面子理论及现代汉语嫌恶言语行为的若干相关理论
礼貌原则中的面子理论概述
1.1.1 礼貌原则的历史与发展
Politeness refers to behaviors that align with socially accepted norms, stemming from a deep-seated desire for respect and appreciation from others It is an essential component of social relationships, symbolizing societal civilization and progress while aiding in the establishment and maintenance of positive interpersonal connections In social communication, polite language is crucial, as it fosters joy not only in those who practice it but also in those who receive it Similar to the "cooperative principle," the principle of politeness governs the process and outcomes of communication, making it one of the most important principles in human linguistic interaction.
American linguistic philosopher Paul Grice posits that during communication, both parties appear to intentionally or unintentionally adhere to certain principles to effectively collaborate and achieve their communicative goals In his 1975 work "Logic and Conversation," Grice introduced the "Cooperative Principle," which encompasses four maxims: the maxim of quantity, the maxim of quality, the maxim of relation, and the maxim of manner.
American sociolinguist Robin Lakoff suggests that in informal conversations, fostering a closer relationship between the participants can be more important than the actual content of the discussion In such interactions, the focus often shifts from merely exchanging information to building rapport and connection.
礼貌是支配对话效果的关键因素之一。因此莱考夫 1973 年提出了“礼貌原则”
The concept of the politeness principle encompasses three key rules: avoid imposing, offer choices, and treat others kindly Lakoff asserts that while the expression of the politeness principle may vary across different cultural contexts, its fundamental essence remains consistent.
在对合作原则的各种准则提出质疑的同时，英国语言学家杰弗里ã利奇
In 1983, Geoffery Leech introduced the six maxims of politeness to explain why individuals often violate conversational norms by expressing their meanings in implicit and indirect ways These maxims include the Maxim of Tact, the Maxim of Generosity, the Maxim of Approbation, the Maxim of Modesty, the Maxim of Agreement, and the Maxim of Sympathy.
根据礼貌原则的理论，美国学者尔文ã戈夫曼（Erving Goffman）早在 20
世纪 50 年代提出“面子”这一概念并指出语言交流中的礼貌公式。英国人类学 家布朗（Brown）和列文森（Levison）沿用了戈夫曼的面子概念并对其进行 了系统研究，1978 年在《语言应用的普遍现象：礼貌现象》（Universals in language usage：politeness phenomena）一文中提出了“面子保全论”（Face saving theory）。布朗和列文森将面子分为积极面子及消极面子等两种并指出 沟通过程中，谈话双方为了达到交际目的要同时重视这两种面子。
胡先晋（1944）可能是最先分析中国人面子的学者。她区分“面子”和
"Face" and "face value" symbolize society's recognition of an individual's reputation and status, while "face" also reflects personal moral judgments Consequently, "losing face" and "being embarrassed" are not synonymous; a distinguished guest may experience a loss of face without necessarily feeling embarrassed.
Being asked to leave through the side door by a host is a matter of losing face rather than being embarrassed; if a guest resorts to vulgar insults in public, they are the ones truly losing face This distinction lacks strong persuasive power, as "face" and "loss of face" are often inseparable in many situations.
This paper utilizes Brown and Levinson's face theory as a guiding framework to analyze the speech acts of disdain in modern Chinese and Vietnamese The study aims to identify various strategies employed for face-saving in these languages.
1.1.2 布朗和列文森面子理论的若干概念
1.1.2.1 面子的定义 布朗和列文森沿用了戈夫曼的“面子”（face）这一概念。“面子”界定为一 个人在某一具体交际场合中，通过采取言语动作而为自己获得的正面的社会 价值，是按照社会所赞许的属性而创造的自我形象［17］。
1.1.2.2 积极面子及消极面子
布 朗 和 列 文 森 将 面 子 分 为 消 极 面 子 （negative face） 和 积 极 面 子
（positive face）两类。消极面子是指有自主的权利，不希望别人强加于自
Self-interference refers to the actions one takes to seek acknowledgment and affection from others, aiming to establish mutual understanding and consensus.
