用语言学的方法分析短消息语言和行为

　　Abstract：Thispaperbeginswithanintroductiontomobilebasedshortmassage，orSMforshort。AlthoughthearrivalofSMbringsconvenienceandhappinesstopeople’slife，thecharacteristicsofSMlanguageresultinitsvulnerabilitytomisunderstanding。Fromalinguisticperspective，factorsresponsibleforthemisunderstandingofSMareanalyzed。Firstly，SMlanguageviolatesthecooperativeprinciple。Peopleadoptacooperativeprinciplewhentheycommunicatewitheachother：theytrytogetalongwitheachotherbyfollowingcertainconversationalmaxims。TheviolationofthesemaximsmakesthefunctionsofSMindefiniteandSMusershavetointerpretSMbasedonthEirownexperience。Secondly，incontrastwithfacetofaceconversationsandtelephonecalls，SMlacksbodylanguage，facialexpressions，properstressandintonation。Thirdly，SMlanguageismorecasualthanwrittenlanguage。Inconclusion，thispapersuggestssomesolutionstotherelatedproblem。
　　Keywords：shortmassageorSM，misunderstanding，cooperativeprinciple，bodylanguage，facialexpression，intonation，stress，writtenlanguage
　　摘要：本文的开头对移动电话的短消息（又称短信）作了简要的介绍。尽管短消息的出现给人们带来了方便，短消息自身语言的特点导致了它容易被人们误解。从语言学的角度，本文分析了导致短信被误解的几个因素。第一，短消息语言违背了合作原则。人们在交际过程中，常常会采用一种准则。为了很好的交流，人们回遵守会话准则。而短信语言对准则的违背，导致了短信的作用不明确。并且，人们在解释短信内容时，往往只根据自己的经验。第二，与面对面的谈话和电话通讯相比，短信缺少肢体语言、表情、适当的重音和语调。第三，短信语言与书面语言相比，具有随意性。文章的结尾对相关的问题提出了解决的办法。
　　关键词：短消息或短信、误解、合作原则、肢体语言、表情、重音、语调、书面语言
　　AnAnalysisofShortMessageLanguageandBehaviorswithaLinguisticApproach
　　Thesisstatement：Shortmessageisvulnerabletomisunderstanding，whichcanbeexplainedbytheviolationofthecooperativeprinciple，andincontrastwithtraditionalconversationandwrittenlanguage，thedeficiencyofshortmessageisanalyzed。
　　Outline
　　IIntroduction
　　IIThevulnerabilityofSMtomisunderstandingfromtheperspectiveofthecooperativeprinciple
　　A。Introductionofcooperativeandtheviolationofmaxims
　　B。Threekindsofmisunderstanding
　　Theindefinitenatureofthesender’smessage
　　AnumberoffactorsaffectingtheinterpretationofSM
　　ThequeryconcerningtheendofSMconversation
　　IIIThedeficiencyofSMincontrastwithfacetofaceconversationandTELcall
　　A。Thelackofbodylanguageandexpression
　　B。Thelackofstressandintonation
　　IVThecasualnessofSMincontrastwithwrittenlanguage
　　A。SMprocessedatrandom
　　B。ThedifferencesbetweenSMlanguageandwrittenlanguage
　　VConclusion
　　IIntroductionHowever，thecharacteristicsofSMlanguagealsobringnegativeeffectstopeople’slife。PeoplefindthatSMisnotsopowerfulandpleasant，anditcanbeeasilymisunderstood。Withthehelpoflinguisticapproaches，factorsthatareresponsibleforthemisunderstandingofSMareanalyzed：
　　1）。theviolationofthecooperativeprinciple。
　　2）SMcannottaketheplaceoffacetofaceconversation。
　　3）SMismorecasualthanwrittenlanguage。
　　IIThevulnerabilityofSMtomisunderstandingfromtheperspectiveofthecooperativeprinciple
　　TheprocessofsendingSMissoeasyandinformalthatpeopletreatitastheydoconversation。SMisabitlikeaconversationatthewatercoolerthatcanbeinstantlyforwardedto50people。Foraconversationtobesuccessful，inmostsocialcontexts，theparticipantsneedtofeeltheyarecontributingsomethingtoitandaregettingsomethingoutofit。Forthistohappen，certainconditionsmustapply。Everyonemusthaveanopportunitytospeak：nooneshouldbemonopolizingorconstantlyinterrupting。TheparticipantsneedtomakethEIrrolesclear；theyneedtohaveasenseofwhentospeakorstaysilent；whentoprofferinformationorholditback；whentostayalooforbecomeinvolved。
