The Study On Conflict Talk From The Perspective Of Pragmatic Rationality

Conflict talk can be defined as a confrontational sequence of utterances that has its root in the emotionally negative approach to cognitive and behavioral differences in verbal interaction.The study on conflict talk can reveal the significance of discourse in the construction of interpersonal relationship,carrying implications for interpersonal and social harmony.Related research centered on the discourse representation,causes,constraints,pragmatic functions and management strategies of conflict talk,having enriched the understanding of its various aspects and providing suggestions for rapport management and harmonious social development.However,the previous research on the whole has neglected the role of discourse subjects’ rationality in conflict talk while focusing on the analysis of linguistic forms and strategies,and paid only scant attention to the rationality-based intersubjective communication and negotiation despite the emphasis on the interpretation of the linguistic and social meanings.In a word,what the present study demands is a perspective of rationality.The study adopts data of conflict talks from Surgeons,a teleplay.Highlighting the rationality of conflict talk subjects,the investigation starts with the rationality-based reflection on dominant pragmatic theories and proceeds,with reference to the framework of communicative rationality,to formulate a principle of pragmatic rationality,which orients itself to understanding and consensus and consists of cognitive maxim of truth,practical maxim of effectiveness and evaluative maxim of rightness Having laid down the theoretical framework,the study attempts to demonstrate how conflict talk arises from the speakers’ deviation from pragmatic rationality,how intersubjective rationality is negotiated according to the principle of pragmatic rationality,and how the awareness of pragmatic rationality is made salient.The major findings are as follows:Firstly,subjects in conflict talk may breach the principle of pragmatic rationality,which is the underlying representation of and major reason for the initiation and escalation of the conflict.First,the deviation manifests itself in cognitive,practical and evaluative rationalities.According to cognitive rationality,factuality is disobeyed in the false presentation of objective facts and subjective state and logicality is violated in utterances with logical fallacies.In terms of practical rationality,the means and ways reflected in the content and way of discourse do not demonstrate sufficient feasibility and effectiveness to solve the problems concerned.Where evaluative rationality is concerned,the content and way of discourse do not comply with social norms,thus possessing no rightness,and the expressed intentions and goals are not pure and lack sincerity.Second,the statistics show that the departure from rightness is the most frequent,making it the dominatant index and reason for conflict talk.The deviation from sincerity is the least frequent.The violation of logicality,effectiveness,factuality and feasibility come between in order of frequency.Third,the reasons for the deviation are mainly two-fold.The human rationality is bounded as the limitation of knowledge,competence and emotion denies the possibility of absolute factuality and logicality.Possible conflicts among different rationalities frequently make it impractical to follow two rationalities simultaneously.Secondly,for the resolution of conflict talk,the subjects will criticize,defend,negotiate and coordinate their rationalities in line with the principle of pragmatic rationality.The negotiation of rationality in conflict talk can be interpreted in four aspects.First,rationality is present throughout all phases of conflict talk,the antecedent event being the starting point,criticism aimed at rationality,response mainly to defend rationality,warm-ups to confirm factuality,conclusions to end the negotiation.Second,different speech acts are used to perform different functions of rationality negotiation.Representatives are to criticize and defend rationality,directives chiefly to demand justification,confirm facts or clarify ideas,expressives to show emotion and attitude to facts or conditions,commissives mainly to resolve conflict by promising or to threaten others into submission,and declarations to end the negotiation.Third,there are four formats of terminating the negotiation of rationality,namely,submission to the other’s rationality,compromise with mutual adjustment of rationality,suspense as a result of emergencies or third-party intervention,and withdrawal following a standoff.Fourth,among the factors affecting the negotiation outcomes are social norms of social distance,power relation and facework,and subjects’interest and their emotion management.Thirdly,in conflict talk,subjects’ awareness of pragmatic rationality is prominently reflected at levels of metadiscourse,discourse and lexicon.At the level of metadiscourse,subjects make use of metadiscoursal devices to make their discourse more logical,and their representation of views and facts more objective,rendering rationality negotiation more feasible and effective.At discoursal level,subjects use some marked discourse types,including false discourse,implicit discourse,evasive discourse and devious discourse,to achieve certain communicative goals and effects.Regarding lexicon,subjects commonly use on one hand words and expressions containing the Chinese character“理”(li meaning rationality),reason,rationality and reasonable,sensible,for instance,and on the other hand those bearing close relevance to“理”(li meaning responsibility,fact,morality,evidence and principle,for example.The use of these words and expressions is sufficient to embody the subjects’strong awareness of pragmatic rationality.The present study has both theoretical and practical implications.Theoretically,the proposal of the principle of pragmatic rationality based on rationality and communicative rationality is a tentative attempt to deconstruct and reconstruct pragmatic theories,which can offer a new perspective on language use and pragmatics.In form,language use is language-mediated communication;in content,it is the communication of discourse implicature;in essence,it is the intersubjective communication of rationality.Therefore,it is advisable that the pragmatic study shift its focus to rationality and the communication of rationality,so as to enhance the explanatory power of pragmatic theories.Practically,the idea of pragmatic rationality can provide insight into harmonious linguistic interaction in such ways as follows:when confronted with rationality divergence or deviation,reflect on our content and way of speech according to the principle of pragmatic rationality to cultivate and train our critical thinking to prevent conflict talk as possibly as we can;rationality being bounded,an open and tolerant mentality is desired in intersubjective interaction of rationality to develop and enhance the awareness and use of pragmatic rationality;rationality negotiation is directed not at persuasion,but at the enlightenment of rationality and the attaintment of consensus or understanding in a free and equal environment of neogitiation;while it is essential to observe the principle of pragmatic rationality,it deserves out attention to keep on guard against the instrumental ization of the rationality priniciple,that is,to achieve an instrumental end on the pretext of following some maxim;it is not desirable to blindly follow rationality and leave emotions unattended.