短消息語言

前言：本站為你精心整理了短消息語言范文，希望能為你的創(chuàng)作提供參考價(jià)值，我們的客服老師可以幫助你提供個(gè)性化的參考范文，歡迎咨詢。

Abstract：Thispaperbeginswithanintroductiontomobile-basedshortmassage,orSMforshort.AlthoughthearrivalofSMbringsconvenienceandhappinesstopeople’slife,thecharacteristicsofSMlanguageresultinitsvulnerabilitytomisunderstanding.Fromalinguisticperspective,factorsresponsibleforthemisunderstandingofSMareanalyzed.Firstly,SMlanguageviolatestheco-operativeprinciple.Peopleadoptacooperativeprinciplewhentheycommunicatewitheachother:theytrytogetalongwitheachotherbyfollowingcertainconversational“maxims”.TheviolationofthesemaximsmakesthefunctionsofSMindefiniteandSMusershavetointerpretSMbasedontheirownexperience.Secondly,incontrastwithface-to-faceconversationsandtelephonecalls,SMlacksbodylanguage,facialexpressions,properstressandintonation.Thirdly,SMlanguageismorecasualthanwrittenlanguage.Inconclusion,thispapersuggestssomesolutionstotherelatedproblem.

Keywords:shortmassageorSM,misunderstanding,cooperativeprinciple,bodylanguage,facialexpression,intonation,stress,writtenlanguage

摘要：本文的開頭對移動(dòng)電話的短消息（又稱短信）作了簡要的介紹。盡管短消息的出現(xiàn)給人們帶來了方便，短消息自身語言的特點(diǎn)導(dǎo)致了它容易被人們誤解。從語言學(xué)的角度，本文分析了導(dǎo)致短信被誤解的幾個(gè)因素。第一，短消息語言違背了合作原則。人們在交際過程中，常常會(huì)采用一種準(zhǔn)則。為了很好的交流，人們回遵守“會(huì)話準(zhǔn)則”。而短信語言對準(zhǔn)則的違背，導(dǎo)致了短信的作用不明確。并且，人們在解釋短信內(nèi)容時(shí)，往往只根據(jù)自己的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。第二，與面對面的談話和電話通訊相比，短信缺少肢體語言、表情、適當(dāng)?shù)闹匾艉驼Z調(diào)。第三，短信語言與書面語言相比，具有隨意性。文章的結(jié)尾對相關(guān)的問題提出了解決的辦法。

關(guān)鍵詞：短消息或短信、誤解、合作原則、肢體語言、表情、重音、語調(diào)、書面語言

AnAnalysisofShortMessageLanguageandBehaviorswithaLinguisticApproach

Thesisstatement:Shortmessageisvulnerabletomisunderstanding,whichcanbeexplainedbytheviolationofthecooperativeprinciple,andincontrastwithtraditionalconversationandwrittenlanguage,thedeficiencyofshortmessageisanalyzed.

Outline

IIntroduction

IIThevulnerabilityofSMtomisunderstandingfromtheperspectiveofthecooperativeprinciple

A.Introductionofcooperativeandtheviolationofmaxims

B.Threekindsofmisunderstanding

⑴Theindefinitenatureofthesender’smessage

⑵AnumberoffactorsaffectingtheinterpretationofSM

⑶ThequeryconcerningtheendofSMconversation

IIIThedeficiencyofSMincontrastwithface-to-faceconversationandTELcall

A.Thelackofbodylanguageandexpression

B.Thelackofstressandintonation

IVThecasualnessofSMincontrastwithwrittenlanguage

A.SMprocessedatrandom

B.ThedifferencesbetweenSMlanguageandwrittenlanguage

VConclusion

IIntroduction

ShortMessageService(SMS)isanewcommunicationaltoolthatcombinesthefunctionsofmobilephoneandpager.AccordingtothestatisticsfromGlobalGPSAssociation,thetotalnumberofSMshasreached510billionin2003,andChinaaccountsforonethirdofthem,soaringto170billion.SMisregardedasaconvenient,highlydemocratic,informationalmediumforconveyingmessagesthatconformswelltohumanneeds.Asamoderncommunicationtool,SMhasmanyadvantageswhichareabsentinothercommunicationmedias.Forexample,SMenablesdumbpeopletocommunicatefreelywithhealthypeople;SMmakesnonoisewhichmaybotherothers;SMprotectsprivacy,becausenothirdpartyknowsthecontentofSMconversation.