1.1.2.3 威胁面子行为 布朗和列文森认为大多数言语行为都潜在着威胁谈话双方面子的能力，即说话人和听话人同时面临着积极面子和消极面子的威胁。布朗和列文森称那种言语行为为“威胁面子行为”（Face threatening acts，FTA）。
FTA 大致可分为四大类：
Threatening speech acts directed at listeners can include commands, requests, advice, threats, and warnings from the speaker.
Threatening a listener's positive face through verbal actions can occur when a speaker disagrees with the listener's views, offers criticism, displays contempt, expresses complaints, issues condemnation, makes accusations, or insults Such behaviors reflect a negative attitude towards the listener's positive face.
Threatening speech acts can undermine a speaker's negative face, as when a speaker expresses gratitude, accepts criticism, or makes insincere promises in response to outdated reactions from the listener, or offers reluctant assistance.
言语行为理论
1.2.1 言语行为的定义
言语行为这一概念最初出现于英国哲学家约翰ã奥斯汀（John Austin）20
世纪 50 年代提出的言语行为理论（Speech act theory）。根据言语行为理论， 人类交际的基本单位不是句子或其他任何表达手段，而是完成一定的行为， 比如：陈述、请求、命令、提问、道歉、祝贺等行为。说话人通过说一句话 或者若干句话来执行一个或者若干个以上列举的行为，而且，这些行为的实 现还可能给听者带来某些后果。譬如：｛115｝［《乡村爱情故事》第八集］ 中，说话者向听话者说“我发现你这人你是不是中邪了，你说一天你老盯着我 干啥？你不能干点儿别的吗，现在？”，意味着说话者同时执行了嫌恶行为， 嫌人家爱管闲事；听话者听到那句话之后可能会做出决定再也不干涉、关心 说话人的事了。因此嫌恶就是一种言语行为。
Austin emphasizes that while performative utterances do not possess truth values, certain conditions must be met for them to effectively carry out an action These conditions include the appropriate procedures, participants, context, and the mental state of those involved Specifically, (1) the speaker must be someone capable of performing the action, and there must be a suitable recipient; (2) the speaker must possess genuine intent, as a lack of sincerity renders the act ineffective; and (3) the speaker must not retract what they have said.
根据言语行为理论，说话者说话时可能同时实施三种行为：言内行为
In communication, three types of speech acts are identified: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts Locutionary acts involve the utterance of words, phrases, and clauses, expressing literal meaning through syntax, vocabulary, and phonetics Illocutionary acts convey the speaker's intent behind their words, indicating the actions performed while speaking Perlocutionary acts refer to the effects or changes that result from the spoken words For instance, when a speaker articulates a message, they engage in a locutionary act by forming sentences according to Chinese grammar If the speaker expresses disdain for the listener's meddling behavior, this reflects an illocutionary act Consequently, if the listener feels insulted and decides to refrain from such behavior in the future, this response exemplifies a perlocutionary act.
Due to the fact that illocutionary acts fall within the realm of linguistic systems, while perlocutionary acts are not considered linguistic actions and involve complex psychological processes rather than straightforward language interactions, linguists have historically focused more on extralinguistic behaviors rather than perlocutionary acts.
1.2.2 言语行为的分类
According to Austin (1962), the number of performative verbs corresponds to the number of performative acts He categorizes performative verbs into five main types.
Austin's classification has faced criticism for its lack of uniform standards and systematic approach His student, John Searle, argues that Austin conflated the relationship between speech acts and speech act verbs, suggesting that the presence or absence of verbs should not be the criterion for categorizing speech acts Furthermore, Searle contends that certain verbs that do not possess performative qualities should not be included in the classification of performative verbs According to Austin's classification, aversive speech acts fall under the category of behabitives.
In 1975, Searle identified 12 distinct aspects of speech acts, using these as the basis for differentiating various types of speech behaviors However, during the classification process, he focused on four key criteria: (1) the purpose of the speech act, (2) the correspondence between discourse and the objective world, (3) the psychological state of the speaker, and (4) the intended effect on the listener.
（4）命题内容。按照以上的依据，塞尔把言语行为分为五大类：
Searle's classification of speech acts is scientifically grounded yet remains quite general, making it challenging to categorize the vast array of speech behaviors into a few broad categories Despite its limitations, no one has yet proposed a more rational classification system A significant drawback of Searle's approach is its static perspective on speech acts, which may overlook the dynamic nature of language use.