　　Thesuccessofaconversationdependsnotonlyonwhatspeakerssaybutontheirwholeapproachtotheinteraction。Ourtalkexchangesdonotnormallyconsistofasuccessionofdisconnectedremarks，andwouldnotberationaliftheydid。Theyarecharacteristically，tosomedegreeatleast，cooperativeefforts；andeachparticipantrecognizesinthem，tosomeextent，acommonpurposeorsetofpurposes，oratleastamutuallyaccepteddirection（Grice1975：
　　4hr5）。Peopleadoptacooperativeprinciplewhentheycommunicatewitheachother：theytrytogetalongwitheachotherbyfollowingcertainconversationalmaximsthatunderlietheefficientuseoflanguage。Fourbasicmaximshavebeenproposed。
　　61550；Themaximofqualitystatesthatspeakers’contributionstoaconversationoughttobetrue。Theyshouldnotsaywhattheybelievetobefalse，norshouldtheysayanythingforwhichtheylackadequateevidence。
　　61550；Themaximofquantitystatesthatcontributionsshouldbeasinformativeasisrequiredforthepurposesoftheconversation。Oneshouldsayneithertoolittlenortoomuch。
　　61550；Themaximofrelevancestatesthatconversationsshouldclearlyrelatetothepurposeoftheexchange。
　　61550；Themaximofmannerstatesthatthecontributionshouldbeperspicuous，inparticular，thatitshouldbeorderlyandbrief，avoidingobstructingambiguity。
　　Inshort，thesemaximsspecifywhatparticipantshavetodoinordertoconverseinamaximallyefficient，rational，cooperativeway：theyshouldspeaksincerely，relevantlyandclearly，whileprovidingsufficientinformation。Buttheuseoftermsprincipleandmaximdoesnotmeanthatthecooperativeprincipleanditsmaximswillbefollowedbyeverybodyallthetime。Ifpeopleviolatethesemaximsdeliberately，listenersmaydrawinferencefromwhatspeakershavesaidandworkouttheimplicatureoftheutterance。ButforSMusers，violationofmaximsisdonepassively。
　　Thenletustakealookatthefollowingshortmessagesrecordedintheauthor’smobilephone。
　　No。1。A：Stillbusy？9：40pm
　　（Conversationstarted，butA’spurposeisconfusing）
　　No。2。B：Nottoobusy，what’sup？9：41pm
　　（ActuallyBwasverybusyinhisessay，maybewriting，butBinferredthatAmusthavesomethingimportanttotell。）
　　No。3。A：WhenyouworkedintheComputerAssociation，haveyoueverfailedtonegotiatewithsponsors？9：46pm
　　（IttakesA5minutestorespond。Heattemptstomakehiswordsappropriate。Bhastosuspendhisworkandwaitforadirectanswer。Butthisanswerseemssoirrelevant。）
　　No。4。B：No9：47pm
　　（Btriestoconcentrateonhiswork，soherespondsbriefly。Aisquitefrustratedbythefailednegotiationandneedssomeonetocomforthim。ThesinglewordNomakeshimthinkthatifBisnotbusy，howBcouldbesocold。）
　　No。5。A：Sorry，Ithoughtyoudid，then，goodnight。9：49pm
　　（Conversationhastobeendedupunpleasantly）
　　No。6。B：Goodnight。9：50pm
　　（BisstillunawareofA’sintention。Hecandonothingbutendconversation。）
　　Thetwoparticipantsofthisshortconversationviolatethefourmaximsviolationsofmaxims。
　　No。1violatesMofquantity。Hesaystoolittle。Heshouldstatehispurposeclearly。
　　No。2violatesMofquality。Hesayssomethingthatisfalse，buthehasto。
　　No。3HereA’scontributioninitsliteralmeaning，failstoanswerB’squestion，andthusseemstoviolateatleastthemaximsofquantityandrelevance。WemightthereforeexpectA’sutterancetobeinterpretedasanoncooperativeresponse。Yetitisclearthatdespitethisapparentfailureofcooperation，wetrytointerpretA’sutteranceascooperativeatsomedeeperlevel。WecanassurethattherecouldbesomepossibleconnectionbetweenNo。2andNo。3。However，sinceitisaSMconversation，AandBcouldnotseeeachother。Bisactuallyinahurryandhewantstogotothetopicdirectly，butAwantsaeuphemisticway。HereSMisnotpowerfulenoughtoconnectthestatesofmindofthetwopersons。
