On The Pragmatic Mechanism Of TV Mediation

Apart from the news of people’s livelihood and entertaining talentshows, the TV mediation show has become another screen darling. Thisspecial discourse is characteristic of everyday conversation andinstitutional discourse, valuable for the research of communication andsociology, especially the new hot spotting of socio-pragmatics. Theresearches on this newly emerging paradigm of mediation focus more onthe law and media, and few specialized studies are done in socialpragmatics. Hence with a view to Habermas’s theory of communicativeactions this paper, gives an analysis on the pragmatic mechanism of TVM,from the levels of distinctive functions, pragmatic features, context,strategies of TVM, mediation process and pragmatic force and taking acase study to illustrate this mechanism.TV mediation, an interpersonal communication, is conflicting andpurpose-oriented. While Habermas’s theory of communicative action isan integration of the Max Weber’s social acts and J. Austin’s speech act,corresponding very well to the pragmatic study of TVM. As the processof TVM is a specific speech act, participants here are supposed to abideby the three validity claims of communicative rationality, namely truth,truthfulness and rightness so that they are more likely to achieve successby reach mutual understanding and agreements. It is an efficient channelto air the social issues through TVM. Habermas, Cant-like, is just tryingto coordinate these conflicts among different social actions bydemarcating the rationality. And he holds that there are three socialactions: strategic action, normatively regulated action and dramaturgicalaction based on the validity claims of effectiveness, rightness andtruthfulness. For an effective conciliation, not only the statements anddefensiveness of disputants are true and truthful, but also adjusters’questionings have to fulfill their roles in the context in a sincere andimpartial way. Pragmatic mechanism is a speech communicative one; TVM istypical of communicative action, so what is the pragmatic mechanism inTVM? It consists of the following essential factors:①macro- andmicro-context of TVM,②intentions of and interactions betweendisputants, the goal and intermediary process of adjusters (the host, themediator and observers),③meditative techniques and determinants ofTVM strategies,④meditative outcomes and determinants ofinfluencing the results which are feasibility of skills, mediator’sindividual experience, knowledge and training, and the goal of themediator (neutrality), influential to strategies-taking of the mediator.Generally adjusters employ expressive skills like questions and upshots,consultation and persuasion, cynical teasing in humorous andencouraging manners, and nonverbal language (of sight, gesture,face-expression and posture). These skills may be better in a position tofacilitate the success of mediation. While disputants are usuallycooperative for an effective communication, but when they bump intoembarrassment or under time pressure, they prone to keep silent, or skirtquestions by rhetorical questions in a vague language or even tell lies tomask. The outcomes of conciliation are no more than the threefold:reconciliation, achieving agreement and mediating in vain. While thefactors influencing the results comes into (a) types and levels of familydisputes, along with desires for disputes resolution ; (b) moderatevisibility ; (c) the reliability and good wills of the approachable adjusters.On the contrary, given any aspect to escalate the family conflict willtemper the effectiveness of TVM. The results will also make impacts onstrategies-taking in turn, and adjusters are generally willing to choosethe experience that they have had continual success in mediation.Therewith the success in mediation will enhance the status and publicityof the mediator, and promote the harmony of neighborhood and society.Taken together, appropriate and effective speech acts andcommunicative rationality are deemed as necessary for TVM programs to maintain sound development. If the validity claims of communicativeaction are pointedly ignored, leading to highlight the effects rather thanthe solution to the practical problems. Throughout a full and clearillustration on Grade A Mediation, we comes to the conclusions asfollows. Firstly, selectivity of family disputes and possibility in mediationfor the preference of TV viewers often have a great exertion on the casesselection of TVM, and the program will not go on well if the conflict is sointensive as not to reconcile. Secondly, effectiveness of strategies sincethat it is about to achieve success for adjusters by exploiting reasonableand useful techniques in TVM. Thirdly, the process of mediation iscontrollable, ascribed to the go-between of the host, the keenly insightfulmediator and incisive observers. Fourthly, the results are expectant andweakly enforceable. It is known that participants are expected to benefitfrom mediation so that they are seeking ways to resolve conflicts andreach an agreement. But this agreement is a behavior on the front stageand whether the conflict is eventually resolved is unknown withoutfollow-up reports.Thereupon in the light of communicative rationality, thepragmatic mechanism of TVM can be analyzed from the viewpoints ofsocio-pragmatics, and an analytic pattern for other linguistic phenomenain mediation will be provided in the present study.