He separates implicit actions from context and distinguishes between implicit behaviors and the most common conversational activities According to Searle's classification, aversive speech acts fall under the category of expressive evaluative behaviors.
In the development of Austin's speech act theory, the concept of "indirect speech acts" was introduced In everyday communication, individuals often express their intentions not directly, but rather through indirect means, subtly conveying their messages This approach involves using one speech act to indirectly perform another, thereby avoiding direct requests or commands to achieve their goals In other words, direct speech acts align the form and purpose of the utterance, while indirect speech acts utilize the structure of one speech act to convey the intention of a different one.
1.2.3 言行行为的表现形式
The core of speech act performance encompasses performative verbs and performative formulas.
Performative verbs, under specific conditions, not only convey spoken content but also possess the power to enact actions For instance, the verb "criticize" serves as a performative verb because it introduces spoken content while simultaneously bringing the act of criticism into existence Therefore, "criticize" embodies the power of action In contrast, the verb "dislike," which has a similar meaning, functions merely as a speech act verb without the same capacity to perform an action.
（speech act verb／động từ chỉ hành vi nói năng），一般没有施为用法。
施行话语（performative utterance／phát ngôn ngữ vi）是直接施行言外行为（illocutionary act ／ hành vi ở lời）的言语部分。
The core structure of performative speech acts is defined by their specific formulas, with each type of speech act, such as evaluative or commitment speech acts, possessing its own unique performative formula In addition to these core formulas, performative speech acts also include auxiliary components that enhance their meaning and function.
In Episode 8 of "Rural Love Story," Zhao Si expresses his annoyance at the gatekeeper's excessive curiosity by questioning, "Have you been possessed? Why do you keep staring at me all day? Can't you do something else now?" The core structure of his disdainful remarks consists of three rhetorical questions: "Have you been possessed?", "Why do you keep staring at me?", and "Can't you do something else now?" The phrases "I noticed" and "you say" serve as supporting elements in his statement.
施 行 定 式 含 有 若 干 言 外 之 力 显 示 手 段 （illocutionary force indicating devices，IFIDs）。
第一 IFIDs 是词语结构，比如“多 X 啊”结构是感叹行为的特殊语言结
构，“别、不要、麻烦、请 + 行动动词”是祈使行为的象征结构⋯⋯。
The second IFIDs are specialized terms used in various performative speech acts For example, interrogative pronouns are specifically employed in questioning actions, while words like "please," "don't," "trouble," and "kindly" are used in imperative speech acts.
第三 IFIDs 是语调，同一句子带上不同的语调会表示不同的意义。如同
嫌恶言语行为理论
1.3.1 嫌恶言语行为的界定
In modern Chinese, there are numerous verbs that express aversion, including "嫌," "嫌弃," "嫌恶," "厌恶," "笑," "耻笑," "讽刺," "指责," "批评," and "警告." Among these, "嫌恶" stands out as the most neutral and comprehensive term, making it a representative for the other verbs that convey similar sentiments.
According to the Modern Chinese Dictionary, the term "嫌" or "嫌恶" conveys a strong sense of aversion towards people or things Similarly, the Vietnamese dictionary defines "嫌恶" as a feeling of dislike due to perceiving something as inferior or unattractive.
The definition provided clarifies the meaning of the term "disgust," but it does not fully address the concept of hateful speech acts.
We utilize the analytical framework of Polish linguist Anna Wierzbicka to clarify the concept of aversive speech acts Aversive behavior is dynamic, diverse in expression, and inherently subjective When a speaker engages in aversive speech, they are essentially commenting on or evaluating an existing entity, whether a person, object, or phenomenon According to the speaker's perspective, this entity, referred to as X, is deemed undesirable or fails to meet a certain standard.
对 X 表示不满的态度并告诉受话者自己的意见。
In simple terms, hate speech refers to the speaker's subjective negative evaluation of a person or thing, based on the belief that they possess undesirable, incorrect, inappropriate, or objectionable characteristics.
