《老友记》幽默言语行为研究
研究生：黄莹莹 年级：2007级 学科专业：外国语言学及应用语言学
指导老师：李冬梅 副教授 研究方向：语用学
中文摘要
幽默作为一种语言现象，普遍存在于人们的日常生活中，对幽默的研究也是仁者见仁，智者见智。本文以言语行为理论为视角，以美国最受欢迎的情景喜剧《老友记》为个案研究对象，对《老友记》中所有幽默言语行为进行统计归类分析，旨在探讨《老友记》主要采用何种方式实施其幽默言语行为及其背后的深层原因，从新的视角解读美式幽默。
本研究在阐述J.Austin的言语行为理论和J.K.Searle对言外行为分类的贡献及不足之处的基础上，将幽默视为一种以言致笑的言语行为，放在Mey（2003）所提出的考虑到交际者、语境等多种因素在内的语用行为的层面来讨论。研究通过对《老友记》语料的收集统计，从更宏观的角度来分析英语幽默言语行为实施的方式手段和原因，而不仅仅局限于将幽默言语行为按照其所包含的指事动词归入言外行为的几大分类中。因为有研究表明，并未包含指事动词的一些言语行为也能实施其幽默致笑的言外之力。幽默言语行为如何实施其致笑的言外之力是整个研究的重点。
作者根据背景笑声，从总共234集情景喜剧《老友记》的剧本中把所有幽默言语抽取出来，一共采集到2980个话轮，随后对这2980个话轮进行一一分析得出4541句幽默言语。根据谭达人（1997）的观点，人的言语活动大约受制于语言律、修辞律、逻辑律和交际律四种规律，幽默言语也不例外。修辞通常有特定的表达方式，是对语言成分的巧妙利用以求语言表达生动有趣，因此修辞手法也应看做是一种语言手段。以此为依据，对4541句幽默言语进行分类。为避免重复统计，也为突出研究重心，在分类过程中，作者优先考虑其所运用的语言手段，包括英语语音语调词汇语义修辞层面的手段，再进一步分析各个层面下的主要特征表现；若无特别明显的语言手段的运用，则从逻辑规则或交际规则去判断归类，从而得出《老友记》幽默言语行为主要是通过何种方式成功实施其致笑的言外之力，为进一步讨论运用这些方式的原因做好铺垫。
研究数据表明《老友记》中幽默言语行为的成功实施一方面主要依靠幽默行为的实施者在交际过程中有意地采用一些语言手段，违背一些逻辑规则或交际规则，另一方面也需要幽默的理解者即观众具备一定的文化背景知识，最终才能达到幽默言语的言外之力---致笑。其中，语言手段的运用达到82.4%，突出表现为语音层面的语调、语气变化，语音模仿及语音模糊；词汇层面的创造新词和词汇语义模糊；语义层面的句子语义模糊和语义
转折；修辞层面的28种修辞手法的运用，以反语、委婉、比喻、夸张和移用最为突出。逻辑规则的运用占到9.1%，主要体现在违背正常逻辑规则的诡辩；而交际规则的运用占8.5%，集中体现在对关联原则的违背。另外，作者对所有有效语料进行统计的过程中发现，观众除了根据情景喜剧的背景剧情能正确体会到幽默之处外，有168处，约占总数4%的幽默言语行为是需要观众具备特定的历史、地理、宗教、社会风俗等文化知识才能真正理解的。作者对以上的统计结果都运用了《老友记》中大量生动的例子加以阐述说明。在第五章中作者探讨了《老友记》幽默言语行为实施采用上述手段的主要原因，包括英语语言文字语音语调字形语义的特点及这些特点对英美人思维模式的影响；植根于其语言背后的西方幽默价值观及人性价值观对其修辞手法运用的影响；《老友记》优秀剧本创作的影响等，对幽默言语行为的实施方式或手段具有一定的解释力。
本文研究所得结论虽仅限于《老友记》这一个案，但从中我们不难窥见英语幽默言语行为的表达特征。本研究对英语教学和跨文化交际有一定的启示作用。
关键词：幽默； 言语行为； 《老友记》； 语言手段
A Study of Humorous Speech Acts in Friends Postgraduate: Huang Yingying Grade:2007 Supervisor: Associate Professor. Li Dongmei Major Field of Study: Foreign Linguistics & Applied Linguistics Orientation: Pragmatics
Abstract in English
Humor, as a linguistic phenomenon, exists everywhere in people’s daily life. Different people have different ways for the research of humor. From the perspective of speech act, with the collection and statistics of all verbal humor in the most popular American sitcom Friends, the thesis aims to explore the main means adopted by this comedy to perform its humorous speech acts as well as the deep-rooted reasons accounting for these means so as to appreciate the typical American humor from a new angle.
After discussing the contributions and limitations of J. Austin’s Speech Act Theory and J.K. Searle’s classifications of illocutionary acts, the thesis regards humor as an eliciting-laughter speech act and tries to discuss humor in the respect of pragmatic act which is proposed by Mey (2003) to take interactants, context and other factors into consideration. Based on the collection and classification of the corpus,the study on the performative means and the main reasons of English humorous speech acts is from a more macroscopic angle, rather than categorizing these humorous speech acts according to their speech act verbs, because some researches have demonstrated that some speech acts can also perform their corresponding illocutionary force without the help of speech act verbs. Hence, the present study focuses on how humorous speech acts perform their illocutionary force of eliciting laughter.
According to the background audience’s laughter recorded in soundtrack in the videodisks, the present author picks out all verbal humor from 234 episodes of this comedy, amounting to 2980 conversational turns with total 4541 items of humorous utterances. Tan Daren (1997) states that human speech acts activities are mainly restricted by four rules: linguistic rules, rhetoric rules, logical rules and communicative rules, so are humorous speech acts. Rhetoric can be treated as a linguistic means which serves the vivid and interesting expressions by making use of linguistic elements. Based on Tan Daren’s framework, the author classified the 4541 humorous utterances. In order to avoid repeating counting and highlight the focus of the study, the present author gives the first priority to analyze linguistic means adopted mainly including the English phonological, lexical, semantic and rhetorical means, and then makes a further study on the main characteristics under every means. Those humorous utterances without evident employment of linguistic means are processed in the respect of logical rules or communicative rules. Therefore,
the results can be generated to show how humorous speech acts in Friends perform the illocutionary force of eliciting laughter, which paves the way for discussing the deep reasons.
The results of the study show that the successful performance of humorous speech acts in Friends rests a lot with the co-effects of the humorist (humor producer) who intentionally uses certain linguistic means or violates some logical or communicative rules in the process of communication, and the interpreter (audience) who should be equipped with relevant cultural background knowledge. It is worth pointing out that the quantities of linguistic means adopted account for 82.4% characterized by phonological means including intonation, tone, phonological mocking and phonological ambiguity, lexical means including neologism and lexical ambiguity, semantic means including semantic ambiguity and semantic turn, 28 rhetorical devices including irony, euphemism, metaphor, hyperbole, transferred wording and so forth. The employment of logical rules and communicative rules account for 9.1% and 8.5% respectively characterized by sophistry and violence of the relevance rule respectively. In addition, it is found that apart from the knowledge about background plots of this comedy, there are 168 items of humorous speech acts accounting for about 4% calling for audience’s relevant cultural knowledge including history, geography, religion, social customs and so forth so as to interpret humorous effects successfully.
A lot of examples in Friends are cited by the present author to illustrate the results. In Chapter 5, the main reasons for the above-mentioned performative means are discussed, including the linguistic features of English as well as their influences on American way of thinking, western values rooted in English humor and their effects on the employment of rhetorical means, the playwriting of the sitcom, etc. The discussion of reasons has an explanatory force for the performative means of humorous speech acts.
Although the research result is just limited to the case of Friends, from which we can appreciate the characteristics of English humorous speech acts. The research may provide implications to English teaching and learning as well as cross-cultural communication.
Key words: Humor； Speech act；Friends； Linguistic means
Contents
Abstract in Chinese (i)
Abstract in English (iii)
Chapter 1 Introduction (1)
1.1Objective and Significance of the Research (1)
1.2A General Introduction to the Corpus (2)
1.3The Overall Structure of the Thesis (3)
Chapter 2 Literature Review (4)
2.1Humor Studies Abroad (4)
2.2Humor Studies at Home (5)
2.3Humor Studies on Friends (6)
2.4 Summary (7)
Chapter 3 Research Methodology (8)
3.1 Theoretical Framework (8)
3.1.1 Speech Act Theory (8)
3.1.2 Definition of Humorous Speech Act (12)
3.1.3 Classification of Humorous Speech Act (14)
3.2 Research Questions (15)
3.3 Research Design (15)
Chapter 4 Analysis on Humorous Speech Acts in Friends (17)
4.1 Humor Achieved by Linguistic Means (18)
4.1.1 Phonological Means (19)
4.1. 2 Lexical Means (24)
4.1. 3 Semantic Means (27)
4.1. 4 Rhetorical Means (29)
4. 2 Humor Achieved by Breaking Logical Rules (40)
4. 3 Humor Achieved by Communicative Rules (41)
4. 4 Humor Affected by Cultural Context (42)
4. 5 Summary (44)
Chapter5 Reflections on the Major Findings (45)
5.1 Linguistic Feature of English Humor (45)
5.1.1 Phonetic Feature of English Humor (45)
5.1.2 Alphabetical Feature of English Humor (46)
5.1.3 Semantic Feature of English Humor (47)
5.2 Western Values Rooted in Humorous Speech Acts (48)
5.3 Excellent Playwriting of the Comedy (50)
Chapter 6 Implications of the Present Study (52)
6.1 Implication to Teaching and Learning (52)
6.2 Implication to Cross-Cultural Communication (53)
6.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research (53)
Chapter 7 Conclusion (55)
Bibliography (56)
Publications During the Postgraduate Program (60)
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1 Introduction
Humor, as an important means of human communication can be easily found in daily conversations, films, televisions, books, magazines, and newspapers. Humor not only makes people feel relaxed and cheerful, but also helps smooth social relations, cultivate friendly atmosphere and deal with embarrassing situations in communication. It is safe to say humor which contains human’s rich intelligence and emotion plays an important role in all cultures. Therefore, researchers and scholars from various fields, such as linguistics, sociology, psychology, philosophy, etc. have attached great importance to the study of humor phenomena, such as the research on the generation, understanding as well as the application of humor from different perspectives. The development of semantics, pragmatics and cultural linguistics in recent years provides a broader view and a new angle for the further study of humor. However, for most language learners, there are still some obstacles in understanding and appreciating some humor, which hinders the learners’ interest in language learning and effective study.
