论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】As the researches on offensive words focus more attention on people in the symmetric power context and ignores dynamic contexts， it causes a lack of systematic analysis on the mechanism of the realization forms of offensive words. Based on the analysis on Suits， this paper finds out power plays a significant role in constraining people’s offensive words and their realization forms vary in different power contexts.
【Key words】Offensive words； Power； Realization forms
1. Introduction
With the increasing researches on impoliteness and conflict talks， scholars turn to focusing on offensive words. Ran Yongping， Yang Wei （2011） point out the offensive words are used to attack the hearer’s face. It’s an on record way to threaten people’s face and rapport. According to the previous studies， interlocutors are always of equal power， like friends， couples. However， few researches are studied in the context of asymmetric power. Hence， this paper will analyze the offensive words and explore their realization forms and contextual variables.
2. Power and Offensive Words
Power， involved in such aspects as controlling power， social status， legal rights and equality-inequality， is one basic but complex concept in the studies of conflict talks （Spencer-Oatey， 2000）. It’s also part of social contexts. Owing to social division of labor， people occupy different positions in society causing unequal relations. Some scholars explore the response patterns of the conflict talk differ in the social power context （Gong Shuangping， 2011）. Based on the analysis on offensive words between couples， Ran Yongpong and Yang Wei （2011） conclude the realization forms of offense including criticism/ blame， sarcasm， threats and abusive words etc. But those researches ignore power can affect the realization of offensive words. The offensive words threaten the hearer’s face and their realization forms vary under the influence of power. Hence， the neglect of power causes insufficiency of the studies on the realization forms of the offensive words.
3. Research Data and Research Problem
The research corpus is from American TV series Suits which is about the stories among lawyers and assistant and their relations are intricate. This paper considers power as social status. In the high-status context， it means the speaker’s power is higher than the hearer’s and vice versa. Owing to opposing social interests， people often debate or argue and offense arises. This paper collects 85 examples of offensive words as the corpus and explores how power constrains the realization forms of the offensive words. 4. Research Findings
4.1 Distribution of Offensive Words in Different Power Contexts
Based on the dialogue analysis from Suits， this paper finds outs the offensive words arise both in asymmetric and symmetric power contexts and power constrains their distribution. Among 85 conflict examples， there are 32 examples （37.6%） in the context of symmetric power while in the context of asymmetric power， there are 34 examples （40%） that the high-status speakers offend the low-status hearers and 19 examples （22.4%） that the low-status speakers do offense. In a word， the author finds the frequency of offense is adapted to power. The high-status speakers do more offense than low-status speakers. In my opinion， to protect their interests or face， the speakers of equal-status often take offense because they’re deeply influenced by individualism and the way of thinking. Obviously， it can be imagined that the realization forms of offense are different because of social power.
4.2 Realization Forms of Offensive Words in Different Power Relations
There are various ways to do offense， like criticism or blame， threats， abuse， irony etc.（Ran Yongping， Yang Wei， 2011）. The research data shows power can constrain the realization forms of offensive words and the realization forms differ in different power contexts.
4.2.1 Realization Forms of High-Status Speakers
The high-status speakers behave offensively primarily by criticism/ blame， threats and power highlight. By using critical statements or opposing questions， the speaker offends the hearer because of face problem.
Example （1）：
Harvey： What the hell is wrong with you？
Mike： Harvey， please—
Harvey： ...you’re just goanna start spreading it around that you’re a fraud？
Harvey was Mike’s leader. He criticized Mike and insisted Mike shouldn’t spread their secret. Harvey infringed Mike’s freedom to share with his girlfriend.
By threats， the high-status speakers emphasize his higher social titles/ status and devalue others. Hence， offense arises.
Example （2）：
Harvey： Enough！... I should’ve fired you last week... I should fire you right now... I will fire you tomorrow.
This example illustrated Harvey threatened Mike by firing him. By making threats， Harvey underlined his rights to fire someone and protruded his higher social identity.
By highlighting power， the speaker maintains his controlling power over the hearer and underlines his superiority. Example （3）：
Paul： Harvey... but bankruptcy is on the rise. My influence in this firm is not nothing.