However,thecharacteristicsofSMlanguagealsobringnegativeeffectstopeople’slife.PeoplefindthatSMisnotsopowerfulandpleasant,anditcanbeeasilymisunderstood.Withthehelpoflinguisticapproaches,factorsthatareresponsibleforthemisunderstandingofSMareanalyzed:1).theviolationofthecooperativeprinciple.2)SMcannottaketheplaceofface-to-faceconversation.3)SMismorecasualthanwrittenlanguage.

IIThevulnerabilityofSMtomisunderstandingfromtheperspectiveofthecooperativeprinciple

TheprocessofsendingSMissoeasyandinformalthatpeopletreatitastheydoconversation.SMisabitlikeaconversationatthewatercoolerthatcanbeinstantlyforwardedto50people.Foraconversationtobesuccessful,inmostsocialcontexts,theparticipantsneedtofeeltheyarecontributingsomethingtoitandaregettingsomethingoutofit.Forthistohappen,certainconditionsmustapply.Everyonemusthaveanopportunitytospeak:nooneshouldbemonopolizingorconstantlyinterrupting.Theparticipantsneedtomaketheirrolesclear;theyneedtohaveasenseofwhentospeakorstaysilent;whentoprofferinformationorholditback;whentostayalooforbecomeinvolved.

Thesuccessofaconversationdependsnotonlyonwhatspeakerssaybutontheirwholeapproachtotheinteraction.“Ourtalkexchangesdonotnormallyconsistofasuccessionofdisconnectedremarks,andwouldnotberationaliftheydid.Theyarecharacteristically,tosomedegreeatleast,cooperativeefforts;andeachparticipantrecognizesinthem,tosomeextent,acommonpurposeorsetofpurposes,oratleastamutuallyaccepteddirection”(Grice1975:45).Peopleadopta“cooperativeprinciple”whentheycommunicatewitheachother:theytrytogetalongwitheachotherbyfollowingcertainconversational“maxims”thatunderlietheefficientuseoflanguage.Fourbasicmaximshavebeenproposed.

Themaximofqualitystatesthatspeakers’contributionstoaconversationoughttobetrue.Theyshouldnotsaywhattheybelievetobefalse,norshouldtheysayanythingforwhichtheylackadequateevidence.

Themaximofquantitystatesthatcontributionsshouldbeasinformativeasisrequiredforthepurposesoftheconversation.Oneshouldsayneithertoolittlenortoomuch.

Themaximofrelevancestatesthatconversationsshouldclearlyrelatetothepurposeoftheexchange.

Themaximofmannerstatesthatthecontributionshouldbeperspicuous,inparticular,thatitshouldbeorderlyandbrief,avoidingobstructingambiguity.

Inshort,thesemaximsspecifywhatparticipantshavetodoinordertoconverseinamaximallyefficient,rational,co-operativeway:theyshouldspeaksincerely,relevantlyandclearly,whileprovidingsufficientinformation.Buttheuseoftermsprincipleandmaximdoesnotmeanthatthecooperativeprincipleanditsmaximswillbefollowedbyeverybodyallthetime.Ifpeopleviolatethesemaximsdeliberately,listenersmaydrawinferencefromwhatspeakershavesaidandworkouttheimplicatureoftheutterance.ButforSMusers,violationofmaximsisdonepassively.

Thenletustakealookatthefollowingshortmessagesrecordedintheauthor’smobilephone.

