The distance between illocution and perlocution: A tale of different pragmemes to call for social distancing in two cities

IF 1.8 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Intercultural Pragmatics Pub Date : 2022-02-24 DOI:10.1515/ip-2022-0001
Xiaowen Wang, K. Ahrens, Chu-Ren Huang
{"title":"The distance between illocution and perlocution: A tale of different pragmemes to call for social distancing in two cities","authors":"Xiaowen Wang, K. Ahrens, Chu-Ren Huang","doi":"10.1515/ip-2022-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On the basis of Mey’s Pragmatic Act Theory, this paper investigates the cross-cultural and cross-language variations in the pragmemes to call for social distancing in public health campaigns to combat COVID-19. We compare the officially released posters calling for social distancing in English and Chinese in two neighboring cities with distinctive socio-cultural contexts – Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Our main findings are: (1) Guangzhou takes one pragmeme to suit a short illocution-perlocution distance in calling for social distancing – “admonition,” and Hong Kong takes two pragmemes to meet a larger illocution-perlocution distance – “recommendation” and “reminder”; (2) Cross-cultural differences between the two cities are manifested in the individuated pragmatic acts of the pragmemes in both propositional contents and metapragmatic co-construction of personal references, polarity, modality, and mood; and (3) In both cities, cross-language differences can be observed in the propositional and metapragmatic dimensions of pragmatic acts, with the English posters bearing a weaker sense of addressee obligation than the Chinese. Adding the new angle of illocution-perlocution distance, our rethinking of the illocution versus perlocution dichotomy in pragmemes leads to an elaboration of the classical perlocution formula proposed by Austin in 1962.","PeriodicalId":13669,"journal":{"name":"Intercultural Pragmatics","volume":"19 1","pages":"1 - 33"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intercultural Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2022-0001","RegionNum":2,"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: 1

Abstract

Abstract On the basis of Mey’s Pragmatic Act Theory, this paper investigates the cross-cultural and cross-language variations in the pragmemes to call for social distancing in public health campaigns to combat COVID-19. We compare the officially released posters calling for social distancing in English and Chinese in two neighboring cities with distinctive socio-cultural contexts – Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Our main findings are: (1) Guangzhou takes one pragmeme to suit a short illocution-perlocution distance in calling for social distancing – “admonition,” and Hong Kong takes two pragmemes to meet a larger illocution-perlocution distance – “recommendation” and “reminder”; (2) Cross-cultural differences between the two cities are manifested in the individuated pragmatic acts of the pragmemes in both propositional contents and metapragmatic co-construction of personal references, polarity, modality, and mood; and (3) In both cities, cross-language differences can be observed in the propositional and metapragmatic dimensions of pragmatic acts, with the English posters bearing a weaker sense of addressee obligation than the Chinese. Adding the new angle of illocution-perlocution distance, our rethinking of the illocution versus perlocution dichotomy in pragmemes leads to an elaboration of the classical perlocution formula proposed by Austin in 1962.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
言外和言后之间的距离:两个城市呼吁保持社交距离的不同做法的故事
摘要本文以Mey的语用行为理论为基础,研究了在抗击COVID-19的公共卫生运动中呼吁保持社会距离的语用语的跨文化和跨语言变化。我们比较了广州和香港这两个具有独特社会文化背景的邻近城市官方发布的中英文呼吁保持社交距离的海报。研究发现:(1)广州在呼吁保持社会距离方面采用1个语用模“告诫”,而香港在呼吁保持社会距离方面采用2个语用模“推荐”和“提醒”;(2)两市的跨文化差异表现在语用模的个性化语用行为上,既表现在命题内容上,也表现在个人指称、极性、情态和语气的元语用共构上;(3)两个城市在语用行为的命题和元语用维度上存在跨语言差异,英语海报的收件人义务意识弱于中文海报。通过对语用模中言-行距离的重新思考,我们对奥斯汀1962年提出的经典语用公式进行了阐述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
36.40%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Intercultural Pragmatics is a fully peer-reviewed forum for theoretical and applied pragmatics research. The goal of the journal is to promote the development and understanding of pragmatic theory and intercultural competence by publishing research that focuses on general theoretical issues, more than one language and culture, or varieties of one language. Intercultural Pragmatics encourages ‘interculturality’ both within the discipline and in pragmatic research. It supports interaction and scholarly debate between researchers representing different subfields of pragmatics including the linguistic, cognitive, social, and interlanguage paradigms. The intercultural perspective is relevant not only to each line of research within pragmatics but also extends to several other disciplines such as anthropology, theoretical and applied linguistics, psychology, communication, sociolinguistics, second language acquisition, and bi- and multilingualism. Intercultural Pragmatics makes a special effort to cross disciplinary boundaries. What we primarily look for is innovative approaches and ideas that do not always fit into existing paradigms, and lead to new ways of thinking about language. Intercultural Pragmatics has always encouraged the publication of theoretical papers including linguistic and philosophical pragmatics that are very important for research in intercultural pragmatics.
期刊最新文献
“You’re such an idiot, but I’m only joking”: The perception of mock impoliteness by British and Italian men and women Self-translations in multilingual workplace interaction Facing differences in conceptualizing “Face” in everyday interacting Interculturality and decision making: Pursuing jointness in online teams Autistic children and control children use similar strategies when answering false belief questions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1