Harvey： Is that a threat？
Paul was a senior partner of a law firm while Harvey was just a senior attorney in it. Paul wasn’t satisfied with Harvey’s way of doing work. By highlighting authority， Harvey was forced to obey his demands， hence offense arose.
4.2.2 Realization Forms of Equal Power Speakers
The equal-status speakers perform offense mainly by sarcasm and abusive words. Sarcasm literally seems no offense， but actually the pragmatic intention is to offend.
Example （4）：
Harvey： How literary of you. Becoming senior partner is your life’s work， Louis.You really want to buy it with your vote？
Louis： Daniel did not condition my partnership on anything.
Harvey and Louis were colleagues. Harvey satirized Louis’s wrongful promotion， tried to persuade him to give up and meanwhile vented his discontent. Hence， offense arose.
The speaker criticizes or insults the hearer by using abusive words， thus offense arises.
Example （5）：
Jenny： Oh， you are such a goddamn lawyer.
Mike： All right， if ...
This conversation illustrated that the speaker used abusive words “goddamn” to blame the hearer which made the hearer lose face， offense arose.
4.2.3 Realization Forms of Low-Status Speakers
The low-status speakers perform offensively mainly by making excessive explanations. In communication， to lessen or escape from blame， the speaker looks for excuses. If the speaker doesn’t accept， those excuses or explanations are treated as shirking responsibilities. Hence， offense arises.
Example （6）：
Donna： I had never made a mistake like that， and I thought that I needed to—
Harvey： Look， keeping it from me isn’t a mistake. It’s a decision.
Donna： I wanted to protect you.
Harvey： Lying to me doesn’t protect me. It betrays me.
Donna was Harvey’s secretary. When Harvey questioned her why she hid the memo， Donna gave too many explanations and excuses. Yet Harvey didn’t accept and criticized her severely. Hence， offense arose.
Based on the overall analysis， the author believes the choices of realization forms of offense are adapted to the interlocutors’ power relations. The high-status speakers have more rights to use more means to perform offense. In equal power context， the offensive force gets weaker. Moreover， the low-status speakers offend in a more polite way in view of job protection and face saving. It’s worth mentioning， in western countries， people especially the law-status ones are more concerned about their human rights and pursue equality. Of course， it’s undeniable that they’re also ingrained influenced by individualism. When their face， or social interests are challenged by others， they counterclaim and fight decisively for themselves to earn respect or vent their anger.
Example （7）：
Mike： That’s bullshit... and you’re using me to do it... but I don’t want to be caught in the middle of it ever again.
This conversation illustrated Mike wasn’t satisfied with Harvey’s using him to attack their opponent and his personal feelings were hurt. Thus， Mike counterclaimed and vented his anger. His rudeness threatened Harvey’s social identity as leader. Hence offense arose.
5. Conclusion
Based on the pragmatically analysis on the offensive words in Suits， this paper has explored power constrains the distribution of them， that is， offense arises in different power contexts— asymmetric and symmetric powers， but the high-status speakers do offense accounting for 40%， the equal-status speakers accounting for 37.6% while the low-status speakers accounting for 22.4%； and the distributed frequency is diminishing. Besides， in different power contexts， the realization forms are different. The high-status speakers primarily adopt criticism or blame， threats and power highlight to offend others； the equal-status speakers mainly use sarcasm and abusive words and the low-status speakers intend to make excessive explanations. The findings have proved Culpeper ’opinions（2011）that the high-status interlocutors have more freedom to perform impolite speech acts. Moreover， the low-status speakers could exert impact on the high-status people by doing offense， which indicates that they’ve challenged their power distance to protect their interests or claim for their positions. In western countries， people value more equity and freedom. Power is not absolute or static any longer. This paper can provide useful suggestions for the researches on the offensive words in a dynamic power context.
Reference：
[1]Culpeper，J.2011.Impoliteness： Using Language to Cause Offence[M].London： Cambridge University Press.
[2]Spencer-Oatey，H.2000.Culturally Speaking： Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures[M].London： Continuum.
[3]龚双萍.冲突性话语回应策略与权势的语用分析[J].外语学刊，2011，03：76-81.