Hành vi ghét bỏ bao gồm các yếu tố tương tự như hành vi mắng mỏ, chỉ trích và nguyền rủa Theo nghiên cứu của Nguyễn Thị Hoàng Yến (2007), các hình thức ngôn ngữ này thể hiện sự tương tác xã hội và có thể gây ảnh hưởng tiêu cực đến mối quan hệ giữa các cá nhân.
为施行定式进行仔细分析的结果，我们可如下区分：
Distinguishing between derogatory speech and reprimanding speech involves two key perspectives Firstly, from the participants' viewpoint, in derogatory speech, both the speaker and listener are unrestricted, whereas in reprimanding speech, the speaker typically holds a higher status than the listener This dynamic often prevents subordinates, employees, or children from criticizing their elders, leaders, or parents due to societal norms around respect for authority Secondly, regarding psychological states, reprimanding speech is usually accompanied by feelings of anger, while derogatory speech may or may not involve anger as a factor.
Distinguishing between hateful speech and accusatory speech reveals key differences From the perspective of the topics addressed, hateful speech encompasses an unlimited range, including both people and situations, while accusatory speech typically focuses on the attitudes or actions of specific individuals or groups For example, one might express disdain for someone's work ethic or inappropriate behavior, but they may only hate someone's appearance without ever accusing others of their looks Additionally, in terms of the participants involved, accusatory speech usually occurs between individuals who are familiar with each other, as people rarely accuse strangers, whereas hateful speech can occur between individuals who do not know each other.
Distinguishing between hate speech and cursing involves examining their intent and execution Hate speech typically expresses dissatisfaction while maintaining a level of politeness, often using strategies that preserve the other person's face In contrast, cursing conveys a more severe degree of discontent without such considerations Additionally, hate speech can manifest through both verbal and non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions or eye contact, whereas cursing primarily relies on verbal expressions alone.
Hateful speech can manifest in various forms, including single sentences, paragraphs, or entire articles, as well as non-verbal elements such as gestures, body language, and eye contact This paper focuses specifically on the linguistic aspects of hate speech, excluding the analysis of non-verbal factors.
1.3.2 嫌恶言语行为的分类
Based on the consistency between the implementation patterns of hate speech and their intended purposes, we categorize hate speech acts into two types: direct speech acts and indirect speech acts.
In the context of expressing direct disdain through verbal behavior, certain phrases convey strong feelings of disappointment For instance, in the scenario from "Tangshan Earthquake," a mother expresses her sorrow over her son's reluctance to attend university by saying, "You have disappointed me so much." This statement serves as a clear example of a fixed expression of discontent, directly reflecting her dissatisfaction with her son's decision.
Indirectly derogatory speech acts utilize neutral expressions to convey negative sentiments For instance, the question "Why are you so inconsiderate?" serves as a rhetorical device, reflecting a mother's dissatisfaction with her son's behavior.
Based on the target of disdain, verbal behaviors can be categorized into self-directed and other-directed expressions Other-directed verbal behaviors can further be divided into expressions of dissatisfaction directed towards the listener and those aimed at a third party This paper focuses specifically on the first type of other-directed verbal behavior, which reflects the speaker's discontent towards the listener.
1.3.3 嫌恶言语行为的目的
说话人可借用嫌恶言语行为来表达许多不同的交际目的。
Self-deprecating speech can serve various purposes, including seeking assistance, expressing refusal, demonstrating humility, conveying regret, exhibiting sulkiness, boasting, and complimenting others.
相关问题国内外研究现状
1.4.1 相关问题国外研究成果
语言学的言语行动理论及礼貌原则这两大问题晚在 20 世纪 50 年代才发展，然而却吸引了诸多学者（如格赖斯、利奇、戈夫曼、布朗、列文森、维兹毕卡⋯⋯）并取得颇大的成就，弄清了无数的社会语言现象。这些理论引入中国之后已受到了众多研究家的关心及争论。不少中国学者（如顾曰国、胡先缙 ⋯⋯）在跨文化角度下指出了中国人和西方人因文化差异而引起了语
The differences in language strategies have been extensively applied in countless doctoral dissertations, master's theses, and academic reports.
