1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1566-5852
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9854
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines an unexplored type of speech act named , which took place uniquely in the context of ancient China. Taking it as a Power Threatening Act rather than a commonly studied Face Threatening Act, this study examined remonstrators’ strategic modulation of their , and the factors that might have influenced the choice of modulation strategies. The data come from . The major findings are as follows: first, the speech act of contained both ritualised and non-ritualised aspects; second, remonstrators would adopt different modulation strategies when performing , which can be generally divided into three modulation orientations of redress, aggravation, and a combination of redress and aggravation, with different degrees of rituality; third, the choices of modulation strategies reflected the game playing of the requirements of affiliational propriety and illocutionary effect within the act.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.17002.she
2019-06-04
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Archer, Dawn and Jonathan Culpeper
    2011 “Identifying Key Sociophilological Usage in Plays and Trial Proceedings (1640–1760): An Empirical Approach via Corpus Annotation”. InJonathan Culpeper (ed.), Historical Sociopragmatics, 109–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.31.06arc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.31.06arc [Google Scholar]
  2. Bax, Marcel
    2010 “Epistolary Presentation Rituals Face-work, Politeness and Ritual Display in Early Modern Dutch Letter-Writing”. InJonathan Culpeper and Dániel Kádár (eds), Historical (im)Politeness, 37–85. Oxford: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987 [1978]Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chao, Zhongchen [晁中辰]
    2010 “中国古代谏议思想与谏议制度刍议” [“A Modest Proposal on the Theory and System of Ancient Chinese Remonstration”]. Dongyue Tribune (9): 63–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chao, Zhongchen (ed.) [晁中辰等(编)]
    2015中国谏议制度史 [The History of Ancient Chinese Remonstration System]. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, Qian. [陈谦]
    2008 “从‘协调关系’的传播功能看中国古代谏议” [“Ancient Chinese Remonstration Revisited from the Perspective of the Communicative Function of ‘Coordinating Relation’”]. Guangxi Social Sciences7: 99–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. Journal of Pragmatics25 (3): 349–67. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  8. Culpeper, Jonathan and Elena Semino
    2000 “Constructing Witches and Spells: Speech Acts and Activity Types in Early Modern England”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics1 (1): 97–116. 10.1075/jhp.1.1.08cul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.1.1.08cul [Google Scholar]
  9. DeCapua, Andrea and Joan Findlay Dunham
    2007 “The Pragmatics of Advice Giving: Cross-Cultural Perspectives”. Intercultural Pragmatics4 (3): 319–42. 10.1515/IP.2007.016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.016 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eisenstadt, Shmuel N.
    1992The Political System of Empires. Guiyang: Guizhou People’s Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Enfield, Nick J.
    2009 “Relationship Thinking and Human Pragmatics”. Journal of Pragmatics41 (1): 60–78. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Flor, Alicia M.
    2005 “A Theoretical Review of the Speech Act of Suggesting: Towards a Taxonomy for Its Use in FLT”. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses18: 167–87. 10.14198/raei.2005.18.08
    https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2005.18.08 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fu, Shaoliang. [傅绍良]
    2006 “唐代谏诤风气与文学家谏官的命运” [“Remonstration Atmosphere and the Fate of Literati as Remonstrators in the Tang Dynasty”]. The Journal of Humanities5: 95–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise
    2001 “Expressing Criticism and Evaluation During Three Centuries”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics2 (1): 115–39. 10.1075/jhp.2.1.06gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.1.06gun [Google Scholar]
  17. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    2008An Introduction to Functional Grammar. (Third edition revised byChristian M. I. M. Mathiessen.) Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press and Hodder Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Han, Weizhi. [韩维志]
    2005 “儒家对强谏的抑扬与强谏者形象的形成” [“Confucian Modulation of Forced Admonishment and the Formation of the Images of Admonishers”]. Seeking Truth5: 113–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. He, Ziran and Wei Ren
    2016 “Current Address Behaviour in China”. East Asian Pragmatics1 (2): 163–80. 10.1558/eap.v1i2.29537
    https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.v1i2.29537 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hinkel, Eli
    1994 “Appropriateness of Advice as L2 Solidarity Strategy”. RELCJournal25: 71–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1997 “Appropriateness of Advice: DCT and Multiple Choice Data”. Applied Linguistics18 (1): 1–26. 10.1093/applin/18.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ide, Sachiko
    1989 “Formal Forms and Discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness”. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication8 (2–3): 223–48. 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2‑3.223
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jucker, Andreas H.