1.1 Objective and Significance of the Research
The present study is an attempt to study humor from Speech Act perspective. In this sense, the thesis aims at exploring by what means the humorous speech acts can be achieved with a statistic analysis on the most popular American sitcom Friends. It takes the author four months to collect and process the whole data, trying to categorize all these humorous speech acts in Friends in some respects and explore the deep reasons for its humorous effect.
The significances of the study can be summarized as follows:
First, to a certain extent, it broadens the scope of study on humorous speech acts in Friends. Although the present study analyzes humor from the Speech Act perspective, it isn’t confined to Austin’s three kinds of speech acts or Searle’s five basic categories of illocutionary acts. The author conducts the study from a more macroscopic point of view by analyzing what linguistics means or relying on what other conditions these speech acts in Friends can achieve the illocutionary force of humor.
Second, it may provide a new angle for the comprehension and appreciation of English humor and be helpful for English teaching and learning. The rapid development of globalization asks for more and more effective communication among people from different countries and cultures. Solely mastering the basic vocabulary and some grammatical rules of a foreign language can no longer achieve successful and effective interpersonal communication. Sometimes the lack of relevant cultural knowledge may lead to misunderstanding and communication failure. Humor, as a useful tool in communication, is worth studying. The
present study could possibly make a better interpretation and appreciation of English humor through analyzing humorous utterances of the typical American sitcom Friends. It is expected to give new insights to the study of humor and expand its explanatory power to the study of cross-cultural communication. Moreover, with regard to English teaching and learning, humor is of great value. Teachers with good interpretation and appreciation of English humor can employ humor in English classes which may stimulate students’ interest and passion in English learning. This also meets the improvement and modernization of the pedagogy in English teaching.
1.2 A General Introduction of the Corpus
In September of 1994, a TV show named Friends appeared on NBC prime time programs. Nobody could imagine this sitcom would create such a brilliant success. It was popular among over 120 countries and translated into more than 20 languages with 60 million loyal fans all around the world including the prime minister of British, Margaret Thatcher. It was a miracle on the American television history. According to the statistics of American largest and the most authoritative media research Nielson Company, since its debut season, Friends had been the high ten top television ratings from 1994 to 2004. Although the curtains of Friends had fallen, its charm is still lasting which attracts millions of audience every year. The outstanding brilliance of Friends lies on its amazing stories, wonderful performances of casts to shape those vivid characters and its remarkable conversational language. It tells a story about six young people’s friendship involving their life, work experience and their love affairs. The six main characters are three women (Monica, Rachel and Phoebe) and three men (Ross, Chandler and Joey) who often hung out at the corner coffee shop of Centra Park or their apartments. Through their amusing conversations, perfect body language as well as a series of attractive plots, the contemporary life of American youths are presented authentically and vividly. This show continues to widespread its influence and maintains its prolonged enchantment.
As mentioned above, Friends is a great success in sitcom which relies to a large extent on its amusing language; hence, it is a good source for corpus which is the main reason the author selects it for the study. Situation comedy originated from broadcast comedy, so it is an art of language in nature. Even without watching the TV screen, audience can also learn the general content of the story and appreciate its humor by listening. As ‘language comedy’, the whole sitcom is based on its humorous utterances, complemented by casts’ perfect body language and the ingenious design of plots. The screenwriters exploit the resources of English at all levels to depict the characteristics of six friends through the widespread use of humorous, amusing, witty and punning language, which enhances the amusement of the comedy, leaves viewers a profound impression of their wit and reflects a special style of American humor to the world. Besides
loaded with rich humorous language in Friends, we can still find that it represents American culture rooting in their language, their attitudes towards friendship, family, work, marriage and their pursuit of ‘the American Dream’ in their daily life. If you want to be acquainted with American culture, to learn American English or relax yourself, watching Friends will be a good choice. Quite a lot of schools in China at present have adopted Friends as their teaching materials for American culture and American oral English learning, some even offer courses in learning Friends’ language. Millions of Friends’ fans discuss all aspects of Friends in hundreds of BBS. The media researcher Jean Baudrillard ever pointed out that on one hand, American life dissolves the TV show; on the other hand, the TV show mixes with the American life together. Friends is like a picture scroll presenting American daily life which has gradually become an essential part of Americans’ even global audiences’ life. Language and culture are inseparable, the former rooting in and reflecting the latter while the latter containing and affecting the former. The study focuses on the humorous language in Friends which is closely related with American culture that may be worth studying meanwhile. To sum up, the success of the sitcom all over the world, its outstanding and plentiful humorous language and its typical reflection of American culture are the main reasons to be chosen as the corpus for the present study.
1.3 The Overall Structure of the Thesis
The whole thesis consists of seven chapters. Chapter 1 serves as an introduction, which describes the objective and significance of the study, and a general introduction to the corpus. Chapter 2 is the literature review including the previous studies of humor both home and abroad as well as the relevant studies on Friends. Chapter 3 covers the theoretical background of the study, the description of research questions and research design. In Chapter 4, a corpus-based study is presented to analyze English humor from speech act perspective. Chapter 5 discusses reasons for major findings of the study. Chapter 6 discusses the implications to foreign language teaching and learning as well as the cross-cultural communication, explores the limitations of the study and provides some suggestions for further research. Chapter 7, as usual, is the conclusion of the thesis.
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Humor Studies Abroad
When it comes to the overview of humor studies abroad, it is worth pointing out that the modern research of humor has got into a multi-disciplined field based on the three classic theories dating back to the times of Plato and Aristotle: the superiority theory, the incongruity and the release theory. Especially with the rapid development of semantics, pragmatics, cognitive linguistics and other disciplines in recent years, the studies of humor have attracted more and more scholars from different areas, such as anthropology, psychology, aesthetics, linguistics, philosophy, sociology, semiology and so on to get more thriving and prosperous results in this respect. After a survey of these results distributed in the academic editions or relevant journals, the researches of humor abroad can be categorized as follows:
The Research Concerning the Production of Humor
Attardo(1990,1993) elaborates the production of humor by violation of Grice’s conversational maxims and cooperation in jokes. Raskin(1979,1985) tries to explore the generation mechanisms of humor from the perspective of semantics. Hancher(1980) explains the triggers of jokes according to the Speech Act Theory. Ritchie(1999,2001,2004) studies the humor elicitation from the angle of computation.
The Research Concerning the Interpretation of Humor
Raskin(1979,1985) establishes semantic-script theory of humor(SSTH) which maintains that all humor involves a semantic-pragmatic process although some humor involves a phonological, morphological, syntactic aspect as well. Grice(1989) points out that the SSTH included a semantic opposition between the scripts activated by a text and a violation of the maxims of the principle of cooperation. Attardo and Raskin (1991) revise the script theory, establish a model for job similarity and joke representation, and develop the SSTH into a linguistic humor-theoretical framework which is known as General Theory of Verbal Humor, say GTVH and helpful for the interpretation of some comparatively long humorous discourse. Schultz (1976), Giora (1991) and Geert & Kurt (2003) probe into humor analysis from the cognitive angle. It is enough to note that Geert and Kurt, unlike those previous research in cognitive semantics focusing on various mechanisms of ‘dynamic’ meaning construction, conducts the study to include the largely under franchised topic of humor in the cognitive paradigm. They explore many construal operations in cognitive linguistics including metonymy, conceptual metaphor, Conceptual Integration Theory, figure, background, etc. with respect to their functionality in the process of humor interpretation and give new insights to the study of humor. Curco(1997) and Yus(2003) apply the Relevance Theoretic Approach into the pragmatic
interpretation of humor. Attardo(2001b, 2000), Gibbs(2000) and Kotthoff (2003) are concerned with the rhetoric function in humor which focus on the main rhetorical device of irony. Kotthoff uses the audience-side approaches to study the reception of irony which is a relatively novel approach in humor research with the data showing that the audience’s reaction to irony are often, if not always, non-ironical, whereas, Gibbs’ data shows that speakers engage at times in deferred turns of ironical banter. Other scholars, like Davies(2003), Gasquet-Cyrus(2002) and Hymes(1972) discuss the social function and communicative competence across cultures of humor from the socio-linguistic aspect.
The Research Concerning the Application of Humor
Hay (2000) and Holmes (2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2001, 2002) examine the functions of humor between different genders in social interaction in the workplace. After the discourse analysis and quantitative analyses, Holmes, for instance, gets the result that ‘the overall amount of humor produced by the women is greater than that produced by the men’(P.93), which is opposite to many stereotypes out of surprise and encourages more people to make further research. Kenneth (2006) discusses the relationship between story-telling, learning and humor and tries to find out their common ground in a medicine setting. In his book, he examines some new methods to alter behaviors and tell stories in medical practice. At the same time, he points out some areas which need further exploring. It is a good example of humor research in the medicine field. Dimmer, Sharon A., Carrol, James L., and Wyatt, Gwen K. (1990) analyze the effect of humorous language in psychological analysis. Francis (1994) investigates the function of humorous language which is considered as a means of affection management in social communication. Rania (2008) adopts ethnography of communication approach to study humor and disagreement across cultures. The data reflects that the use of teasing and disagreement as educational tools rather than conflict indicators and the implementation of these tools can maintain a strong relationship, raise cultural awareness, and gain knowledge of the world. Therefore, the result of the study can be applied to the L2 teaching settings where students should be encouraged to communicate their ideas freely without any limitations (Rania, 2008).
2.2 Humor Studies at Home
The studies of humor in China, in the past two decades can also be categorized into the following three parts.
