社会语言学---女性面子 7页

GenderLanguageDifference:ANewInterpretationAbstract:Face-savingtheory(FST)advocatedbyBrownandLevinsonemphasizestheuniversalityofhumanbeingstotreat“face”andtotakestrategiessoastosaveface.Nevertheless,humansarequitedifferentfromoneanother,especiallymaleandfemale.ThisarticlemainlyconcernsFSTfromgenderdifferenceinlanguageandputsforwardsomenewideasaboutFSTinordertomakeitabettersystem.Keywords:face-savingtheory;face;genderdifferenceinlanguage1.IntroductionLanguageexistsinsociety.Itmustreflectphenomenainsociety.Spokenbyhumanbeingsinsociety,itwillbecarvedbydifferentcharacteristicsofhumanbeings,amongwhichgenderisanaspect,whichcannotbeneglected.Infact,genderdifferenceinlanguagehaslongbeenheateddiscussed.Atthebeginningofthe20thcentury,peoplebegantopayattentiontothisphenomenonandeversincethe1960sespeciallyafterthewoman'smovement;manyarticlesconcerningthisphenomenonappearedintheworld.Duringthisperiod,peoplediscussedtheproblemfromdifferentaspectsandgotgreatachievements.Inthisarticle,wewillanalyzeFSTadvocatedbyBrownandLevinsoninaperspectiveofgenderlanguagedifferences.2.Face-savingTheoryTheword“face”wasfirstintroducedintothewestbyaChineseAnthropologist,namedHuHsienChin.Thewesternsocialistsbegantoanalyzethisphenomenonfromthe1950's.ItwasErvingGoffmanwhofirstexplainedthisword.Hebelievedthat“face”wasconnectedwithsomeemotionalconcepts,suchasembarrass,andshy,losingface.LatertwolinguistsBrownandLevinsonpresentedspecificallythe“Face-savingTheory”.Theydivided“face”intotwokinds:negativefaceandpositiveface.Negativefacemeansthatapersondoesnotwantotherstoenforcetheirideasuponhis/hersortointerfereinhis/herbehavior.Positivefaceisthehopethataperson\nwantsotherstoagreewithhim/herortopraisehim/her.BrownandLevinsonbelievedthatessentiallymostverbalbehaviorsthreatened“face”.Sopeoplealwaysfoundwaystoavoidthreateningothers'faceortolessenthedegreeofmakingothersloseface.Theywere:A.baldonrecordwithoutredressiveactions.B.positivepoliteness.C.negativepoliteness.D.offrecord.E.Don'tdotheFTA.3.1NegativefaceandpositivefaceAccordingtoFST,whenwe'retalkingwithothers,it'slikelyforustothreatenourpartner'sface,negativeorpositive.However,BrownandLevinsonpaidlittleattentiontogenderdifferences.Infact,malesandfemalesarequitedifferentinregardingpositiveandnegativefaces.Ininteraction,everyonewantstomaintainhis/herfaceandtoberespectedbyothers.However,genderdifferenceexists.Malesaremorelikelytomaintaintheirnegativefaceswhilefemalesalwayspaymuchattentiontotheirpositivefaces.Thisphenomenoncanbeseenindifferentgenderlanguages.Althoughtheiractualusagesarequitedifferentfromtheirself-evaluations,malestendtouselowstatus,nonstandardvariants,butfemalestendtousehighstatus,standardvariants.ThisphenomenonisbestillustratedbyPeterTrudgill'sself-evaluationtestsinNorwich.Oneofthemisthetestofvowelin“ear”,“here”and“idea”.InNorwich,therearetwomainvariantsofthisvowel:[іэ]asinRP;[εэ]withthevowelofcare.Soearandair,hereandhairarethesame.Hewassurprisedatthegenderdifferenceswhenhecomparedspeakers'observedusageswithwhattheyclaimedtosaywhenquestioneddirectly.Ifaspeakerusedafavoredvariablemorethanhalfthetime,thatpersonwouldbeclassifiedasusingthatvariable.TheNorwichspeakerswerealsoaskeddirectlyhowtheynormallypronouncedcertainwordsthatcontainedthesamesociallydiagnosticvariables.Inthisway,itwaspossibleforaspeakertoover-reportuseofa\nfavoredvariant(byclaimingitwastypicalofhisorherspeechwhenitwasactuallyusedlessthanhalfthetimeduringtheinterview),underreportusage(byclaimingnottouseafavoredvariantthatwasactuallyusedmorethanhalfthetime)oraccuratelyreportuse(byclaimingtouseafavoredvariantthatwasactuallyusedmorethanhalfthetime,ornotclaimingafavoredvariantusedlessthanhalfthetime)(Fasold,2000:97).Usingthismethod,hedrewthefollowingtable:Fromthistable,wecanseethatmalespeakersunder-reportedtheiruseofsociallyfavoredvariantsfarmorefrequentlythanfemalespeakersdid(50vs.14);whilefemalespeakersover-reportedmoreoftenthanmalespeakersdid(68vs.22).SoasTrudgillexplained,malepaidattentiontocovertprestigeofthevariant,femalesmoreconcernedovertprestigeofthevariant.Butwhyshouldithavesucharesult?Andwhatcanberevealedfromthisresult?