{"title":"Chinese “face”-related expressions in Peking and Teochew Opera scripts","authors":"Jiejun Chen, J. House, D. Kádár","doi":"10.1075/jhp.23020.che","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper presents a historical contrastive pragmatic study of the use of Chinese “face”-related expressions in\n Peking and Teochew Opera scripts. The rationale behind this investigation is that contemporary Mandarin and the Minnan Dialect\n operate with very different inventories of “face”-related expressions, and it is worth considering whether this difference also\n applies to historical language use, and, if so, how. Studying this matter is particularly relevant for historical pragmatic\n research because “face”-related expressions have been under-represented in the field. Our study is based on a corpus of nineteen\n Peking Opera scripts and a comparable corpus of nineteen Teochew Opera scripts, dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth\n centuries. The results of our analysis show that the historical Mandarin corpus operates with a duality of the “face”-related\n expressions lian and mian, in a similar way to modern Mandarin, even though we also found\n differences between the ways in which these expressions were used in former times and at present. Yet such differences are\n eclipsed if we contrast historical Mandarin with the Teochew scripts where we found a very different “face” duality than in\n Mandarin, namely a duality of yan and mian. This duality also differs from what one can witness\n in present-day Minnan.","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.23020.che","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This paper presents a historical contrastive pragmatic study of the use of Chinese “face”-related expressions in
Peking and Teochew Opera scripts. The rationale behind this investigation is that contemporary Mandarin and the Minnan Dialect
operate with very different inventories of “face”-related expressions, and it is worth considering whether this difference also
applies to historical language use, and, if so, how. Studying this matter is particularly relevant for historical pragmatic
research because “face”-related expressions have been under-represented in the field. Our study is based on a corpus of nineteen
Peking Opera scripts and a comparable corpus of nineteen Teochew Opera scripts, dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. The results of our analysis show that the historical Mandarin corpus operates with a duality of the “face”-related
expressions lian and mian, in a similar way to modern Mandarin, even though we also found
differences between the ways in which these expressions were used in former times and at present. Yet such differences are
eclipsed if we contrast historical Mandarin with the Teochew scripts where we found a very different “face” duality than in
Mandarin, namely a duality of yan and mian. This duality also differs from what one can witness
in present-day Minnan.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Historical Pragmatics provides an interdisciplinary forum for theoretical, empirical and methodological work at the intersection of pragmatics and historical linguistics. The editorial focus is on socio-historical and pragmatic aspects of historical texts in their sociocultural context of communication (e.g. conversational principles, politeness strategies, or speech acts) and on diachronic pragmatics as seen in linguistic processes such as grammaticalization or discoursization. Contributions draw on data from literary or non-literary sources and from any language. In addition to contributions with a strictly pragmatic or discourse analytical perspective, it also includes contributions with a more sociolinguistic or semantic approach.