Bystander Intervention In Emergency Context From The Perspective Of Linguistic Adaptation Theory

As a socio-pragmatic phenomenon,a large number of studies on bystander intervention have been conducted from different approaches such as social psychology and CMC(computer-mediated communication).Nevertheless,as a kind of pragmatic behaviour which aims to achieve some pragmatic effects,bystander intervention has rarely been delved into from a pragmatic perspective.In addition,previous studies have failed to consider how the process of intervention can be affected by some pragmatic factors.Thus,a more thorough understanding of bystander intervention from a pragmatic perspective and its further exploration is expected.Adopting the linguistic adaptation approach(Verschueren 2000),this study is mainly a qualitative inquiry into the self-built corpus WWYD(ni hui zenme zuo)to investigate bystander intervention in emergency context,a public and moral-loaded setting where a wrongdoer commits one of the following: 1)verbally or physically abuses a victim;2)the victim is in a dangerous situation and is in need of help;or 3)the victim is undergoing some kind of injustice,such as his/her personal rights are being infringed.In this corpus,scenarios of conflicts or illegal activities are presented in public places,so as to see whether unwitting bystanders would step in and offer help,specifically,how they intervene.The main research questions are as follows:(1)What kind of linguistic intervention strategies do interveners adopt in emergency context?(2)How do contextual correlates influence intervener's choice of intervention strategies?(3)What contextual effects can be achieved by intervention in emergency context?The main findings are as follows:First,three types of intervention in emergency context are found and classified in light of the data.Based on Latané and Darley's(1970)classification,we make an extension of direct intervention,which consists of offensive intervention,mitigated intervention,and supportive intervention.Among the three types of intervention,offensive and mitigated intervention are directed to the wrongdoer,whereas supportive intervention is directed to the victim.Offensive intervention is an aggressive way of bystander intervention.On the basis of our data,interveners use strategies such as scolding,sarcasm,derogation,threatening,deterring,and using swearing words to showcase their disaffiliative attitudes towards the wrongdoer in the course of offensive intervention.In mitigated intervention,interveners try to minimize the damage that face-threatening acts might bring about when stepping in a conflict.Strategies under this category include persuasion,request,and offering suggestion,which tend to reduce the potential face threat and the unwelcome effects incurred in the course of intervention.Supportive intervention is a type of intervention that is directed to the victim which aims to render support to the victim,be it emotional or practical,encompassing strategies such as offering suggestion,expressing concern,comforting,and constructing intimate relationship.Numbers of each type of intervention strategy were calculated and results showed that intervention directed to the wrongdoer accounts for a larger proportion than that directed to the victim in general.When looking at the three types of intervention separately,supportive intervention has a slight edge over offensive intervention though the two share a similar proportion.Secondly,two contextual correlates: the public setting and intervener's moral judgment are found to be related to interveners' linguistics choices,which help to explicate why offensive intervention and supportive intervention are employed more frequently.Also,bystander intervention is regarded as a process of linguistic adaptation,namely,adaptation to the wrongdoer and adaptation to the victim,which motivates and influences interveners to choose and adjust following intervention strategies,especially after previous failed attempts to render a satisfactory result.Thirdly,the contextual effects that can be achieved by bystander intervention are the following: voicing moral concern,expressing empathy,and resolving conflicts.The voicing of moral concern is meta-communicatively articulated because the initial reaction and intuitive emotion of the intervener is evident as it is manifested in our data.Another contextual effect that can be achieved in the process of intervention is rendering emotional support to the victim,which can be demonstrated by the frequent use of supportive intervention in our data.Last but not least,interveners employ intervention strategies to resolve conflicts,driven by rapport-oriented and settlement-directed communicative goals.This study has made some contributions.First,this study has classified three types of intervention and some pragmatic strategies under each category in emergency context,which is an extension of the over-generalised classification of previous studies.Second,the employment of Linguistic Adaptation Theory as a suitable theoretical framework in the study gives us a thorough understanding of bystander intervention from a pragmatic perspective.Besides,practically speaking,a pragmatic analysis of bystander intervention on wrongdoings in public places can provide some insights into the actual execution of intervention in emergency context,as the bystander effect is pervasive in daily life,particularly in public settings.