The Research Concerning the Production of Humor
Tan Daren(1997) makes a classification of humor and discusses the production of humor from four aspects including linguistic rules, rhetoric rules, logical rules and communicative rules by employing a great number of humorous examples. Gao Shenglin(2006) believes that humor is
a rhetorical phenomenon, and it should be studied in the field of rhetoric. Hence, he concentrates on analyzing the structural model of humorous formation from the rhetorical point of view, and many kinds of rhetorical devices can be found in specific explanations in his book. Huang Guochun (2004) and Li Yan (2007) study humor with the adoption of a series of pragmatic principles: presupposition, CP, deixis, PP, etc. and try to analyze the process of humorous generation. Fang Chuanyu &Wang Meng (2007) and Jiang Chengsheng & Liao Ding (2005) analyze some concrete humorous utterances in perspective of some pragmatic motivations and strategies. Li Jie &Xiao Zhuqiang (2005),and Wang Muqun &Li Xiangmin (2007) conduct the study to investigate the characteristics of humorous language such as the vagueness, the fallacy that can generate humorous effect. Huang Wei (2005) discusses the expression of ‘funny ha-ha’ and ‘funny Strange’ under the incongruity theory.
The Research Concerning the Interpretation of Humor
Zhu Ziyi (1991) perceives humor as a culture of laughter, and tries to appreciate and describe humor from the cultural angle. Similarly, Li Jinxi (2007) probes into the analysis of English humorous language in a cross-cultural context, and suggests that the cross-cultural characteristics should be emphasized during humor interpretation. Zhang Chunping (2005), Wang Wenbin &Lin Bo (2003), Huang Birong (2007), and Wang Yan (2005) choose the Relevance Theory to expound how to understand humor successfully. Among them, Wang Wenbin &Lin Bo (2003) propose the combination of Relevance Theory and Cognitive Blending Theory and provide a cognitive pragmatic working model to explain humor. Huang Birong (2007) poses a novel term---‘Garden Path Phenomena’ which refers to the psychological process of humorous interpretation---from the maximum relevance at the first phase to the optimal relevance between the language and the context. Jiang Jingyang (2006) interprets humor in the aspect of abduction. Xiong Xueliang (2007) examines the relationship between cognitive effort and cognitive effect in the process of interpreting humor.
The Research Concerning the Application of Humor
Lv Linqiong (2006) and Chen Guojuan (2006) elaborate the application of humorous language in foreign language teaching and learning so as to animate the learning atmosphere, arouse students’ interests and promote the interaction of teaching and learning. Hu Liukun (2007), Xie Xuhui (2004) and Wang Yizhi (2007) explain the functions of humorous language employed in the dialogue of films and some Chinese comic short sketches.
2.3 Humor Studies on Friends
As to humor studies on Friends, the research has been conducted from the following aspects. From the perspective of pragmatics, most papers aim to explore the production and interpretation
of humor by violating Cooperative Principles and Relevance Theory (Yao Fenghua, 2007; Liu Fang, 2008). Zhou Xiaoli (2005) adopts the approach of discourse analysis to discuss the humorous language in Friends. Liu Bo (2005) makes a classification of humor in Friends according to Searle’s five categories of illocutionary acts and analyzes the corresponding pragmatic policies employed. Wang Weiqing (2006) and Wang Zhiping (2008) focus on elaborating the comparison of Chinese and English humor from the aspects of language and culture based on the case analysis of Friends. Tong Juan (2006) examines the characteristics of humor language in Friends from the angle of functional grammar.
2.4 Summary
The above overview of relevant researches shows that scholars both at home and abroad have done a lot of rewarding work on the study of humor. Because the word ‘humor’ originates from abroad, humor studies abroad have developed into a large scale with a great number of research papers and journals on humor being found. Compared to the studies at home, the researches concerning the application of humor have been expanded into more fields including the teaching-learning settings, workplaces, medicine field, etc. with the support of empirical data. Meanwhile, humor studies at home have become more active due to the development of cross-cultural communication. The number of papers in this field of study has increased steadily, but most of the researches on humor language tend to concentrate on the microscopic descriptive analysis based on some existing pragmatic theories including deixis, presupposition, Cooperative Principles and Politeness Principles. It reminds the present author that the production or interpretation of humor does not solely rely on such pragmatic principles. There are many humorous cases that affected by other factors such as context, gestures, facial expressions, emotions, etc. Therefore, on the basis of a closed corpus for Friends, a more macroscopic study can be conducted to explore the mechanism of humor generation. The present author chooses to start from the perspective of speech act because humor is a typical speech act aiming at eliciting laughter and amusing people. Its successful performance of the illocutionary force of laughter- eliciting may involve many means or factors, the study of which serves the objective of the present study.
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
3.1 Theoretical Framework
3.1.1 Speech Act Theory
The present study regards humor as a speech act, so the introduction of relevant theories in this aspect is necessary.
(1) Speech Act Theory (SAT)
Speech Act Theory is the first major theory in pragmatics which is designed to answer how to say something is to do something and demonstrates the linguistic concept of ‘doing things with language’. The theory was initially proposed at the end of 1950s and had a great impact on the development of linguistics in the following 20 or 30 years. J.L.Austin, the British philosopher, was the originator of SAT. Before Austin, philosophers tend to assume that a statement has only two functions: one is describing some state of affairs, the other stating some fact which can be tested for its truth or falsity. All that the philosophers concern is the verifiability of statements, say, how to verify if a statement is true or false and how to stipulate the necessary conditions for a true statement. Austin, although as a philosopher, had his doubts about the traditional view on language research in philosophy. He believes that most statements are pseudo-statements not or partially aiming at narrating or delivering some information (Austin, 2002:1). Thus, Austin firstly made a distinction between constatives and performatives. Constatives can be either true or false while performatives, no need to verify truth or falsity in nature, are used to perform acts. That is to say, uttering some words like ‘I promise…’, ‘I warn…’, ‘I apologize…’, ‘I welcome…’ can perform the act of ‘promise’, ‘threat’, ‘apology’, ‘welcome’, respectively. More specific labels, such as complaint, compliment, request, invitation and so on are fully explained in his book ‘How to Do Things with Words’. Uttering words to perform acts that may cause a change in the existing state of affairs are generally called speech acts. In order to produce an appropriate performative via utterance, Austin suggested three happiness conditions. First, the speaker must have the corresponding condition to perform the action; second, the speaker should be sincere to the action he or she is to perform; third, the speaker shouldn’t go back on his or her words. Austin also made effort in finding a ‘grammatical criterion, vocabulary criterion or grammatical-vocabulary criterion’ to clearly distinguish performatives from constatives. However, in the discussion of these conditions and cretiria, Austin gradually realized that it was not really useful and reliable to seperate performatives from constatives and constatives, virtually are a kind of performatives which also perform the act of ‘stating’. This paves the way for a new theory---Austin’s three kinds of speech acts.
ⅰ
() Locutionary act: the act of saying in itself including the utterance of certain phonetics,
syllables, words, phrases, sentences, etc.
ⅱ
() Illocutionary act: performing an act such as giving information or a warning, answering a verdict, expressing a greeting, sending out an invitation or an order, making a compliment or a criticism, asking or answering questions and so on by means of ‘saying’. In this sense, to say something is to do something and the act performed is known as the illocutionary act which is contained in locutionary act.
ⅲ
() Perlocutionary act: the effects or consequences brought or achieved by saying something. For instance, though the act of utterances, the hearer, the speaker or relevant parties are persuaded, threatened, warned, convinced or misled to do something.
In his Speech Act Theory, Austin laid emphasis on illocutionary acts which the pragmatics are most interested in because they are consistent with the speaker’s intention. It is the core issue in the study of language communication that how the speaker uses appropriate utterances to express his/her intention and how the hearer interprets what the speaker says successfully and correctly. As a result, Austin made a five-item classification of illocutionary acts: verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behavitives and expositives according to so-called performative verbs (e.g. assess, order, warn, promise, apologize). Apparently, his classification is neither scientific nor systematic, so it is not widely accepted. But it is no doubt that Austin’s exploration places a foundation for the following study. Austin’s student, the American linguist John Searle has made some revision and extension to Austin’s theory.
Based on Austin’s classification of illocutionary acts, Searle establishes his own system of categories according to a clear criterion from 12 aspects to distinguish different speech acts. Among them, three major aspects are worth mentioning: illocutionary point, direction of fit and expressed psychological state. Illocutionary point, at its base, is illocutionary force in nature referring to the speaker’s real intention by saying something. It can be demonstrated or indicated by some language means, in English, such as the order of words, stress, intonation, tone, punctuation, performative verbs and so on. Direction of fit refers to the consequential results brought by the illocutionary point, namely, the relationship between words and world. Some illocutionary acts get the speaker’s words match the world and some others otherwise. Expressed psychological state refers to the speaker’s attitude and psychological state to the propositional content of a dialogue when he/she performs an illoctionary act. The above three aspects are the bases for Searle’s classification of illocutionary acts:
ⅰ
() Representatives: those kinds of speech acts that state the speaker believes the truth of the expressed proposition. The direction of fit is words to world, and the expressed psychological state is belief. Statements of fact, assertions, conclusions, and descriptions are all examples of the speaking representing the world as he/she believes it is (Yule, 2006:53). The most frequent
representatives verbs in English may include: state, assert, claim, etc.
ⅱspeaker uses to get the hearer to do () Directives: those kinds of speech acts that the
something. The direction of fit is world to words, and the expressed psychological state is wish or desire. They have the evident force to express what the speaker wants with a series of directives verbs: request, beg, advise, invite, suggest, insist, order, demand, etc. The real purpose of directives can be regarded as a special order which requests the hearer to give the answers.
ⅲ
() Commissives: those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to commit themselves to some future course of action. The direction of fit is world to words, and the expressed psychological state is intention, say, what the speaker intends. They are promises, refusals, pledges and threats with commissives verbs such as promise, undertake, vow, refuse, threaten, offer, etc.
ⅳs: those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker feels or express the () Expressive
speaker’s psychological state about something indicated in the propositional content. There is no direction of fit in expressives because the speaker is neither trying to change the world by words, nor get his/her words to match the world. The truth in propositional content is the presupposition of expressive acts. Expressives verbs are: apologize, congratulate, thank, sympathize, condole, welcome, boast, etc.
ⅴ
() Declarations: those kinds of speech acts that get the world to be in line with the expressed propositional content, namely, change the world via words. Therefore, the direction of fit is world to words. In order to perform a declaration appropriately, the speaker has to have a special institutional role, in a specific context which always involves some customs or a set of non-linguistic rules.