[4]冉永平，杨巍.人际冲突中有意冒犯性话语的语用分析[J].外国语（上海外国语大学学报），2011，03 ：49-55.
【Key words】Offensive words； Power； Realization forms
1. Introduction
With the increasing researches on impoliteness and conflict talks， scholars turn to focusing on offensive words. Ran Yongping， Yang Wei （2011） point out the offensive words are used to attack the hearer’s face. It’s an on record way to threaten people’s face and rapport. According to the previous studies， interlocutors are always of equal power， like friends， couples. However， few researches are studied in the context of asymmetric power. Hence， this paper will analyze the offensive words and explore their realization forms and contextual variables.
2. Power and Offensive Words
Power， involved in such aspects as controlling power， social status， legal rights and equality-inequality， is one basic but complex concept in the studies of conflict talks （Spencer-Oatey， 2000）. It’s also part of social contexts. Owing to social division of labor， people occupy different positions in society causing unequal relations. Some scholars explore the response patterns of the conflict talk differ in the social power context （Gong Shuangping， 2011）. Based on the analysis on offensive words between couples， Ran Yongpong and Yang Wei （2011） conclude the realization forms of offense including criticism/ blame， sarcasm， threats and abusive words etc. But those researches ignore power can affect the realization of offensive words. The offensive words threaten the hearer’s face and their realization forms vary under the influence of power. Hence， the neglect of power causes insufficiency of the studies on the realization forms of the offensive words.
3. Research Data and Research Problem
The research corpus is from American TV series Suits which is about the stories among lawyers and assistant and their relations are intricate. This paper considers power as social status. In the high-status context， it means the speaker’s power is higher than the hearer’s and vice versa. Owing to opposing social interests， people often debate or argue and offense arises. This paper collects 85 examples of offensive words as the corpus and explores how power constrains the realization forms of the offensive words. 4. Research Findings
4.1 Distribution of Offensive Words in Different Power Contexts
Based on the dialogue analysis from Suits， this paper finds outs the offensive words arise both in asymmetric and symmetric power contexts and power constrains their distribution. Among 85 conflict examples， there are 32 examples （37.6%） in the context of symmetric power while in the context of asymmetric power， there are 34 examples （40%） that the high-status speakers offend the low-status hearers and 19 examples （22.4%） that the low-status speakers do offense. In a word， the author finds the frequency of offense is adapted to power. The high-status speakers do more offense than low-status speakers. In my opinion， to protect their interests or face， the speakers of equal-status often take offense because they’re deeply influenced by individualism and the way of thinking. Obviously， it can be imagined that the realization forms of offense are different because of social power.
4.2 Realization Forms of Offensive Words in Different Power Relations
There are various ways to do offense， like criticism or blame， threats， abuse， irony etc.（Ran Yongping， Yang Wei， 2011）. The research data shows power can constrain the realization forms of offensive words and the realization forms differ in different power contexts.
4.2.1 Realization Forms of High-Status Speakers
The high-status speakers behave offensively primarily by criticism/ blame， threats and power highlight. By using critical statements or opposing questions， the speaker offends the hearer because of face problem.
Example （1）：
Harvey： What the hell is wrong with you？
Mike： Harvey， please—
Harvey： ...you’re just goanna start spreading it around that you’re a fraud？
Harvey was Mike’s leader. He criticized Mike and insisted Mike shouldn’t spread their secret. Harvey infringed Mike’s freedom to share with his girlfriend.
By threats， the high-status speakers emphasize his higher social titles/ status and devalue others. Hence， offense arises.
Example （2）：
Harvey： Enough！... I should’ve fired you last week... I should fire you right now... I will fire you tomorrow.
This example illustrated Harvey threatened Mike by firing him. By making threats， Harvey underlined his rights to fire someone and protruded his higher social identity.
By highlighting power， the speaker maintains his controlling power over the hearer and underlines his superiority. Example （3）：
Paul： Harvey... but bankruptcy is on the rise. My influence in this firm is not nothing.
Harvey： Is that a threat？
Paul was a senior partner of a law firm while Harvey was just a senior attorney in it. Paul wasn’t satisfied with Harvey’s way of doing work. By highlighting authority， Harvey was forced to obey his demands， hence offense arose.
