比例原则

IF 0.3 Q4 LINGUISTICS Chinese Language and Discourse Pub Date : 2020-06-03 DOI:10.1075/CLD.20004.ZHO
Yan Zhou
{"title":"比例原则","authors":"Yan Zhou","doi":"10.1075/CLD.20004.ZHO","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In Mandarin conversation, utterances about future actions with severe consequences are observed to\n correlate with bigger promises, marked by devices indicating greater illocutionary force, as compared with\n those about actions with less serious consequences. Applying the principle of proportionality proposed by\n Goffman (1971), I argue that participants’ design of\n promise is proportional to the severity of the action consequences, which is evaluated by the participants on\n a moment-by-moment basis. The ad hoc construction of promises shows that promising is a dynamic process,\n rather than a one-time action. The proportionality principle may also account for the differences between\n promises in institutional discourse and ordinary conversation.","PeriodicalId":42144,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Language and Discourse","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The principle of proportionality\",\"authors\":\"Yan Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/CLD.20004.ZHO\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In Mandarin conversation, utterances about future actions with severe consequences are observed to\\n correlate with bigger promises, marked by devices indicating greater illocutionary force, as compared with\\n those about actions with less serious consequences. Applying the principle of proportionality proposed by\\n Goffman (1971), I argue that participants’ design of\\n promise is proportional to the severity of the action consequences, which is evaluated by the participants on\\n a moment-by-moment basis. The ad hoc construction of promises shows that promising is a dynamic process,\\n rather than a one-time action. The proportionality principle may also account for the differences between\\n promises in institutional discourse and ordinary conversation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42144,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Language and Discourse\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Language and Discourse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/CLD.20004.ZHO\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Language and Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CLD.20004.ZHO","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

在普通话会话中,与后果不太严重的行为相比,有关后果严重的未来行为的话语与更大的承诺相关,用指示更大的言外力量的装置来标记。运用Goffman(1971)提出的比例原则,我认为参与者对承诺的设计与行为后果的严重程度成正比,行为后果由参与者在每一刻的基础上进行评估。承诺的临时结构表明承诺是一个动态的过程,而不是一次性的行动。比例原则也可以解释制度话语中的承诺与日常对话中的承诺之间的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The principle of proportionality
In Mandarin conversation, utterances about future actions with severe consequences are observed to correlate with bigger promises, marked by devices indicating greater illocutionary force, as compared with those about actions with less serious consequences. Applying the principle of proportionality proposed by Goffman (1971), I argue that participants’ design of promise is proportional to the severity of the action consequences, which is evaluated by the participants on a moment-by-moment basis. The ad hoc construction of promises shows that promising is a dynamic process, rather than a one-time action. The proportionality principle may also account for the differences between promises in institutional discourse and ordinary conversation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
The DIG Mandarin Conversations (DMC) Corpus Colloquialism and genre variation in Chinese Review of Xiang (2021): Language, Multimodal Interaction and Transaction Review of Shi (2021): Loanwords in the Chinese language 对既存并列项的觉察与选择
×
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