顺应论 The Adaptation Theory.ppt

顺应论 The Adaptation Theory.ppt

《顺应论 The Adaptation Theory.ppt》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《顺应论 The Adaptation Theory.ppt（80页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

TheAdaptationTheory-WangYingyun11.Lead-in1.Lead-in2.LiteratureReview2.LiteratureReview3.ThreePropertiesofLanguage3.ThreePropertiesofLanguage1.1Alead-inquestion1.2ThedefinitionofAdaptationTheory2.1Foreignscholarsview2.2Chinesescholarsview2.3Asummary3.1Variability3.2Negotiability3.3Adaptability4.FourAnglesofInvestigation4.FourAnglesofInvestigation4.1Contextualcorrelatesofadaptability4.1.1Thegeneralpicture4.1.2Ingredientsofthecommunicativecontext4.1.3Linguisticchannelandlinguisticcontext4.2Structuralobjectsofadaptability4.2.1Languages,codesandstyles4.2.2Utterancebuildingingredients4.2.3Utterancesandutteranceclusters4.2.4Utterance-buildingprinciples4.3Dynamicsofadaptability4.3.1Temporaldimension4.3.2Dynamicsandcontext4.3.3Dynamicsandstructure4.4Salienceoftheadaptionprocess5.PhilosophicalBasisofAdaptation5.PhilosophicalBasisofAdaptation5.1DarwinsEvolutionaryEpistemology5.2PiagetsCognitiveDevelopmentTheory5.3CommunicationAccommodationTheoryLead-inWhatdopeopledowhenusingWhatdopeopledowhenusinglanguage?

language?

1.1Alead-inquestionUsinglanguagemustconsistofthecontinuousmakingoflinguisticchoices,consciouslyorunconsciously,forlanguage-internal（i.e.structural）and/orlanguage-externalreasons.（Verschueren,2000:

55-57）1.2ThedefinitionofAdaptationTheoryAccordingtoVerschueren,theAdaptationTheoryclaimsthatlanguageuseistheprocessofmakingchoicebyadaptingtocontextandlinguisticstructureinadynamicwayatvariouslevelsofsalience.（Verschueren,2000:

55-57）LiteratureReviewLOGO2.1ForeignscholarsviewVerschuerenbelievesthatthetraditionalareasofpragmaticresearchsuchasDeixis,Speechact,Implicitmeaning,etc.representdifferentwaysofspeakingaboutcommonphenomenaratherthandifferentphenomena.So,earlyin1987,Verschuerenfirstproposedthetheoryofadaptation.In1999,VerschuerenfurthermodifiedanddevelopedthistheoryinhisbookUnderstandingPragmatics,inwhichheclaimsthatlanguageuseisaprocessofchoice-makingandhastheadaptiveproperty.Onthisbasis,hiswell-knownlinguisticadaptationtheorycomesintoexistence.LOGOVerschuerenbelievesthatlanguageusageisakindofbehavior.Behaviorisdifferentfromactinthatithasmoresocialmeanings.SoasfarasVerschuerenisconcerned,languageusageisalsoakindofsocialaction.Hefurtherarguedthatlanguagephenomenonshouldbeconnectedwithlanguageusagefromtheperspectiveofsocial,cognitiveandcultural,thatis,pragmaticsdoesnotconstituteanadditionalcomponentofatheoryoflanguage,butitoffersadifferentperspective.（ZhaoHuawei,2009）LOGOFrom1987whenVerschuerenfirstproposedthenotionofadaptationtill1999whenacomprehensivelinguisticadaptationtheorywaspresented,thistheoryattractedagreatdealofattentionsbothinChinaandabroad.Strongresponsesfrommanyresearchersandscholarsfurthercontributedtothedevelopmentofthetheory.ChinesescholarsreactedstronglytowardstheadaptationtheoryafteritwasintroducedtoChina.Inthenextsection,abriefreviewofthestudiesonthetopicinChinawillbepresented.LOGO2.2ChinesescholarsviewThefirstsystematicintroductiontolinguisticadaptationtheorywasin1991byQianGuanlian.Abouttenyearslaterin2000,Qiandiscussedthetheoreticaloriginsandconstruction,onthebasishefurthersummarizedthatUnderstandingPragmaticspresentedabasicquestion,threekeynotionsandfouranglesforinvestigation.HeZiranandYuGuodong（1999）introducedUnderstandingPragmaticsindetails,analyzedthemaincontentsandatthesametimespokehighlyofthebook.HoweverinReflectionsonTheoreticalPragmaticsHuangYanproposedthatitisalittlebitunrealistictoclaimthatpragmaticscancoveralllinguisticphenomenasince“Everythingispragmaticsmeansinessencenothingispragmatics.”（Huang,2001）LOGOGeLingling（2001）isthefirstresearcherwhocombinestheadaptationtheorywithtranslation.Shefurtherproposedthattranslationisadynamicprocessduringwhichlinguisticstructuresadaptedtothecontexts.（Ge,2002）Manyotherscholars（Yuan,2002;Wang,2005;Yang,2005;Chen,2007）discussedtherelationshipbetweenadaptationtheoryandtranslationfromdifferentangles,whichcontributetothedevelopmentoftranslationtheorygreatly.LOGOIn2001,YangPingwasthefirsttocarryouttheconnectionbetweenRelevanceTheoryandAdaptationTheory.RanYongping（2004）proposedtentativelyamodelofrelevance-adaptation,whichdiscussedthedynamicsofcontextualadaptationandappliedthemodeltotheanalysisofsituatedconversationaldiscourse.LiaoQiaoyunintegratedcooperation,relevanceandadaptationintoaC-R-AmodelwhichisclearlypresentedanddiscussedinTheC-R-AmodelandCommunicationin2005.LOGO2.3AsummaryFromtheprecedingreviewsontheAdaptationTheory,itcanbeseenthatthetopicisdiscussedwidelyatgreatlength.Generallyspeaking,thestudiesonlinguisticadaptationtheorymainlyconcernthefollowingfields:

