Self-awareness, Criticism and Optimization of the Paradigm of Chinese Pragmatics: Enlightenment from Emancipatory Pragmatics
Mao Yansheng1, He Gang2
1.School of Foreign Studies, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China 2.English Department, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200061, China
Abstract：Initiated by the Japanese pragmatist Sachiko Ide and others ever since 2007, Emancipatory Pragmatics is intended to break away from the shackles of theoretical systems of Western pragmatics, which provides a significant reference for the refinement and renewal of Chinese pragmatics paradigm. Therefore, it is of some disciplinary values to systematically delve into the background, structure, and operation of Emancipatory Pragmatics, which is also an important premise to conduct in-depth criticism and cultural awareness of Chinese pragmatics in the current state and future through further integrating the growing trends of pragmatics both in China and abroad. To be specific, firstly, the purpose and principle of Emancipatory Pragmatics can be regarded as a departure point of being self-aware for the paradigm of Chinese Pragmatics. Ontologically, the reflexivity of pragmatics as an extra trait is an important precondition for upgrading pragmatic theories in terms of their current states and future transformation from the perspective of Emancipatory Pragmatics. Epistemologically, pragmatics can be further stipulated into cultural and historical differences by integrating academic foci and the commitment of knowledge community. Methodologically, the consistency between Emancipatory Pragmatics and empirical social science not only helps bridge different views, but also reveals these differences as potential breakthroughs for the further development of pragmatics. Secondly, the paradigm and practice of Emancipatory Pragmatics can be taken as the focal points for the criticism of Chinese Pragmatics. According to Emancipatory Pragmatics, the classic pragmatic theory is actually the result of regionalized conceptualization, which is a world view projected through the lens of specific language and culture. Accordingly, taking “Ba (field)” as the starting point of pragmatics is vital to highlight the language use that has been underattended in the past. Through the integration between the inseparable primary Ba and the secondary Ba with an increasingly clear relationship between the two sides of communication, language users enjoy a kind of self-flexibility, which can enable the socialized subject to flexibly identify the relationship with others and get it manifested with language choice. Thirdly, the value and enlightenment of Emancipating Pragmatics can be viewed as the foci to optimize Chinese Pragmatics as a paradigm. First of all, from the perspective of Emancipating Pragmatics, the current pragmatics research as a paradigm is confronted with a historical transformation on how to secure a problem-motivated paradigm on the basis of non-Western facts of language use, which demands the theoretical construction and interpretation of pragmatics transformation with the help of language use facts in Chinese. Next, through focusing on the Eastern facts of language use, Emancipating Pragmatics is bold enough to grow out of the influence of West-centeredness as a traditional paradigm, which highlights its own pragmatics orientation embedded in culture. Last but not least, the value of Emancipating Pragmatics regarding its scientificity lies in the fact that it points out the way-out forward for Chinese pragmatics to make contributions to the global academic community based on its own localization. The above findings together give a full display of one possible path for Chinese pragmatics researchers to contribute “China’s Wisdom, Ideas and Plans” to the international pragmatics community.
毛延生, 何刚. 中国语用学研究范式的自觉、批评与优化[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2022, 52(1): 94-103.
Mao Yansheng, He Gang. Self-awareness, Criticism and Optimization of the Paradigm of Chinese Pragmatics: Enlightenment from Emancipatory Pragmatics. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(1): 94-103.