(2) Pragmatic Act Theory
Mey (2003), in his book ‘Pragmatics: An Introduction’, has discussed speech acts from the perspective of pragmatic acts. He makes a systematic introduction of the process of J. Austin’s and J.K. Searle’s speech act theories including the proposal, development and codification of these theories. Meanwhile, Mey analyzes Austin’s distinction between performatives and constatives, and elaborates on Searle’s indirect speech theory and his classification of illocutionary acts. Mey holds that there are some weaknesses in Austin’s system and Searle’s classification schema. For instance, the definitions of speech acts that Austin provides are too wide, and both Austin and Searle operate on the ‘one sentence, one case principle’; that is to say, in order to illustrate their theory, they use sentences that are characteristic of the ‘case’ under discussion, e.g., a particular speech act. Over the years, with the development of pragmatic linguistics, the shortcomings of the ‘case approach’ have become more and more prominent
(Mey, 2003:125). However, it is worth noticing that the importance of Austin’s discovery, that language is an instrument of action, not just of speaking, has not diminished overtime (Mey, 2003:124). He also emphasizes that the interest of linguists and philosophers should center on those illocutionary aspects of language use, rather than on the somewhat dubious distinction between locutionary and illocutionary acts (Mey, 2003:125). Based on these discussions, Mey reminds that the context in which a speech act is made is of the utmost importance for its corresponding status of the speech act and for its binding effects; therefore, serious attention should be paid to contextual condition when we describe various speech acts and people’s use of language. Then a wider and more macroscopic view about speech act has been put forward in Mey’s book, namely pragmatic acts which Mey defines as ‘While speech acts, when uttered in contexts, are pragmatic acts, pragmatic acts need not be speech acts’ (Mey, 2003:216). He believes that speech acts as well as all those communication activities which adapts oneself to the context or make the context adapt to oneself can be generally included in the scope of pragmatic acts. These pragmatic acts include speech acts, indirect speech acts, conversational acts, emotional expression acts, even the silent acts. Speech acts are usually realized in a certain kind, such as teaching, inviting, visiting a doctor’s office, participating in a tea-ceremony, and so on. These situations should be called speech events. In a speech event, the speech used has been presupposed, so an individual speech act makes sense only in the event which Mey calls ‘specific pragmatic act’.
(3) Implication to the Present Study
The above-mentioned Speech Act Theory and Pragmatic Act Theory both have a great influence on the present study. On one hand, Speech Act Theory proposes that to say something is to do something, and it has been widely accepted. From this point, humor is definitely a speech act because it is an action to amuse people and elicit laughter. However, Speech Act Theory limits itself to its classifications as well as its corresponding appropriate conditions. As to Searle’s classification of illocutionary acts, to some extent, is reasonable and successful although it arouses heated discussion from different scholars with approval or criticism. It is still a very influential classification widely accepted and applied by people. Many other scholars have also tried to categorize illocutionary acts, but their efforts are just some modifications and complements based on Searle’s classification without any breakthrough in terms of theory. However, Searle’s classification is rather general because it is hard to figure out the exact number of speech acts performed in people’s daily use, and some estimate above 1000 kinds which is much too forced to be classified into several categories and even harder to be explained clearly because we cannot guarantee each speech act matches a corresponding category.
Therefore, the present study regards humor as a speech act, but not limited to Searle’s classifications. On the other hand, Mey’s proposal of Pragmatic Act Theory brings more factors into the study of speech acts, and a pragmeme scheme is provided including two main elements: activity part (interactants) and textual part (context). It is believed that speech acts and other communication activities should be studied under the situated concept. Although Pragmatic Act Theory, in the scope of Macro-pragmatics, lacks a theoretical system with specific framework compared to Micro-pragmatics, its situated concept enlightens the present author to study how humor performs its illocutionary force as a speech act in certain context. Therefore, the theoretical foundation for the present study is that humor is a speech act and the study of humor involves contextual condition.
In conclusion, Austin and Searle have made a great contribution to the development of pragmatics, but based on their theories, we should not limit ourselves to their systems of speech acts concentrating on the speech act verbs and the standard category when studying how a speech act performs its illocutionary force. It is hard and impossible to find a unified criterion. We may reconsider it from a more macroscopic angle exploiting and underlining the important role of the context in the background of speech acts, then make a further study on other factors, conditions or rules that a speech act abide by to achieve its corresponding illocutionary force. Before analyzing humorous speech acts in Friends under the context of sitcom, the clear definition of humorous speech act will be presented in the next section.