　　No。4alsoviolatesMofquantity。Bissupposedtobeconsiderate。
　　No。5violatesMofmanner。Twosentencesseemnotorderly。
　　However，inourdailyconversation，theimplicaturesofwordsareeasilydeduced。SowhydoestheviolationofcooperativeprincipleinSMfailtoenablepeopletoworkouttheexactimplicatures？Theremustbesomeotherfactorscontributingtotheunderstandingofwords。Weshallfurtherdiscussthispointinthethirdsection。Althoughthetwoparticipantsofthisshortconversationdonotviolatemaximsdeliberatelyandpurposefully，theirwordsaremisconstrued。AndthemisconstructionsofSMcanbesortedintothree。
　　Firstly，thepurposeofSMlanguageisnotdefinite，i。e。，thefunctionsofSMlanguagearenotclear。Linguiststalkaboutthefunctionsoflanguageinanabstractsense，thatis，notintermsofusinglanguagetochat，tothink，tobuyandsell，toreadandwrite，togreetpeople，etc。Tocommunicateourideasistheusualanswertothequestionwhydoweuselanguage？Indeed，thismustsurelybethemostwidelyrecognizedfunctionoflanguage。Wheneverwetellpeopleaboutourcircumstancesorourselvesoraskforinformationaboutotherselves，weareusinglanguageinordertoexchangefactsandopinions。Theuseoflanguageisoftencalledideationalorreferential。Butitwouldbeproblematictothinkofitastheonlywayweuselanguage。Linguistssummarizethesepracticalfunctionsoflanguagelikefollowing：informative，interpersonal，performative，emotive，phatic，recreationalandmetalingual（Hu2001：
　　10）。HallidayproposesatheoryofmetafunctionsoflanguagethatislanguagehasIDEATIONAL，INTERPERSONAL，andTextualfunctions。Ideationalfunctionconstructsamodelofexperienceandconstructslogicalrelations，interpersonalfunctionenactssocialrelationshipsandtextualfunctioncreatesrelevancetocontext（Halliday1985：VIII）。
　　Amongthem，thefirsttwofunctionsareoftenmixedupinSMlanguage。Formostpeople，theinformativefunctionispredominantlythemajorroleoflanguage。Languageistheinstrumentofthoughtandpeopleoftenfeeltheneedtospeaktheirthoughtsaloudaswhentheyareworkingonamathproblem。
　　Andthemostimportantsociologicaluseoflanguageistheinterpersonalfunction，bywhichpeopleestablishandmaintainacomfortablerelationinasociety。SMisamediumwhosefunctionisratherconfusing。Peopleuseittoconveyinformation，keepintouchwitheachother，sharejokes，expressemotionsorevenpassanger。Buttherecipientcannottellwhichfromwhich，hemightdealwithhisshortmessageswithanattitudethatisunexpectedbyitssender。Let’sseethefollowingexample。
　　A：Iplayedfootballthisafternoon，howtiredIam。
　　B：Oh，really？You’reenergetic！
　　Theconversationendshere。Afeelstiredafterplayingfootball，andsendsaSMtooneofhisfriendsBtoexpresshisexcitement。ButthisconfusesBastohowtorespondappropriately，orhemaysimplybroodaboutitforquitealongtime。
　　Secondly，therecipientsofSMmakethEirowninterpretationsbasedonsituationaleffectsandschemata。Thefirstandthesecondsortofmisunderstandingscanbesomewhatoverlapping。BecausefunctionofSMlanguageisnotclear，peoplebegantointerpretmessageswiththEIrownexperience。Besides，thequantityofinformationconveyedisofteninadequate，SMleavesalotofblankspacesinwhatpeoplesay，whichtherecipienttendstofillwiththemostnegativeinterpretations。
　　Thirdly，howtoendSMconversationandwhenistherighttimetoenditalsobotherSMusersalot。NomatterhowpeopleenjoySM，writingitisverytimeconsuming。Ifonewantstoenditandtheotherdoesnot，atleastonewillbeunpleasant。ItisunlikelythatbothofthemarereadyforSMconversationatthesametime，becausetwopeopleareintwoenvironments。
　　IIIThedeficiencyofSMincontrastwithfacetofaceconversationandTelcall
　　Peoplecanhidethemselvesbehindthetinyscreens，andtherefore，theyarebraverandtheycantellwhatevertheylike。Somanypeoplearenowabusingit。Butisitsuperiortofacetofaceconversationsandtelephonecalls？Theanswermightbeno。
　　Firstly，SMlacksbodylanguageandfacialexpressions。Thecommunicativeuseofthevisualandtactilemodesisoftenreferredtoasnonverbalcommunication，especiallyinacademicdiscussion。Ineverydayterms，itistheareaofbodylanguage（Crystal1997：40
　　3）。Mostpeoplemaynotbeawareoftheimportanceofitwhentheymessageeachother，becausetheydoitsubconsciously。Thefieldofnonverbalvisualcommunication，kinesics，canbebrokendownintoseveralcomponents：facialexpression，eyecontact，gesture，andbodyposture。Eachcomponentperformsavarietyoffunctions。Movementsofthefaceandbodycangivecluestoaperson’spersonalityandemotionalstate。Theface，inparticular，signalsawiderangeofemotions，suchasfear，happiness，sadness，anger，surprise，interest，anddisgust。Manyoftheexpressionsvaryinmeaningfromculturetoculture。Inaddition，thefaceandbodysendsignalsaboutthewayasocialinteractionisproceeding。Patternsofeyecontactshowwhoistalkingtowhom；facialexpressionprovidesfeedbacktothespeaker，expressingsuchmeaningsaspuzzlementordisbelief；andabodypostureconveysaperson’sattitudetowardstheinteraction（e。g。relaxation，interest，boredom）。
　　Severalkindsofsocialcontextareassociatedwithspecificfacialorbodybehaviors（e。g。wavingwhiletakingleave。）Ritualorofficialoccasionsareoftenprimarilymarkedbysuchfactorsaskneeling，orblessing。WhileSMonlyprovidesitsrecipientscoresofcharacters（oneshortmassagecontainsnomorethan70Chinesecharacters），thesender’sfacialexpressionorevenhisattitudetowardswhathesaidonlydependsontherecipient’spersonalimagination。TherealmeaningofSMandintentionthusareoftenmisunderstood。
　　Besides，comparedwithtraditionalconversation，SMlacksproperstressandintonation。Stressreferstothedegreeofforceusedinproducingasyllable。Intranscription，araisedverticallike〔〕isusedjustbeforethesyllableitrelatesto。Abasicdistinctionismadebetweenstressedandunstressedsyllables，theformerbeingmoreprominentthanthelatterusuallyduetoanincreaseinloudness，lengthorpitch。Thismeansthatstressisarelativenotion。（Hu2001：
　　7hr1）Atthewordlevel，itonlyappliestowordswithatleasttwosyllables。StresspatterninChineseiseasier，becausewecanjustfocusonsentencelevel，whereamonosyllabicwordmaybesaidtobestressedrelativetootherwordsinthesentence。Sentencestressisoftenusedtoexpressemphasis，surprise，etc，sothatinprinciplestressmayfallonanywordoranysyllable。Forexample，aSMconversationbeginswithasentencelikethis，IwentshoppingaroundJiefangbeithewholeday。Iboughtnothing。
　　Thesentenceisquiteclear，butwhichworddoesthesenderemphasize？Ifthissentenceiscarriedonatelephoneorfacetofaceconversation，itwillnotcauseanypuzzle。IVThecasualnessofSMincontrastwithwrittenlanguage
　　However，wecannotsimplysaythewrittenformofspeechislesspowerfulincommunication。OnethingthatdiffersSMlanguagefromletters，andEmailisthecasualnessofSM。SMisoftenprocessedunderarandomcondition。Theusermaydoitwhileheishavinglunch，takingawalk，readingbooks，talkingtoothers，orwatchingTV，etc。Hecouldnotfocusallhisattentiononwritingwhathewantstosay。Hehastodoitwithlittlethought。Besides，sometimes，oneSMusermaymessagethreeothersormoreatthesametime。Theoverloadeduserhastospeeditup，andthequalityofSMdecreases。Butwhenpeoplewriteletters，theyaremuchmoreconsiderate。UnlikeSM，sendinglettersisdemanding，sincewecannotwriteletterswhereverandwheneverwelike。Oncealetterissent，littlechanceleftfortheaddressertoexplainit。