4.2.2 Realization Forms of Equal Power Speakers
The equal-status speakers perform offense mainly by sarcasm and abusive words. Sarcasm literally seems no offense， but actually the pragmatic intention is to offend.
Example （4）：
Harvey： How literary of you. Becoming senior partner is your life’s work， Louis.You really want to buy it with your vote？
Louis： Daniel did not condition my partnership on anything.
Harvey and Louis were colleagues. Harvey satirized Louis’s wrongful promotion， tried to persuade him to give up and meanwhile vented his discontent. Hence， offense arose.
The speaker criticizes or insults the hearer by using abusive words， thus offense arises.
Example （5）：
Jenny： Oh， you are such a goddamn lawyer.
Mike： All right， if ...
This conversation illustrated that the speaker used abusive words “goddamn” to blame the hearer which made the hearer lose face， offense arose.
4.2.3 Realization Forms of Low-Status Speakers
The low-status speakers perform offensively mainly by making excessive explanations. In communication， to lessen or escape from blame， the speaker looks for excuses. If the speaker doesn’t accept， those excuses or explanations are treated as shirking responsibilities. Hence， offense arises.
Example （6）：
Donna： I had never made a mistake like that， and I thought that I needed to—
Harvey： Look， keeping it from me isn’t a mistake. It’s a decision.
Donna： I wanted to protect you.
Harvey： Lying to me doesn’t protect me. It betrays me.
Donna was Harvey’s secretary. When Harvey questioned her why she hid the memo， Donna gave too many explanations and excuses. Yet Harvey didn’t accept and criticized her severely. Hence， offense arose.
Based on the overall analysis， the author believes the choices of realization forms of offense are adapted to the interlocutors’ power relations. The high-status speakers have more rights to use more means to perform offense. In equal power context， the offensive force gets weaker. Moreover， the low-status speakers offend in a more polite way in view of job protection and face saving. It’s worth mentioning， in western countries， people especially the law-status ones are more concerned about their human rights and pursue equality. Of course， it’s undeniable that they’re also ingrained influenced by individualism. When their face， or social interests are challenged by others， they counterclaim and fight decisively for themselves to earn respect or vent their anger.
Example （7）：
Mike： That’s bullshit... and you’re using me to do it... but I don’t want to be caught in the middle of it ever again.
This conversation illustrated Mike wasn’t satisfied with Harvey’s using him to attack their opponent and his personal feelings were hurt. Thus， Mike counterclaimed and vented his anger. His rudeness threatened Harvey’s social identity as leader. Hence offense arose.
5. Conclusion
Based on the pragmatically analysis on the offensive words in Suits， this paper has explored power constrains the distribution of them， that is， offense arises in different power contexts— asymmetric and symmetric powers， but the high-status speakers do offense accounting for 40%， the equal-status speakers accounting for 37.6% while the low-status speakers accounting for 22.4%； and the distributed frequency is diminishing. Besides， in different power contexts， the realization forms are different. The high-status speakers primarily adopt criticism or blame， threats and power highlight to offend others； the equal-status speakers mainly use sarcasm and abusive words and the low-status speakers intend to make excessive explanations. The findings have proved Culpeper ’opinions（2011）that the high-status interlocutors have more freedom to perform impolite speech acts. Moreover， the low-status speakers could exert impact on the high-status people by doing offense， which indicates that they’ve challenged their power distance to protect their interests or claim for their positions. In western countries， people value more equity and freedom. Power is not absolute or static any longer. This paper can provide useful suggestions for the researches on the offensive words in a dynamic power context.
Reference：
[1]Culpeper，J.2011.Impoliteness： Using Language to Cause Offence[M].London： Cambridge University Press.
[2]Spencer-Oatey，H.2000.Culturally Speaking： Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures[M].London： Continuum.
[3]龚双萍.冲突性话语回应策略与权势的语用分析[J].外语学刊，2011，03：76-81.
[4]冉永平，杨巍.人际冲突中有意冒犯性话语的语用分析[J].外国语（上海外国语大学学报），2011，03 ：49-55.