3.1.2 Definition of Humorous Speech Act
Different people study or look at humor in different ways. As a result, no congruent or agreed-upon definition of humor has been given yet. The word ‘humor’ is believed to originate from Latin with the original meaning of ‘liquid’ or ‘fluid’. In 5th century BC, a doctor of ancient Greece discovered that there were four liquids (blood, phlegm, choler and melancholy) in our body, said to determine a person’s temperament and qualities. It still referred to ‘moisture’ or ‘the fluid of animals or plants’ in British until 1340. In 1380, humor meant four liquids of human bodies from the perspective of physiology as well as the influence of their different proportion on health, psychology and temperament. By the end of 16th century, humor referred to some special quality, tendency or hobby, especially the willful or weird temper. In 1598 and 1599, humor appeared in British famous dramatist Benjamin Johnson’s comics ‘Every Man in his Humor’ and ‘Every Man out of his Humor’(2006:2). In the comics, humor was not confined to liquid or fluid, but contained the spirit and wit of the Renaissance. It could be found in the first version of British encyclopedia in 1771 that there was no definition for humor except two notes :( 1) humor: see fluid; (2) humor: see wit. In the late 18th century, the definition of humor
in The Oxford Dictionary of English has carried with itself a modern meaning referring to the quality of behavior, communication style or the article which is amusing, funny and amical to make people laugh. Since 1880, the word ‘humor’ had been brought in French which indicates that ‘humor’ has been going global and absorbed by other cultures. In Chinese, “幽默”(you mo) is a loanword which is transliterated from ‘humor’ in English. Lin Yutang, a famous scholar, is the first one who transliterated ‘humor’ as the Chinese term “幽默”in one of his article dated May 23th, 1924. In this article, he advanced “幽默”for the first time and advocated taking it into consideration as an important factor of the literature. Actually, besides Lin Yutang, many other Chinese scholars ever had a try to translate ‘humor’ into Chinese. For instance, Zhang Shizhao translated ‘humor’ into “酉靺”, Wang Guowei “欧穆亚”, Li Qingya “语妙”, Chen Daowang “油滑”, Yi Peiji “优骂”, Zhu Guangqian “谐趣”. Lu Xun didn’t agree with Lin Yutang’s transliteration at first, but he finally accepted it because it was hard to find a 100 percent equivalent word in Chinese. With the time passing and the practice testing, “幽默”, the borrowed word has been gradually accepted by Chinese and possessed some characteristics of Chinese culture in its connotation during its intercultural process. From the above, we can see that since its emergence until now, the meaning of humor has evolved with the development of history and culture. The modern definitions of humor can be found in different dictionaries. According to the fourth edition of Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary on Page 726, humor means: (1) quality of being amusing or comic; (2) ability to appreciate things, situations or people that are comic or ability to be amused; (3) person’s state of mind; mood; temper; (4) any of the four liquids (blood, phlegm, choler, melancholy) in the body that were once thought to determine a person’s mental and physical qualities. It can be also used as a verb referring to keeping someone happy or contented by accepting or agreeing to his wishes, even if they seem unreasonable. In the sixth edition of the same dictionary on page 863, humor is ‘the quality in something that makes it funny or amusing; the ability to laugh at things that are amusing; the state of your feelings or mind at a particular time; one of the four liquids that were thought in the past to be in a person’s body and to influence health and character.’ In the Modern Chinese Dictionary of August, 2000 on page 1520, humor is something funny or amusing but with a deep and significant meaning. From the above definitions, we can see that no matter how the dictionaries are revised or modified, the meaning of humor constantly contains the basic features of funny, laughable and involves human’s psychological or cognitive experience and amusing feelings. In conclusion, in a broad sense, those that are amusing, laughable, funny or comical with an effect of a profound meaning, rich emotions, a tasteful interest or infinite pondering can be called humor. On one hand, amusing, laughable, funny or comical are the evident features of humor; on the other hand, humor, as a crystallization of wisdom and relaxation, conveys
这是六个人的故事，从不服输而又有强烈控制欲的monica，未经世事的千金大小姐rachel，正直又专情的ross，幽默风趣的chandle，古怪迷人的phoebe，花心天真的joey——六个好友之间的情路坎坷，事业成败和生活中的喜怒哀乐，无时无刻不牵动着彼此的心，而正是正平凡的点点滴滴，却成为最令人感动与留恋的东西。 人物：1、瑞秋?格林(RACHEL GREENE)由珍妮佛?安妮斯顿(Jennifer Aniston)扮演 瑞秋是莫妮卡的高中同学，在与牙医未婚夫的婚礼上脱逃至莫妮卡处。 2、罗斯?盖勒(Ross Geller)由大卫?修蒙(David Schwimmer)扮演 罗斯为莫妮卡的哥哥，于高中时即暗恋妹妹的同学瑞秋，但始终不敢表白 3、莫妮卡?盖勒(Monica Geller)由科妮寇?克斯(Courteney Cox Arquette)扮演 莫妮卡是《六人行》的中心人物，其他五人可以说就是由她延伸出来的。 4、钱德?宾(Chandler Bing)由马修?派瑞(Matthew Perry)扮演 钱德为罗斯的大学同学，因而与罗斯、莫妮卡结识甚久 5、菲比?巴费(Phoebe Buffay)由丽莎?库卓(Lisa Kudrow)扮演 菲比为莫妮卡的旧室友，后因受不了其洁癖而搬走 6、乔伊?崔比昂尼(Joey Tribbiani)由麦特?雷布兰克(Matt Le Blanc)扮演 乔伊与钱德为共租公寓的室友，自然也是莫妮卡和瑞秋的邻居 《电影手册》评价： friends是一部彻底而纯粹的通俗剧的代表，它是一部具有十足纽约风格的情景喜剧。它形成了一个自己的世界，围绕着同一个屋檐下的，6个30上下的男女拉开了故事帷幕。他们在一起，倾听彼此的烦恼和快乐，一起成长和生活，而故事的平衡点，也是最常见不过——6个单身贵族最终将组成三对情侣（此点有错误），这一对称组合加强了全剧的轻松喜剧效果。Friends为我们解析了每天的平淡生活，普通情侣的爱恋或友情体现了逐步系列剧的力量。城市文明异类温柔的疯狂，却又怀有情窦初开的少女梦想，这个从普通生活中得来的灵感。一直推动系列剧向滑稽情节发展。Friends给我们解释了什么是快乐的痛苦，再多一点，我们又会把自己幽闭在这个神奇的世界里。 【Season 1 Index】 Episode 101 : The One Where Monica Gets A New Roommate (Pilot) Episode 102 : The One With The Sonogram At The End Episode 103 : The One With The Thumb Episode 104 : The One With George Stephanopoulos Episode 105 : The One With The East German Laundry Detergent Episode 106 : The One With The Butt Episode 107 : The One With The Blackout Episode 108 : The One Where Nana Dies Twice Episode 109 : The One Where Underdog Gets Away Episode 110 : The One With The Monkey Episode 111 : The One With Mrs. Bing Episode 112 : The One With The Dozen Lasagnas Episode 113 : The One With The Boobies Episode 114 : The One With The Candy Hearts Episode 115 : The One With The Stoned Guy Episode 116 : The One With Two Parts, Part 1
