用语言学的方法分析短消息语言和行为

Abstract：This paper begins with an introduction to mobile-based short massage， or SM for short. Although the arrival of SM brings convenience and happiness to people’s life， the characteristics of SM language result in its vulnerability to misunderstanding. From a linguistic perspective， factors responsible for the misunderstanding of SM are analyzed. Firstly， SM language violates the co-operative principle. People adopt a cooperative principle when they communicate with each other: they try to get along with each other by following certain conversational “maxims”. The violation of these maxims makes the functions of SM indefinite and SM users have to interpret SM based on their own experience. Secondly， in contrast with face-to-face conversations and telephone calls， SM lacks body language， facial expressions， proper stress and intonation. Thirdly， SM language is more casual than written language. In conclusion， this paper suggests some solutions to the related problem. Key words: short massage or SM， misunderstanding， cooperative principle， body language， facial expression， intonation， stress， written language

摘要：本文的开头对移动电话的短消息（又称短信）作了简要的介绍。尽管短消息的出现给人们带来了方便，短消息自身语言的特点导致了它容易被人们误解。从语言学的角度，本文分析了导致短信被误解的几个因素。第一，短消息语言违背了合作原则。人们在交际过程中，常常会采用一种准则。为了很好的交流，人们回遵守“会话准则”。而短信语言对准则的违背，导致了短信的作用不明确。并且，人们在解释短信内容时，往往只根据自己的经验。第二，与面对面的谈话和电话通讯相比，短信缺少肢体语言、表情、适当的重音和语调。第三，短信语言与书面语言相比，具有随意性。文章的结尾对相关的问题提出了解决的办法。 关键词：短消息或短信、误解、合作原则、肢体语言、表情、重音、语调、书面语言

An Analysis of Short Message Language and Behaviors with a Linguistic Approach

Thesis statement: Short message is vulnerable to misunderstanding， which can be explained by the violation of the cooperative principle， and in contrast with traditional conversation and written language， the deficiency of short message is analyzed.

Outline

I Introduction IIThe vulnerability of SM to misunderstanding from the perspective of the cooperative principle A. Introduction of cooperative and the violation of maxims B. Three kinds of misunderstanding ⑴ The indefinite nature of the sender’s message ⑵ A number of factors affecting the interpretation of SM ⑶ The query concerning the end of SM conversation

III The deficiency of SM in contrast with face-to-face conversation and TEL call A. The lack of body language and expression B. The lack of stress and intonation

IV The casualness of SM in contrast with written language A. SM processed at random B. The differences between SM language and written language

