犯和损害他人人格尊严、精神和心理的行为现象。”(缪锌 2014:167)。当前网络空间对历史的嘲弄与颠覆也是网络语言暴力的一种话语呈现,对于这种暴力话语,特别是以历史事件为指向时,有学者指出是在游戏化、碎片化、私德化和色情化历史,需要置放于国家文化安全的视角下解读(叶美兰、熊玉文 2015)。不仅如此,网络语言暴力从线上走到线下,引起了法律学界和法律人士的关注。邱业伟和纪丽娟(2013 : 38)认为网络语言暴力属于名誉侵权行为,并从法律的角度界定了网络语言暴力。

语言具有强大的暗示功能。过多的消极语言表达必将“催生出‘暴虐为快’的病态心理,乃至形成嗜好网络语言暴力与借助网络语言暴力投机的病狂”(缪锌 2014 : 168)。语言的建构性是相互的。一方面,社会现实构建语言的表达,形成表达的客观基础,另一方面,语言也建构社会现实(辛斌 2016),语言通过影响人们的观念和信念甚至能够改变社会现实,从这个角度来说,有网络的地方便有网络语言,有网络语言便有各种层出不穷的网络事件。“无论是雨后春笋般出现的网络第一案,还是愈演愈烈的‘门事件’,都告诉我们只要有网络, 网络文化安全问题就无时不在,无处不在。有人引用元朝词人马致远的 “ 便作钓鱼人,也在风波里” 来形容我们每个人所面对的网络文化安全威胁是很贴切的”(姚伟钧、彭桂芳 2010:71)。

语言文字是文化和文明积淀中最稳定、最持久的符号系统,它不仅是一切文明的载体,也是文明本身的组成元素。“语言从来就是政治、文化斗争的有效工具,是获取民族和国家经济发展的重要手段,是保持和发展国家—民族共同文化的重要内容”(潘一禾 2005:14)。针对语言维系国家安全的战略性意义,教育部已经启动了国家语言战略计划,而在如何系统构建国家语言安全部门上,我们依然面临着挑战(袁周敏 2016)。需要我们警醒的是相对于领土安全,语言文字安全则是一个民族和国家灵魂深处的东西,是一个国家和族群得以存在的最后屏障。从网络语言观网络文化治理,我们需要采取整体-辩证-历史的视角(Shi-xu 2014)看待网络文化的演进。

(1)网络语言渗透或许客观上是文化全球化背景下一种新的文化侵入,必须意识到这种语言变体对汉语言系统和文化带来的巨大冲击。因此,保护本国语言文字和文化系统理应是网络时代国家文化安全的重大内容。(2)借鉴信息技术和语言理论加强网络信息内容的研究和网络文化安全体系模型的开发。基于系统功能语言学和评价理论,语用立场理论,语用身份理论等语言学理论,利用语言信息检索技术,都可以帮助监测和检索网络信息中的情感、立场和身份建构,判断网络信息的积极和消极情绪,以及对信息客体的态度与立场,建构了信息生产者的什么身份,进而计算出对中国文化及相关领域造成的危害指数等等,这方面相关的技术模型和文化安全体系建构可以参见相关研究(例如王燕、杨文阳、张屹 2008; Gcaza et al. 2017)。(3)文化安全治理是一个渐进的过程,而网络文化安全治理已成为世界范围抢占网络空间制高点的普遍选择(汪伟、韩璞庚 2015)。网络文化安全现实冲突的解决需要采取刚柔并济的策略。以开放的姿态对待网络语言,以科学的方法监测语言生活。(4)建设中国网络话语体系的构想。中国网络话语体系是中国话语体系的重要组成部分,在网络化、融媒体时代,线上舆论场域和思想场域的激辩与传播现实地塑造着这人们的概念体系和价值体系。在寻求学科新范式、新路径、新理论、新概念的同时,坚持网络话语研究的问题导向或许显得更为迫切。

摘自:袁周敏,韩璞庚. 网络语言视域下的网络文化安全研究[J].外语教学,2018(1): 39-43.(光明网全文转载)

顶票:0; 踩票:0    

发表您的观点 共有0人发表了0条评论及答复