戏剧《威尼斯商人》中夏洛克对白的言语行为分析 摘要：语用文体学是新兴的边缘学科。运用语用学中的重要理论言语行为理论来分析《威尼斯商人》中夏洛克的言语行为可以更加深刻地分析人物的双重性格，为读者提供了一个全新的视角，而且为文本分析提供了客观的依据。 关键词：威尼斯商人言语行为双重性格 一 Wales(1989)将“文体学”定义为对“文体的研究”，而Widdowson(1975)所理解的文体学的内涵则是“文体学是从语言学的视角来分析并将文学评论与语言学联系起来。然而，文体学从其定义上和具体使用中存在着许多不足，因此Morris 提出了语用学这一概念并同时阐明了语用学与文体学有着密切关系。语用学作为文学作品的语言学分析的一个强有力的工具在概念上是完全可以接受的(Hu Zhuanglin,1980)。由此，文体学家逐渐采用了语用学中的部分原则，并将自己的研究描述为“文体语用学”或“语用文体学”。这两个概念既有相通之处，也有差别的地方；前者是语用学的一个分支，后者一部分是文体学的。本文着重讨论应用语用学的理论进行文本分析即“语用文体学”。 戏剧是一种以对话为主来构建情节，展示冲突的艺术形式，其本质是对话的艺术。戏剧中的人物对白不仅提供信息，而且是完成和帮助完成某种行为的重要手段，在一定的话语结构和社会文化环境中会产生有别于表面命题的深层含义。因此，戏剧语言蕴涵着丰富的语力，使各种言语行为的组合反映人物的心理活动，体现人物的行为动机。本文将运用言语行为的理论来研究剧本《威尼斯商人》中夏洛克的对白，从一个新的视角来解读文本。 二 《威尼斯商人》（1956）被认为是莎士比亚早期喜剧创作中的代表作。在这部作品中，作者为我们塑造了一系列个性鲜明的人文主义新形象，但剧中血肉最丰富，个性最复杂从而引起后世读者和评论家关注的却是反面主人公夏洛克。这一形象和哈姆雷特，福斯塔夫一起成为莎士比亚笔下三大典型形象。夏洛克是一个矛盾的结合体，一面虔诚地读圣经，一面拼命赚钱，却过着清教徒的生活。他冷酷无情，吝啬，狡猾；同时又遭受着种族歧视，是众矢之的。以下是第一幕第三场的人物对白： 夏洛克三千块钱，嗯？ 巴萨尼奥是的，大叔，三个月为期。 夏洛克三个月为期，嗯？ 巴萨尼奥我已经对你说过了，这一笔钱可以由安东尼奥签立借据。 夏洛克安东尼奥签立借据，嗯？ 巴萨尼奥你愿意帮助我吗？你愿意应承我吗？可不可以让我知道你的答复？ 夏洛克三千块钱，借三个月，安东尼奥签立借据。 巴萨尼奥你的答复呢？ 夏洛克安东尼奥是个好人。 Searle(2001)将“表达式”定义“为说话者表达自己对某事的情感和态度”。以上那段引文中三个“嗯”字单独构成的句子表达了主人公强烈的疑问态度，是属于表达式的范围。这三个单部句虽然短小，但却惟妙惟肖地表现出夏洛克盛气凌人的
人物的语言描写 写作要点 语言描写也称为对话描写。它不同于作者的叙述语言，也不同于文学作品中人物的内心独白。它是通过人物个性化的对话，来表现人物的性格特征。 人物语言的描写。描写人物语言可以表现人物思想，品格，性格，和作风，更重要的是可以突出文章的中心思想。人物的语言必须个性化，即具有人物的个性特征，符号人物独特的身份、地位、年龄、职业、心里状态、文化教养。 写作技巧 1．要精选、提炼富有个性化的语言，恰当表现人物的身份、年龄、思想、品质、作风和性格特征。 2．在对话描写中，要注意交代清楚人物之间的关系和话是谁说的。为了文章的需要，对话描写要推动情节的发展，要突出表现文章的中心思想。 3．记叙文中的语言描写，尤其是对话，不能虚构和拔高，要有真情实感。写作要求 1．作者必须十分熟悉所写的人物，深刻地了解和准确地把握人物的性格特征 2．作者要善于运用对比的方法，在一篇文章或作品中，以各个人物的不同语言，显示其不同的性格。 3．要注意通过人物的习惯用语、口头禅来表现人物性格。 描写形式 语言描写是指对人物说话时的内容、语气、声调等进行描写。写人的文章要想把人物写活，是离不开语言描写的。人物的语言描写一般有五种：
一．提示语在前面 如：妈妈轻轻地摸了摸我的额头，心疼地说：“瞧你，这两天人都瘦了。以后可得注意保暖，不能再感冒了！” 二、提示语在后面 如：“瞧你，这两天人都瘦了。以后可得注意保暖，不能再感冒了！”妈妈轻轻地摸了摸我的额头，心疼地说。 三、提示语在中间 如：“瞧你，这两天人都瘦了。”妈妈轻轻地摸了摸我的额头，心疼地说:“以后可得注意保暖，不能再感冒了！” 四、提示语在两边 如：妈妈轻轻地摸了摸我的额头，“瞧你，这两天人都瘦了。以后可得注意保暖，不能再感冒了！”她心疼地说。 五、没有提示语，直接引用人物说话的内容，这种形式必须在一定的环境里 使用。如：“瞧你，这两天人都瘦了。以后可得注意保暖，不能再感冒了！” 我们在作文时，不要只用一种描述形式，可以几种描述形式交替使用。 这样在表达形式上才不会显得单调。 语段剖析 片段一 一位佩戴红领巾的少年给老奶奶让座。老奶奶激动地对旁边的乘客说：“现在的形势真是一片大好，学习雷锋巍然成风，社会上好人好事层出不穷。 你看，这位红领巾就是一个活雷锋……” 析评：
名称：认知心理学 姓名：张瑞 学号： 201141000144 学院：心理学院 班级：应用心理学一班
言语行为理论及其应用综述 摘要：言语行为理论是由英国哲学家奥斯汀(Austin)于20世纪50年代末首先提出的，后来哲学家塞尔(Searle)在批判奥斯汀理论的基础上发展和完善了言语行为理论并提出间接言语行为理论，最终使其成为语言学以及学科研究领域中的一个重要理论。本文将对言语行为理论进行概述，总结了言语行为理论存在的不足，并对我国近几年来言语行为理论在不同领域中的应用进行阐述，以便人们更好地了解言语行为理论应用价值和应用前景。 关键字：言语行为理论应用综述 自从语用学被确认为语言学的一门新兴学科以来,作为语用学研究中心的言语行为理论(Speech Act Theory)就引起了各界学者的广泛兴趣,它旨在回答语言是怎样用之于“行”,而不是用之于“指”这样一个问题,体现了“言”则“行”这样的语言观。 言语行为理论作为语用学研究重点，自诞生之日起就得到了广泛关注并起到极大影响。随着时间的推移，言语行为理论不仅在理论上越来越完善，取得不少新的发展和成就，同时它的应用价值不断提升，应用领域也越来越广。如今，言语行为理论已被应用于研究语言中的多种现象，并且都取得了不菲的成果。 一言语行为理论概述 言语行为理论的哲学渊源可以追溯到维特根斯坦后期的哲学思想，他“把语言视为一种游戏，是对语言的分析从语形和语义的层面转向于语用层面，语言的意义就在于它的使用，语言只有在使用中才有价值”[1]。奥斯汀在维特根斯坦的“语言游戏论”和“意义使用论”的启示下，提出了“言语行为理论”奥斯汀的言语行为理论经历了两个阶段：在初始阶段，奥斯汀划分了“表述句”（constatives）和“施为句”(performatives) 。奥斯汀把表达有所述之言的句子称为“表述句”，而把表达有所为之言的句子称作“实施行为句”，简称“施为句”。表述句的目的在于以言指事，而施为句的目的是以言行事[2]。但是随着时间的推移，他发现这种简单的两分法并不科学，表述句在某种意义上可以看做是施为句。所以在这种理论的缺陷上，奥斯汀又发展了他的言语行为理论，提出了言语行为三分说，也就是奥斯汀言语行为理论的第二阶段。他把言语行为分为“以言指事”( locutionary act) 、“以言行事”( illocutionary act) 、“以言成事”(perlocutionary act) 三类。在这三类行为中，语用研究最关注的是言外行为，因为它与说话人的意图一致，所以学术研究主要集中在言外行为上。 奥斯汀的言语行为理论存在一定的局限性，美国哲学家塞尔(J.R Searl) 继承并发展了奥斯汀的理论，“把对言语行为的理论和对话语意义的研究提升到对人类交际的研究”[3]。塞尔认为奥斯汀对以言行事行为的分类只是对施为动词的分类。塞尔把以言行事行为重新分为五类: 断言类( assertives) 、指令类(directives) 、承诺类( commissives) 、表达类(expressives) 、宣告类(declarations) 。塞尔对言语行为理论的另一个发展是他提出的“间接言语行为理论”。间接言语行为理论就是解决说话人如何通过“字面用意”来表达间接的“言外之力”。这在一定程度上解决了语句的字面意思和说话人的言外之意的关系问题，同时强调了语境和交际者双方共有的知识在理解话语时的重要性[4]。 奥斯汀和塞尔对言语行为理论的发生和发展起到了重大的作用，言语行为理论的提出无论对语言研究还是对应用语言学、社会语言学、语用学、语言交际以及语言习得研究都产生了极大的影响。它让语言研究从以句子本身的结构为重点转向句子表达的意义、意图和社会功能方面，从而突出了用语言做事或言语的社会功能。与此同时，也提高了言语行为理论在多个领域中的应用价值，拓宽了应用的范畴。 奥斯汀认为施事行为是规约行为。但事实上，自然语境中的施事行为与仪式、典礼这种高度程式化的语境中的施事行为绝然不同，而且规约性更小。现实生活中只有小部分施事行
毕业论文（设计）开题报告 题目：浅析老舍语言幽默特质及原因 专业班级：汉语言 一、选题的背景、意义（所选课题的历史背景、国内外研究现状和发展趋势） 老舍（1899-1966年），原名舒庆春，字舍予，笔名老舍，满族人。他生于北京城的一个贫民家庭，在大杂院里度过艰难的幼年和少年时代。他非常熟悉社会底层的市民生活，喜爱流传于市井巷里的戏曲和民间说唱艺术，这种阅历有利与他创作幽默风格的形成。1924年之后五年旅居英国的生活，在这五年的时间里，他大量阅读了外国文学作品，其中狄更斯的作品对他影响最大。在英国生活的这五年，帮老舍打开了他的眼界，也激发了他的创作的兴趣。1926年写成长篇小说《老张的哲学》，接着又创作了另二部长篇《赵子曰》（1926年）与《二马》（1929年），作品中幽默俏皮的语言一下收到广大读者的喜爱。到30年代中期，其创作进入鼎盛时期。期间最出色的作品《骆驼祥子》（1936年），也是现代文学史上最优秀的长篇小说之一。此外，还贡献了《猫城记》（1932年）、《离婚》（1933年）、《牛天赐传》（1936年）等长篇巨制，《我这一辈子》等中篇小说，以及《断魂枪》、《月牙儿》等短篇小说。老舍是多产作家，一生共写了一千多篇作品，约七八百万字。纵观老舍的作品，我们很容易发现，他一贯的幽默风格始终贯穿他的整个创作生涯，用曹禺的话说就是“他的作品中的幽默是今天中国任何作家所没有的。美国的马克·吐温以其‘幽默’在美国和国际上享有那么崇高的地位，那么我们的老舍先生也是可以与之媲美的。” 老舍的作品在中国现代小说艺术发展中有十分突出的地位，与矛盾、巴金的长篇创作一起，构成了现代长篇小说艺术的三大高峰。老舍的贡献不在于长篇小说的结构方面，而在于其独特的文体风格。特别是他的幽默特质，在现代作家中别具一格。他的作品追求幽默，一方面来自狄更斯等英国文学的影响，同时也深深地打上“北京市民文化的”烙印，形成了更内蕴的“京味”。老舍说“北平人，正像别处的中国人，只会吵闹，而不懂什么叫严肃”，“北平人，不论是看着一个
龙源期刊网 https://www.doczj.com/doc/803905428.html, 基于框架理论《摩登家庭》中言语幽默研究作者：王硕 来源：《科技风》2016年第09期 摘要：众所周知学术界对幽默话语的研究主要集中在传统语法和结构主义等视角，但是 认知的方面较为贫乏。文章以认知语言学的框架理论为理据，对英语言语幽默的生成分析和解读，指出在幽默的交际过程中，言语者的认知框架会发生不一致的现象，转换认知框架不可避免。 关键词：言语幽默；框架；转换 “幽默”一词本意为语言或行为有趣，而情景喜剧当中往往也蕴涵了大量的幽默元素。研究幽默语言会帮助人们更好地理解幽默，也会促进人与人之间的交流与沟通。 文章从认知语言学的视角出发，以框架理论为基础，阐释了“摩登家庭”中幽默语的本质以及幽默语言的形成过程，是交际双方缺乏共享的框架或交际双方的框架存在差异等因素引起的。 一、研究的理论依据 框架（frame）是一种认知结构……其知识是词语表达概念的先决条件（Fillmore & Atkins 1992：75），也称为认知框架，是贮存在人脑中的经验和知识的认知结构，或“根据经验建立的概念与概念之间的相对固定的关联模式”，是各种具有结构的背景信息（Fillmore 2003：263）。顾名思义框架是一种认知模型。 语言日常交际中，认知框架也会随着对话的深入而改变，这就是框架转换。听话者没有满足听话者原有的期待，就会使期待落空，于是就产生了框架的转换。 二、从框架理论看“摩登家庭”中的幽默 家庭情景喜剧就是指围绕家庭生活展开的，以刻画不同的家庭成员的性格，为了展现给观众家庭关系的喜剧类型，在历史上曾取得过辉煌的成就“摩登家庭”讲述了三个典型美国家庭的日常生活和他们的感情世界。 下面就从认知语言学的视角出发，以框架理论为基础，阐释“摩登家庭”中幽默的本质以及幽默语的形成过程： 1.Luke： I scratched it on my way into the drive way. I am so sorry.