    1994 “The Feasibility of Historical Pragmatics”. Journal of Pragmatics22 (5): 533–46. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90083‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90083-3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jucker, Andreas H. and Irma Taavitsainen
    2000 “Diachronic Speech Act Analysis: Insults from Flyting to Flaming”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics1 (1): 67–95. 10.1075/jhp.1.1.07juc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.1.1.07juc [Google Scholar]
  25. Kádár, Daniel Z.
    2007 “On Historical Chinese Apology and Its Strategic Application”. Journal of Politeness Research Language, Behaviour, Culture3 (1): 125–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2010 “Exploring the Historical Chinese Polite Denigration/Elevation Phenomenon”. InJonathan Culpeper and Daniel Z. Kádár (eds), Historical (im)Politeness, 117–45. Oxford: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012 “Historical Chinese Politeness and Rhetoric. A Case Study of Epistolary Refusals”. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture8: 93–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2013Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230393059
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230393059 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2017Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107280465
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107280465 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kádár, Daniel Z. and Yuling Pan
    2011a “Politeness in China”. InDaniel. Z. Kádár and Sara Mills (eds), Politeness in East Asia, 125–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511977886.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977886.008 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kádár, Daniel and Yuling Pan
    2011bPoliteness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. King, Jeremy
    2010 “Please from the New World: The Structure of Directive Head Acts in Colonial Spanish Familiar Letters”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics11 (2): 250–76. 10.1075/jhp.11.2.04kin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.11.2.04kin [Google Scholar]
  33. Kohnen, Thomas
    2000 “Explicit Performatives in Old English: A Corpus-based Study of Directives”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics1 (2): 301–21. 10.1075/jhp.1.2.07koh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.1.2.07koh [Google Scholar]
  34. Kong, Fanmin. [孔繁敏]
    1994 “论中国古代谏诤的几个问题” [“Discussion on Ancient China Remonstration”]. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences)5: 84–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kwarciński, Wojciech
    2006 “A Diachronic Speech Act Analysis of Sworn Testimonies in Polish Criminal Trials”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics7 (2): 293–314. 10.1075/jhp.7.2.07kwa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.7.2.07kwa [Google Scholar]
  36. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Li, Eden Sum-hung
    2010 “Making Suggestions: A Contrastive Study of Young Hong Kong and Australian Students”. Journal of Pragmatics42 (3): 598–616. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.014 [Google Scholar]
  38. Li, Qing. [李青]
    2014 “中国古代言谏制度初探” [“A Primary Probe into Ancient Chinese Remonstration System”]. Journal of China National School of Administration (4): 70–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Mao, Zhixiang and Jiyong Hou. [冒志祥、侯吉永]
    2007 “谈古代进谏公文的说服修辞” [“On Persuasive Rhetorics Used in Ancient Remonstration Documents”]. Rhetoric Study6: 76–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Moessner, Lilo
    2010 “Directive Speech Acts: A Cross-Generic Diachronic Study”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics11 (2): 219–49. 10.1075/jhp.11.2.03moe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.11.2.03moe [Google Scholar]
  41. Pan, Yuling and Daniel Z. Kádár
    2011 “Historical vs. Contemporary Chinese Linguistic Politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics43 (6): 1525–39. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.018 [Google Scholar]