In his academic report "A Comparative Analysis of English and Chinese Critique Speech Acts and Politeness Strategies," Wu Geqi (2002) uses Grice's cooperative principle to illustrate the differences in politeness strategies between Westerners and Chinese individuals Similarly, Wang Yuxiao (2011), in the report "Euphemisms from the Perspective of Face Theory," examines modern Chinese euphemisms through the lens of Brown and Levinson's face-saving theory, comparing them to English Both reports focus on overarching strategies, such as indirect speech acts and humor, without delving into specific methods Furthermore, the authors note that while discussing face-saving strategies, they do not address the remedial mechanisms or various influencing factors related to face.
Liu Weiping's (2004) study on "Polite Refusal Strategies," Tian Xuejun's (2008) comparison of "Eastern and Western Criticism Strategies and Cultural Interpretation," and Zhu Xiangyan's (2004) investigation into "Pragmatic Strategies in Chinese Criticism" all explore the use of critical discourse within the constraints of politeness principles These works identify various generalized politeness strategies and specific methods employed by speakers when delivering criticism, as well as factors influencing their choice of strategies However, none of these studies analyze the forms of critical discourse, nor do they address the responses of the recipients of criticism.
1.4.2 相关问题国内研究成果
Tại Việt Nam, Đỗ Hữu Châu (1993, 2001), Nguyễn Đức Dân (1988) và Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2000) đã đặt nền móng cho nghiên cứu ngôn ngữ học ứng dụng, với nhiều luận án tiến sĩ, luận văn thạc sĩ và báo cáo khoa học dựa trên lý thuyết của họ để phân tích hành vi ngôn ngữ trong tiếng Việt.
Nguyễn Thị Hoàng Yến (2000) và Nguyễn Thu Hạnh (2005) đã nghiên cứu các hành vi ngôn ngữ thể hiện sự châm biếm và chỉ trích trong hội thoại tiếng Việt, chỉ ra cấu trúc của hai hình thức hành vi này Hoàng Thị Hồng Vân (2009) và Nguyễn Thị Hạnh (2011) đã tiếp cận vấn đề từ góc độ giới, phân tích các khía cạnh liên quan đến sự khác biệt giới trong các hành vi ngôn ngữ này.
Bài viết này tập trung vào việc phân tích hành vi ngôn từ châm biếm trong tác phẩm của Ma Văn Kháng và Vũ Trọng Phụng Nguyễn Thị Hoàng Yến (2007) đã nghiên cứu các quy tắc và thành phần hỗ trợ của ngôn từ châm biếm trong tiếng Việt, nhưng chưa đề cập đến các phương tiện bảo vệ mặt mũi cụ thể Các nghiên cứu của Nguyễn Tâm Hồng (2008) và Nguyễn Thị Hảo (2011) đã xem xét hành vi ngôn từ khen ngợi và mệnh lệnh trong tiếng Trung hiện đại Tuy nhiên, cho đến nay, chưa có nghiên cứu nào từ người học tiếng Việt về các phương tiện bảo vệ mặt mũi trong hành vi ngôn từ châm biếm trong tiếng Trung hiện đại, cũng như sự khác biệt giữa tiếng Trung và tiếng Việt trong vấn đề này.
Disgust and praise are common communicative behaviors across cultures, each exhibiting unique forms of expression influenced by social factors such as status, gender, age, and interaction intentions While the intent behind expressing disgust often aims for positive outcomes—encouraging the recipient to recognize and correct their flaws—such speech acts can threaten both the recipient's and the speaker's face To mitigate this threat and maintain harmonious relationships, speakers typically avoid direct expressions of disgust and employ various face-saving strategies In response to being criticized, recipients often incorporate face-repairing strategies in their replies to restore their own face and, at times, the speaker's face as well.
The principle of politeness in communication has garnered significant attention from experts and scholars, who analyze it from various perspectives, such as the interests and harms of both parties involved or the positive and negative face aspects in conversations This paper adopts Brown and Levinson's concepts of positive and negative face as its theoretical foundation to examine modern Chinese aversive speech acts and their responses, aiming to identify the usage and characteristics of various face-saving strategies involved Furthermore, the study compares the findings from modern Chinese with those of Vietnamese to uncover the fundamental similarities and differences between the two languages.