No.1.A:“Stillbusy?”---9:40pm

(Conversationstarted,butA’spurposeisconfusing)

No.2.B:“Nottoobusy,what’sup?”---9:41pm

(ActuallyBwasverybusyinhisessay,maybewriting,butBinferredthatAmusthavesomethingimportanttotell.)

No.3.A:“WhenyouworkedintheComputerAssociation,haveyoueverfailedtonegotiatewithsponsors?”---9:46pm

(IttakesA5minutestorespond.Heattemptstomakehiswordsappropriate.Bhastosuspendhisworkandwaitforadirectanswer.Butthisanswerseemssoirrelevant.)

No.4.B:“No”---9:47pm

(Btriestoconcentrateonhiswork,soherespondsbriefly.Aisquitefrustratedbythefailednegotiationandneedssomeonetocomforthim.Thesingleword“No”makeshimthinkthatifBisnotbusy,howBcouldbesocold.)

No.5.A:“Sorry,Ithoughtyoudid,then,goodnight.”---9:49pm

(Conversationhastobeendedupunpleasantly)

No.6.B:“Goodnight.”---9:50pm

(BisstillunawareofA’sintention.Hecandonothingbutendconversation.)

Thetwoparticipantsofthisshortconversationviolatethefourmaximsviolationsofmaxims.

No.1violatesMofquantity.Hesaystoolittle.Heshouldstatehispurposeclearly.

No.2violatesMofquality.Hesayssomethingthatisfalse,buthehasto.

No.3HereA’scontributioninitsliteralmeaning,failstoanswerB’squestion,andthusseemstoviolateatleastthemaximsofquantityandrelevance.WemightthereforeexpectA’sutterancetobeinterpretedasanon-co-operativeresponse.Yetitisclearthatdespitethisapparentfailureofco-operation,wetrytointerpretA’sutteranceascooperativeatsomedeeperlevel.WecanassurethattherecouldbesomepossibleconnectionbetweenNo.2andNo.3.However,sinceitisaSMconversation,AandBcouldnotseeeachother.Bisactuallyinahurryandhewantstogotothetopicdirectly,butAwantsaeuphemisticway.HereSMisnotpowerfulenoughtoconnectthestatesofmindofthetwopersons.

No.4alsoviolatesMofquantity.Bissupposedtobeconsiderate.

No.5violatesMofmanner.Twosentencesseemnotorderly.

However,inourdailyconversation,theimplicaturesofwordsareeasilydeduced.Sowhydoestheviolationofco-operativeprincipleinSMfailtoenablepeopletoworkouttheexactimplicatures?Theremustbesomeotherfactorscontributingtotheunderstandingofwords.Weshallfurtherdiscussthispointinthethirdsection.Althoughthetwoparticipantsofthisshortconversationdonotviolatemaximsdeliberatelyandpurposefully,theirwordsaremisconstrued.AndthemisconstructionsofSMcanbesortedintothree.

Firstly,thepurposeofSMlanguageisnotdefinite,i.e.,thefunctionsofSMlanguagearenotclear.Linguiststalkaboutthefunctionsoflanguageinanabstractsense,thatis,notintermsofusinglanguagetochat,tothink,tobuyandsell,toreadandwrite,togreetpeople,etc.Tocommunicateourideasistheusualanswertothequestion“whydoweuselanguage?”Indeed,thismustsurelybethemostwidelyrecognizedfunctionoflanguage.Wheneverwetellpeopleaboutourcircumstancesorourselvesoraskforinformationaboutotherselves,weareusinglanguageinordertoexchangefactsandopinions.Theuseoflanguageisoftencalled“ideationalorreferential”.Butitwouldbeproblematictothinkofitastheonlywayweuselanguage.Linguistssummarizethesepracticalfunctionsoflanguagelikefollowing:informative,interpersonal,performative,emotive,phatic,recreationalandmetalingual(Hu2001:10).HallidayproposesatheoryofmetafunctionsoflanguagethatislanguagehasIDEATIONAL,INTERPERSONAL,andTextualfunctions.Ideationalfunctionconstructsamodelofexperienceandconstructslogicalrelations,interpersonalfunctionenactssocialrelationshipsandtextualfunctioncreatesrelevancetocontext(Halliday1985:VIII).

Amongthem,thefirsttwofunctionsareoftenmixedupinSMlanguage.Formostpeople,theinformativefunctionispredominantlythemajorroleoflanguage.Languageistheinstrumentofthoughtandpeopleoftenfeeltheneedtospeaktheirthoughtsaloudaswhentheyareworkingonamathproblem.

Andthemostimportantsociologicaluseoflanguageistheinterpersonalfunction,bywhichpeopleestablishandmaintainacomfortablerelationinasociety.SMisamediumwhosefunctionisratherconfusing.Peopleuseittoconveyinformation,keepintouchwitheachother,sharejokes,expressemotionsorevenpassanger.Buttherecipientcannottellwhichfromwhich,hemightdealwithhisshortmessageswithanattitudethatisunexpectedbyitssender.Let’sseethefollowingexample.

A:“Iplayedfootballthisafternoon,howtiredIam.”

B:“Oh,really?You’reenergetic!”

Theconversationendshere.Afeelstiredafterplayingfootball,andsendsaSMtooneofhisfriendsBtoexpresshisexcitement.ButthisconfusesBastohowtorespondappropriately,orhemaysimplybroodaboutitforquitealongtime.

Secondly,therecipientsofSMmaketheirowninterpretationsbasedonsituationaleffectsandschemata.Thefirstandthesecondsortofmisunderstandingscanbesomewhatoverlapping.BecausefunctionofSMlanguageisnotclear,peoplebegantointerpretmessageswiththeirownexperience.Besides,thequantityofinformationconveyedisofteninadequate,SMleavesalotofblankspacesinwhatpeoplesay,whichtherecipienttendstofillwiththemostnegativeinterpretations.

Thirdly,howtoendSMconversationandwhenistherighttimetoenditalsobotherSMusersalot.NomatterhowpeopleenjoySM,writingitisverytimeconsuming.Ifonewantstoenditandtheotherdoesnot,atleastonewillbeunpleasant.ItisunlikelythatbothofthemarereadyforSMconversationatthesametime,becausetwopeopleareintwoenvironments.

IIIThedeficiencyofSMincontrastwithface-to-faceconversationandTelcall

Peoplecanhidethemselvesbehindthetinyscreens,andtherefore,theyarebraverandtheycantellwhatevertheylike.Somanypeoplearenowabusingit.Butisitsuperiortoface-to-faceconversationsandtelephonecalls?Theanswermightbeno.

Firstly,SMlacksbodylanguageandfacialexpressions.Thecommunicativeuseofthevisualandtactilemodesisoftenreferredtoas“nonverbalcommunication”,especiallyinacademicdiscussion.Ineverydayterms,itistheareaof“bodylanguage”(Crystal1997:403).Mostpeoplemaynotbeawareoftheimportanceofitwhentheymessageeachother,becausetheydoitsubconsciously.Thefieldofnon-verbalvisualcommunication,kinesics,canbebrokendownintoseveralcomponents:facialexpression,eyecontact,gesture,andbodyposture.Eachcomponentperformsavarietyoffunctions.Movementsofthefaceandbodycangivecluestoaperson’spersonalityandemotionalstate.Theface,inparticular,signalsawiderangeofemotions,suchasfear,happiness,sadness,anger,surprise,interest,anddisgust.Manyoftheexpressionsvaryinmeaningfromculturetoculture.Inaddition,thefaceandbodysendsignalsaboutthewayasocialinteractionisproceeding.Patternsofeyecontactshowwhoistalkingtowhom;facialexpressionprovidesfeed-backtothespeaker,expressingsuchmeaningsaspuzzlementordisbelief;andabodypostureconveysaperson’sattitudetowardstheinteraction(e.g.relaxation,interest,boredom).

Severalkindsofsocialcontextareassociatedwithspecificfacialorbodybehaviors(e.g.wavingwhiletakingleave.)Ritualorofficialoccasionsareoftenprimarilymarkedbysuchfactorsaskneeling,orblessing.WhileSMonlyprovidesitsrecipientscoresofcharacters(oneshortmassagecontainsnomorethan70Chinesecharacters),thesender’sfacialexpressionorevenhisattitudetowardswhathesaidonlydependsontherecipient’spersonalimagination.TherealmeaningofSMandintentionthusareoftenmisunderstood.

Besides,comparedwithtraditionalconversation,SMlacksproperstressandintonation.Stressreferstothedegreeofforceusedinproducingasyllable.Intranscription,araisedverticallike[′]isusedjustbeforethesyllableitrelatesto.Abasicdistinctionismadebetweenstressedandunstressedsyllables,theformerbeingmoreprominentthanthelatterusuallyduetoanincreaseinloudness,lengthorpitch.Thismeansthatstressisarelativenotion.(Hu2001:71)Atthewordlevel,itonlyappliestowordswithatleasttwosyllables.StresspatterninChineseiseasier,becausewecanjustfocusonsentencelevel,whereamonosyllabicwordmaybesaidtobestressedrelativetootherwordsinthesentence.Sentencestressisoftenusedtoexpressemphasis,surprise,etc,sothatinprinciplestressmayfallonanywordoranysyllable.Forexample,aSMconversationbeginswithasentencelikethis,“IwentshoppingaroundJiefangbeithewholeday.Iboughtnothing.”

Thesentenceisquiteclear,butwhichworddoesthesenderemphasize?Ifthissentenceiscarriedonatelephoneorface-to-faceconversation,itwillnotcauseanypuzzle.

Intonation,andothersuprasegmentalfeaturesoflanguage,performsavarietyofdifferentfunctions.(Crystal1992:173)Themostobviousfunctionistoexpressawiderangeofattitudinalmeanings---excitement,boredom,surprise,friendliness,reserve,andmanyhundredsmore.Intonationconveysagreatdealaboutwhatisreferredtoasthe“informationstructure”oftheutterance.Intonationcanhelptoorganizelanguageunitsthataremoreeasilyperceivedandmemorized.

IVThecasualnessofSMincontrastwithwrittenlanguage

However,wecannotsimplysaythewrittenformofspeechislesspowerfulincommunication.OnethingthatdiffersSMlanguagefromletters,andE-mailisthecasualnessofSM.SMisoftenprocessedunderarandomcondition.Theusermaydoitwhileheishavinglunch,takingawalk,readingbooks,talkingtoothers,orwatchingTV,etc.Hecouldnotfocusallhisattentiononwritingwhathewantstosay.Hehastodoitwithlittlethought.Besides,sometimes,oneSMusermaymessagethreeothersormoreatthesametime.Theoverloadeduserhastospeeditup,andthequalityofSMdecreases.Butwhenpeoplewriteletters,theyaremuchmoreconsiderate.UnlikeSM,sendinglettersisdemanding,sincewecannotwriteletterswhereverandwheneverwelike.Oncealetterissent,littlechanceleftfortheaddressertoexplainit.

Thus,SMismorelikearecordofspokenlanguage,andthenumberofitscharactersisquitelimited(nomorethan70,includingpunctuations).Inthefollowingparts,wefocusondifferencebetweenSMlanguageandwrittenlanguage.

Thepermanenceofwritingallowsrepeatedreadingandcloseanalysis.Itpromotesthedevelopmentofartfulorganizationandmoreconcise,intricatelystructuredexpression.Unitsofdiscourse,suchassentencesandparagraphs,areclearlyidentifiedthroughlayoutandpunctuation.(Crystal1992:181)Bycontrast,thespontaneityandrapidityofSMminimizethechanceofcomplexpreplanning,anditalsolacksrepetition,rephrasingfillerphrases(suchasyouknow,yousee,think)thatassistspeakersto“thinkstandingup”,andthereisnouseofintonationandpausetodivideanutteranceintomanageablechunks.

Theparticipantsinwritteninteractioncannotusuallyseeeachother,andtheythuscannotrelyonthecontexttohelpmakeclearwhattheymean,astheywouldwhenspeaking.Asaconsequence,writingavoidswordswhosemeaningrelyonsituation(suchasthisone,overthere).Writersalsohavetoanticipatetheeffectsoftimelagbetweenproductionandreception.ThisisoutofthequestioninSM.SMusersassumethattheothersideisalwaysreadyforreceptionofSM(actually,itisquitenormalthattherecipientisverybusy),andthatthefeedbackwouldcomeimmediately.ButSMisnottime-bound,andthesituationinwhichbothparticipantsarepresentisrare.

WrittenlanguagetendstobemoreformalthanSMlanguageandismorelikelytoprovidethestandardthatsocietyvalues.DifferentpeoplehavedevelopedtheirownSMhabitorstyle.Somepeoplefrequentlyusepunctuations,suchas“:-)”,“:-(”,“:-=”,“:-*”;someusecapitalizedwordforexample“Oh,TMD”,“I’llTyou”toexpressspecialmeanings.Thesewords,ononehand,makeSMlanguagevivid,butontheotherhand,languagebarrierisformed.Noteverybodycouldunderstandthesefashionablewords,anditisbeingupdated.People,especiallythosewhoseldommessageanother,findthemselvestrappedbythesepersonallycoinedwordsandexpressions.

VConclusion

Mobile-basedSMisnotbaditself.Liketheemergenceoftelevision,SMisalsostronglycriticizedforitsdisadvantage.Ifweuseitappropriately,itmakesourlifebetter.Here,severalsolutionsaresuggested.

Intheabsenceofimmediatefeedback,availableinmostspeechinteraction,careneedstobetakentominimizetheeffectsofvaguenessandambiguity.

⑴Beforemessaging,thinkingabouttherecipient’ssituationishelpful,e.g.,istherecipientstillathiswork?Iftimeisnotright,SMmightbothertherecipient.

⑵ThelanguageofSMmustbewellchosen.Wecanusefashionwordsorcoinedwordswhenwemessageanintimatefriends,becausewesharethesameenvironment,andthesewordswillworkperfectlyincommunication.Butiftherecipientisnotsofamiliar,we’dbetteruseformalwords.Inotherwords,howwemessageshouldbebasedonthespecificrecipient.

⑶IntermsofthecontentsofSM,itshouldnotbeusedtodiscussbadnews.Nevercriticizesomebodyandneverdiscussifthere’sanychancethatwhatwesaymightbetakentoawrongway,weshouldpickupthephoneorwalkouttodiscussitinperson.

Fortherecipient,therearesomeothersuggestionswhichmightbehelpful.

⑴Ifwearedoingsomethingveryimportant,suchasgivingalectureorhavingaconference,inwhichdisturbanceisnotallowed,wehadbettershutoffourmobilephones.Onceapersontriestosendusashortmessage,heorshemayquicklyfindthattherecipientisnotavailableatthatmoment.Thus,waitingandfurtherguessingcanbeavoided.

⑵However,itisinevitabletocomeacrossunpleasantwordsinSM,intermsofbothlanguageandcontent.WeshouldbearthisinmindthatmostpeoplewouldsendSMwithlittlethoughts.Ifwedofeelquitebothered,weshouldcallthesenderandmakethematterclearasquicklyaspossible.

Bibliography

Crystal,David.TheCambridgeEncylopaediaoflanguage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press,1992.

Grice,H.P.Logicandconversation.InP.Cole&J.L.Morgan(eds)Speechacts.NewYork:

AcademicPress,1975.

Halliday.M.A.K.AnIntroductiontoFunctionalGrammar.London:EdwardArnold,1985.

Hu,Zhuanglin.Linguistics.Acousebook.Beijing:BeijingUniversityPress,2001.