“Sexvarietiesaretheresultofdifferentsocialattitudestowardsthebehaviorofmenandwomen,andoftheattitudesmenandwomenthemselvesconsequentlygavetolanguageasasocialsymbol”(Trudgill,1983:94).Weallknowthatforalonghistorywomenareregardedasinferiortomen.Theyaretreatedunequallyinsocietycomparingwithmen.Sotheyarelikelytobeorderedortendthemselvestothestandardsocialvalues.Inlanguage,RPisthestandardestablishedbythesociety.SoevenifactuallytheydonotspeakRP,womenstillannouncethattheyspeakitinordertogetpraisedandrespectedbytheothers.This,infact,iswhatBrownandLevinsoncalledpositivefaceinFST.Onthecontrary,manisthecontrollerofthesociety.Theydonotpaymuchattentiontothestandardestablishedbythemselvesinlanguage.Insteadtheyaremoreconcernedwiththeirownpower,theirfirmercontrolofeverydaylanguage.Thatistosaythevernacular.Sotheyalwaysunderreportedtheirlanguageinordertoshowtheirpowerandtheirindependence.ThisreflectinFSTisthenegativeface.Thisresultactuallyrevealsthatmanandwomantreat“face”differently.Manpaysmoreattentiontonegativefaceandwomanviceversa.Fromthisperspective,wecanseethatinFST,genderlanguagedifferenceisaveryimportantfactorandneedtobeconsidered.\n3.2RedressivestrategiesInFST,BrownandLevinsonalsointroducedfiveredressivestrategiesinordertosaveface.Infact,maleandfemalealsobehavedifferentlytothesestrategies.A.BaldonrecordwithoutredressiveactionsThisstrategymeansthespeakerrevealshisintentionsdirectlyandclearlytothehearer.Thebasicsentencepatternis“DoX.”suchasClosethedoor(HEZhao-xiong,2000:230).However,genderdifferencealsoexistsinsuchkindofsentences.Lakoffhaseverlistedthefollowingrangeofpossibilities:Closethedoor.Pleaseclosethedoor.Willyouclosethedoor?Willyoupleaseclosethedoor?Won'tyouclosethedoor?AccordingtoLakoff'sinvestigation,womenaremorelikelytousethemorepoliteformthanmen.That'stosay,menuse“DoX!”moreoftenthanwomen.Somenalwaysadoptthisstrategy.B.PositivepolitenessPositivepolitenessmeanstosatisfythehearer'spositiveface,toagreewiththehearer'sopinionandestablishsolidarity.Forexample,praiseorrespecttheothers.Sothisstrategyisapproach-based.Thespeakeralwaysshowshis/heragreementwiththeothers.Anditismoreoftenusedbywomenthanbymen.Forinstance,Holmesfoundthattherewere80%ofthepeoplewhousecomplimentinordertoestablishsolidarityandagreement.Amongthemmostwerewomen(BAIJie-hong,2000:110).Ontheotherhand,menswearmuchmorethanwomen.Theyaremorebluntandtothepointinspeaking(Wardhaugh,2000:316).Surely,menwillthreatenthehearer'spositivefaceinthisway.Andtheyaremorelikelytoneglectthestrategyofpositivepolitenessthanwomen.C.NegativepolitenessThespeakeracknowledgesandacceptsthehearer'snegativeface.Inordertoshowthis,he/shewillnotinterferewiththehearer'saffair.Hewillbemodest,\nself-controlled,avoidshowing-offandpayattentiontothehearer'sneeds.Sothisstrategyisavoidance-based.AccordingtoBrownandLevinson,thebasicsentencepatternisthesentencecontainingmodalverbs(HEZhao-xiong,2000:18).Inheranalysisofgenderlanguagedifferences,BAIJie-hong(2000:18)foundthatfemalesweremorelikelytousemodalverbs,suchas:can,could,shall,should,will,would,may,might,especiallymodalverbsplusotherauxiliaryverbs,suchashaveandbe.Itisbecausefemalesarenotcertainabouttheenvironmentaroundthem;theyaresuspectoftheenvironment.However,malesalwaysusedfewermodalverbs.Ifnecessary,theyonlyusecan,shall,will,whichexpresscertainty,authorityandorder.Thesemeaningsaresurelycontrarytothenegativepolitenessstrategywhichneedsthespeakertobetolerantinsteadofaggressive.Fromthisanalysis,wecanseefemalesaremorelikelytousethisstrategy.D.OffrecordInordertoavoidthehearerlosingface,thespeakerusevaguelanguages.BrownandLevinsonshowed15waystodothis,suchasmetaphor,sarcasm,hyperbole,rhetoricalquestion,euphemism.Insociolinguistics,everyonetalkingaboutgenderwillmentiontagquestions.Andmanyexampleshavebeenshowedtoillustratefemalesaremorelikelytouseitthanmales.Inreality,femalesliketouseeuphemismwhilemalesswearwords.Bothofthesefactsshowobviouslythatwomenuseoffrecordstrategymoreoftenthanmen.E.Don'tdotheFTAThisstrategyisthemostextremeone.Thatisnottomakethehearerlosefacebythreateningactions.Sometimesthespeakerevendoesn'ttalk.Afterfinishinganexperiment,WestandZimmermanillustratedasfollowing:Thesilencesthatwerecountedwerethosebetweentheendofonespeaker'sturnandthefirstutteranceoftheotherspeaker.Silenceswere“chargedto”thespeakerwhohadjuststoppedspeaking.Ratioswerecomputedbydividingthetotalnumberofsecondsofsilence“chargedto”thespeakerwiththeleastsilencebythenumberofsecondsofsilence“chargedto”thespeakerwiththemostsilence,ifeachspeakerinthedyedhadthesameamountofsilencechargedtohim/her,thisratiowouldbe1.0.\nInthesame-sexconversations,thiswasapproximatelythecase;alltheratioswerebetween0.6and1.0exceptforoneconversationbetweentwomales.Inthecross-sexconversations,though,theratioswereallbelow0.5exceptforoneand,ineverycase,thewomanhadmoresilence“chargedto”her.(Fasold,2000:108)Theresultsurelyshowsthatwomenusethisstrategyfrequently.FromAtoEabove,wecanseethatAislikelytousedbymaleswhileBtoEaremoreoftenusedbyfemales.Whyshouldwehavesucharesult?Wehaveknownthatinreality,menwanttoseizeandmaintaincontrolovertheprogressofconversation.Asaresult,it'sdifficultforthemtopayattentiontothehearer'sface,positiveornegative.Sothey'remorelikelytousethedirectandobviousstrategytoexpresstheirownideaandtakethefirststrategy.Women,ontheotherhand,havelowerstatusinsociety.They'realwayslookeddownuponandarenotlistenedtobytheotherssotheytendtousevariousindirectinteractivestrategiestoincreasetheprobabilitythattheircontributionswillbeattendedtoandsupportedbytheirconversationalpartners.Atthesametime,theythemselvestendfarmoretosupporttheconversationalagendasofthepeopletheyaretalkingwithinordertomaintaintheirfaces(Fasold,2000:116).Asaresult,BtoEwillbeadoptedmoreoftenbywomen.4.ConclusionPeopleofdifferentgenderexistinsociety.They'llbeinfluencedbydifferentsocialvaluesputuponthem.Sogenderisaproblem,whichcannotbeneglectedinlanguage.Andincommunication,genderisalwaysseriouslyconsideredbyinteractants.Inordertomaketheconversationadvancesmoothly,speakersshouldbepolitetothehearers.However,thereareoftendifferentpolitenessrequirementsmadeofbythesocietyorbythemenandwomenthemselves,soweshouldpayattentiontothisgenderlanguagedifferenceinFST.References:[1]BAIJie-hong.2000.Male/FemaleLanguage,CultureandPragmatics[M].Changsha:HunanTeachingPress.[2]Fasold,R..2000.TheSociolinguisticsofLanguage[M].Beijing:Foreign\nLanguageTeachingandResearchPress.[3]HEZhao-xiong.2000.ANewIntroductiontoPragmatics[M].Shanghai:ShanghaiForeignLanguageTeachingPress.[4]Hudson,R.A..2000.Sociolinguistics[M].Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress.[5]Romaine,S..1994.LanguageinSociety[M].GreatBritain:OxfordUniversityPress.[6]Trudgill,P..1983.Sociolinguistics:AnIntroductiontoLanguageandSociety[M].GreatBritain:CoxandWymanLtd.[7]Wardhaugh,R..2000.AnIntroductiontoSociolinguistics[M].Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress.