电影《闻香识女人》对白语用文体的分析

电影《闻香识女人》对白语用文体的分析 电影《闻香识女人》对白的语用文体分析 研究生:陆文君 年级:2007 级 学科专业:外国语言学及应用语言学 指导老师:陆巧玲 研究方向:语用学 中 文 摘 要 论文以电影文本《闻香识女人》的对白为研究对象，运用语用文体学理论对其进行文 体分析和研究，旨在揭示语用文体学对解读电影的情节，人物关系，人物语言风格等要素 所起到的重要作用。 语用文体学属于跨语言学与文体学的研究。本文采用语用文体学的方法，借助电影对 白的分析，从理解整部电影的情节，人物关系，人物语言风格以及主旨来进行个案分析， 初步形成了电影话语的解读框架，即从电影的动态和静态两个层次进行深刻的分析和解 释，从而提高观众对影视艺术的鉴赏能力。本文通过研究发现: 1、就动态层次而言，电影对白中合作原则的违反既能解释微观方面人物对话的隐含 意义，还能在一定程度上从宏观层面帮助读者利用语用推理来推测故事情节的动态发展; 言语行为理论对电影对白中间接言语行为的解释，以及礼貌原则的遵守和违反能反映人物 之间微妙的人物关系的变化。 2、从静态层次来看，采用语用原理来分析人物语言，读者可以领略不同人物的语言 风格，并能更深层次地理解电影人物的鲜明个性。 3、在电影对话分析中动态与静态要素两方面结合促进了影片主题思想的传递，体现 了该部伦理影片的人文关怀。 论文通过对电影文本《闻香识女人》的分析,为电影话语的分析提供一个新视角，以 期帮助观众更好地理解该影片主题思想，并对电影话语解读框架的形成起启示作用。 关键词:语用文体; 电影对白;情节;人物关系;语言风格 i Pragmastylistic Analysis on the Filmic Text Scent of A Woman Postgraduate: Lu Wenjun Grade: 2007 Major Field of Study: Foreign Linguistics & Applied Linguistics Supervisor: Professor Lu Qiaoling Orientation: Pragmatics Abstract in English This thesis takes the discourses in the filmic text—Scent of A Woman as the subject of study, making an analysis in terms of Pragmastylistics in an attempt to reveal the important role that Pragmastylistics plays in interpreting the plot, the interpersonal relationship and the characters‘ speech style in the film. The Pragmastylistics is an interdisciplinary study involving both Linguistics and Stylistics. Based on the pragmastylistical approach to interpret the filmic discourse to achieve a full understanding of the plot, interpersonal relationships and the characters‘ speech style of the whole film, this thesis attempts a framework to interpret the filmic dialogue from both the dynamic and static level, with the hope that it helps enhance the audiences‘ aesthetic appreciation of the film. The main findings are: 1. Regarding to the dynamic level, the violation of the Cooperative Principle can not only interpret the implied meaning of the discourse on a micro-level, but also can shed light on unfolding the dynamic development of the plot in terms of pragmatic inference on a macro-level; the change of the subtle interpersonal relationship is fully displayed through the explanation of indirect speech in the film discourse on the basis of the Speech Act Theory, and the observance and violation of the Politeness Principle. 2. With respect to the static level, to analyze the characters‘ speech by means of pragmatic theories can make the audiences have a taste of various characters‘ speech style, as well as a better understanding of the characters‘ striking individual traits. 3. The theme of the ethical film with the combination of dynamic and static factors is displayed step by step. It is hoped that the analysis of the filmic text Scent of A Woman can provide new insight into the analysis of filmic discourse, which will help the audiences better understand the theme of the film, and form the framework to interpret the filmic discourse as well. Key words: Pragmastylistics; filmic text; plot; interpersonal relationship; speech style ii Contents Abstract in Chinese………………………………………………………………………....i Abstract in English……………………………………………………………………….. ii Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………...………………1 1.1 Origin of the Study…………………………..…………………...…………………1 1.2 Significance of the Study…………………….………………………….………………1 1.3 Organization of the Thesis……………………………………………..…………………2 Chapter 2 Literature Review……………………………… ..……………………………3 2.1 Understanding Pragmastylistics……………………….…………………………………..3 2.1.1 Pragmatics…..……….….….……………………….…………………………3 2.1.2 Stylistics..………………………………………………..………………………4 2.1.3 The Concern of Pragmastylistics…………………..……..………………………7 2.2 Related Study of Pragmastylistic Approach……………..…………………………8 2.2.1 Study of Pragmastylistic Approach Abroad…………………………………8 2.2.2 Study of Pragmastylistic Approach at Home………………………………...9 2.2.3 Summary…………………………………………………………………………..9 2.3 Features of the Discourse in Filmic Text ………………………….....……………10 2.4 The Theoretical Framework of the Present Study……………………….....……………13 2.4.1 The Speech Act Theory……………………….......…………….....………………13 2.4.2 The Cooperative Principle…………………….......…………….....………………15 2.4.3 The Politeness Principle……………………….......…………….....………………17 2.4.4 Framework of the Filmic Text Analysis in the Present Study….....……………….19 Chapter 3 Pragmastylistic Analysis of the Filmic Text at A Dynamic Level…21 3.1 Introduction to the Film………………………….………………………………..21 3.2 Application of CP to Analysis of the Development of the Plot … … …22 3.2.1 The Violation of the Quantity Maxim……………………………………………23 3.2.2 The Violation of the Quality Maxim……………………………………………….25 3.2.3 The Violation of the Relation Maxim…………………………………………….27 3.2.4 The Violation of the Manner Maxim………………………………………………28 3.3 Application of PP and SAT to Analysis of Interpersonal Relationship Between Characters … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …..29 3.3.1 The Colonel-Charlie Relationship……………………………….......……………30 iii 3.3.2 The Charlie-George Relationship…………………………….......……………35 3.3.3 The Charlie-Headmaster Relationship………………………….......……………37 3.4 Summary………………………………………………………………….....……………39 Chapter 4 Pragmastylistic Analysis of the Filmic Text at A Static Level……………………………………………………………………………………………40 4.1 The Characters‘ Traits and Speech Style………………….……………………………….40 4.2 Application of Pragmastylistic Approach to Analysis of Characters‘ Speech Style………40 4.2.1 The Colonel………………………………………………………………………40 4.2.2 Charlie………………………………………………………………………..46 4.2.3 The Headmaster…………………………………………………………………48 4.3 Summary………………………………………………………………….....……………51 Chapter 5 Conclusion………………………….....…………………………………53 5.1 Conclusion……………... …………... …………...…………………………………….53 5.2 Limitations of the Present Study………………………………….....………………54 5.3 Suggestion for Further Research………………………………….....……………54 Bibliography…………………………………….....…………………………………………56 Publications during the Postgraduate Program……………………………………60 Acknowledgements iv Abbreviations CP Cooperative Principle SAT Speech Act Theory PP Politeness Principle FTAs Face Threatening Acts v Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Origin of the Study Film, developing fast in the recent decade in 20th century, has been the most popular access to the spread of culture in the world, which enables the communication of the culture to become more and more common. People tend to be in favor of this kind of recreational activity for the sake of its unique esthetical value and artistic style. The film may contribute to the understanding of the society, the history, and the complexities and varieties of life. People have different purposes of seeing films. For instance, some concern about the visual stimuli with various dynamic pictures, while some appreciate the booming sound effect of the blockbuster. As English learners, some aim to acquire cultural knowledge by seeing the film in the original edition, while some focus on the improvement of their listening comprehension or pronunciation of the target language. However, people scarcely analyze the filmic discourse in certain context, even though the doing of which is likely to help them have a better and deeper understanding of its real meaning. In fact, filmic texts are the most important and quickest means of access to the foreign culture in a broad sense, for the world created in a film is not only a foreign world, but also a foreign world more lifelike than that created in dramatic texts and fictional texts, and filmic text is thus a better way of assimilating knowledge of this world (Ai, 2005). In addition, analyzing the filmic text will help people to interpret the implicature of the discourse in certain context. Since each film has its worth of value, it is also likely to explore the value of the film deeply. What‘s more, it is a useful approach to exploring aspects of characters‘ relationship with one another through the kind of interactive talk that they do (Thornborrow, 2000). But how to understand the development of the plots in terms of interpreting the filmic discourse? How to detect the change of the interpersonal relationship? How to appreciate the characters‘ speech style? How to see the light of the humanism conveyed by the playwright? The above questions are to be discussed and tackled in the present study. 1.2 Significance of the Study This thesis aims to apply the pragmastylistic approach to analyze the filmic text. Specifically, pragmatic theory such as the Speech Act Theory, the Cooperative Principle and the Politeness Principle are employed in the film case study—Scent of A Woman, whose purpose is to help the audiences to know how the playwright drops a hint to the development of the plots in terms of pragmatic inference, analyze the language features of different characters in the film, and explore the relationships between the characters. Furthermore, 1 efforts are to be made to reveal how the theme of the film—humanism, is conveyed and attempted to interpret the framework of the filmic discourse. To some extent, the thesis tends to explore and testify the practical application of the pragmastylistic approach to the field of films so as to improve the audiences‘ appreciation of the film. 1.3 Organization of the Thesis The thesis is divided into five chapters: Chapter 1 is an introduction specifying the origin of the study, significance of this study and the structure of the thesis. Chapter 2 first introduces the theoretical preliminaries concerning pragmastylistic approach to the study of the discourse in the filmic texts. Then it presents the previous researches related to filmic text, the features of the filmic text and relating pragmatic theories, as well as the framework of interpreting the filmic text in the present study. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 are the essential parts of the thesis. Chapter 3 involves pragmastylistic analysis of the filmic text at a dynamic level. It first introduces the film Scent of , then discusses the application of the pragmatic theory to the analysis of the filmic text, A Woman and finally exhibits how the interpretation attributes to the development of the plot and the interpersonal relationship of the characters. Chapter 4 concerns with pragmastylistic analysis of the filmic text at a static level, which portrays the relationships between the characters‘ traits and speech style. Chapter 5 is the conclusion of the study, which summarizes the whole thesis, points out the limitation of the present study and proposes some suggestions for the further study. 2 Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Understanding Pragmastylistics ―Pragmastylistics‖ refers to a discourse-oriented approach by blending ―Stylistics‖ with ―Pragmatics‖ , which has originated from ―pragmatism‖ or ―pragmaticism‖, a philosophical doctrine that ―evaluates any assertion solely by its practical consequences and its bearing on human interests‖.1 The field of Pragmatics is to study the meaning in the utterance, hence pragmatical theory tends to be applied to Stylistics, quite often to elaborating the pragmatical foreground in literature. 2.1.1 Pragmatics The term ―Pragmatics‖ was first proposed by Charles William Morris in 1939 in Foundation of the Theory of Signs. He divided the study of semiotics into a tripartite division: syntactics, semantics and pragmatics. Syntactics can be defined as formal relations of signs to one another, semantics studies the relation of signs to objects to which the signs are applicable, while pragmatics focuses on the relations of signs to interpreters. Since then, people‘s interests in Pragmatics have been increasing. According to Levinson (1983:5-35), there are as many as 38 different definitions of Pragmatics. The following are only some of them: ? Pragmatics is the study of the relation of the signs to interpreters (Morris, 1938:6). ? According to the Continental tradition, pragmatics is treated as a perspective on language; it exists in various levels of language, dealing not only with the theory of language itself, but also with other aspects having to do with its uses. ? Pragmatics is one of those words (societal and cognitive are others ) that give the impression that something quite specific and technical is being talked about when often in fact it has no clear meaning (Searle, Kiefer and Bierswisch 1980:viii). ? Pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context that are grammaticalized, or encoded in the structure of a language. ? Pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of meaning not captured in a semantic theory. ? Pragmatics has its topic those aspects of meaning utterance which can‘t be accounted for by straight-forward reference to the truth conditions of the sentence uttered. Put crudely, PRAGMATICS=MEANING-TRUTH CONDITIONS (Gazdar, 1979). ? Pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context that are basic to 1 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 7th edn. p. 805. 3 an account of language understanding. ? Pragmatics is a study of the ability of language users to pair sentences with contexts in which they would be appropriate. ? Pragmatics is the study of meaning in relation to speech situations. A speech situation includes ―elements of (i) addresser and addressee, (ii) context, (iii) goals, (iv) illocutionary act, (v) utterance‖ (Leech, 1983). According to Levinson (1983), these definitions all have their merits and demerits. For example, the first definition is too simple for Pragmatics as a branch of linguistics; the fifth definition is too dependent on semantics; the seventh overlaps to some degree with psycholinguistics; and the eighth overlaps with sociolinguistics. Apart from the definitions discussed above, Chinese linguists also proposes their views on pragmatics. Pragmatics studies the utterances in terms of users and context (He, 1986). Pragmatics is speechology in humanistic networks, and it narrowly can be defined as a kind of theory of language function. It studies how people interpret the force, which is not in the scope of semantic meaning, of an utterance under the intervention of the intelligence. Broadly, it is also a theory of language function. It studies how language users interpret and produce an utterance with the intervention of the clusters of signs adhering to the speaker, the intervention of the contexts, and of the intelligence (Qian, 2002). He Ziran‘s approach does not differentiate greatly to Leech‘s, in that they both lay stress on the user, which means the addresser and addressee, and the context. Meanwhile Qian Guanlian concerns more with macroaspect of Pragmatics, adhering to the Continental Tradition. The representative foreign pioneering attempts of Pragmatics take the form of Speech Act Theories of Austin(1962) and Searle (1969), Searle‘s Indirect Speech Act Theory (Searle, 1975), Grice‘s Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975), Leech‘s Politeness Principle (Leech, 1983), Sperber and Wilson‘s Relevance Principle (Sperber & Wilson, 1986), and Levinson‘s Neo-Grician Principle (1987). In the present study, the Speech Act Theories (hereinafter referred to SAT), the Cooperative Principle (hereinafter referred to CP), Politeness Principle (hereinafter referred to PP) as well as Face Theory are adopted to the analysis of filmic text. 2.1.2 Stylistics The following are two definitions from different sources: 4 A branch of linguistics which studies the characteristics of situationally- distinctive uses of language, with particular reference to literary language, and tries to establish principles capable of accounting for the particular choices made by individuals and social groups in their use of language (The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, 1977). The study of style…just as style can be viewed in several ways, so there are several different stylistic approaches. This variety in stylistics is due to the main influences of linguistics and literary criticism…. By far the most common kind of material studied is literary; and attention is largely text-centered….The goal of most stylistics is not simply to describe the formal features of texts for their own sake, but in order to show their functional significance for the interpretation of the text; or in order to relate literary effects to linguistic ‗causes‘ where these are felt to be relevant…. Stylisticians want to avoid vague and impressionistic judgments about the way that formal features are manipulated. As a result, stylistics draws on the models and terminology provided by whatever aspects of linguistics are felt to be relevant (Wales, 1989). From these definitions, we can see that stylistics is concerned with the idea of ‗style‘, with the analysis of literary texts, and with the use of linguistics. ‗Style‘ is usually understood within this area of study as ―the selection of certain linguistic forms of features over other possible one‖ (Thornborrow, 2000:3). Charles Bally, the father of modern stylistics, remarked that ―stylistic observation‖ must be distinguished from the overstating of facts of style. Thus there are two separate levels of study: A general, methodical and scientific discipline; and an application of its methods or postulates to the analysis of the ―style‖ of a specific utterance, text, speaker, writer or movement or period.( qtd. in Feng, 2002: 5) Many people agree that stylistics is a method of textual analysis of the structure and function of language. This is because finding out about what the writers do is a good way of finding out about language. In terms of stylistic analysis, the readers intend to investigate the foreground or unconventional patterns of language in the writer‘s creative literature discourse. When the features of language are identified, the interpretive process can be seen as systematic and objective. The linguistic approach to literature is an application of linguistic theory and methodology to literary texts which has established an intimate relationship between language study and literary appreciation. Pure linguistics aims to make fine analysis of the linguistic form of a text, often 5 neglecting its aesthetic effect or artistic value. Traditional literary criticism concerns itself with social, moral or political evaluations of a literary work, often neglecting its linguistic form. The linguistic approach to literature is the meeting ground of linguistics and literary criticism, which is part of applied linguistics and a type of practical criticism. Its general process can be represented in the following cycle as suggested by Geoffrey N. Leech:2 Literary Appreciation Seeking_____ ______ Seeking A B aesthetic linguistics function evidence Linguistic Description (Figure 2.1) Figure 2.1 offers a sketch and helps to clarify the relationship between linguistic form and literary effects. Text is taken as a crucial part, and through analyzing the text, the reader may find out what effect the patterns of text (linguistic description) produces, as we can see from the process B to A. Conversely, when we are conscious that a certain passage has a certain impact on the reader, our task is to discover by what linguistic means the author has achieved this effect, we may as well as discover what aesthetic effect can attribute to the language evidence from the process A to B. Therefore, analyzing the text with linguistic theory is regarded as a useful tool to provide substantial evidence to confirm subjective aesthetic judgment. A marriage of linguistics and literature will benefit both language study and literary study. Modern Stylistics is an interdisciplinary course which tends to make a description and interpretation of language features by means of modern linguistic theories. According to modern linguistic theories which it attached to, Stylistics can be basically divided into three domains as Formal Stylistics (related to formal linguistics), Functional Stylistics (related to functional linguistics) and Discourse Stylistics (related to pragmatics and discourse analysis)(Zhang, 2005). Since 1980‘s, Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis have developed continuously, which promote the establishment of the model of analysis of daily dialogue such as Grice‘s Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975), Leech‘s Politeness Principle (Leech, 1983), and Birmingham‘s Discourse Analysis (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). However, with the flourishing of both Stylistics and 2 See Geoffrey N. Leech & Michael H. Short, Style in Fiction (London: Longman, 1981)14. 6 pragmatic theories, Pragmastylistics started to take shape. Due to the reasons that Stylistics is traditionally characterized as mainly literary, and is often related with literature and studies of literary style; and literature covers a heterogeneous class of linguistic phenomena (Ai, 2005), it is likely to assume that what Pragmastylistics is concerned with is only the literature and Pragmastylistics is equal to Literary Pragmatics. However, Leo Hickey (1989) argues that pragmastyistic studies may focus on any expanse of language-in-use, ranging from the phrase or clause to a complete discourse, conversation or text. The Pragmatics of literary style is analogous to Pragmatics of any other style or class of styles. Therefore, we can see that the domain of Pragmastylistics is much larger that that of Literary Pragmatics. Literary Pragmatics can be regarded as a branch of Pragmastylistics. Figure 2.2 illustrates the classification of stylistics. Formal Stylistics Functional Stylistics Stylistics Discourse Stylistics …… Pragmastylistics of any other style Pragmastylistics Literary Pragmatics (Figure 2.2) 2.1.3 The Concern of Pragmastylistics As discussed above, Pragmatics focuses on the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are performed, while Stylistics is closely related to how to express idea with certain ―style‖, with the analysis of literary texts, and with the use of linguistics. The traditional stylistic and linguistic analysis both have deficiencies if they are applying to the existing stylistic studies of literature respectively. The traditional stylistic involves in devising a model of language use which was appropriate only for a narrow range of texts, sometimes even only applicable to a single text, while the traditional linguistic ways highlight observable features of language and effects realized in the text. The formal investigation does not treat language as a communicative dynamic discourse but as abstract or static text, as it is divorced from the context of use. However, Pragmastylistics, is adopted as an interdisciplinary approach involving the study of both the style of literary texts and linguistic acts in certain context, which can serve as a proper approach to the present study. 7 The relation between stylistics and pragmatics has been concerned with by some scholars. It is conceptually well accepted that pragmatics can serve as a powerful too in the linguistic analysis of literature(Hu, 1980). Morris (1938) claims that there is a close relationship between pragmatics and rhetoric, since literary pragmatics is analogous to linguistic pragmatics, there is no intrinsic reason why pragmatics should not be applied to literature. Van Dijk‘s views on systematic studies of literature with pragmatic principles (1976; 1985) can well justify the validity of this approach. With scholars‘ contribution to the study of the combination of literature and pragmatics, pragmastylistics, as a new interdisciplinary fields with at least one more dimension have come into existence. According to Hickey(1989:8-10), Pragmastylistics is Stylistics with a pragmatic component and can be described as a study of language-in-use which pays special attention to the choices made from among the various grammatically correct ways of expressing one and the same thing, which is semantically or truth-conditionally equivalent. It also describes how choices relate to the overall situation in which language is used, including what the interlocutors already know or do not know and what the speaker or writer wishes to achieve through his language-use. Hickey also asserts that the study of Stylistics involving a pragmatic component can claim to be complete as Stylistics concerns more about the form of linguistic utterances while Pragmatics is interested in the formal analysis of the dependence of a text in a given situation or context. A pragmastylistic approach is based on notions of pragmatic stylisticians and literary pragmaticists to the effect that the pragmatics of style in literature is analogous to the Pragmatics of style in any other type of text, and that the two levels of communication in literature are fundamentally the same as any other type of communication (Feng, 2002:15- 40). In general, when Pragmatics combines with literary studies and Stylistics, it becomes the new interdisciplinary field with at least one more dimension coming into existence. Pragmastylistics is applied to either literary studies in terms of text and its context or any other discourses in certain context. Therefore, we can draw a conclusion that it is feasible if we carry out pragmastylistic analysis of filmic texts. 2.2 The Related Study of Pragmastylistic Approach As is discussed in the last section, with the flourishing of the study of Pragmatics, some stylisticans combines Pragmatics with Stylistics, therefore, pragmatic theories and principles (such as the Speech Act Theory, Conversational Implicature, and Politeness Principle ) originally based on oral communication are not only used in the daily utterance, but also covered in literature, such as fiction, drama and poem. Pragmastylistics is to be taken as a powerful tool in 8 the analysis of literature of text. 2.2.1 Study of Pragmastylistic Approach Abroad The earliest scholars who applied pragmatic methods to the study of literary texts are van Dijk (1976), Ohmann (1971, 1973), and Pratt (1977). The term ―Literary Pragmatics‖ first appeared in Ohmann (1973), elaborated in Pratt (1977) as well as Traugott and Pratt (1980:255-62), then it became a discipline only in the 1980s through the efforts of Enkvist (1985) and Sell (1991). Wales (1989:281) defines ―Literary Pragmatics‖ as following the developments in the field of Linguistic Pragmatics, in Speech Act Theory, Text Linguistics and also in Stylistics itself, concerned with literature as discourse in its interactional and social context, and with reader reception. Besides, some monographs published recently have shown great concern in this field: Petrey published Speech Acts and literary Theory in 1990, the book Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare: essays on Othello, Coriolanus, and Timon of Athen edited by Rudanko came out in 1993, Sell(1994) published Literature and the New Interdisciplinary, Cook (1994) wrote Discourse and Literature, Mey wrote When Voices Clash: A Study Pragmatic Stylistics provides an in Literary Pragmatic in 1999, Elizabeth Black‘s (2006) advanced introduction to the domain in question, focusing on the pragmatic analysis of literary discourse. 2.2.2 Study of Pragmastylistic Approach at Home In China, some publications, adopting an approach of Stylistics resorting to pragmatic theories, have been enriched in this field. Zhao Chaozhu (2001), attempted to explore his study on the stylistic implicature in conversation of English novels from the pragmatic perspective in his thesis The Pragmastylistic Implicature in Conversations of English Novels. Feng Zongxin, as the only Chinese linguistist who has mentioned the term ―Pragmastylistics‖ in his book Pragmastylistics of Dramatic Texts: The Play off the Stage (2002), discussed some problems concerning language studies and literature studies, linguistic and literary criticism by analyzing Eugène Inonesco‘s absurd drama. Tu Jing (2004) declared in his paper Literary Pragmatics: A New Interdisciplinary Subject that Literary Pragmatics should focus on social significance of literary language system and usage. He investigated the common properties of literary language structure and social composition, the dynamic reciprocity, reinstated the ancient linkage between rhetoric and poetics, which is of lasting importance for linguistics and literature. Ai Yi (2005) applied the pragmatic insights and explanations to filmic texts so as to examine the internal relationships between characters as well as the characters‘ individual speaking style and their intentions in his M. A. thesis Pragmastylistic Analysis on Filmic Text. Qin Yinan (2006) , in his 9 M. A. thesis A Pragmastylistic Study of Interpersonal Rhetoric in Hamlet, exploited the insights of narrative studies, rhetorical studies, stylistics and theories of dramatic studies to a considerable extent, and incorporated them within the general framework of interpersonal rhetoric in Pragmatics. Wang Hong (2006), introduced his research result and discourse analysis approach in drama in the book entitled Stylistics of Drama: dialogue as Discourse. Yu Dongming and Han Zhongqian (2007) undertook the thesis Why a Pragmatic Approach to the Study of Dramatic Texts. Zou Su (2007), who wrote his M. A. thesis A Pragmastylistic Approach to Conversations in Fiction, and whose analysis was more complete and scientific, intended to adopt the pragmastylistic approach to fictional conversations based on the Theory of Pragmatic Adaptation proposed by Jef Verschueren (1999). 2.2.3. Summary In general, the previous researches tend to lay more stress on Literary Pragmatics, which elaborate on how Pragmastylistics is perceived as a branch of Stylistics, and how it facilitates the study of literature. It makes sense because pragmastylistic approach meets the needs of researchers of literature, which helps them acquaint with Pragmatic Stylistics and develop their own viewpoint in interpreting the deep meaning in literature. The application of Pragmastylistics seems to confine to literature. The forms and structures of language are discussed as resources for creating ‗literature‘ effects in the classical literary works as fiction, prose, poetry or drama, but the potential of language offers us for creating those literary effects is far from being restricted to literary works. The domain of exploiting ‗style‘ is supposed to exist in various language patterns in our life. From the viewpoint of the present author, Pragmastylistic is expected to be of wider application. Firstly, the tasks of Stylistics are to distinguish the style of a text and verify it through detailed description and analysis linguistic features in the text. That is to say, Stylistics is concerned with the idea of ‗style‘, with both the analysis of literary texts and the use of linguistics. ‗Style‘ exists not only in literature but extends to all language forms, from the most formal to the most colloquial. As a result, filmic text could be chosen as one of the study subjects. However, in the previous studies, researchers scarcely adopt pragmastylistic approach to analyze the filmic text. Though Wang Li (2006) uses Cooperative Principle to analyze the discourse in the films, the study does not involve in the field of Stylistics. Ai‘s M.A. thesis, involving a case study of Cold Mountain, dealed with the complete filmic text, but the interpreting frame of filmic text was hardly mentioned. In the present thesis, pragmastylistic approach is to be provided to explore language features of style existing in different figures in 10 one complete film, so as to take the initial exploration in interpreting the frame of filmic text and improve the audience‘s appreciation of the film. 2. 3 Features of the Discourse in Filmic Text Filmic discourse often exists in two ways: one is on the stage, the other is on the page, which presents something of a dilemma for the literary critic, since the two manifestations are quite different and require different analytic approaches. The live performance of a play has many variations to affect the audience‘s interpretation. For instance, when the film is made, the actors‘ performance, the director‘s interpretation, the photographer‘s work may be the factors affecting the audience‘s interpretation. The text, on the other hand, is static and unchanging. Mick Short (1996) discussed the problem of whether to analyze the text or the performance, and argues that there are a number of considerations which suggest that the object of dramatic criticism should not be the theatrical performance, which means only the text of a play is a legitimate object of study, rather than a performance of the play. Thus, in the present research, we just focus on the text on the page. The filmic text often includes two parts: one is the character‘s speech, the other is the stage instruction. The discourse of the film plays an important role in various perspectives which contribute to the theme of the film. Hence, stylistic critics can achieve their different goals through the analysis of filmic text. For instance, the characters‘ speech can reveal their traits, education, background, social status and so on. The discourses which the playwright creates carry information about the characters and provide inference of the advance of the story. It has its own features. William Miller (1998), an American scriptwriter, concluded the five features of filmic dialogue: ? Natural: Since the resource of the dialogue derives from the real life, the speech tends to be lifelike and present the natural character. For example, the pauses, pause fillers, or contraction existing in the dialogue makes them sound smoother, briefer, and faster-moving. Besides, a lot of repetition and recycling takes place when people talk, because generally we make a lot of what might be termed ‗production errors‘, which we repair as we go along. The following is an example of this: Tha, that gonna stand kinda like stand up. False start like tha, that is frequent in talk. Recycling her choice of verb stand as stand up is seen above. The speech which sounds natural as what we use in everyday speech is often seen in the filmic dialogue. ? Implicit: though the filmic dialogue comes from daily talk, it is more implicit than those in daily talk. The reason lies in the language used in the film is refined on the basis of ordinary 11 dialogue. It is not only precise to understand, but is conveyed in an implicit way, which means it stresses connotation rather than denotation. The readers are supposed to understand the implicature beneath the surface of the meaning. Implicit effect is one of the purposes in pursuit of playwright. ? Individualized: Apart from the facial expressions and gestures, language is an essential way to reveal the characters‘ personality which is taken as one of the main factors in the film. The dialogue also should reflect the characters‘ trait, education, background, social status and so on. The character is distinguished from another via the individualized language feature as a general and a soldier, or a doctor and a patient. ? Intentional: ―intentional‖ refers to the speech which is expected to be interpreted in its given context rather than its literal meaning. Context, is an infinite number of factors which could influence how the reader interprets a chunk of language. ? Interpersonal: William Miller (1998:80) suggests the script writer do as follows: when writing dialogue, keep in mind that you are writing relationships. The relationships expressed by the attitudes of the characters toward each other can speak louder than the words they use. From the characters‘ dialogue, the subtle relationship between characters can be aware of by the readers. The relationships between characters may help the readers to realize the conflict beneath the characters which is the mainstay of the plot. For instance: Why, then, O bawling love! O loving hate! O anything, of nothing first create! O heavy lightness! Serious vanity! Misshapen chaos of well-seeming forms, Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health, Still-waking sleep, that is not what it is! This love feels I, that feel no love in this. Dost thou not laugh? —William Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet (Act 1. Scene 1, Line 182-188) This excerpt is quoted from Romeo and Juliet. From the utterance, we can sense the conflict between two kindreds. Love and hate, heavy and lightness, bright and smoke, cold and fire, sick and health, these pair of words are incompatible, which indicates the complicated feeling of the two kindreds ironically. From the viewpoint of the present author, the filmic dialogue is of more artistic elements. It should either represent the character‘s trait or possess aesthetic value to enable us to appreciate. The following are its two artistic elements: 12 One of the artistic elements of filmic dialogue is prosodic feature. Though filmic dialogue is derived from the routine talk and has resembling features like the pauses, pause fillers, hesitation, or contraction, still, the speech with special sound patterns creates its rhythmical effect and makes it sound more artistic and aesthetic. For instance, ― Will you love me for the rest of my life?” “ No，I'll love you for the rest of mine.‖ (Phenomenon) “You jump, I jump!” (Titanic) Here ―the rest of my life‖ and the ―rest of mine‖, ―you jump‖ and ―I jump‖ share the same or similar rhythms, hence achieving an astonishing aural effect. The other is profoundness which is found in the filmic dialogue, which seems to be refined from the experience of life. We may find the actor or the actress‘s speech appeals to the audience for the reason of the profoundness. It is precise but meaningful with implication. For example, "Life is like a box of chocolates” “Stupid is as stupid does.” (Forest Gump) “Tomorrow is another day.” (Gone with the Wind) These classical speeches achieve profound effect as they seem to reflect the truth of life. On the whole, the features of the discourse in filmic text commit itself to an available resource which is worth analyzing. The reason lies in that some films come from the real life or accumulate a cluster of incidents in people‘s daily life. The features of those discourses in filmic text seem to keep natural to life; some films are adapted from literature, such as Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, King Lear and so on, which contain an abundant of artistic or enlightening language features that vividly reveal characters‘ individual traits, interpersonal relationships between them as well as some illuminating remarks. The ‗literature‘ effects and aesthetic taste can be explored through analyzing the filmic text. 2.4 The Theoretical Framework of the Present Study 2.4.1 Speech Act Theory Speech Act Theory is the first major theory in Pragmatics, initially proposed in the 1950s and wildly discussed in the 1960s and 1970s. The philosophers Austin and Searle were very interested in the way language can be described as action, and Speech Act Theory, short for SAT, is an account of what we use language for. In light of this theory, everything people have said is 13 performing an illocutionary act, which presents the speaker‘s communicative intention. According to Austin (1962), when speaking, people perform three acts: locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act. Locutionary act, as Austin proposes, is the ordinary sense of the movement of vocal organs to produce a stretch of meaningful sounds, which is not associated with communicative intention. Illocutionary act, however, associating with communicative intention, refers that saying something is to do something, that is, ―in performing a locutionary act we shall also be performing such an act as: asking or answering a question, giving some information or an assurance or a warning, announcing a verdict or an intention producing sentence, making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism, making an identification or gibing a description…‖ (Austin, 1975). Perlocutionary act indicates that saying something means to do something, which concerns the consequential effects of a locution upon the hearer on something, either misleading him, or surprising him, or inducing him to do something, or what not. Let‘s take an example to illustrate these three definitions. When somebody says, ―Good morning!‖ We can ask a question like ―What did he do?‖ instead of ―What did he say?‖ And the answer would be that he produced a sound, or sentence—―Good morning!‖ The act performed in this sense is dubbed a locutionary act. But in illocutionary act sense, it is not just literal meaning independent of context, but connotation is added to its literal meaning, additionally, he is offering a greeting. As for perlocutionary act, it is considered as the act of greeting that he has just performed. Here, we only focus on illocutionary act. In fact, the SAT can be said to be the theory of illocutionary acts. Many different classifications of illocutionary acts have been proposed, among which Searle‘s (1976) classification is the most systematic with clear guiding principles and criteria. His system is based on Austin‘s classification, and it is a five-category classification of illocutionary acts: assertives, directives, commissives, expressives and declaratives. But it is Searle‘s proposal of indirect speech act that is of great importance in interpreting the filmic text. Searle first proposed the theory of indirect speech acts in 1969 in the book Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. A speech act of promise, request and question with a performative verb, say, promise, require, ask respectively can be called a direct speech act. If there is not a performative verb in the speech act, then it can be called an indirect speech act. For example, ―Could you do it quickly?‖ ―I command you to do it quickly.‖ The first sentence does not have an imperative force as part of its literal meaning, that is, literally it is a question. But it is conventionally used to realize directive illocutionary force. So it 14 is an indirect speech act. However, the second sentence has directive force because ―command‖ is a performative verb which belongs to directives. Hence, the second sentence is direct speech act. But if these two sentences are used by the characters in the film, we can definitely identify the speech acts which are appropriate to their status in the film. What social status do they have? What‘s their interpersonal relationship? Indirect speech act is the speech act ―in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another.‖(Searle, 1975). The indirective acts could be explained from the relation between the literal meaning and the utterance meaning. When these two meanings are in accordance with each other, we can say the speech act belongs to directive act. However, when the literal meaning and the utterance meaning are in inconformity, the use of speech entitled indirect speech is produced. When people talk, they often express their intentions in indirect way instead of direct way, and the implicit way probably creates conversational implicature, which contributes to the rhetorical figures such as irony, metaphor, simile, metonymy and hyperbole and so on. For instance, ―He is a nice friend.‖ In some certain context, ―nice friend‖ does not refer to ―good friend‖, but ironically means ―bad friend‖. More examples as: ―He has a heart of stone.‖ ―Haven‘t seen you for ages.‖ These two expressions appear unreasonable outwardly, but still intelligible. It seems that metaphor and hyperbole are more comprehensive, which helps achieve the rhetorical ―literary‖ effect. To sum up, indirect speech act may shed light on the ways in which people respond to such behaviors. Accordingly, in the film, characters may produce appropriate speech acts which are in accordance with their social status or distinctly represent something to achieve rhetorical ―literary‖ effect in the playwright‘s purpose. That is to say, indirect speech is purposely chosen by the playwright to convey aesthetical effect. 2.4.2 The Cooperative Principle In daily conversations, people do not usually say things directly but tend to imply them. For example, A and B are talking about their mutual friend C, who is now working in a bank. A: How is C getting on? B: Oh, quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn‘t been to prison yet. Here B certainly implied something, though he did not say it explicitly. Grice argues that we can make a distinction between what B said in this case and what he implied, suggested or meant. 15 According to Grice (1975), our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. Thus, the hearer would probably assume the speaker‘s real intention of saying that sentence in a particular context. In other words their conversation is governed by the Cooperative Principle. Grice (1975) defined the Cooperative Principle as making your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. Cooperative Principle, short for CP, is made up of four conversational maxims: The Maxim of Quantity ? Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). ? Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. The Maxim of Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true. ? Do not say what you believe to be false. ? Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. The Maxim of Relevance Make your contributions relevant. The Maxim of Manner Be perspicuous. ? Avoid obscurity. ? Avoid ambiguity. ? Be brief. ? Be orderly. These maxims specify what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, cooperative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information (Grice, 1975). When we speak we generally have something like the CP and its maxims in our mind to guide us, though subconsciously, or even unconsciously. We will try to say things which are true, relevant, as well as informative enough, and in a clear manner. The hearers will try to interpret what is said to them in this way. However, if there are obvious signs that one, or more maxims are not followed, namely, the speaker intends to flout the maxims of CP, the hearer will try to find out the reason, in addition to the literal meaning. Thus, a conversational implicature is produced. In that case, the CP may be seen as an answer offered by Grice to the question why language sometimes is ambiguous. It is because there is such a quasi-contract as CP between interlocutors that they manage to mean more than 16 they say. The second major theory in Pragmatics is the theory of conversational implicature, proposed by Grice. The term ―implicature‖ is derived from the verb "to imply", which means ―to fold something into something else‖. Grice said in his lecture: a conversational implicature is something which is implied in conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual language use (Grice, 1975). The theory of conversational implicature is an attempt at explaining how a hearer gets what is meant from what is said, from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning (Grundy, 1995:37-49). In general, conversational implicature, as a type of implied meaning, is deduced on the basis of the conventional meaning of words together with the context, under the guidance of the CP and its maxims. Conversational implicature may generate by flouting the maxims of CP. In this sense, observing the situation in which conversational implicature produces in the film may help us work out what the speaker‘s purpose is. As we mentioned in section 2.4.1., in indirect speech act, when literal meaning is not in accordance with communicative function, people may tend to infer its utterance meaning, that is to say, to assume its conversational implicature beneath the literal meaning. But CP can be a more systematic mechanism to account for why the particular meaning is produced. 2.4.3 The Politeness Principle Why do people express themselves in an indirect way instead of direct way? In this section, we will discuss another pragmatic theory dealing with it. Politeness Principle, short for PP, is an influential pragmatics theory to account for why people tend to flout the maxims of CP to say something indirectly. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), people‘s face is frequently threatened by most of the speech acts. In order not to hurt people‘s face, the speakers prefer to express themselves indirectly to show politeness to the hearers. For example, in directive act such as making a request or giving an order, there must be one side subjected ―benefit‖, and the other side subjected ―cost‖. For instance, A is a customer, B is a waiter; A requests B, ―Give me a beer!‖ A is the benefit side and B is the cost side. Naturally, A‘s request is impolite, however, in order to make it politely. He may say: a) Give me a beer! b) I want you to give me a beer. c) Will you give me a beer? d) Can you give me a beer? e) Could you give me a beer? f) Would it be possible for you to do me a favor by giving me a beer? 17 The politeness scale ranges from the least to the most. A is supposed to show different politeness scale in terms of choosing the way of speech from a) to f). But which one is appropriate heavily depends on the context. If it happens in a restaurant, A is a customer, B is a waiter, a) and b) are both acceptable. Nevertheless, if A is a guest invited by B to have a dinner, a) and b) seem impolite because A brings too much cost to B. The indirect speech ―Will you give me a beer?‖ or ―Could you give me a beer?‖ is the appropriate expression. Leech (1983) divided PP as follows: ? Tact maxim (in impositives and commissives) (a). minimize cost to other [(b)]. maximize benefit to other ? Generosity maxim (in expressives and assertives) (a). minimize benefit to self [(b)]. maximize cost to self ? Approbation maxim (in expressives and assertives) (a). minimize dispraise to other [(b)]. maximize praise to other ? Modesty maxim (in expressives and assertives) (a). minimize praise of self [(b)]. maximize dispraise of self ? Agreement maxim (in assertives) (a). minimize disagreement between self and other [(b)]. maximize agreement between self and other ? Sympathy maxim (in assertives) (a). minimize antipathy between self and other [(b)]. maximize sympathy between self and other Yule (2000) asserted that people concern more with their individual image when communicating with others, and this individual image can be defined as ―face‖, which means individual‘s emotional and social sense that he expects to be recognized by others. Brown and Levinson named it Face Theory, which is proposed in 1978, and revised in the book retitled Politeness: Some Universal in Language Usage. According to them, one should employ strategies to manage other‘s face in interaction. In these strategies, Positive Politeness Strategies and Negative Politeness Strategies are included. Therefore, to make communication between aggressive parties possible, the management of face is important. They (ibid) define ―face‖ as an individual self-esteem, and further distinguish two kinds of face: Positive Face and Negative Face. 18 Positive Face refers to the desire to be approved of, which aims to extend common ground. Let‘s take a couple of examples to illustrate this, ? A: What is she, small? B: Yes, yes, she‘s small, smallish, um, not really small but certainly not very big. ? Help me with this bag here, will you pal? Here in Example 1, ―yes‖ and the repetition of ―small‖ show that A is extending common ground to B, and in Example 2 ―pal‖ shows the intimacy between the speaker and hearer, and the distance between them is shortened. While Negative Face means the desire not to be impeded in one‘s action, which aims to avoid conflict and disagreement. For instance, ―I hope this isn‘t going to bother you too much.‖ Here ―not…bother‖ means that the speaker has no intention to hinder the hearer. It is believed that all speech acts are face threatening acts (FTAs). They intrinsically infringe on the conversation participants‘ face wants. When a speech act is performed, FTAs may threat both the hearer‘s and speaker‘ s positive or negative face. Therefore, one should employ redressive strategies when one has to do an FTA. Proposed by Brown and Levinson, there are five politeness redressive strategies of face management: ?bald on record without redressive actions ?positive politeness ?negative politeness ?off record and ?Don‘t do the FTA. According to Leech(1983), CP is overridden by PP, and PP rescues CP. That is to say, there is a clash between CP and PP, when the speaker violates the sub-maxims of CP, he may observe PP which helps him to rescue CP to save the hearer‘s face. 2.4.4 Framework of the Filmic Texts Analysis in the Present Study In the present study, more stress will be laid on three vital factors of the film—the plot, the interpersonal relationship and the character's speech style—in the frame of pragmatic theories in the previous three sections, which shape the framework of interpreting the filmic discourse. In the following chapters, the development of the plot will be presumed by analyzing the filmic discourse in terms of the CP, and the interpersonal relationship will be observed by means of PP and SAT in Chapter 3, both of which can be accounted for at the dynamic level of the story. Meanwhile, the characters are the representative of the society, whose speech embodies the features of the current society. The characters‘ traits are reflected by their speech style, which belongs to the static level, and which will be analyzed in terms of CP, PP and SAT in Chapter 4. Accordingly, the grasp of the plot, the interpersonal relationship and the character's speech style will contribute to the better interpreting the theme of the film. Figure 2.3 displays the relationships of the three factors and the framework of interpreting the filmic discourse. 19 the framework of interpreting the filmic discourse at the dynamic level ? ? plot interpersonal relationship ? the theme of the film character's speech style—character‘s ? traits ? at the static level [Figure 2.3] To sum up, in Section 2.4, it has introduced three pragmatic theories: Speech Act Theory (SAT), Cooperative Principle (CP) and Politeness Principle (PP). To begin with, Speech Act Theory is an account of what we use language for. That is, to say something means to do something, which concerns the consequential effects of a locution upon the hearer. Illocutionary act is the highlight worth discussing. To illustrate indirect speech in terms of the SAT is that to say something means to perform another act indirectly. Thus, people use this indirect speech to achieve either better communicative purpose or rhetorical effect in literary. In addition, CP better elaborates the relationship between literal meaning and utterance meaning. CP accounts for the process of the production of conversational implicature while PP accounts for why people are likely to violate or flout CP to express implicitly or indirectly. Since speech acts are considered as face threatening acts (FTAs), Positive Politeness Strategies and Negative Politeness Strategies are most likely to be used by people as the redressive strategies to save their face. Also, the framework of interpreting the filmic discourse in terms of pragmastylistic approach in the present paper is introduced, which sheds light to the pragmatic application to filmic text, and which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. 20 Chapter 3 The Application of Pragmastylistic Analysis of the Filmic Text 3.1 Introduction to the Film Firstly, we shall present a brief introduction to the film Scent of A Woman in order to lay a solid basis for the subsequent analysis. This is a remake of the 1975 Italian original film, which is an adaptation of English novel Scent of A Woman, and is a smash hit of 1992, winning Oscar for Best Actor in Leading Role (Al Pacino ), and Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture—Drama, Best Screenplay—Motion Picture (Bo Goldman ) as well as Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture—Drama (Al Pacino ). The film entangles with two men‘s stories, a student and a colonel. Charlie, a high school student who comes from a poverty family, is an excellent student who gets scholarship in Baird School, which is famous for nurturing the prime principal of the country. Charlie is in great trouble as he witnesses an incident in which the headmaster's new car is damaged. Charlie knows exactly who has done it, but he doesn't want to be a stoolie. The headmaster induces him if he tells the truth about the incident, he will have chance to be designated to study in Harvard. If not, the expulsion will be his destination. The weekend— Thanksgiving Day is the deadline. Confused between the devil and the deep sea, Charlie has to make a decision. On Thanksgiving Day, his classmates go to resorts for their holiday, while he has to take a of the part-time job because he can‘t afford the ticket for home. He applies a position to take care blind colonel named Slade, who does not like to be called ―Sir‖, and who is a mean, angry, sarcastic man. At the very beginning, Charlie finds it is very hard to get along with this man, who is sick of being helped by other people, which makes him humiliated. It isn‘t an easy job to take good care of this old and bad tempered blind man. And the colonel, unexpectedly, already has had his ―plan‖—committing suicide. However, before he carries out his ―plan‖, he has a succession of hopes to fulfill, and he just needs someone to assist him. Charlie thinks the weekend will be just spent in the colonel's grim little cottage, watching the old guy drink and listening to his insults, but he never thinks that they will go to New York for Thanksgiving Day. In New York, they experience a luxurious life, checking in a suite at the Waldorf, renting a limousine, drinking in a decent restaurant, and dancing with an elegant lady, which are parts of the colonel‘s plan. Blind as he is, the colonel is an amazing dancer because his elegant tango with a fair lady in a fine restaurant wins tremendous applause by the people surrounding, which makes the colonel spend his most wonderful moment. The colonel also has an old-fashioned regard for women. Filled with yearning and fascination, he is always in pursuit of a woman who can belong to himself. He almost believes he can inhale a woman's scent and tell all about her— 21 what color her hair is, or her eyes, and whether she has a merry light in her eyes. He is romantic, and possesses a sense of humor for woman. To have dinner on Thanksgiving Day with his brother‘s family is one indispensable step before his suicide. However, the colonel looks like a nuisance to the family that everyone in the family tends to evade him. This typical American bourgeois family appears harmonious, but indeed it is full of conflicts. The colonel comes to list every family member‘s dishonourable affairs instead of appreciating gratitude which is in accordance with the atmosphere of Thanksgiving. Meanwhile, he is disclosed that his blindness is not due to the war but his own fault after getting drunk. In fact, this is the way that the colonel intends to say goodbye to his brother‘s family forever—he wants everyone to remember him, whatever his good or bad manners. The next day, the colonel plans to dismiss Charlie, as it is the right time that he executes the last step of his plan. Instead of leaving the colonel alone, Charlie takes him to refresh his life by driving Ferraris, which has been his dream during his life. After experiencing the most exciting moment in his life, the colonel points the gun to his own head, but Charlie grabs his gun and persuades him to change his mind. Eventually, the colonel gives up his plan as he is touched and moved by Charlie‘s passion and honesty. It is Charlie who offers two reasons to help him find courage to live on, one is that he is an amazing dancer, the other is that he can drive Ferraris as well as the normal people. In the end, the colonel decides to try a new life. Coming back from New York, what Charlie has to encounter is the disciplinary hearing on Monday about ―tell‖ or not to ―tell‖. His friend George, also witnessing the whole process of mischief, is in the company of his rich and powerful father. But poor Charlie, just sits alone on the stage of the court. At the crucial moment, the colonel appears to be the representative of his parents, whose eloquent and passionate speech gives a strong blow to the headmaster. The colonel holds Charlie high for his loyalty to friend, and seriously denounces the trick that induces Charlie to be a snitch to get the approval to study in Harvard. Applauded by all the audience, the colonel convinces the disciplinary members to cancel the punishment to Charlie. The relationship between the colonel and Charlie is more than friends but like father and son. Facing a dilemma, they both need to make an appropriate choice. They meet, become friends and help each other to get out of the trouble. It is Charlie‘s moral support and loyalty that make the colonel give up the suicide. In return, it is the colonel who helps Charlie to persist in his loyalty and principle, which influence his whole life. 22 3.2 Application of the Cooperative Principle to Analysis of the Development of the Plot As mentioned in the last chapter, Grice proposed that our talk exchanges are always supposed to consist of a succession of connected remarks. Therefore, people are expected to obey a code of principle, namely, Cooperative Principle, to keep communication successful. In filmic text, that the breach of CP and its maxims occurs constantly is commonly seen in the discourse between characters. Those violations, failing to fulfill the Cooperative Principle, are adopted by characters in the movie to achieve certain goals. On the one hand, the characters may violate the principle to express the conversational implicature. As for the readers, on the other hand, apart from interpreting the utterance produced by the characters correctly, they can infer more information about the background or the development of the plot in the film. There are two parallel stories involving respectively the heroes—the Colonel or Charlie. These two stories are not separate but entangled in the film. Charlie, who witnesses the vandalism, experiences two interrogations, while, the colonel, enjoying the last pleasure before suicide, experiences the change of idea from death to life. The development of the plot, not wholly, but to some extent can be disclosed by the pragmatic inference on the violation of the CP. In the following parts of this chapter, the thesis will respectively discuss the violation of each maxim of the CP in filmic text. Moreover, it will attempt to account for how the violation of the CP contributes to the development of the plot to some extent. 3.2.1 The Violation of the Quantity Maxim In the CP, the Quantity Maxim contains two sub-maxims which are to make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange and do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Violation of Quantity Maxim is achieved by providing non-informative information or by either providing less or more information than needed. When language does not meet the requirements of Maxim of Quantity to give the right amount of information to the hearer, the Maxim of Quantity is violated. In the film, the character who provides more or less information is regarded as the violation of Quantity Maxim. Let‘s see the example: (On the way to the restaurant) Colonel: What's the matter with you? Charlie: With me? Colonel: Yeah. Car feels heavy. You know why? You got the fuckin' weight of the world on your shoulders. [ Sigh ] 23 Charlie: I got a little problem at school, that's all. Colonel: Spit it out! Charlie: It's not a big deal, all right? … Colonel: If it's not a big deal, why did you say "real important stuff”? What are you doin', banging the dean's daughter? Hah! Charlie: I'm just in a little trouble. Colonel: What kind of trouble? Charlie: I saw some guys doing something. Colonel: To tell or not to tell, or it's your ass. Hmm? Charlie: How'd you know that? Colonel: I'm a wizard. Give me the details, come on. Charlie is obliged to go to New York with the colonel. Along the way, the sensitive colonel seems to read his mind by saying ―Car feels heavy,‖ ―You got the fuckin' weight of the world on your shoulders.‖ His remark is an indirect speech which employing personification and hyperbole rhetorical devices, which shows the colonel‘s sensitive talent, and his concern for this honest and poor boy. The playwright intentionally chooses the word ―a little problem‖ to respond the colonel, indicating that Charlie understates his present awful situation. When the colonel keeps demanding the answer, nevertheless, Charlie merely answers with ―a little trouble‖, ―not a big deal‖, which violates the Quantity Maxim of the CP as he does not provide more information than is required. It implies that he is an unpretentious person and would not like to divulge his secret to others. Meanwhile, it also drops a hint to the readers that under any circumstances, Charlie is not an informer, which contributes to the readers‘ inference to the development of the plot. Suspension is used in the way that when a person says something, he only gives a part of his speech, usually the part with minor importance, and stops when he is reaching the core. In fact, the hidden part is what the person really wants to say, but for some reasons, he could not speak it out directly, hence he uses suspension to give his interlocutors certain clues to speculate on the real meaning. The following example will illustrate the point: (In the restaurant) Colonel: Ahh! The truth is, Charlie, I need a guide dog to help me execute my plan. Charlie: What plan? Colonel: You have a right to know. It's not really a plan, Charlie. It's sort of a --more like a tour, a little tour of pleasures: stay in a first-class hotel, eat an agreeable meal, drink a nice glass of wine, and see my big brother. Nothing like family, you know. And then, make love to a 24 terrific woman. After that... Charlie: Yeah? Colonel: I'm gonna lie down on my big, beautiful bed at the Waldorf...and blow my brains out. At dinner, the colonel unintentionally discloses his attempt. ―I need a guide dog to help me execute my plan‖, which is a suspension in the colonel‘s utterance. The colonel always tries to hide his suicide plan from Charlie because if Charlie knows his intention, he will not go to New York with him. So the real meaning of ―suicide plan‖ is omitted as ―plan‖. The insufficient information is taken as the violation of the Quantity Maxim of the CP. When Charlie asks ―What plan?‖ still, he is reluctant to tell him the truth, and ―a little tour of pleasures‖ seems to cover his ―suicide plan‖ again. However, when the colonel provides more information about his ―a little tour of pleasures‖, it seems to predict what happen to him next, which seems to shed light on the development of the plot. Induced by Charlie, eventually, he tells his real purpose—to commit suicide. In the discourse, the colonel provides insufficient information twice, which implies that he would not like to reveal his purpose to Charlie. As for the readers, it seems that the playwright intends to keep suspension to them and attract them to guess what will happen next. When the colonel‘s purpose is unfolded, the readers tumble to know what‘s coming in the story. The employing of suspension draws the readers‘ attention, suggesting the way the story is heading for. In general, both more and less information given in a film discourse will generate conversational implicature. Although they are easily tracked, the purpose and effects imply much more than the surface meaning. In the process of analyzing these phenomena, one must consider the implied meaning that the speaker intends to convey as well as the contribution to the plot hidden deeply from the readers. 3.2.2 The Violation of the Quality Maxim The essence of the Maxim of Quality is to try to make your contribution one that is true. It includes two sub-maxims: do not say what you believe to be false, and do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence (Levinson, 2001). However, in daily life, people deliberately say something false or something lacking adequate evidence. For example, ― I haven't seen you for ages. ‖ Or he has a heart of stone.‖ They are both acceptable. Sometimes, people express in this way in order to achieve its rhetoric effect especially in literary works. The certain way of expression reflects a style of language. According to Grice, irony, metaphor, hyperbole and meiosis are all the results of intentional violation of the Quality Maxim. In the film, such phenomena are often seen: 25 (In the restaurant) Charlie: Colonel, I can't go with you to your brother's place. I mean, I should be getting back to school. Colonel: Uh, well you gotta have Thanksgiving somewhere. I mean, eats and treats. I could use the company. Charlie: All right. D-Does he know I'm comin’? Colonel: He doesn't know I'm comin'. But wait till you see the look on his face...when I walk through the door. Oh, he loves me! One of the colonel‘s plans before the suicide is to meet his big brother. When Charlie asks whether his brother knows it, his answer violates both the Quantity and Quality Maxim of the CP. With a ―But wait till you see the look on his face...when I walk through the door.‖, he provides more information than Charlie‘s expectation, which violates the Quantity Maxim. ―Oh, he loves me!‖ is an irony, which is taken as a violation of the first sub-maxim of the Quality Maxim—Do not say what you believe to be false. As story going on, the readers realized that the colonel is not welcomed by his family as he makes too much trouble to them. His unexpected visit to his big brother is considered as a farewell to his family, and he deliberately behaves as badly as he is to prove that he hasn‘t been ignored by the family. Considering his words, ironically, the readers may presume that his situation is everything but ―Oh, he loves me!‖. Let's see another example: (On the disciplinary hearing) Colonel: I don't know who went to this place. William Howard Taft, William Jennings Bryant, William Tell, whoever. Their spirit is dead, if they ever had one. It’s gone. You’re buildin'a rat ship here, a vessel for seagoin' snitches.... you are killin' the very spirit. ... Headmaster: Stand down, Mr. Slade! Colonel: I'm not finished. As I came in here, I heard those words:"cradle of leadership." Well, when the bough breaks, the cradle will fall, and it has fallen here. It has fallen. Makers of men, creators of leaders. Be careful what kind of leaders you're producin' here. I don't know if Charlie's silence here today...is right or wrong; I'm not a judge or jury. But I can tell you this: he won't sell anybody out...to buy his future! And that, my friends, is called integrity. That’s called courage. This is the highlight of the film. At the end of the story, the headmaster threatens to expel Charlie, but the colonel comes to justify him in time. The colonel denounces the headmaster of Baird school as ―a rat ship here, a vessel for seagoin' snitches‖, which violates the Quality Maxim of the CP, as the students here can not be "rat or seagoing snitches‖. Employing 26 metaphors, the colonel is trying to compare those students' immorality with Charlie's integrity. The colonel also attacks the headmaster's remark of ―cradle of leadership‖ by arguing the cradle will fall with the broken bough. It is also a rhetoric device to criticize the corruption of the ethic that will destroy the real leader. The three repetitions of "fall‖, as well as the change of the tense from future tense to present perfect tense show his disappointment to the current education situation. With regard to the literary effect, the ―style‖ of the colonel‘s language is obviously seen to be incisive and sharp. What he delivers strikes home. His passionate and eloquent speech fully discovers the theme of the film—to encourage integrity, to punch immorality. 3.2.3 The Violation of the Relation Maxim The Maxim of Relation requires that one's contribution must be relevant. Grice (1975) thinks examples in which an implicature is achieved by real, as distinct from apparent, violation of the Maxim of Relation are perhaps rare... In other words, it is not easy to find examples which are completely irrelevant. Relevance is a comparative concept, what the speaker says is more or less presumed to be relevant to the topic in its context. In the following example, we will discuss some discourses in the film which violate the Relation Maxim for certain purpose. (In the hotel) Colonel: What the fuck you know about pain? Charlie: Let me have the gun, Colonel. Colonel: No time to grow a dick, son. Charlie: Just, just give me the gun, all right, Colonel? Colonel: I'm talkin' a parade ground. Ten-hut! Soldier, that was a direct order. Charlie: Give me the gun? Colonel: You can stay or you can leave. You understand? Either way, I'm gonna do this thing. Now why don't you leave and spare yourself? Charlie: I want your gun, Colonel. The colonel has completed all he wants to do, and it is the right time to execute the last step—committing suicide, but Charlie comes back at the right time to stop him. Charlie wants to take the colonel's gun away, no matter what the colonel asks, ―What the fuck you know about pain?‖ Charlie just answers with ―Let me have the gun.‖ He violates the Relation Maxim by saying something unrelated to the colonel's question. And then in the following three turn-talkings, Charlie's replies are not in tune with the colonel‘s. ―Just, just give me the gun....‖ ―Give me the gun?‖ and ―I want your gun, Colonel‖ Though they all violate the Relation Maxim, Charlie's words are still acceptable in that situation. When the colonel is likely to struggle on the verge of death, Charlie has no time to consider the answer to his question because taking his gun 27 away is the most vital thing. The colonel can understand Charlie‘s purpose. With regard to the plot, the story develops to its first climax. Will the colonel die or not? It attracts the readers to disclose the ending. Another example is: (On the disciplinary hearing) Headmaster: You were in a position last Tuesday night...to see who committed this act of vandalism. Who was it? George: Well, uh, I have an idea who it was. Headmaster: No, no, not an idea, Mr. Willis. Did you see or did you not see? George: Well...I—I didn't have my contacts in. Headmaster: Come on. George: I was in the library. I'd taken my glasses off, and I was gonna put my contacts back in.... This scene happens on the disciplinary hearing. For the first inquiry, George answers with ―I have an idea who it was‖, which is relevant, but it does not hit the point. Then the headmaster asks again to make sure of it, ―Did you see or did you not see?‖ This is a ―yes‖ or ―no‖ question, but George violates the Relevant Maxim by saying ―Well...I—I didn't have my contacts in.‖ His reply does not answer the headmaster's question, but his answer is partly related to the situation, which means that he is afraid of telling the truth. Whether he can hold on to it is still uncertain, but we can predict that he gets caught in hesitation, and he will not do as what he tells Charlie over the phone so bluntly, ―See no evil, hear no evil.‖ The change of his attitude seems to pave way to the change of the development of the plot. 3.2.4 The Violation of the Manner Maxim In the previous section, we have discussed three maxims of the CP, which concerns how ―what is said‖ violates the CP. Now, we will analyze the ways in which ―how to say‖ could violate the CP. This section will focus on in what way the characters express themselves and what is hidden in the way they talk in the CP . According to CP, people are required to talk briefly and orderly, avoiding obscurity and ambiguity. However, in the film, the playwright often carefully chooses the diction for the characters to express themselves implicitly and indefinitely. That is, there is an obscurity or ambiguity in their discourses to make it understood either in this way or in that way. Look at the example: (On the disciplinary hearing) Headmaster: With your untrammeled sight, whom did you see? 28 Charlie: Well, I saw—I saw something, but I—I—I couldn't say who. Headmaster: All right. What was the something you saw? Charlie: I—I couldn't say. Headmaster: You couldn't say or you wouldn't say? I—I just couldn't say. I'm… Charlie: Well, I just— Headmaster: Couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't. You're exhausting my patience...and making a mockery of these proceedings. I will give you one last chance. The consequences of your response will be dire. Most obscurities or ambiguities in the film discourses are the semantic and syntactical level. On the disciplinary hearing, when Charlie is interrogated by the headmaster for the first question ―whom did you see‖ , ―whom‖ indicates which person is involved. Obviously, Charlie is supposed to tell who did it. Unexpectedly, he replies, ―I saw something‖, which is used to mean a particular thing when you do not know its name or do not know exactly what it is. He violates the Manner Maxim because ―something‖ is an obscure word for ―somebody‖, the implicit meaning of which is that Charlie witnesses the incident but he refuses to tell who did it. Facing Longman Contemporary the second question, his response is ―I—I couldn't say.‖ According to English Dictionary, the proper meaning of ―can‖ is to be able to do something or to know how to do something, to be allowed to do something or to have the right or power to do something, and ―could‖ is a more polite and indirect way of saying of ―can‖. In the film, Charlie carefully choose the word ―couldn't‖, which implies that I don't know how to say as I didn't see it, or I know who did it, but for some objective reasons, I am not allowed to leak out the secret as I have promised my friend. While ―wouldn't‖ is used to say that someone refused to do something, probably for one's subjective reason. ―couldn't‖ carries more responsibility than ―wouldn't‖. In fact, it will be more brief and explicit if Charlie answers directly by saying ―I saw it but I don‘t want to betray friends.‖ Or ―I am not willing to tell you the truth.‖ However, the playwright intends to use the word with ambiguous meaning to portray Charlie‘s individual trait—loyalty and responsibility, which is about to display the literary effect—do not display directly but spare some room for the readers to explore its implicit meaning. Meanwhile, from the way Charlie speaks, the inference can be drawn that Charlie's inherent integrity must result in the clash between him and the headmaster as well as his friend George with the story going on. 3.3 Application of PP and SAT to Analysis of Interpersonal Relationships Between Characters In the discourse of the film, the way characters interact with each other is designed by the playwright, which may reflect the interpersonal relationship between characters. The 29 interpersonal relationship between characters is dynamic rather than static. To understand their complicated relationships may facilitate the understanding of the theme in the film. In this section, we will make an analysis of the character‘s discourse on the basis of the politeness model proposed by Brown and Levinson (1978). We will elaborate the gradual change of the relationship between characters so as to see how the plot develops. In this film, the main characters are the colonel and Charlie, and their stories go throughout the film. Therefore, it is worthwhile to observe their subtle change of relationships from strangers to acquaintances, from friends to a father-son relationship. In addition, the other two pairs of relationships—the Charlie-headmaster and Charlie-George relationship are also essential to the development of the story. They are associated with ― to tell ‖or ― not to tell‖, the changes of their relationships push the plot to develop to a climax. In the present thesis, the colonel Frank is addressed throughout the thesis as ―colonel‖ and the headmaster is addressed as ―headmaster‖. As we know, the character‘s speech, to some extent, is featured with their professions and social status. The scale of politeness varies among different professions and social status. In the following section, we will highlight the three pairs of relationships between the characters by means of the PP and SAT. Above all, there is necessity to overview the relation between Austin and Searle‘s Speech Act Theory and Brown and Levinson‘s Politeness Strategy. These pragmatic theories share something in common: the more direct the speech act is, the less polite it is; the more indirect the speech act is, the more polite it is. Besides, the observance and violation of Politeness Principle, as well as Face Theory will be employed to the following analysis. Now, let‘s discuss how the dynamic interpersonal relationship between characters is disclosed in the film. 3.3.1 The Colonel-Charlie Relationship The colonel-Charlie relationship is considered as a major thread of the film. They help each other to go through the hardship when they are in the dilemma of life. On the one hand, Charlie helps the colonel find the courage to live on; on the other hand, the colonel, more like Charlie‘s father, helps him out of trouble. Nevertheless, their relationship is not good at the early stage of their conversation. For instance: (A job interview) Charlie: Sir? Colonel: Don't call me sir! Charlie: I—I'm sorry. I mean mister, sir. Colonel: Uh—oh, we got a moron here, is that it? 30 … Colonel: Get in here, you idiot! … Charlie: I believe President Bush went to Andover, Colonel. Colonel: You sharpshootin' me, punk? Is that what you're doin’? Don’t you sharpshoot me! …What do you want? Charlie: What do you mean, what do I want? Colonel: What do you want here? Charlie: I wa-want a job. Colonel: A job! Charlie: Yeah, I want a job so I can make, you know, my plane fare home for Christmas. Colonel: Oh. God, you're touching! … Colonel: Still here, poormouth? Hmm? Convenience store...my ass! Go on. Dismissed. Dismissed! In Charlie‘s first job interview, he is applying for a position to take care of the colonel. The colonel, with special profession and social status, educated with military training, is expected to be a person with good reputation and decent manners. However, his speech does not show the slightest politeness. Unexpectedly, he just directly addresses Charlie ―moron‖, ―idiot‖, ―punk‖. When he hears that Charlie takes the job for the plane fare to go home for Christmas, he shows little sympathy in his addressing Charlie ―poormouth‖, which violates Sympathy Maxim of the PP. In addition, the imperative sentences he uses are inclined to show his obsolete authority. ―Don't call me sir!‖ ―Don't you sharpshoot me!‖ ―Go on. Dismissed. Dismissed!‖ His speech acts is definitely considered to be FTAs, which violate the PP and belongs to be bald on record without any redressive actions. Of course, Charlie does not have an easy feeling when talking with him, and he even wants to quit the job. As we can see, at the beginning, how tough their relationship is! Their relationship still remains the same when the second time Charlie meets the colonel. (Before leaving for New York) Charlie: Uh, are we going some place, Colonel? Colonel: What business is that of yours? Don't shrug, imbecile. I'm blind. Save your body language for the bimbi. Now, get my gear out. Francine, get in the car. Colonel: Touch me again, I'll kill ya, you little son-of-a-bitch! As shown in the dialogue, the colonel even talks rudely to Charlie by saying ―you little son-of-a-bitch‖, as he just considers Charlie as nothing but a means to help him complete his 31 suicidal plan. Gradually, the colonel shows no hostility to this kind-hearted boy, because he is the only one who would like to listen to his bug. Let‘s see the example: (On the plane) Colonel: Are you listening to me, son? I’m givin' you pearls here. Charlie: I guess you really like women. Colonel: Oh, above all things! A very, very distant second...is a Ferrari. Charlie? Give me your hand. This is just the start of your education, son. The colonel tells Charlie how he is fascinated by women. Charlie listens to him silently and tries to get to know this man who needs his care. Among these discourses, it is noticed that there is a change in the colonel‘s attitude. The colonel calls Charlie in a friendly way ―son‖, which is a kind of positive politeness strategy to show one‘s intimacy to someone, as well as an action observing Agreement Maxim of the PP. It means that the colonel begins to have a sense of responsibility to this boy. He is trying to teach this boy something he has never experienced by saying ―I'm givin' you pearls here‖, ―This is just the start of your education, son‖, which demonstrates their relationship gets closer. In New York, Charlie accompanies the colonel everywhere even though there is a miserable disciplinary hearing waiting for him the next Monday morning. The colonel gradually regards him as a friend, which can be noticed in the following scenes. (At Thanksgiving dinner) Colonel: Say hello to the potluck party from New York City. Good old Uncle Frank and this here with him is Charlie Simms, star halfback of the Baird football team. They not only beat Exeter and Groton, but Aquinas High School too. … Colonel: Here's my hand. Charlie, meet W.R. Slade. … Charlie: To tell the truth, the colonel's not well, I don't think. Brother: Not well? Charlie: I think he's a little lonely. … Charlie: Could you take it easy? Nephew: What for? You want me to lay off him, Chuckie, 'cause he's blind? Charlie: No, but I mean… Colonel: My friend's name is Charlie. He doesn't like to be called Chucky. Nephew: You get the point...Chuckie ? Colonel: Aah! His name is Charles. You can say that, can't you? 32 Entering his big brother‘s home, the colonel introduces Charlie to his family with Positive Politeness Strategy, ―Charlie Simms, star halfback of the Baird football team. They not only beat Exeter and Groton, but Aquinas High School too.‖ From his praise to Charlie, as well as his remarks ―Here's my hand. Charlie‖, the colonel employed Approbation Maxim of the PP to maximize his praise to Charlie, which reveals he has already treated Charlie as his friend. As for Charlie, by means of getting along with the colonel and listening to his confession, he gets to know more about the colonel. He is just seemingly looking good, but indeed he is not well. ―I think he's a little lonely.‖ Charlie tells the colonel‘s big brother. At the dinner, the colonel intentionally makes some dirty joke and says something unpleasant which irritates his nephew. Then his nephew begins to rebuke him in the presence of Charlie. Charlie feels the atmosphere is bad and tries to stop him. ―Could you…?‖ shows that Charlie employs Negative Politeness Strategy to ask his nephew not to talk in that way. Occasionally, his nephew calls ―Charlie‖ as ―Chuckie‖ by mistake. However, the colonel takes it very seriously and corrects him twice by saying ―My friend's name is Charlie. He doesn't like to be called Chuckie.‖ and ―His name is Charlie. You can say that, can't you?‖ His nephew‘s careless address shows little respect for Charlie as well as the colonel. If Charlie is not his friend, the colonel will not care so much about him and defend his reputation, let alone get furious with his nephew‘s address. As we can see, Charlie has already been taken into an important position for the colonel. Another example also demonstrates the change of their relationship. (In the hotel) Colonel: Charlie? Charlie! All I want from you...is another day. Charlie: For what? Colonel: One last tour of the battlefield. I can get around a city like New York, but l...sometimes need a point in the right direction. What do you say, Charlie? What’s one day...between friends? Charlie: All right. Well, say I stay for another day. Will you give me your weapon? The colonel begins to depend on Charlie as he is the one who is worth trusting in, so his attitude towards Charlie has gradually changed. There is no rebuke or order in their dialogue but frankness. Considering executing his plan with the help of Charlie, he begs Charlie to stay with him by saying ―All I want from you...is another day.‖ His requirement is a FTA, but the colonel adopts Negative Politeness Strategy to minimize the ranking of imposition. It implies that ―one day‖ should be acceptable between friends. Then he continues to adopt Negative Politeness Strategy to give deference to Charlie, ―but I...sometimes need a point in the right direction‖, which tends to gain Charlie‘s sympathy through downgrading himself. At last he makes a requirement again, ―What's one day...between friends?‖ ―Friends‖ conveys his intimacy to 33 Charlie, which is a means of Positive Politeness Strategy. For the sake of friend, Charlie should stay with him for another day. From the perspective of the PP, it is displayed that both the colonel and Charlie take each other as an important part in their life. Still, their relationship does not stay unchanged, it keeps improving as the readers expect. Let‘s take the following discourse as another example: (In the hotel) Charlie: Put the gun down, all right, Colonel? Colonel: What? You givin' me an ultimatum? Charlie: No, I'm— Colonel: I give the ultimatums! Colonel: I'm sorry. All right? I’m sorry. Colonel: It's all right...Charlie. You break my heart, son. All my life I stood up...to everyone and everything...because it made me feel important. You do it. 'cause you mean it. You got integrity, Charlie. I don't know whether to shoot ya or adopt ya. The colonel is going to commit suicide, and Charlie tries to stop him, ―Put the gun down, all right, colonel?‖ The first half sentence ―put the gun down,‖ is an imperative sentence which is considered direct and impolite, and it is bald on record without redressive actions. But it is expressed efficiently in emergency, because Charlie worries about the colonel‘s safety so much. Nevertheless, the colonel is senior to him, so he adds ―All right, Colonel?‖ to make it sound more indirect and polite. When Charlie makes apology to the colonel, the colonel is no longer a tough guy to get along with, and his answer is not so harsh any more. He accepts the boy‘s apology by saying ―It's all right.‖ Even though the colonel seems to give orders, he expresses his appreciation of this upright boy in his remarks, ―You break my heart, son. You do it. 'cause you mean it.‖ ―I don't know whether to shoot ya or adopt ya.‖ The most outstanding and appropriate word to describe their relationship is ―adopt‖. It shows that Charlie is more like the colonel‘s son. ―You do it. 'cause you mean it.‖, which means that nobody dares to disobey the colonel‘s order but Charlie does because he really cares about the colonel‘s security. The subtle change of their relationship can be sensed as the one between father and son. Another convincing example to represent their likely father-son relationship is the following: (on the disciplinary hearing) Headmaster: Who is this, Mr. Simms? Charlie: Uh— Colonel: This is Mr. Frank Slade, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army, retired. I'm here in place of Charlie's parents. Headmaster: Excuse me? 34 Colonel: In loco parents. They could not make the trip from Oregon today. Headmaster: And what is your relationship to Mr. Simms? … Colonel: Larry and Franny Simms...are very dear, close friends of mine. They've asked me to appear here on Charlie's behalf. Okay? Headmaster: Happy to have you with us, Colonel. At last, on the disciplinary hearing, on behalf of Charlie‘s parents, the colonel attends the disciplinary hearing. He tells a white lie that ―They could not make the trip from Oregon today.‖ ―Larry and Franny Simms...are very dear, close friends of mine. They've asked me to appear here on Charlie's behalf‖, which merely indicates that he intends to act as the father to help his son to tide over. Above all, it is aware that the relationship between the colonel and Charlie has changed from strangers to friends, then from friends to a father-son relationship in terms of analyzing the discourse in the filmic text. They help each other and depend on each other. Their relationship becomes closer and closer, which indicates both of them are able to get rescued so long as they support each other. 3.3.2 The Charlie-George Relationship In the film, the Charlie-George relationship is another important thread. Charlie and George are classmates, and they both witness the whole process of the incident. During the inquiry, George is the old guard, and Charlie is the fringe. The headmaster tends to separate them and induce George to tell the truth. At the beginning, George persuades Charlie to stand by his side: (After the first inquiry) George: Did he try to soft-soap you? Did he? Charlie: No. George: Chas, I detect a slight panic pulse from you. Are you panicking? Charlie: Yeah, a little. George: Come on. You're on scholarship, right? Charlie: Yeah. … George: I don't know how it works out there. But how it works here? We stick together. It's us against them, no matter what. We don't cover our ass. We don't tell our parents. Stonewall everybody! And above all, never, never...Leave any of us twisting in the wind. And that's it. George is afraid that Charlie will tell the headmaster the whole thing, so he tries to rope him in to keep a secret. George first asks three questions to express his sympathy and consideration 35 for Charlie, which is in accordance with the Sympathy Maxim of the PP. ―Did he try to soft-soap you?‖ It means what happens is as exactly as he expects. ―I detect a slight panic pulse from you. Are you panicking?‖ ―You're on scholarship, right?‖ These questions imply that George is considerate to feel what Charlie feels and shows sympathy to his present situation. After that, he declares his propose, ―We stick together. … We don't cover …. We don't tell …. never, never...Leave any of us…‖ George is employing Positive Politeness Strategy to rope Charlie in. Apparently, he uses three ―we‖ and one ―us‖ to indicate that Charlie is one of them and should stand by their side. ―Do not betray‖ is the exact principle with which both Charlie and he are supposed to comply. As we can see, they are in the same boat at the early stage. (On the telephone) George: Hello! Charlie: George! Hey, it's Charlie. … Charlie: Um—you told me to call you for the moves. George: All right. For now, the move's no move: status quo. Everything's the way we left it. Charlie: How did we leave it? George: See no evil, hear no evil. You know what I mean, Chas? Charlie: Yeah. See no evil, hear no evil. George: Okay, then, walk like you talk! George asks Charlie to call him for moves during the weekend, as the weekend is the deadline for ―to tell‖ or ―not to tell‖ given by the headmaster. The situation stays the same way. Both George and Charlie promise to keep their principle. In their conversation, (―For now, the move's no move: status quo. Everything's the way we left it.‖ says George. ―How did we leave it?‖ asks Charlie.) They both use ―we‖ to show their standpoint—stick to each other, in which the addressing observes Agreement Maxim of the PP. When the second time Charlie calls George, he says he is going home to tell his father because his father is the major fund-raiser. In the words ―He'll get us off the hook‖, George still uses ―us‖ to indicate his status. However, after the third call, poor Charlie seems to detect something that is going to change. His future is still in the air until the coming of the disciplinary hearing. (On the disciplinary hearing) Headmaster: What did you see, Mr. Willis? George: What? What, you mean definitively? Headmaster: Stop fencing with me, Mr. Willis! Tell me what you saw! George: Now, don't hold me to this, but...no contacts, it's dark...and everything, I mean— Headmaster: Mr. Willis! 36 [ Willis Sighing] George: Maybe...Harry Havemeyer, Trent Potter and Jimmy Jameson. Headmaster: Maybe? George: Ballpark, best guess. Headmaster: Could you provide us with some details? George: I mean, why don't you ask Charlie? I really think he was closer. On the disciplinary hearing, George is the first one to be interrogated at the presence of his father and all school fellows. The headmaster addresses George ―Mr. Willis‖ formally in public, and then he begins his intensive interrogation. ―Stop fencing with me, Mr. Willis! Tell me what you saw!‖ He uses two imperative sentences which is the direct speech showing little politeness. From the perspective of Speech Act Theory, the performative force of imperative sentence is giving an order, which greatly threatens the hearer‘s face without any redressive strategies. Then in front of the pressure from both the headmaster and his father, George begins to shrink to list the names. To most extent, he sells his friends out even though he adds ―maybe‖ or‖ best guess‖. It is George who first breaks their principle. Furthermore, he suggests the headmaster ask Charlie, ―Why don‘t you….‖ On the basis of Speech Act Theory, it is a speech act employing two functions as posing a question or making a suggestion. Here it is considered as an indirect speech to make a suggestion politely, which shows that George is in pressure and panic, and he has to turn the spear to Charlie. Therefore, he highly suggests, ―why don't you ask Charlie? I really think he was closer.‖ At this moment, we can see that their relationship is broken, as George can not keep the principle. Who is the coward? Who is the real hero? We can tell them apart from the change of their relationship. 3.3.3 The Charlie-Headmaster Relationship Charlie and the headmaster play contrast roles in the film. To make clear the change of the Charlie-headmaster relationship will facilitate the comprehension of the theme of the film. Let‘s see how their relationship is observed in the frame of the pragmatic theories. As Charlie and George are the witnesses of the vandalism, the headmaster forces them to tell who has done it. (In the office) Headmaster: What's your position, Mr. Simms? Charlie: On what, sir? Headmaster: On preserving the reputation of Baird. Charlie: I—I'm for Baird. Headmaster: Then, who did it? Charlie: I really couldn't say for sure. 37 Headmaster: Very well. First thing Monday, I'm convening a special session...of the student-faculty disciplinary committee. As this is a matter which concerns the whole school, the entire student body will be present. There will be no classes, no activities. Nothing will transpire at this institution...until that proceeding is concluded. And if, at that time, we are no further along than we are now, I will expel you both. At the beginning, both Charlie and George refuse to tell the truth. Then the headmaster changes his strategy by asking ―What‘s your position, Mr. Simms?‖, whose aim is to induce Charlie to stand on his side—both of them is on preserving the reputation of Baird—which is in accordance with Agreement Maxim of the PP. It seems that what he does is for the sake of justice, so Charlie should obediently confess to him. Disappointedly, without getting any clues from Charlie, the headmaster loses his temper and exert pressure upon him. Expelling both of them is the result if the two boys refuse to reveal the truth. As we can see, the obvious tension between the headmaster and Charlie makes the atmosphere rather unpleasant. However, the headmaster does not give it up easily and comes up with another trick. (In the office) Headmaster: … I add one name, somebody who's a standout and yet, underprivileged; a student who cannot afford to pay the board and tuition in Cambridge. Do you know on whose behalf I drafted a memo this year? Charlie: No, sir. Headmaster: You. You, Mr. Simms. Now can you tell me who did it? Charlie: No, sir, I can't. After dismissing George, the headmaster tries to soft-soap Charlie. As we can see, ―standout‖ ―underprivileged;‖ ―cannot afford to pay the board and tuition‖ are the exact words to describe Charlie‘s present situation. The headmaster is adopting Sympathy Maxim of the PP to show sympathy to Charlie—he really understands the poor student Charlie‘s plight and would like to offer him an opportunity to Harvard, which seems that their relationship is close. But the headmaster‘s effort comes out in vain at last. Obviously, there exists a clash between ―to tell or not to tell‖, and between ―to take his bribe or to be punished‖, which is the essence of the plot. The highlight of the film rests on how Charlie deals with it at the end on the disciplinary hearing: (On the disciplinary hearing) Headmaster: …The substance I was looking for, Mr. Simms, was to come from you. Charlie: I'm sorry. Headmaster: I'm sorry too, Mr. Simms, because you know what I'm going to do, inasmuch as I can't punish Mr. Havemeyer, Mr. Potter or Mr. Jameson ? And I won't punish Mr. Willis. He's the only party to this incident... who is still worthy of calling himself a Baird man. I'm going to 38 recommend to the Disciplinary Committee...that you be expelled. Mr. Simms, you are a cover-up artist... It is the crucial moment when all the concern focus on Charlie. The headmaster is nearly mad at Charlie, that the way he talks to Charlie is quite different from the way when inducing the boy in his office. He comments, ―Mr. Simms, you are a cover-up artist‖, which is bald on record without redressive action. This is done just because the headmaster‘s social status is higher than Charlie‘s, and Charlie refuses to tell who those vandals are, which is considered as unquestionable fact. The headmaster‘s direct speech act is a completely FTA, which violate Tact Maxim of the PP. Even though those guys commits vandalism, the headmaster can not get the proof. Therefore, instead of punishing Mr. Havemeyer, Mr. Potter or Mr. Jameson, the headmaster makes the most stupid decision—expelling Charlie and rewarding George, which indicates that their relationship is totally broken. 3.4 Summary In this part, three pairs of interpersonal relationships between characters have been discussed. The interpersonal relationship is a dynamic process rather than a static one. The study is on the basis of the Politeness Principle and the Speech Act Theory, which facilitate us to distinguish the change of complicated interpersonal relationships beneath the story. The Colonel-Charlie relationship is observed from divergence to unanimity in terms of the PP. Indirect speech, in a way, regarded as a way to express more politely, is also taken into account to analyze the discourses in the filmic text. The scale of the politeness in the conversation exemplifies the change of the interpersonal relationship as well as the development of the plot. Initially, the relationship of the colonel and Charlie accounts for an employer-employee one, later, they becomes friends, and finally, they are like father and son. The Charlie-George relationship develops from unanimity to divergence, which comparatively indicates Charlie‘s integrity—he has never changed his principle though undergoing many twists and turns. The Charlie-headmaster relationship almost remains in divergence even though the headmaster tries to soft-soap Charlie. The threads of the story are represented by three pairs of interpersonal relationships, of which the Colonel-Charlie relationship plays the leading role in the whole story. Furthermore, the change of these relationships between the characters reflects the development of the plot. 39 Chapter 4 Pragmastylistic Analysis of the Filmic Text at A Static Level 4.1 Characters’ Traits and Speech Style Human nature can be seen in many ways, and speech is one of them which has convincing power to represent people‘s nature. As speech possesses the performative force introduced in 2.4.1, speaking goes along with performing act. In this chapter, we will lay stress on the characters‘ traits and speech style in the film. It is believed that the characters‘ traits can be embodied by their speech, as speech plays an important role in expressing the character‘s intention and emotion. The description of speech style is supposed to be appropriate to the characters‘ age, occupation, social status, educational background and so on. Since the social class and educational background of the speakers have a strong influence on speech patterns for everyone, the character‘s traits can be portrayed in terms of analyzing their speech style. As Swift‘s famous saying goes, ―Proper words in proper places make the true definition of a style‖(qtd. in Feng, 2002: 75), in every situation, the communicative competence of every native speaker lies in the ability to alter patterns of speech behavior to suit the situation. Stylistics is concerned with the idea of ―style‖, which is usually understood within this area of study as the selection of certain linguistic forms or features over other possible ones. Therefore, to analyze the speech in the discourse between the characters from a perspective of pragmatic theory is an applicable approach to explore the characters‘ traits. As each character has his inherent traits, compared with the plot of the story or the personal relationship, the characters‘ traits are confined to the static level. 4.2 Application of Pragmastylistic Approach to Analysis of the Characters’ Speech Style Let‘s take a close look at the character‘s speech style in the film so as to have a deep understanding of the three main characters‘ traits. 4.2.1 The Colonel The colonel, Frank, is the hero of the film who is a masterful, sardonic, self-reliant man, and who is seemingly tough and morose. (In the cottage) Colonel: Sir? Don't call me sir! Charlie: I—I'm sorry. I mean mister, sir. Colonel: Uh—oh, we got a moron here, is that it? Charlie: No, mister—Uh, that is --Uh, Lieutenant. Yes, sir, Lieu— 40 Colonel: Lieutenant Colonel.26 years on the line, nobody ever busted me four grades before. Get in here, you idiot! This is the first conversation between the colonel and Charlie. As a rule, at the beginning of the conversation, people always show their respect to each other with greeting. However, the colonel does not show a slight politeness to the school kid as speech possesses the performative force introduced in 2.4.1. The colonel‘s traits are obviously displayed by his speech. First and foremost, he adopts negative imperative mode ―Don‘t call me sir‖, which is performing an act of giving order to Charlie in the perspective of SAT. Besides, ―nobody ever busted me…before‖ implies that he used to be a master in the army, and he thinks he still is now. Last but not the least, the most unbearable thing for Charlie is his rude remarks such as ―we got a moron‖ and ―you idiot‖, which violates Agreement Maxim of the PP and violently threatens Charlie‘s ―face‖. The colonel‘s sardonic speech makes himself a tough and morose person who is hard to get along with. Another example is when Charlie tries to help the colonel find the way to the door: (Before leaving for New York) Colonel: Which way's the door? Are you blind? Are you blind? Of course not. Then why do you keep grabbin' my goddamn arm? I take your arm. Charlie: I'm sorry. Obviously, the blind man is the colonel himself, but he yells ―Are you blind? Are you blind?‖ to the boy, which is an indirect speech, ironically, the repetition of the sentence reveals that the colonel seems to declare to the world ―I am a normal, healthy person. I am not a BLIND man‖. ―Why do you keep grabbin' my goddamn arm? I take your arm.‖ Here ―I‖ means the colonel does not accept other people‘s sympathy and assistance. He would not like to be helped first, but rather he himself takes the initial step to ask for help, as if he was the master of his world. His self-reliance can be penetrated from his speech style. Tough and morose, the colonel looks difficult to get along with. But when he talks with a woman, he appears to be another person—a considerate, witty, mysterious and respectful gentleman, whose speech style is so impressive to everyone. The film has no heroine, yet it is named Scent of A Woman, as it has its implied meaning. ―scent of a woman‖ refers to the expectation and enthusiasm for woman. The colonel is sensitive to and fascinated by women that his dream is that he can wake up beside a fair woman... smelling the scent from her, he never worries that she will go away from him. There are five scenes in which he talks with a woman with his impressive style, which vividly reveals his distinctive features of his character. The following examples will fully display his gentle and elegant manners: (On the telephone) Colonel: Hello, beautiful. Is that you? Yeah, we spoke yesterday. 41 [Chuckling] You have a glass of wine with lunch? You sound a little dusky. Hmm. [Clearing Throat] Just a minute, sweetheart.… Hello. Sorry to keep you waitin', sweetheart. I'm not the kind of the guy, who likes to rush things, but I'm catchin' a 4:00 at Logan, lookin' out my window, and there's not a taxi in sight. … Hah! Well, get your driver on it. Tell him to get a move on. Yes. Mmm. Some kind of body has got to go with that bedroom voice. One day I'm gonna swing by, get a better look at it. You bet. Bye The colonel is going to call a taxi to go to the airport. Right now, he is having phatic communion with a female operator. In the light of the Face Theory of the PP discussed in 2.4.3, when people communicate with others, their speech acts are likely to threaten someone‘s face. It is normal to employ Positive Politeness Strategy or Negative Politeness Strategy to fix this situation. In the film, the colonel addresses the woman ―beautiful‖, ―sweetheart‖, which show the intimacy between them. The adoption of Positive Politeness Strategy and the application of Agreement Maxim of PP enable him to get close to the woman. He is making a requirement that he needs a taxi to come over to his cottage to pick him up quickly. Since he is the ―benefit‖ side and his act is deemed to threaten the woman‘s face, he employs Negative Politeness Strategy by saying ―I'm not the kind of guy who likes to rush things, but…‖ to make his requirement less aggressive. It is presumed that ―rush things‖ will bring inconvenience to the woman, so he tries to make it sound more indirect. The words also show his consideration and his strategy—reducing the woman‘s ―cost‖. At the end of the call, he does not forget to employ the Approbation Maxim of PP to please the woman by saying ―Some kind of body has got to go with that bedroom voice. One day I'm gonna swing by, get a better look at it.‖ Indeed, we can notice that the colonel is absolutely kind and gentle to women. Another example is: (On the plane) Colonel: Yes! Stewardess: Jack Daniels... Colonel: You bet. Stewardess: And Diet Slice. Colonel: The old Diet Slice. Stewardess: And a water. Colonel: Thank you, Daphne. 42 Stewardess: Certainly, sir. Colonel: Ahh! Mmm! Charlie: How did you know her name? Colonel: Well, she's wearin' Floris. That's English cologne. But her voice is California chickie. Now, California chickie bucking for English lady.I call her Daphne. When the stewardess comes to offer drinks to them, the colonel behaves very passionately and politely to her. His response to the stewardess‘s service is in accordance with the Agreement Maxim of PP. It seems that women can refresh his life and bring him enthusiasm, as he sounds high-spirited when he turns to talk with women. What amazes Charlie is that the colonel calls the girl ―Daphne‖ as if he knew her name at the first sight and he is also able to judge a girl‘s preference from her smell and accent, which sounds incredible for a blind man. Yet the colonel just makes it as he is rather sensitive to women. The most wonderful moment is: (In a fine dinner restaurant) Colonel: Excuse me, senorita, do you mind if we join you? I’m feelin' you're being neglected. Donna: Well, I'm expecting somebody. … Colonel: Would you mind if we waited with you, you know, just to keep the womanizers from bothering you? Donna: No, I don't mind. … Colonel: You know, I detect...a fragrance in the air. Don't tell me what it is. Ogilvie Sisters soap. Donna: Ah, that's amazing. Colonel: I'm in the amazing business! Donna: It is Ogilvie Sisters soap. My grandmother gave me three bars for Christmas. Colonel: I'm crazy about your grandmother… …. Colonel: Do you tango? Donna: No. I wanted to learn once, but— Colonel: But? Donna: But Michael didn't want to. Colonel: Michael, the one you're waiting for. Donna: Michael thinks the tango's hysterical. Colonel: Well, I think Michael's hysterical… 43 . In a fine dinner restaurant, the colonel senses that there is a fair lady sitting around him. So he tries to join her with Charlie‘s help. The colonel is a person who is very good at applying the PP. As it is the first meeting, the invitation may seem abrupt to threaten the lady‘s face. In order to get close to the lady, the colonel employs both the Positive Politeness Strategy and Negative Politeness Strategy of the PP. He offers to join the lady by saying ―Excuse me senorita, do you mind if we join you?‖ ―Would you mind if we waited with you‖ , which sound very polite by means of Negative Politeness Strategy. And the words ―being neglected‖ seem to blame someone who keeps the lady waiting, in which the Sympathy Maxim of the PP is adopted. In their conversation, when the colonel is talented to tell the lady what is exactly the brand of the soap used by her, his sensitive smell amazes the lady. In order to win the heart of the lady, he employs the Positive Politeness Strategy in their following discourse: When the lady hears the exact name of the soap, she replies, ―that's amazing.‖ ―I'm in the amazing business!‖ echoes the colonel; then the lady explains, ―My grandmother gave me three bars for Christmas.‖ ―I'm crazy about your grandmother‖ replies he in less than no time; and then the lady gives the reason for the refusal of dancing tango because ―Michael thinks the tango's hysterical.‖ ―Well, I think Michael's hysterical‖ immediately says he. The three echoes completely exhibit his wit and sense of humor. In all the conversations, the colonel goes all out to reach an agreement with the lady, which represents he is good at complying with the Agreement Maxim of the PP to please the lady. Eventually, winning the heart of the lady, he gets the approval to dance tango with her. It is the most romantic and melodic dance which gains applauds from the surrounding people. (In the hotel) [Door Opening] Waitress: Oh. I'm so sorry. What time do you want me to turn down the bed? Charlie: Uh, maybe later, all right? Colonel: What he means, senorita, is come right in. Charlie: Later, please? Waitress: Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Colonel: Nice voice. No sooner does Charlie seize the colonel‘s gun and persuade him to change his mind to give up suicide than the hotel waitress comes in to offer to turn down the bed. This is just the moment that the colonel gets rid of the risk of suicide. Charlie tells her to do it later as they need some break, but the colonel, just back from the verge of death, is still faithful to his preference—being kind and humorous to women. He explains ―What he means, senorita, is come right in‖, which suggests his yearning for women. And in his compliment of ―Nice voice‖, he is employing Approbation Maxim of the PP, which reveals that he never lets go of any chance to please a 44 woman. (After the disciplinary hearing) Miss Downes: Colonel! I’m Christine Downes, Colonel Slade. I teach Political Science. I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate... your coming here and speaking your mind. Colonel: Thank you. Are you married? Miss Downes: Uh—I, uh— Colonel: Went to an artillery school at Fort Sill with a Mickey Downes. Thought he might've snagged you. Miss Downes: Uh, no, no, I'm afraid not. Charlie: Uh, Colonel Slade was on, uh, Lyndon Johnson's staff, Miss Downes. Miss Downes: Were you? Fascinating. Colonel: We should get together, talk politics sometime. Fleurs de rocailles. Miss Downes: Yes. Colonel: "Flowers from a brook." Miss Downes: That's right. Colonel: Well, Miss Downes, I, I'll know where to find you. Charlie. Charlie: Bye, Miss Downes. Miss Downes: Bye. Colonel: You don't have to tell me, Charlie. 5'7", auburn hair, beautiful brown eyes. After the disciplinary hearing, Miss Downes, a professor teaching political science, appreciates the colonel‘s wonderful speech so much that she says, ―how much I appreciate…‖ and the colonel replies with a ―Thank you‖. This response totally complies with the CP. However, his next question seems completely to break the communication convention. ―Are you married?‖ is a rather rude question to woman, especially when she is met for the first time. His speech act threatens Miss Downes‘ face, but on the other hand, it implies that the colonel, deep in his heart, badly needs love and care. People can scarcely imagine that a man who is so authoritative and justicial on the disciplinary hearing, talks with a woman in such a funny and informal way. Knowing Miss Downes hasn‘t been married, he suggests ―We should get together, talk politics sometime.‖ The implicature of the suggestion is to talk politics sometime as well as to have a date by chance. This time, again, he can recognize what brand of fragrance this lady uses with his sensitive smell. When he tells Miss Downes the brand she uses is ―Fleurs de rocailles‖, which means the ―Flowers from a brook‖, the professor is amazed. Then he carries on his speech with words of ―I'll know where to find you‖, which has two ways to interpret his speech: one with explicit meaning is that he can find her in this place called ―flowers from a brook‖; the other with implicit meaning is that he can chase her from her fragrance and date with her one day. 45 Saying goodbye to the lady, the colonel shows his talent again by telling the height, the colors of the lady‘s hair and eyes. The colonel seems possess telepathic ability to women. Blind as he is, he still can smell, hear and feel them. Above all, the section handles the leading hero‘s speech style in the filmic text by means of pragmatic theories. His double characters are vividly revealed by his speech. Seemingly, he is masterful, sardonic, self-reliant, tough and morose. And he is too hard to get along with the people around him. But in the depths of his heart, he is gentle, elegant, sensitive to women as well as humorous, which forms the unique hero with double characters. He knows how to strike up conversations with women, how to please them with impressive speech, how to offer an invitation, how to praise them, and how to initiate a date, all of which seem incredible for a blind man, however, he makes it, and always wins the heart of women. His yearning for women suggests that even though he wants to end his life, he still hopes to be loved and cared in his inmost soul. As we can see, all his distinctive traits are fully reflected from his speech style. 4.2.2 Charlie Another leading hero of the film is Charlie, a Baird school kid, who is ingenuous, loyal, pure and kind-hearted. He is stuck in the dilemma—to tell or not to tell. If he tells who has fooled the headmaster, he will get the reward, otherwise, he will be expelled from the school. All his fate lies in his final decision. Let‘s see how the speech makes a high profile of the school boy in terms of pragmastylistic analysis. (In the headmaster’s office) Headmaster: Mrs. Hunsaker says that you gentlemen were at a vantage point last night...to observe who was responsible for this, uh, stunt. Who was it? Charlie: I really couldn't tell you, sir. George: Um, I thought I saw someone fooling with the lamppost, but by the time I pulled focus, they were gone. Headmaster: Mr. Simms? Charlie: I couldn't say. Headmaster: That automobile is not just a possession of mine. That automobile was presented to me by the Board of Trustees. It is a symbol of the standard of excellence for which this school is known, and I will not have it tarnished. Charlie: The automobile? Headmaster: The standard, Mr. Willis. What's your position, Mr. Simms? Charlie: On what, sir? Headmaster: On preserving the reputation of Baird. 46 Charlie: I—I'm for Baird. Headmaster: Then, who did it? Charlie: I really couldn't say for sure. The headmaster is fooled by some students who come from wealthy families. Charlie and George are the only witnesses. They are inquired by the headmaster about who did it. Charlie knows who did it, but he does not like to betray his friends. When the headmaster asks him ―who did it‖, he answers honestly, ―I really couldn't tell you, sir.‖ It means that he did see someone do it, but he wouldn‘t like to be the informer. With the headmaster‘s second and third inquiries, still, his answer is ―I couldn't say‖, and ―I really couldn't say for sure.‖ His three answers observe the Quality Maxim of CP—do not say what you believe to be false. Charlie holds his ground that it‘s not right to conceal the mischief, but it‘s even worse to betray friends. Contrastingly, his friend George is cunning. When he is inquired, he says, ―Um, I thought I saw someone fooling with the lamppost, but by the time I pulled focus, they were gone.‖ His answer violates Quality Maxim of the CP— instead of telling the truth, he simply makes an excuse. The word ―someone‖ is an indefinite pronoun, which George intentionally uses to cover what he knows. Charlie‘s three replies definitely make it for sure that he knows everything exactly, but due to loyalty, he is unwilling to reveal it. Therefore, we can see Charlie‘s pure and loyal traits from his simple answers. (In the street) Colonel: Do the deal, Charlie. Take it! Go to Harvard. Charlie: I can't do that. Colonel: Why not? Charlie: It’s just some things you just can't do. Colonel: Explain 'em to me. Louder, please. Charlie: I, I, I can't— Colonel: You're gonna have a tough time in this world, Charlie. After knowing the detail, the colonel suggests Charlie accept a free ride to Harvard, but Charlie disapproves of it. ―It's just some things you just can't do.‖ Facing the colonel‘s question, he has to respond to it, so he comply with Quality Maxim of the CP, yet he would not like to tell why, so he violates Quantity Maxim of the CP —providing inadequate information. ―Some things‖ has implied meaning, which means the breaking of his principle to get benefit from the cost of the other. When the colonel asks him to give the reasons, he doesn‘t know what to say except the simple answer ―I, I, I can't—‖. As an innocent student who has never experienced life too much, Charlie has little eloquence in his speech, yet he has a determined mind. His simple speech reveals his ingenuous traits. 47 (In the hotel) Colonel: Did you time me? Charlie: No, I did not and I'm calling Albany. That was stupid. Colonel: Was it? You’re stuck with me, Charlie. Charlie: No, I'm not. I'm outta here! Colonel: Where you goin’? New Hampshire? You got no money. How you gonna do that? [Colonel grabs the number and eats paper with number] Colonel: Mmm. Karen's number tastes like Albany. Hah! Charlie: Fine. I'm leaving. Colonel: Charlie? Charlie! All I want from you...is another day. … Charlie: All right. Well, say I stay for another day. Will you give me your weapon? In the hotel, the colonel asks Charlie to time him when he loads his gun. Charlie is scared that the colonel will commit suicide. So he wants to call Mrs. Albany. He never knows he is going to experience so much: first, he does not know he will come to New York, go for a big dinner, then visit the colonel‘s family, and then learn the colonel plan to commit suicide. His job is to take good care of him, how can he expect any incident? Charlie is a responsible person, though fooled by the colonel and sometimes mad at him, he would not like to leave him alone. Hence, when the colonel begs him to stay, he compromises by saying ―Well, say I stay for another day. Will you give me your weapon?‖ Charlie completely complies with the CP as he is such a kind-hearted person. He would rather help the colonel out of his trouble than consider his current plight—the awful disciplinary hearing is waiting for him, but he has not figured out the moves. In general, Charlie‘s speech is short and simple, which is in line with his character traits. Getting the American Scholarship, he studies in Baird where wealthy students cluster. Still, he keeps his innocence and stick to the principle—Never sacrifice friend‘s ―cost‖ for his own ―benefit‖. Nevertheless, it is upright to uncover the vandalism since such behavior really humiliates someone and violates the school‘s regulation. As the headmaster says, ―That mobile belongs to the school.‖ However, things become complicated when the bribe is given by the headmaster. Whether to accept the deal at the expense of loyalty to friend or to be expelled by school depends on him. At last, he chooses the latter. From the discourse analyzed above, we can observe that Charlie‘s speech style is simple and plain, rather than flowery or pompous, which fully reveals that he is an ingenuous, loyal, pure and kind-hearted person. 4.2.3 The Headmaster 48 The minor role of this film, the headmaster, who does not show up too much in the screen, is a crucial character. He plays a role in opposite of justice who tries to induce Charlie to break his principle. And he is considered as a selfish, overbearing, stern, cunning and hypocritical person. Evidence can be found from his speech as follows: (In the school) Havemeyer: Morning to you, sir. Bene! Headmaster: Bene? Havemeyer: Bene! Fabulous! Headmaster: What's fabulous? Havemeyer: That fine piece of steel you have back there. Headmaster: Ah, you don't think I deserve it. Havemeyer: No, sir. On the contrary. I think it's great. Should the headmaster of Baird be een putt-putting around in some junkers? In fact, I think the board of trustees has had...their s first, true stroke of inspiration in some time. Headmaster: Thank you, Havemeyer. I'll take that at face value. Havemeyer: I'd expect nothing less, sir. Have a good day. Headmaster: Morning, Mrs. Hunsaker. Secretary: Good morning. Headmaster: What have we here, Murderer's Row? Havemeyer is the student who fooled the headmaster shortly after the conversation. The students are jealous and mad at the headmaster who possesses the luxury car from the board of trustees. But at the beginning, they are not sure where the car comes from, so Havemeyer comes up to detect it. At first, he uses the words ―Bene‖, ―Fabulous‖ to flatter the headmaster. Knowing what Havemeyer refers to, the headmaster, instead of saying ―Thank you‖, responds with the words ―Ah, you don't think I deserve it.‖ According to the PP, the headmaster is supposed to apply Modesty Maxim of the PP to minimize the other‘s compliment in such a situation, yet the response seems to show that he has got used to the compliment. Meanwhile, it also reveals that he is a selfish and overbearing person, totally ignoring others‘ comment—no matter it is true compliment or hypocritical one. He just takes the public property as his private property without any shame and interrogates Havemeyer in return. Hearing the student‘s flattery, he responds in a routine way, ―Thank you, Havemeyer. I'll take that at face value‖, which abides by Modest Maxim of the PP, but it also implies that he always takes the bribe for granted. His speech act is a hint foreshadowing that he will induce Charlie to take the bribe later in the story since it is his usual practice. When he begins to deal with his routine work, he starts with ―What have we here, Murderer's Row?‖ Those indisciplined students are called ―Murderer's Row‖, which indicates 49 that he is a stern headmaster who looks like a policeman to punish the so-called murder students. (In the office) Headmaster: Mr. Simms, I'm not quite through with you yet. One of the few perks of this office is that... I am empowered to handle certain matters on my own as I see fit. Do you understand? Charlie: Yes, sir. Headmaster: Good. The Dean of Admissions at Harvard and I have an arrangement. Along with the usual sheaf of applicants submitted by Baird, of which virtually, oh, two-thirds are guaranteed admittance, I add one name, somebody who's a standout and yet, underprivileged; a student who cannot afford to pay the board and tuition in Cambridge. Do you know on whose behalf I drafted a memo this year? Charlie: No, sir. Headmaster: You. You, Mr. Simms. Now can you tell me who did it? Charlie: No, sir, I can't. Headmaster: You take the weekend to think about it, Mr. Simms. Shortly after the incident, Charlie and his friend George are brought into the headmaster‘s office for inquiry. Both of them refuse to tell him who did it. Then the headmaster dismisses George and inquires Charlie individually. With the change of his strategy, this time he tends to soft–soap Charlie. Let‘s see how the headmaster carries out his strategy to induce Charlie. He first keeps Charlie in suspense and tells him he is empowered to handle certain matters on his own as he sees fit. Here, ―see fit‖ means things will go as he wishes—whether it is a punishment or a reward just depends on him. Then he tells Charlie he can add one name, somebody who's a standout and yet, underprivileged to Harvard. The word ―standout‖ represents that he is adopting Approbation Maxim of the PP to please Charlie, and the word ―underprivileged‖ shows sympathy to this poor student, which is in accordance with Sympathy Maxim of the PP. Finally, he exposes his ultimate purpose by asking ―Now can you tell me who did it?