1887
Volume 7, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study explores the role of metapragmatic expressions (MPEs) as pragmatic manipulation in a media context, with data drawn from a Chinese TV panel discussion program Tiger Talk. It argues that the program host selects MPEs to manipulate the ongoing interactions, in order to solve or prevent the actual or potential problems in the interactions. Hence, the functioning of MPEs is described as a process consisting of three stages: problem awareness, pragmatic manipulation, and problem resolution or prevention. It is found that the host mainly uses five types of MPEs, i.e. performatives, commentaries, evidentials, message glosses, and stance displayers for the sake of pragmatic manipulation across the three dimensions of interactive procedure control, rapport management, and impact monitoring. The article concludes that the host’s pragmatic manipulation of the ongoing interactions, driven by both institutional and interpersonal concerns, is motivated by his institutional rights and obligations as a program manager.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.7.3.06liu
2016-09-12
2019-09-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Caffi, Claudia
    1984 “Introduction”. Journal of Pragmatics8: 433–435. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90035‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90035-3 [Google Scholar]
  2. 1993 “Metapragmatics”. InEncyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2461–2466. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2006 “Metapragmatics”. InEncyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition, 82–88. Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00317‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00317-5 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2007Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ciliberti, Anna , and Laurie Anderson
    2007 “Metapragmatic Comments in Institutional Talk: A Comparative Analysis Across Settings.” InMetapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram 
Bublitz and Axel Hübler , 143–166. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.11cil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.11cil [Google Scholar]
  7. de Saussure, Louis , and Peter Schulz
    (eds) 2005Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, language, mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17 [Google Scholar]
  8. de Saussure, Louis
    2005 “Manipulation and Cognitive Pragmatics: Preliminary Hypotheses.” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure and Peter Schulz , 113–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.17.07sau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.07sau [Google Scholar]
  9. Goffman, Erving
    1963Behavior in Public: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hübler, Axel
    2011 “Metapragmatics.” InFoundations of Pragmatics, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Neal R. Norrick , 107–136. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214260.107
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214260.107 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hübler, Axel , and Wolfram Bublitz
    2007 “Introducing Metapragmatics in Use.” InMetapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler , 1–26. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.02hub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.02hub [Google Scholar]
  12. Hyland, Ken
    2005/2008Metadiscourse. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kleinke, Sonja , and Birte, Bös
    2015 “Intergroup Rudeness and the Metapragmatics of its Negotiation in Online Discussion Fora”. Pragmatics25(1): 47–71. doi: 10.1075/prag.25.1.03kle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.25.1.03kle [Google Scholar]
  14. Levinson, Stephen C
    1988Generalized Conversational Implicatures and the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Mey, Jacob L
    1993/2001Pragmatics: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Penz, Hermine
    2007 “Building Common Ground through Metapragmatic Comments in International Project Work.” InMetapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler , 263–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.17pen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.17pen [Google Scholar]
  18. Ran, Yongping
    2013 “The Metapragmatic Negation as a Rapport-Oriented Mitigating Device”. Journal of Pragmatics48: 98–111. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.012 [Google Scholar]
  19. Rigotti, Eddo
    2005 “Towards a Typology of Manipulative Processes.” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, language, mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure and Peter Schulz . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.17.05rig
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.05rig [Google Scholar]
  20. Silverstein, Michael
    1993 “Metapragmatic Discourse and Metapragmatic Function.” InReflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. by John A. Lucy , 33–58. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004 [Google Scholar]
  21. Smith, Sara W. , and Xiaoping Liang
    2007 “Metapragmatic Expressions in Physics Lectures.” InMetapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler , 167–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.12smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.12smi [Google Scholar]
  22. Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
    2007 “Metapragmatic Utterances in Computer-Mediated Interaction.” InMetapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler , 87–106. Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.07tan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.07tan [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Dijk, Teun A
    2006 “Discourse and Manipulation”. Discourse and Society17(2): 359–383. doi: 10.1177/0957926506060250
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 [Google Scholar]
  24. Verschueren, Jef
    1999/2000Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2000 “Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use”. Pragmatics10(4): 439–456. doi: 10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.7.3.06liu
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): metapragmatic expressions , pragmatic manipulation and TV panel discussion program
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