translationandadaptation;literaryappreciationandadaptation;relevancetheoryandadaptation;pragmaticstrategyandadaptation;adaptationandteaching.ThreePropertiesofLanguageAteverypossiblelevelofstructure.Concentratingonstrategiesaswellasonforms.Withvariousdegreesofconsciousness.Bothinproducingandininterpretingutterances.Evenwhentherangeofavailableoptionsisnotfullysuitable.Fromoptionsthatarenotequivalent.Insuchawaythatchoicesevoketheirnon-selectedalternatives.Languageusecanbedefinedasthecontinuousmakingoflinguisticchoices:

6000languagesmixedformwordsphrasesgenreintonationpatternsstyleTermsofaddresslexiconThisdogbarkstoomuch.Everydaycommunicationwouldstopiflanguageusersweretobetoochoosy.acceptancerefusalComeevokesthecome-gocontrastBuyappealstothebuy-sellcontrastThereareatleastthree,hierarchicallyrelatedkeynotionsareneededtounderstandtheprocessofmakingchoicesasthebase-linedescriptionoflanguageuse.Theyarevariability,negotiabilityandadaptability.3.1VariabilityVariabilityisthepropertyoflanguagewhichdefinestherangeofpossibilitiesfromwhichchoicescanbemade.（Verschueren,2000:

59）Consideranemployeewhohasbeenreceivingobscenemessages,knowswhoisthesource,andgoestocomplaintothemanager.IfthemanagersaysHisbehaviorisnodoubtobjectionable,thetermobjectionableiscertainlynotinaccurate.StilltheemployeewillorwouldliketoreactwithsomethinglikeHowaboutplainunacceptable,ifnotanoutrage!

Thesexuallyharassedemployeewouldnothavebeenupsetabouttheterm“objectionable”ifshehadnothadaccesstoawiderrangeofoptionsforadequatelydescribinghisbehavior,someofwhichweremoresuitablenotonlytoherownemotionalresponsebutalsotoherassessmentofwhatcorporatepolicyshouldbeinrelationtotheprotectionofherintegrity,andifshehadnotassumedthatthemanagerhadthesameaccess.Anychangeinthisvariabilitycouldhavemadetheemployeeadaptherinterpretivechoicesandhersubsequentreaction.Thenotionofvariabilitymustbetakensoseriouslythattherangeofpossiblechoicescannotbeseenasanythingstaticorstable.Itisnotfixedonceandforall;rather,itisconstantlychanging.Atanygivenmomentorcontextinthecourseofinteraction,achoicemayruleoutalternativesorcreatenewonesforthecurrentpurposesofexchange;theseeffectscanalwaysberenegotiated,whichbringsustooursecondkeynotion-negotiability.3.2NegotiabilityNegotiabilityisthepropertyoflanguageresponsibleforthefactthatchoicesarenotmademechanicallyoraccordingtostrictrulesorfixedform-functionrelationships,butratheronthebasisofhighlyflexibleprinciplesandstrategies.（Verschueren,2000:

59）e.g.Imreasonablysatisfied.Imnotdissatisfied.Thereisnorulethattellsuswhentochoose“Imreasonablysatisfied”over“Iamnotdissatisfied”,representingtwodistinctlogicalformsofexpressionforacomparablestateofmind.Negotiabilityimpliesindeterminacyofvariouskind.LanguageproducerLanguageinterpreterIndeterminacyisalsoinvolvedbecausechoices,oncemade,whetherontheproductionorontheinterpretationside,canbepermanentlyrenegotiated.Ifusinglanguageconsistsofthecontinuousmakingoflinguisticchoicesfromawideandunstablerangeofvariablepossibilitiesinamannerwhichisnotrule-governed,butdrivenbyhighlyflexibleprinciplesandstrategies,aswellaspermanentlynegotiable,itisonlynaturaltoaskhowitisstillpossibleforlanguagetobeusedsuccessfullyforpurposesofcommunication.Thisiswhereourthirdkeynotion,adaptability,comesin-notasanexplanation,butasapropertywhichwemustassumelanguagetohaveinorderforustobeabletounderstandthatacertaindegreeofsuccesscanbeachievedinverbalcommunication.3.3AdaptabilityAdaptabilityisthepropertyoflanguagewhichenableshumanbeingstomakenegotiablelinguisticchoicesfromavariablerangeofpossibilitiesinsuchawayastoapproachpointsofsatisfactionforcommunicativeneeds.（Verschueren,2000:

61）AdaptabilityV.SUniversalityAnapproachtoplaceadaptabilityatthecoreoflanguageuse,isbasicallyincompatiblewithakindofuniversalitythatwouldrelyontheideaofaninnatelinguisticcompetencewhichisageneticallybased,autonomous,componentofmentalstructure,andwhichwouldcompriseacompleteuniversalgrammarsothatlanguageacquisitionwouldnothavetobeguidedbymoregenerallearningstrategies.Verschuerenbelievesthatastronggeneticbasiscanbeaccepted,butcertainlynotautonomy,neitherintheprocessofacquisition,noratthelevelofadultfunctioning.Hedistinguishedtwodifferentviewsofuniversality.maximaluniversalityminimalunive