‖ His utterance is always ended with an interrogation, which reveals his intention—inducing Charlie step by step. Nevertheless, all his tricks go in vain. Charlie‘s replies absolutely comply with the CP, precisely and ironically by saying ―Yes, sir.‖, ―No, sir.‖, ―No, sir, I can't.‖ etc. Charlie‘s innocence is sharply contrasted to the headmaster‘s cunning trait in terms of their individual speech. (On the disciplinary hearing) Headmaster: Did you see their size and shape? Charlie: Yeah. Headmaster: And they were the size and shape of whom? Charlie: They were the size and shape—of most any Baird student, sir. 50 Headmaster: I am left with no real witness. Mr. Willis's testimony is not only vague, it is unsubstantiated. The substance I was looking for, Mr. Simms, was to come from you. Charlie: I'm sorry. Headmaster: I'm sorry too, Mr. Simms, because you know what I'm going to do, inasmuch as I can't punish Mr. Havemeyer, Mr. Potter or Mr. Jameson ? And I won't punish Mr. Willis. He's the only party to this incident... who is still worthy of calling himself a Baird man. I'm going to recommend to the Disciplinary Committee...that you be expelled. Mr. Simms, you are a cover-up artist... The highlight of the film lies in the disciplinary hearing. The headmaster first interrogates George in the presence of his father. At first, George makes an excuse that he does not see clearly. Then he kicks the ball to Charlie. The poor kid, without any authoritative support from his family but the blind colonel, has all the responsibility on his shoulder. The headmaster pushes him again, ―Did you see their size and shape?‖ Charlie‘s honest answer ―Yeah‖ observes the CP. Then the headmaster presses eagerly, ―And they were the size and shape of whom?‖ With hesitation, Charlie gives an ambiguous answer, ―…of most any Baird student, sir‖, which observes Quality Maxim of the CP, but violates the Quantity Maxim of the CP, because it is impolite to refuse answering the headmaster‘s question in public, but Charlie refuses to betray his friends. Here, the implicature of ―any‖ is that he does not want to sell out his friends. Disappointedly, the headmaster says ―I'm sorry too‖, which seems to be a sympathetic remark but actually is a sign of fury which is going to destroy poor Charlie. Eventually, he gives his last order—Mr. Havemeyer, Mr. Potter and Mr. Jameson are not to be punished; George is to be rewarded; and Charlie is to be expelled. This is something he ―sees fit‖. He abuses his power to expel Charlie who has no support of powerful or wealthy parents; and he rewards George who has support of his big daddy. The headmaster‘s hypocritical and overbearing character is vividly displayed from his speech. 4.3 Summary To sum up, in this chapter, we have focused on three characters‘ speech style by means of pragmatic theories. To some certain extent, the characters‘ speech represents their performance in the given context, which is one of the accessible means to reflect the characters‘ traits. The leading role, the colonel, possessing double character traits, is masterful, sardonic, self-reliant, as well as considerate, witty, and mysterious. He is adept in adopting pragmatic strategies to appeal to women, which is exemplified in his speech that has completely displayed his character traits. Charlie, another leading role of the film, is an ingenuous, loyal, pure and kind-hearted person. Complying with the CP represents that he is a student with good manners. He pays respect to the 51 senior and acts as a disciplined student. However, he is also a student who keeps integrity in his mind. On the surface, he seems to run in the opposite direction against the school discipline—he refuses to cooperate with the headmaster to identify the vandalism. In fact, it is his courage that beats those social injustices. His integrity finally awakens all the people with the help of the colonel. He is the one who strikes us with his ingenuous and upright character traits. The headmaster, on the contrary, is a representative of those authorities who abuse power to do something they see fit. He is a selfish, overbearing, stern, cunning and hypocritical person who confounds the right with the wrong. 52 Chapter 5 Conclusion 5.1 Conclusion This thesis attempts to analyze the filmic text in the frame of the pragmastylistic analysis, which attains the goal that restates the text from another perspective. The pragmastylistical analysis, as an interdisciplinary approach, focuses on in what situation the patterns of text can convey its particular effect by means of the pragmatic theories. The theme of the film can be discovered from three essential factors of the film: the plot and the interpersonal relationship, which can be accounted for at the dynamic level; and the character's speech style, which can be interpreted at the static level. All of the three factors contribute to the better understanding of the theme of the film. Specifically, the plot of the story is developed along the thread—to tell or not to tell the school vandalism. Meanwhile, the story also depicts the developing relationship between two different persons: the colonel, who is trapped into blindness, and who is determined to terminate his life; Charlie, who attends Baird on a scholarship, and who is stuck in trouble. The more they know each other, the closer their relationship gets. Eventually, they help each other to find the essence of life. The film should be classified into the category of ethical films, which sheds light for us to cherish life and persist with our ethical principle. In the school incident, Charlie is encountering the test of his ethical principle. When his friend George first changes his mind to leak the secret, it may be proper if Charlie follows his nose, but the problem is that the headmaster offers him a bribe. To buy a good future, or to be expelled, Charlie chooses the latter. His choice is calling on the integrity, conscience and justice to come back to our life. Regarding to the colonel, he is also facing a dilemma, but he has a critical insight. As he says to himself in the film, he knows what the right path is, but he never takes it because it is too hard. It is Charlie's principle that encourages him to choose the right path. They are the saviors for each other. The film is themed with the summoning of humanism, to give love and care to life, and to call on the ethical principle. Charlie and the colonel's stories better illustrate the real essence of the film. The two make a good pair, and they find the missing part from each other. One thing Charlie needs in school is a role model, and the colonel provides him as he has always known how to do. And Charlie in return helps the colonel to find the courage to head for the right path. All in all, Pragmastylistical analysis is a feasible means to interpret the discourse in the film and understand the theme of the film. Based on the above-mentioned analysis, it facilitates us to disclose the thematic implicature and highlight certain aesthetic effect by exploring how the maxims are violated and observed. The main findings of the study are: ? The analysis of the violation of the maxims of the CP helps the readers to interpret the 53 implied meaning of the discourse, while to some extent, it paves the way for the readers to presume the development of the plot. ? Regarding to the interpersonal relationship, the SAT and the observance and violation of the PP contribute to the subtle changes of the characters' interpersonal relationships. It is the key factor to realize the conflict between the characters, as well as the development and the climax of the story. ? The profile of the characters in the film is always portrayed by their speech style. In the perspective of the CP, the SAT and PP, the characters‘ traits are vividly reflected by their speech styles. ? With the help of the analysis of the main factors of the film, it is accessible for the readers to discover the thematic meaning of the film that the humanistic care is conveyed. The aesthetic effect is appreciated step by step in terms of elaborating the discourse. 5.2 Limitations of the Present Study Although the present study provides new insight into the analysis of filmic discourse in the Scent of A Woman, it is not free from its limitations. film Firstly, with respect to the analysis of the discourse, the pragmatic analysis is an effective approach, but analyzing the discourse from the perspective of Discourse Analysis is also another feasible way. It will be more convincing if we analyze the filmic text with both the pragmatic approach and Discourse Analysis such as the turn-talking, the discourse structure and so on. Secondly, as for the conclusion—the contribution of the violation of the CP to the development of the plot, there is one thing to mention, not all of the conversational implicature is able to facilitate the presumption of the development of the plot in that partly due to the playwright‘s arrangement of the plot, he may drop some hints for the readers to infer the plot or better tell the reads what will happen next, that is to say, either in a roundabout or direct way. Besides, different people have different comprehensions of the implied meaning, and this is why some people can detect it, but some can not. Thirdly, in the present analysis, equal attention is not given to the three main pragmatic theories; the CP and the PP enjoy more priority over the SAT. The reason lies in that the CP and the PP are more convictive and appropriate in the analysis of some certain filmic text to some extent. 5.3 Suggestion for Further Research The present study has contributed to a synthetic comprehension of the film—Scent of A Woman. Further research is still of great necessity. 54 First of all, this is a case study of the filmic text, and more attention should be paid to the other filmic text. Only in this way, can more convincing conclusions be drawn. What‘s more, the extensive exploration of the interpreting the discourse associated with social reason can be carried out in the later research. Last but not the least, the study will be more intergrated if other pragmatic theories such as Deixis and Presupposition are applied to the analysis of filmic text. Though pragmatic-oriented approach to stylistic study of filmic text can achieve descriptive adequacy, other approach is supposed to be applied to the study of filmic text as well, and only in the comparative way, the explanatory adequacy in the analysis of the filmic texts can be found. 55 Bibliography [1] Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words 2nd ed[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975 [1962]. [2] Burton, D. Dialogue and discourse: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Modern Drama Dialogue and Naturally Occurring Conversation [M]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980. [3] Brown, G. & Yule, G. Discourse Analysis[M]. Shanghai: Foreign Langue Teaching and Research Press & Cambridge University Press, 2004. [4] Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena[A]. In Goody, E. N. (eds.). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978: 56-289. [5] Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. Politeness: Some Universal in Language Usage[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987. [6] Cook, G. Discourse and Literature [M]. Oxford: OUP, 1994. [7] Culpeper, J. (Im)politeness in dramatic[A]. In Culpeper, J. Short, M. & Verdonk, P. (eds.). [C]. Routledge, 1998: 83-95. Studying Drama: From Text to Contextt [8] Elizabeth, B. Pragmatic Stylistics[M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. [9] Enkvist, N. E. Text and Discourse Linguistics, Rhetoric and Stylistics[A]. In van Dijk (eds.). Discourse and Literature[C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1985. [10]Gazdar, G. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1979. [11]Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation[A]. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.). Syntax and Semantics[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1975(3):41-58. [12] Grundy, P. Doing Pragmatics[M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1995. [13] Harris, Z. S. Discourse Analysis[J]. Language, 1952(28): 1-30. [14] Hicky, L. The Pragmatics of Style[M]. London & New York: Routledge, 1989. Linguistics Abroad. 1980(3):1-10. [15] Hu, Zhanglin. Pragmatics[J]. [16] Hymes, D. Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology[M]. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. [17] Leech, G. N. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. London: Longman, 1983. [18] Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics[M]. Cambridge: CUP, 1983. [19] Mey, J. When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999. [20] Miller, W. Screenwriting for Film and Television[M]. Allyn and Bacon: Ohio University, 1998: 180-181. 56 [21] Mitchell, T. F. The Language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica: a situational statement[J]. Hesperis, 1957(44):31-71. [22] Morris, C. W. Foundations of the Theory of Signs[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1938. [23] Ohmann, R. Speech Acts and the Definition of Literature[J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1971(4):1-19. [24] Ohmann, R. Speech, Literature, and the Space Between[A]. In Freeman (eds.). Essays in Modern Stylistics[M]. London: New York :Methuen, 1981. [25] Petrey, S. Speech Acts and Literary Theory [M]. London: Routledge, 1990. [26] Pratt, M. L. Toward A Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse[M]. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977. [27] Rudanko, J. Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare[M]. Maryland: University Press of America, INC, 1993. [28] Searle, J. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. & Morgan, J. (eds.). Syntax and Semantics [29] Searle, J. Indirect Speech Acts[A]. In Cole, P. [C]. New York: Academic Press, 1975(3):59-82. [30] Searle, J. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts[J]. Language in society 1976(5):1-24. [31] Searle, J. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. [32] Sell, R. Literary Pragmatics[M]. London and New York: Routledge, 1991. [33] Sell, R. D. & Verdonk, P. Literature and the New Interdisciplinarity: poetics, linguistics, history [M]. Amsterdam: Atlanta, CA, 1994. [34] Short, M. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose[M]. London: Longman, 1996. [35] Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. Towards an Analysis of Discourse[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. [36] Thornborrow, J. & Shan, W. Patterns in Language: Stylistics for Students of Language and Literature [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000. [37] Traugott, E. and Pratt, M. Linguistics for Students of Literature[M]. New York and London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980. [38] Wales, K. A Dictionary of Stylistics[M]. Harlow: Longman, 1989. [39] Van Dijk, T. A. Pragmatics of Language and LIterature.[M]. North Holland: Amsterdam, 1976. [40] Van Dijk, T. A. Discourse and LIterature.[M]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1985. 57 [41] Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. London and New York: Arnold, 1999. [42] Yule, G. Pragmatics[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000:48-68. [43] 艾懿. 电影文本的语用文体分析[D]. 吉林: 长春理工大学, 2005. [44] 曹彦. 文学文体学与文体分析[J]. 鞍山师范学院学报, 2003(2):71-73. [45] 蔡东东. 当代英语电影鉴赏[M]. 北京:外文出版社, 2000. [46] 封宗信. 文学语篇的语用文体学研究 [M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2002. [47] 胡壮麟, 刘世生. 文体学研究在中国的进展[J]. 山东师范外国语大学学报, 2000(3): 1-10. [48] 胡壮麟. 语言学教程[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2001. [49] 何自然. 语用学概论[M]. 长沙: 湖南教育出版社, 1986. [50] 何兆熊. 新编语用学概要[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2000. [51] 候维瑞. 文学文体学[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2008. [52] 计道宏,曾海燕. 话语分析与交际能力[J]. 边疆经济与文化, 2009(2):104-105. [53] 姜望琪. 语用学—理论及应用[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2000. [54] 刘森林. 语用策略[M]. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社, 2007. 范宏雅. 话语分析[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2002. [55] 李悦娥, [56] 刘铮. 一生难忘的 27 张影碟[M]. 北京: 华文出版社, 2008. [57] 鲁枢元, 刘锋杰. 文学理论[M]. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2006. [58] 罗选民. 英美文学赏析教程[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2002. [59] 廖艳霞. 影视文学特点再阐释[J]. 佳木斯大学社会科学学报, 2003(4): 68-69. [60] 潘秀通，潘源. 电影话语新论[M]. 北京: 中国电影出版社, 2005. [61] 曲卫国. 话语文体学导论: 文本分析方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社, 2009. [62] 钱冠连. 汉语文体语用学——人文网络言语学[M]. 清华大学出版社, 2002. [63] 秦秀白. 英语语体和文体要略[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2002. [64] 秦伊楠.《王子复仇记》中人际修辞的语用文体学研究[D]. 河北师范大学, 2006 [65] 申丹. 文学文体学的分析模式及其面临的挑战[J]. 外语教学与研究, 1994(3): 7-13. [66] 涂靖. 文学语用学:一门新兴的边缘学科[J]. 外国语, 2004, 3 (3): 51-56. [67] 吴耘. 电影视听英语教程[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2002. [68] 王德杰. 谈外国影视文学的结构和语言特点及其欣赏 [J]. 兰州大学学报, 2000(28): 206-208. [69] 王虹. 戏剧文体分析——话语分析的方法[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2006. [70] 王力. 电影对白中违反合作原则现象的分析[D]. 吉林: 吉林大学, 2007. [71] 王晓玉, 杨海燕, 崔彩梅. 影视文学写作[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2006. [72] 徐加勇. 对《都柏林人》的语用文体学探究[D]. 北京: 首都师范大学, 2006. [73] 俞东明, 韩仲谦. 戏剧文本语用之阐释理据说[J]. 理论语言学研究, 2007(12):129-137. 58 [74] 张雪莲, 叶舒佳. 合作原则在戏剧话语分析中的应用[J]. 齐齐哈尔师范高等专科学校 学报, 2008(1):47-49. [75] 张德禄. 语言的功能与文体[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005. [76] 邹素. 小说对话的语用文体分析[D]. 山东: 山东大学, 2007. [77] 赵朝珠. 英语小说对白的语用文体学内涵[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2001, 143(3):22-25. 59