　　Thus，SMismorelikearecordofspokenlanguage，andthenumberofitscharactersisquitelimited（nomorethan70，includingpunctuations）。Inthefollowingparts，wefocusondifferencebetweenSMlanguageandwrittenlanguage。Theparticipantsinwritteninteractioncannotusuallyseeeachother，andtheythuscannotrelyonthecontexttohelpmakeclearwhattheymean，astheywouldwhenspeaking。Asaconsequence，writingavoidswordswhosemeaningrelyonsituation（suchasthisone，overthere）。Writersalsohavetoanticipatetheeffectsoftimelagbetweenproductionandreception。ThisisoutofthequestioninSM。SMusersassumethattheothersideisalwaysreadyforreceptionofSM（actually，itisquitenormalthattherecipientisverybusy），andthatthefeedbackwouldcomeimmediately。ButSMisnottimebound，andthesituationinwhichbothparticipantsarepresentisrare。
　　WrittenlanguagetendstobemoreformalthanSMlanguageandismorelikelytoprovidethestandardthatsocietyvalues。DifferentpeoplehavedevelopedtheirownSMhabitorstyle。Somepeoplefrequentlyusepunctuations，suchas：），：（，：，：；someusecapitalizedwordforexampleOh，TMD，I’llTyoutoexpressspecialmeanings。Thesewords，ononehand，makeSMlanguagevivid，butontheotherhand，languagebarrierisformed。Noteverybodycouldunderstandthesefashionablewords，anditisbeingupdated。People，especiallythosewhoseldommessageanother，findthemselvestrappedbythesepersonallycoinedwordsandexpressions。
　　VConclusion
　　MobilebasedSMisnotbaditself。Liketheemergenceoftelevision，SMisalsostronglycriticizedforitsdisadvantage。Ifweuseitappropriately，itmakesourlifebetter。Here，severalsolutionsaresuggested。
　　Intheabsenceofimmediatefeedback，availableinmostspeechinteraction，careneedstobetakentominimizetheeffectsofvaguenessandambiguity。
　　Beforemessaging，thinkingabouttherecipient’ssituationishelpful，e。g。，istherecipientstillathiswork？Iftimeisnotright，SMmightbothertherecipient。
　　ThelanguageofSMmustbewellchosen。Wecanusefashionwordsorcoinedwordswhenwemessageanintimatefriends，becausewesharethesameenvironment，andthesewordswillworkperfectlyincommunication。Butiftherecipientisnotsofamiliar，we’dbetteruseformalwords。Inotherwords，howwemessageshouldbebasedonthespecificrecipient。
　　IntermsofthecontentsofSM，itshouldnotbeusedtodiscussbadnews。Nevercriticizesomebodyandneverdiscussifthere’sanychancethatwhatwesaymightbetakentoawrongway，weshouldpickupthephoneorwalkouttodiscussitinperson。
　　Fortherecipient，therearesomeothersuggestionswhichmightbehelpful。
　　Ifwearedoingsomethingveryimportant，suchasgivingalectureorhavingaconference，inwhichdisturbanceisnotallowed，wehadbettershutoffourmobilephones。Onceapersontriestosendusashortmessage，heorshemayquicklyfindthattherecipientisnotavailableatthatmoment。Thus，waitingandfurtherguessingcanbeavoided。
　　However，itisinevitabletocomeacrossunpleasantwordsinSM，intermsofbothlanguageandcontent。WeshouldbearthisinmindthatmostpeoplewouldsendSMwithlittlethoughts。Ifwedofeelquitebothered，weshouldcallthesenderandmakethematterclearasquicklyaspossible。
　　Bibliography
　　Crystal，David。TheCambridgeEncylopaediaoflanguage。Cambridge：CambridgeUniversity
　　Grice，H。P。Logicandconversation。InP。Coleamp；J。L。Morgan（eds）Speechacts。NewYork：
　　AcademicPress，1975。
　　Halliday。M。A。K。AnIntroductiontoFunctionalGrammar。London：EdwardArnold，1985。
　　Hu，Zhuanglin。Linguistics。Acousebook。Beijing：BeijingUniversityPress，2001。