最新英语专业全英原创毕业论文，都是近期写作 1 美国梦的破灭——约瑟夫?海勒《第二十二条军规》中的黑色幽默解析 2 《少年派的奇幻漂流》电影中隐喻的分析 3 从文化的角度看颜色词在英汉两种语言中差异 4 汉英“龙”文化浅析 5 A Comparison of the English Color Terms 6 从金融危机看美国自由企业制度下的政府调节——浅析“美国政府接管两房” 7 文档所公布各专业原创毕业论文。原创Q 95 80 35 640 8 中美篮球背后的青年文化 9 《老人与海》中的象征主义 10 英语课堂合作学习策略研究 11 对《红字》中完美人性的求索－－浅析海斯特与丁梅斯代尔的自我思想较量与精神升华 12 爵士乐对美国音乐产业的影响 13 探析英语政治委婉语的应用 14 爱恨共辉煌——浅析《呼啸山庄》中的男主人公 15 高中英语写作教学交往的模式及其策略 16 《傲慢与偏见》中英语反语的语用分析 17 Language Features and Translation Skills of Business English Contract 18 《儿子与情人》中女性的爱情心理解读 19 《分期付款》中英语长句的分译策略 20 言语行为理论视角下口语交际误解现象 21 论《哈利波特与魔法石》中的二重世界 22 23 情感范畴在转喻中的认知体现 24 黑色孤岛上的灰色母亲—从黑人女性主义角度解读《宠儿》中的母女关系 25 《儿子与情人》中扭曲的爱 26 论礼貌原则在国际商务信函的应用 27 关联理论视角下的英语新闻标题研究 28 《身着狮皮》中的话语、移民与身份 29 中式菜名的英译 30 平行文本比较模式指导下的公司简介翻译 31 从跨文化角度论商标的翻译 32 《白象似的群山》中话语权利争夺探究 33 初中英语课堂管理方法探析 34 中西方婚俗文化及差异 35 浅析詹姆斯?乔伊斯《一个青年艺术家的画像》的成长主题 36 作者菲茨杰拉德在《了不起的盖茨比》中所表现的双重人格 37 《简?爱》中的女性主义意识初探 38 Analyses of the Morels’Oedipus Complex in Sons and Lovers 39 中美大学课堂文化比较研究 40 埃德娜：一个孤独的女战士——解读凯特?肖邦的《觉醒》 41 A Comparison of the English Color Terms 42 广告折射出的中西文化差异及广告翻译策略
语用学中言语行为理论研究综述摘要:20世纪初，西方传统哲学开始向语言学转向，形成了语言哲学研究的热潮。日常分析哲学家奥斯汀提出了言语行为说，他的学生同为哲学家的塞尔对该理论进行了修正和补充，并进一步提出了间接言语行为理论，引起了语言学界、哲学界的普遮关注。言语行为理论因此也得到了很好的应用与发展。但在发展过程中，言语行为理论也暴露了其不足与缺陷。为了进一步完善言语行为理论，这些问题还亟待语言学家、哲学家共同解决。 一、引言 很久以来,哲学家(或逻辑实证主义者)所持的一种假设是:陈述之言的作用或是描述事物的状态,或是陈述某一事实,两者必居其一,别无他用,而陈述之言所作的描述或陈述只能是真实或者是谬误。哲学家历来关心的只限于陈述的可验证性,即如何验证某一陈述是真实的或是谬误的,以及如何规定某一个真实的陈述必须满足的条件等。语言学家奥斯汀则认为有时没有必要也无从区分语句的“真”或“假”,因为有些句子一说出来就是一种行为,而行为只有适当不适当之分,没有真假之分。由此他提出了言语行为理论。奥斯汀的理论第一次在西方学术界把言外之意正式提上了议事日程,在学术界引起了较大的反应。 二、言语行为理论 早在19世纪末20世纪初，瑞士语言学家索绪尔就把人类语言区分为“语言”和“言语”。到20世纪50年代，美国语言学家乔姆斯基又进一步把人类语言区分为“语言能力”和“语言运用”。二者的理论所涉及的内容虽然有所不同，但无论是索绪尔还是乔姆斯基实际上都认为人类的语言活动涉及语言的体系和语言的使用两个方面。但真正对语言使用进行认真研究并将其上升到理论高度、提出言语行为理论的是英国牛津大学教授约翰·兰索·奥斯汀提出的言语行为理论是语用学的重要理论之一。他在1962年发表的How to Do Things With Words (《论言有所为》)被认为是言语行为理论的奠基著作和核论。奥斯汀在探讨语言与行为之间的关系时，首先注意到这样一个事实:人说出话语不仅是提供信息，而且是完成许多其他行为。换言之，语言不仅是描述和陈述客观世界的工具，而且是一种行为，即言语行为。奥斯汀针对实证主义的真值条件语义论提出了了著名的“言语行为三分说”。他认为，一个人在说话时，在大多数情况下同时实施着三种言语行为，即以言指事或表述性言语行为、以言行事或施为性言语行为和以言成事或成事性言语行为。继奥斯汀之后，其弟子—美国著名哲学家塞尔在继承和批判他的日常语言哲学分析理论和方法的基础上，通过实施以言行事行为的必要和充分条件，发展了言语行为理论，将言语行为系统化、严格化，提出了间接言语行为理论。 言语行为理论认为语言是传达信息的手段，人们是在以言行事，一切语言交流都包括言语行为。语言是人类交际的手段，但人类交际的基本单位不仅仅是符号、词、句子或者这些符号、词、句子的标型，而是完成一定的行为，比如:陈述、请求、命令、提问、道歉、祝贺等。不同的行为可以通过同一种言语来表达，同一行为也可以通过不同的言语得以实现。言语行为理论强调说话人所表达的是话语的意思而不是语言本身的意思;对于一种结构的研究往往是对意义、语言的使用以及言外之意功能的预设。 三、言语行为理论的不足之处
从认知语用学角度分析《生活大爆炸》第八季的言语幽默 作为一种特殊的语言现象,幽默不仅促进言语交际的顺利进行,而且也同时活跃和改善人际关系。由此可见,在我们的日常生活中,幽默是必不可少的交际技能与交际润滑剂。根据其特有的人所具有的品质、能力与技能,幽默可以归为人类的区别特征之一。 因此,来自不同领域的学者与专家,诸如哲学、文学、心理学、生理学、社会学以及语言学的各个领域,开始进行了多角度多元化的幽默言语分析与阐释,无论是从国内还是国外的研究成果来看都是成绩斐然的。根据法国哲学家亨利·柏格森与作家阿瑟·凯斯特勒关于幽默的分类来看,学界普遍认同将幽默分为言语幽默、情景幽默与文化幽默。纵览言语幽默研究发展历程,对于言语幽默的研究呈现出从一元化、重理论、轻实践转变为多元化、多学科、重应用的研究层面转变。 而近年来,虽然言语幽默研究在不同领域都取得了不少成就,但是一直还没有一个能够完全阐释出言语幽默解读的认知机制与过程。语用学与认知语言学的逐步发展,给予了言语幽默研究一个全新的发展空间与理论视角。这其中,就包括了近来不断被应用到实践当中去的关联理论与概念整合理论。 虽然这两个理论在一定程度上解决了言语幽默认知层面的问题,但是它们仍旧只是比较笼统不太系统的理论原则,并没有完全详细的展示出言语幽默的具体形象的心理认知过程与步骤。因此,本文参照王文斌在2004年提出的幽默言语的解读认知过程即以关联理论与概念整合理论之间的互补性来解读言语幽默的认知机制。本文以美国情景喜剧《生活大爆炸》第八季为语料,从认知语用学角度即从关联理论、概念整合理论与此两者之间的互补性理论为主要理论框架来分析
言语幽默产生、发展、理解的认知机制。 通过对《生活大爆炸》——第八季言语幽默的分析,旨在对比关联理论与概念整合理论在言语幽默的实践分析中阐释将其两者结合在一起的必要性与合理性,进而能够进一步的运用到言语幽默认知机制的实践当中去。本论文由引言、正文、结论三部分构成。引言主要简述的是国内外言语幽默研究学者所得出的理论成果,旨在通过回顾言语幽默研究现状与未来发展方向的方式,剖析出认知语用学角度分析言语幽默的合理性与创新性所在。 正文由三章所构成：第一章是文献综述。首先此章节对于认知语用学进行简要概述,说明关联理论与概念整合理论对于认知语用学的重要意义,以为本文进一步将关联理论与概念整合理论互补性来分析语言幽默作出理论基础：接下来逐一简要概述关联理论与概念整合理论的具体内容；其次对于幽默的定义、幽默的分类、幽默研究综述进行简要分析与归纳,最后将《生活大爆炸》第八季进行简要介绍与概括,分析其言语幽默特点背后的文化信息。第二章、第三章为本论文的主体。 第二章主要分为两个部分,分别将关联理论原则与概念整合理论应用到分析《生活大爆炸》第八季的三种言语幽默即语言言语幽默、情景言语幽默与文化言语幽默。本章节旨在通过借助两种理论比较性地来分析言语幽默,进一步为下一章节探究两种理论互补性提供可行性的理论与实践支撑。第三章主要分三个部分,首先分析概括下关联理论在分析言语幽默时的不足之处；接下来分析概括下概念整合理论在分析言语幽默时的不足之处；接下来分析该两者理论互补结合在分析言语幽默中的合理性与必要性,并介绍当前较为权威的互补性理论——幽默言语的解读认知过程即将关联理论与概念整合理论之间的互补性来解读言语幽默的
老友记第一季第一集 中央咖啡馆 这没什么好说的 There's nothing to tell! 他不过是我的同事 He's just some guy I work with! 少来了你们都在约会了 C'mon, you're going out with the guy! 这个男人一定有什么问题 There's gotta be something wrong with him! 他是驼背吗戴着假发的驼背 So does he have a hump? A hump and a hairpiece? 等等他吃粉笔吗 Wait, does he eat chalk? 我只是不想你 Just, 'cause, I don't want her to go through 重蹈我和卡尔的覆辙 what I went through with Carl 拜托各位放松点这甚至不算是约会Okay, everybody relax. This is not even a date. 只不过是两个人出去吃个饭 It's just two people going out to dinner 而且不会上床 and not having sex. 听起来像是和我约会 Sounds like a date to me. 于是我回到了高中学校 Alright, so I'm back in high school, 我站在食堂中间 I'm standing in the middle of the cafeteria 然后发现自己全身赤裸 and I realize I am totally naked. 噢做过那种梦 Oh, yeah. Had that dream. 然后我低下头看见那里有一部 Then I look down, and I realize there's a phone 大哥大 there. -那话儿变成了-没错 - Instead of...? - That's right. -这种梦倒从未做过-没有 - Never had that dream. - No. 突然那电话响起来了 All of a sudden, the phone starts to ring. 结果是我妈打来的 And it turns out it's my mother, 这非常非常奇怪 which is very-very weird because- 因为她从来不打电话给我 she never calls me! 嗨 Hi. 这家伙一张嘴打招呼我就想自杀This guy says hello, I wanna kill myself. 你还好吧亲爱的 Are you okay, sweetie? 我感觉有人把手伸入我的喉咙 I just feel like someone reached down my throat 抓住我的小肠 grabbed my small intestine, 从我嘴里扯出来 pulled it out of my mouth 然后缠在我脖子上 and tied it around my neck... 饼干 Cookie? 卡罗尔今天把她的东西搬走了 Carol moved her stuff out today -我帮你泡杯咖啡-谢了 - Let me get you some coffee. - Thanks. 不不要别再净化我的灵气了 No, no don't! Stop cleansing my aura! 求你了别碰我的灵气好吗 No, just leave my aura alone, okay? 我会没事的好吧 I'll be fine, alright? 真的各位我希望她能幸福Really, everyone. I hope she'll be very happy. -不你不会-没错我不会的 - No you don't. - No I don't, 去她的她甩掉了我 to hell with her, she left me!