1 Leech G. N.， Principles of Pragmatics， London & New York： Longman， 1983. 2 Levinson S.， Pragmatics， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1983. 3 Verschueren J.， Understanding Pragmatics， London： Arnold， 1999. 4 Hanks W. F.， “Introduction to emancipatory pragmatics，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 69 （2014）， pp. 1-3. 5 Saft S.， “Rethinking Western individualism from the perspective of social interaction and from the concept of ba，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 69 （2014）， pp. 108-120. 6 Hanks W. F.， Ide S. & Katagiri Y. et al.， “Communicative interaction in terms of ba theory： towards an innovative approach to language practice，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 145 （2019）， pp. 63-71. 7 Hanks W. F.， Ide S. & Katagiri Y.， “Towards an emancipatory pragmatics，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 41， No. 1 （2009）， pp. 1-9. 8 Hanks W. F.， Ide S. & Katagiri Y.， “Towards an emancipatory pragmatics （part two），” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 44， No. 5 （2012）， pp. 563-708. 9 Hanks W. F.， Ide S. & Katagiri Y.， “Towards an emancipatory pragmatics （part three），” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 69， No. 3 （2014）， pp. 1-120. 10 Sugawara K.， “Interactive significance of simultaneous discourse or overlap in everyday conversations among Gui former foragers，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 44， No. 5 （2012）， pp. 577-618. 11 Sugawara K.， “Speech acts， moves， and meta-communication in negotiation： three cases of everyday conversation observed among the |Gui former-foragers，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 41， No. 1 （2009）， pp. 93-135. 12 Fujii Y.， “Differences of situating self in the place/ba of interaction between the Japanese and American English speakers，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 44， No. 5 （2012）， pp. 636-662. 13 Hanks W. F.， “Explorations in the deictic field，” Current Anthropology， Vol. 46， No. 2 （2005）， pp. 191-220. 14 Intachakra S.， “Politeness motivated by the ‘heart’ and ‘binary rationality’ in Thai culture，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 44， No. 5 （2012）， pp. 619-635. 15 陈新仁： 《试论中国语用学学科话语体系的建构》，《外语教学》2018年第5期，第12-16页。 16 Hanks W. F.， “Fieldwork on deixis，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 41， No. 1 （2009）， pp. 10-24. 17 毛延生： 《语用变异机制新解——复杂适应系统论》，见何自然主编： 《语用学研究》第2辑，北京：高等教育出版社，2010年，第44-58页。 18 Boas F. （ed.）， Handbook of American Indian Languages， Washington， D. C.： Smithsonian Institution， 1911. 19 Taylor C.， “Analytical calorimetry，” TrAC： Trends in Analytical Chemistry， Vol. 4， No. 5 （1985）， pp. xi-xxii. 20 Levinson S. C.， Space in Language and Cognition： Explorations in Cognitive Diversity， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2003. 21 Eckert P.， Linguistic Variation as Social Practice， Oxford： Blackwell， 2000. 22 Enfield N. J.， “Cultural logic and syntactic productivity： associated posture constructions in Lao，” in Enfield N. J. （ed.）， Ethnosyntax： Explorations in Grammar and Culture， Oxford University Press， 2002， pp. 231-258. 23 Enfield N. J. & Stivers T. （eds.）， Person Reference in Interaction： Linguistic， Cultural， and Social Perspectives， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2007. 24 Nishida K.， Place and Dialectic： Two Essays by Nishida Kitaro， trans. by Krummel J. W. M. & Shigemori N.， Oxford： Oxford University Press， 2012. 25 Shimizu H.， “Ba-principle： new logic for the real-time emergence of information，” Holonics， Vol. 5， No. 1 （1995）， pp. 67-79. 26 Shimizu H.， “Kyooso to basho，” in Shimizu H.， Kume T. & Miwa Y. et al. （eds.）， Ba to Kyooso， Tokyo： NTT Shuppan， 2000， pp. 23-177. 27 Kondo D. K.， Crafting Selves： Power， Gender， and Discourses of Identity in a Japanese Workplace， Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 1990. 28 Lebra T. S.， The Japanese Self in Cultural Logic， Honolulu： University of Hawai’i Press， 2004. 29 Rosenberger N. R. （ed.）， Japanese Sense of Self， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1994. 30 Panpothong N. & Phakdeephasook S.， “The wide use of mai-pen-rai ‘it’s not substantial’ in Thai interactions and its relationship to the Buddhist concept of Tri Laksana，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 69， No. 8 （2014）， pp. 99-107. 31 Chen X.， Exploring Identity Work in Chinese Communication， London： Bloomsbury Publishing， 2021. 32 冉永平、赵林森： 《基于人情原则的人际关系新模式——人际语用学本土研究》，《外语与外语教学》2018年第2期，第34-45，148页。 33 张绍杰： 《话语识解的认知机制：语法—语用互动视角》，《外语教学与研究》2017年第5期，第663-674，799页。 34 Mey J. L.， “Anticipatory pragmatics，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 44， No. 5 （2012）， pp. 705-708. 35 毛延生： 《语用学研究要有本土文献意识》，《中国社会科学报》2013年12月2日，第B01版。 36 Senft G.， Understanding Pragmatics， New York： Routledge， 2014. 37 Huang Y. （ed.）， The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics， Oxford： Oxford University Press， 2017. 38 Crawshaw R.， “Determinacy， distance and intensity in intercultural communication： an emancipatory approach，” in Kecskes I. & Assimakopoulos S. （eds.）， Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics， Amsterdam： John Benjamins Publishing Company， 2017， pp. 9-31. 39 Ameka F. K. & Terkourafi M.， “What if...？ imagining non-western perspectives on pragmatic theory and practice，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 145 （2019）， pp. 72-82. 40 陈新仁： 《中国语用学本土理论建设刍议》，《外国语》2018年第4期，第9-11页。
2022, Vol. 52 