V Conclusion

I Introduction Short Message Service (SMS) is a new communicational tool that combines the functions of mobile phone and pager. According to the statistics from Global GPS Association， the total number of SMs has reached 510 billion in 2003， and China accounts for one third of them， soaring to 170 billion. SM is regarded as a convenient， highly democratic， informational medium for conveying messages that conforms well to human needs. As a modern communication tool， SM has many advantages which are absent in other communication medias. For example， SM enables dumb people to communicate freely with healthy people; SM makes no noise which may bother others; SM protects privacy， because no third party knows the content of SM conversation. However， the characteristics of SM language also bring negative effects to people’s life. People find that SM is not so powerful and pleasant， and it can be easily misunderstood. With the help of linguistic approaches， factors that are responsible for the misunderstanding of SM are analyzed: 1). the violation of the cooperative principle. 2) SM can not take the place of face-to-face conversation. 3) SM is more casual than written language. II The vulnerability of SM to misunderstanding from the perspective of the cooperative principle The process of sending SM is so easy and informal that people treat it as they do conversation. SM is a bit like a conversation at the water cooler that can be instantly forwarded to 50 people. For a conversation to be successful， in most social contexts， the participants need to feel they are contributing something to it and are getting something out of it. For this to happen， certain conditions must apply. Everyone must have an opportunity to speak: no one should be monopolizing or constantly interrupting. The participants need to make their roles clear; they need to have a sense of when to speak or stay silent; when to proffer information or hold it back; when to stay aloof or become involved. The success of a conversation depends not only on what speakers say but on their whole approach to the interaction. “Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks， and would not be rational if they did. They are characteristically， to some degree at least， cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them， to some extent， a common purpose or set of purposes， or at least a mutually accepted direction” (Grice 1975: 45).People adopt a “cooperative principle” when they communicate with each other: they try to get along with each other by following certain conversational “maxims” that underlie the efficient use of language. Four basic maxims have been proposed.  The maxim of quality states that speakers’ contributions to a conversation ought to be true. They should not say what they believe to be false， nor should they say anything for which they lack adequate evidence.  The maxim of quantity states that contributions should be as informative as is required for the purposes of the conversation. One should say neither too little nor too much.  The maxim of relevance states that conversations should clearly relate to the purpose of the exchange.  The maxim of manner states that the contribution should be perspicuous， in particular， that it should be orderly and brief， avoiding obstructing ambiguity. In short， these maxims specify what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient， rational， co-operative way: they should speak sincerely， relevantly and clearly， while providing sufficient information. But the use of terms principle and maxim does not mean that the cooperative principle and its maxims will be followed by everybody all the time. If people violate these maxims deliberately， listeners may draw inference from what speakers have said and work out the implicature of the utterance. But for SM users， violation of maxims is done passively. Then let us take a look at the following short messages recorded in the author’s mobile phone. No.1. A: “Still busy?”---9:40 pm (Conversation started， but A’s purpose is confusing) No.2. B: “Not too busy， what’s up?”---9:41 pm (Actually B was very busy in his essay， may be writing， but B inferred that A must have something important to tell.) No.3. A: “When you worked in the Computer Association， have you ever failed to negotiate with sponsors?”---9:46 pm (It takes A 5 minutes to respond. He attempts to make his words appropriate. B has to suspend his work and wait for a direct answer. But this answer seems so irrelevant.) No.4. B: “No”---9:47 pm (B tries to concentrate on his work， so he responds briefly. A is quite frustrated by the failed negotiation and needs someone to comfort him. The single word “No” makes him think that if B is not busy， how B could be so cold.) No.5. A: “Sorry， I thought you did， then， good night.”---9:49 pm (Conversation has to be ended up unpleasantly) No.6. B: “Good night.”---9:50 pm (B is still unaware of A’s intention. He can do nothing but end conversation.) The two participants of this short conversation violate the four maxims violations of maxims. No.1 violates M of quantity. He says too little. He should state his purpose clearly. No.2 violates M of quality. He says something that is false， but he has to. No.3 Here A’s contribution in its literal meaning， fails to answer B’s question， and thus seems to violate at least the maxims of quantity and relevance. We might therefore expect A’s utterance to be interpreted as a non-co-operative response. Yet it is clear that despite this apparent failure of co-operation， we try to interpret A’s utterance as cooperative at some deeper level. We can assure that there could be some possible connection between No.2 and No.3. However， since it is a SM conversation， A and B could not see each other. B is actually in a hurry and he wants to go to the topic directly， but A wants a euphemistic way. Here SM is not powerful enough to connect the states of mind of the two persons. No.4 also violates M of quantity. B is supposed to be considerate. No.5 violates M of manner. Two sentences seem not orderly. However， in our daily conversation， the implicatures of words are easily deduced. So why does the violation of co-operative principle in SM fail to enable people to work out the exact implicatures? There must be some other factors contributing to the understanding of words. We shall further discuss this point in the third section. Although the two participants of this short conversation do not violate maxims deliberately and purposefully， their words are misconstrued. And the misconstructions of SM can be sorted into three. Firstly， the purpose of SM language is not definite， i.e.， the functions of SM language are not clear. Linguists talk about the functions of language in an abstract sense， that is， not in terms of using language to chat， to think， to buy and sell， to read and write， to greet people， etc. To communicate our ideas is the usual answer to the question “why do we use language?” Indeed， this must surely be the most widely recognized function of language. Whenever we tell people about our circumstances or ourselves or ask for information about other selves， we are using language in order to exchange fact sand opinions. The use of language is often called “ideational or referential”. But it would be problematic to think of it as the only way we use language. Linguists summarize these practical functions of language like following: informative， interpersonal， performative， emotive， phatic， recreational and metalingual (Hu 2001: 10). Halliday proposes a theory of metafunctions of language that is language has IDEATIONAL， INTERPERSONAL， and Textual functions. Ideational function constructs a model of experience and constructs logical relations， interpersonal function enacts social relationships and textual function creates relevance to context (Halliday 1985: VIII). Among them， the first two functions are often mixed up in SM language. For most people， the informative function is predominantly the major role of language. Language is the instrument of thought and people often feel the need to speak their thoughts aloud as when they are working on a math problem.

Bibliography

Crystal， David. The Cambridge Encylopaedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press， 1992.

Grice， H. P. Logic and conversation. In P.Cole&J.L.Morgan(eds) Speech acts. New York:

Academic Press， 1975.

Halliday. M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold， 1985.

Hu， Zhuanglin. Linguistics.A couse book. Beijing: Beijing University Press， 2001.