人物对话描写的的几种基本形式 成功的对话，对展示人物的身份、神态、情感及内心世界，揭示人物的思想品质，均起到十分重要的作用。而在不少学生的作文里，要么无对话，文章显得单调，树不起鲜明的人物形象；要么人物对话无特点，只会运用“某某说：‘……’”这种常见格式。为此，我们以语文课本中人物对话描写中的四种形式为例，分析其特点和作用，以培养学生初步掌握人物对话描写的能力。 （一）、牵羊式。提示语在前，引语在后，引语之前用冒号。即先交代谁说（说明性部分），后写说了些什么（引文部分）。 例（1）、忽然，她跳起来拍着屁股说：“咱俩先换过来，我妈是高级裁缝，她能把裤子的口子缝得一点儿都看不出来。”（选自《羚羊木雕》） 例（2）、奶奶突然说：“算了吧，这样多不好。”（选自《羚羊木雕》） 先写某某说，然后写他所讲得话，这种对话描写，能够使读者先知道是谁的话，人物关系明白清楚。 （二）、推车式。引语在前，提示语在后，提示语后面用句号。先写所说地话（引文部分在前），下面写某某说（说明性文字在后）。把引话放在某某说地前面（某某说地后面用句号），其作用是为了强调所说的话。
例（1）、“那只羚羊木雕哪儿去啦？”妈妈突然问我。 “爸爸不是说给了我么？”我小声地说。（选自《羚羊木雕》） 第一句，引文在前，是作者为了强调她母亲质问地话。说明性文字用“突然”，既说明事情发生得料想不到，又展示了她母亲发怒得神态。“我”以反问口气作答，突出了“我”的委屈与不满，说明性文字中的“小声”一词，既突出了“我”的害怕心理，又渲染了对话时的紧张气氛。 （三）、挑担式。提示语在两个引语的中间，提示语后面用逗号。即将某某说插入引话的中间（说后边用逗号）。 这种对话描写，有三种情况：一是需要插入说话人的动作神情；二是某某说的话比较长，前面的又必须将引话与别人的对话紧密相接，把某某说（说明性文字）放在最后又相隔太远；三是一个人所说的话，在意思上前后有转折。 例（1）、“妈妈！”孩子委屈地摇着我的手臂，喃喃地说，“有了熊皮，不是可以给阿婆做熊皮手套了吗？”（选自《这不是一颗流星》） 这部分说明性文字，“委屈”、“摇着”表神情动作，属于第一种情况。 例（2）、“你这个人真是自不量力！”姑娘好象生了很大地气，瞪了老头一眼说，“你干一天活，挣几个钱，充什么大肚子汉呢？十五不要，十四不要，十二也不要，看在你来得早，
关于幽默理论的研究综述 黄奕鑫 （华东师范大学心理与认知学院心理系师范班10070330128） 摘要：本文主要介绍关于幽默研究的主要理论以及其在最新领域的进展，回顾了传统的三大理论，即：从社会行为角度而言的蔑视论/优越论；心理分析角度的释放论和心理认知角度的乖讹论。然后着重介绍了幽默在认知方面的重要理论和最新进展。也有三个理论，即：框架转移理论，概念整合理论，以及关联理论。并对以上理论做出稍许阐释。最后简要介绍了最新幽默研究在语言方面和计算机方面的新进展以及幽默的大脑加工机制，在这些新的领域所获得的幽默研究也具有其特别之处，丰富了对幽默的研究。 关键字：幽默；蔑视论；释放论；乖讹论；框架转移理论；概念整合理论；关联理论 1 引言 幽默是我们平时经常听到的一个词语，它在我们平时的生活中有着很重要的影响，如果评价一个人很幽默，则某种意义上代表着这个人比较受欢迎。幽默也是一个古老的研究课题，幽默理论最早可以追溯到古希腊的柏拉图和亚里士多德时代，并在以后的世纪里不断得以修正、检验和发展。关于幽默的研究比较丰富多彩，大体有三大传统理论范畴：从社会行为角度而言的蔑视论/优越论；心理分析角度的释放论和心理认知角度的乖讹论。这三种理论中，第一种优越/ 蔑视论展示了言语编码者的一种不良心态，第二种释放论表明信息传递所产生的效果，第三种是最具影响的一种理论，将不和谐或不协调的对象在大脑中以某种方式统一起来并联通，只有该理论涉及幽默的生成机制问题。此外还有从语言学，机算机科学（人工智能）和认知语言学等领域的幽默理论和幽默研究概况。 2 三大传统理论 2.1 蔑视/优越论 这一理论最早可以追溯到柏拉图时期，柏拉图就曾经讲到，幽默是人们对相对无能者表现出来的恶意。亚理士多德则认为喜剧是对于逊于一般人的模仿。亚里士多德则认为喜剧是对逊于一般人的人们的模仿。后来霍布斯进一步论述了这一观点,在对人类情绪情感范围的合成性分析中,他指出了优越感在幽默中的作用。他阐释说,人们总是处于相互竞争中,并
幽默言语研究简介 一、幽默研究的意义 人类独有的品质、交际方式 “幽默是人类的区别特征”（Nash1985） “幽默的诸多方面都需要解释”（Raskin1985） 关涉哲学、心理学、生物学、社会学、语言学、文学、医学、人类学 “何谓幽默，为何幽默，怎样幽默，何时幽默，对谁幽默”？？？ “幽默容易辨认，但是不易分析——分析能帮助你运用幽默来创造幽默力量。”（斯坦恩2002） 探索语言与逻辑、认知、情感之间的相互关系，揭示人类语言、思维和情感的奥秘 幽默是一种交际中的会话含义，幽默言语的研究语用学不可回避 了解幽默的特点、规律，有助提高言语交际能力和人文修养，改善人际关系了解了幽默的认知机制，可以创造出人民大众喜闻乐见的文艺作品 应用于临床医学的心理治疗、人力资源管理 计算机语言以及人工智能的合成 对于语言教学、跨文化交际中幽默认知差异解读的意义 幽默奥妙的探索对于文学、美学、人类学、文化学以及哲学等相关人文学科的研究也具有深远的意义 二、“幽默”的由来及界定 “幽默”humour: “体液”→美学范畴 《九章〃怀沙》：“孔静幽默”→林语堂“幽默” 确定幽默含义，“是一桩了无止境的操劳”，“有多少人，就有多少意见。” 西方界定趋泛（笑话为主），中国界定偏窄（意味深长） 定义：通过一定的语言形式（包括口语形式和书面语形式）表现出来的能够引人发笑的作品 三、幽默的分类 西：
言语幽默（verbal humor）、非言语幽默（non-verbal humor）； 有意幽默（intentional humor）和无意幽默（unintentional humor）； 主动幽默（active humor）和被动幽默(passive humor)； 攻击性幽默（aggressive humor）和非攻击性幽默（non-aggressive humor） 笑话（joke）讽刺（satire）、机智（wit）、反讽（irony）、喜剧（comedy）、俏皮话（wise-crack）、轶闻（anecdote）、parady（模仿）、farce（闹剧）、pun（双关） 政治笑话、性笑话、宗教笑话、犹太笑话等 中： 《笑林广记》：古艳、腐流、术业、形体、殊禀、闺风、世讳、僧道、贪吝、贫窭、讥刺、谬误等十二部 《古今谭概》：迂腐、怪诞、痴绝、专愚、谬误、无术、苦海、不韵、癖嗜、越情、佻达、矜嫚、贫俭、汰侈、贪秽、鸷忍、容悦、颜甲、闺诫、委蜕、谲知、儇弄、机警、酬嘲、塞语、雅浪、文戏、巧言、谈资、微词、口碑、灵迹、荒唐、妖异、非族、杂志 四、西方传统幽默理论 1.优越论/蔑视论（Superiority/Disparagement Theory） 柏拉图、亚里斯多德、霍布斯、黑格尔、达尔文、赫兹里特、贝恩 笑者借嘲笑别人或事物的不幸，或通过蔑视别人或事物来显示自己的优越2.释放论/慰藉论（Release / Relief Thoery） 斯宾塞、弗洛伊德、伊斯特曼 笑是社会约束所产生的紧张和压抑心理的一种释放和宣泄 3.乖讹论(Incongruity Theory) 康德、黑格尔、叔本华、贝蒂、马洛、苏斯、柯哀斯勒 两个或更多不一致、不适合、不协调的部分或情况，在一个复杂的对象或集合中统一起来，或以一种头脑能注意到的方式获得某种相互关系，笑便源出于此4. 机械说（Theory of Mechanism） 柏格森 从生命哲学和生命绵延说出发，用机械、僵硬、刻板定义滑稽
浅谈言语行为理论综述 ” 论文关键词:言语行为理论间接言语行为理论语用学 论文摘要:言语行为理论是由英国哲学家奥斯汀(Austin)于20世纪50年代末首先提出的， 美国语言哲学家塞尔( Searle)在批判奥斯汀理论的基础上发展了言语行为理论并提出了 间接言语行为理论。 自从语用学被确认为语言学的一门新兴学科以来，作为语用学研究中心的言语行为理论(S peech ActZheory)就引起了各界学者的广泛兴趣，它旨在回答语言是怎样用之于“行”，而不是用之于“指”这样一个问题，体现了“言”则“行”这样的语言观。 1.关于言语行为理论 言语行为理论是英国哲学家约翰·奥斯汀首先提出的。1957年，他到美国哈佛大学去做讲座，以《以言行事》为书名发表了讲座的全部内容，在其论述中，贯穿了一个思想:人们 说话的目的不仅仅是为说话，当他说一句话的同时可以实施一个行为。 言语行为理论的基本出发点是:人类语言交际的基本单位不应是词、句子或其他语言形式，而应是人们用词或句子所完成的行为。奥斯汀认为，传统语法把句子按其功能分成陈述句、疑问句、祈使句等类型，这不利于人们对言语的理解和使用，因为同一句子在不同的语境中具有不同的功能。他认为不少话语不仅是提供信息，而且是完成或帮助完成许多行为。奥斯汀在此基础上提出了言语行为理论。 在《以言行事》中奥斯汀首先区分了表述性(con-stative)和施为性(perFom}ative)话语。表述性话语指陈述、描写事情的过程或状态;施为性话语则具有行事能力，说出来就是一 种行为，可以表达许诺、道歉、指责、感谢、祝贺等。例如:I visit her once a month.它的意思并不是“我”现在去拜访她，而是陈述“我每月去拜访她一次”这样一个事实，所以它是表述性话语。而I ad-vise him not to give up trying.这句话不是要陈述“劝告”这件事，而是说话人“我”在说话的过程中实施了“劝告”这个行为，所以它是施为性话语。两者在性质上有很大的区别，表述性话语是描写某一事件的过程或状态，因而有真假之分。施为句是用来实施某种行为的，说话本身就是在做一件事，因此无真假之分，但有合适不合适之分。随着研究的深人，奥斯汀又把施为句分成显性施为句和隐性施为句两类。显性施为句即他原先所说的施为句(该句子的主要特征为:主语是第一人称，时态是现在时，谓语动词是行事动词)，如:” I orderyou to close the door”o隐性施为句则指不具备上述特征的许多其他种类的语句，如:” Close the door”。这类句子大都可以加上显性施为句所具有的语言特征而变成显性施为句，如“( I order you to) clouse t he door”。
T h e O n e W i t h t h e C h i c k e n P o x O r i g i n a l l y w r i t t e n b y B r o w n M a n d e l l. T r a n s c r i b e d b y J o s h u a H o d g e. 223出水痘 菲比的海军恋人莱恩（反斗神鹰查理辛）来探望她，要呆两个星期； 他们本计划好好玩玩，不想菲比出水痘，并且传染给了莱恩。 莫妮卡用绷带把他们的手绑起来以免他们到处乱抓。 理查觉得莫妮卡的神经质惹人怜爱，莫妮卡为此大感宽慰； 但他自己好象又太无拘无束了，莫妮卡又不大高兴。 钱德在办公室给乔伊找了个活干，并要他装模作样假扮数据处理人员的样子工作。 乔伊表演过头了 ，还假称自己为约瑟夫，家中有妻儿。这给钱德造成了一些麻烦。 瑞秋迷上了穿制服；罗斯也弄了一件。 [S c e n e:C e n t r a l P e r k.R a c h e l,M o n i c a,J o e y,a n d C h a n d l e r a r e t h e r e.] [R a c h e l b r i n g s a m u f f i n t o C h a n d l e r a n d M o n i c a w h o a r e s i t t i n g o n t h e c o u c h.] m u f f i n n.松饼 R A C H E L:O k,C h a n d l e r,M o n,t h e r e's o n l y o n e b a n a n n a n u t m u f f i n l e f t. [R a c h e l h o l d s t h e t r a y b e t w e e n t h e m.C h a n d l e r g r a b s t h e m u f f i n b e f o r e M o n i c a c a n.] M O N I C A:O h,I o r d e r e d m i n e f i r s t. C H A N D L E R:Y e a h,b u t I'm,I'm s o m u c h f a s t e r... M O N I C A:G i v e i t t o m e.