  42. Papi, Marcella B.
    2000 “Is a Diachronic Speech Act Theory Possible?” Journal of Historical Pragmatics1 (1): 57–66. 10.1075/jhp.1.1.06ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.1.1.06ber [Google Scholar]
  43. Peng, Guoyue
    1999 “Chūgokugo ni keigo ga sukunai no ha naze? (What is the reason for the small number of honorific forms in Chinese?)”. Gengo28: 60–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2000Kindai Chūgokugo no keigo shisutemu [‘The Polite Language System of Pre-modern Chinese’]. Tokyo: Hakuteisha.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Rudanko, Juhani
    2004 “‘I Wol Sterve’: Negotiating the Issue of a Lady’s Consent in Chaucer’s Poetry”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics5 (1): 137–58. 10.1075/jhp.5.1.07rud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.5.1.07rud [Google Scholar]
  46. Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte
    1976 “Für eine historische Analyse von Sprechakten” [“For a Historical Analysis of Speech Acts”]. InHeinrich Weber and Harald Weydt (eds), Sprachtheorie und Pragmatik [Language Theory and Pragmatics], 113–19. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111612263.113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111612263.113 [Google Scholar]
  47. 1983Tradition des Sprechens: Elemente einer pragmatischen Sprachgeschichtsschreibung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Schrott, Angela
    2000 “Quí los podrié contar? Interrogative Acts in the Cantar de mio Cid: Some Examples from Old Spanish on Asking Questions”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics1 (2): 263–99. 10.1075/jhp.1.2.06sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.1.2.06sch [Google Scholar]
  49. Sheng, Hong. [盛洪]
    2015 “宪政结构中的谏议制度及其现代意义” [“The Remonstration System in the Constitutional Structure and its Modern Implication”]. Tian Fu Xin Lun (3): 41–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Shi, Wei. [史伟]
    2012 “言谏政风与贞观谏议制度之发展” [“The Political Climate of the Remonstrance and the Development of the Remonstrance System in the Zhenguan Period”]. Journal of Henan Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) (3): 131–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sima, Guang. et al. (eds). [司马光等(编)]
    2011Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Available online at: so.gushiwen.org/guwen/book_8.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Skewis, Malcolm
    2003 “Mitigated Directness in Honglou Meng: Directive Speech Acts and Politeness in Eighteenth Century Chinese”. Journal of Pragmatics35 (2): 161–89. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00084‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00084-X [Google Scholar]
  53. Taavitsainen, Irma and Andreas H. Jucker
    2010 “Trends and Developments in Historical Pragmatics”. InAndreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics, 3–30. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang, Changhua and Pengge Zhao. [王长华、赵棚鸽]
    2010 “《毛诗》美、刺与唐代谏诤精神” [“Chanting and Irony in Mao’s Annotations of Book of Songs and Persuasion and Remonstration in Tang”]. Journal of Hebei Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) (6): 36–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Wang, Jin. [王谨]
    2008 “中国上古谏政制度” [“The System of Remonstrative Politics in Ancient China”]. Journal of Shanxi University (Philosophy and Social Science) (4): 44–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Wang, Xueyu and Xinren Chen
    2013 “Studies on Historical Pragmatics Abroad”. Modern Foreign Languages36 (3): 308–14+331.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Watts, Richard J.
    2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  58. Wu, Jing. [吴兢]
    2011Zhen Guan Zheng Yao. Changsha: Yeulu Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Xiao, Zhanpeng and Wei Liu. [肖占鹏、刘伟]
    2008 “试议谏诤精神对唐代文学写实倾向的影响” [“The Influence of Remonstrant Spirit on Literature in the Tang Dynasty”]. Nankai Journal (Philosophy, Literature and Social Science Edition)6: 99–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Zeng, Zhenyu. [曾振宇]
    2007 “孟子孝论对孔子思想的发展与偏离 – 从‘以正致谏’到 ‘父子不责善’” [“Inheritance and Departure: Mencius’s Idea on Confucius’ Filial Thoughts – From ‘Exhortation between Father and Children’ to ‘Nonexhortation between Father and Children’”]. Journal of Historical Science11: 29–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Zha, Qinglan. and Qingping Zha. [查清兰、查清平]
    2009 “婉转曲折辞简意深 –《左传》谏说辞令的解读” [“Implicit yet Profound – an Interpretation of the Remonstration Language in Zuo Zhuan”]. Masterpieces Review9: 10–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhang, Gui. [张贵]
    2015 “宋仁宗朝谏官活动与怪奇文风研究” [“Study on Remonstration of Officials during the Reign of Song Renzong and Eccentric Style”]. Seeking Truth (2): 128–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhang, Yushu and Tingjing Chen (eds) [张玉书、陈廷敬等(编)]
    2004Kangxi Dictionary. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Available online at:tool.httpcn.com/Html/KangXi/36/KOUYXVUYUYXVCAZF.shtml
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhou, Yu and Shuiyuan Huang [周妤、黄水源]
    2010 “清人论纳谏与谏铮之道” [“The Qing Dynasty People’s Discussions about the Methods of Accepting Opinions and Advising”]. Journal of Hunan University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition)4: 57–60.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.17002.she
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.17002.she
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): court context , jian , modulation , power threatening act , ritual and speech act
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error