Search On Speech Act Of Chinese Directives

Directive language behavior is one of language behaviors which is important and worthy to study. Since a correct research approach is necessary to study an academic thesis, under what structure should the study of directive behavior be carried on? Is there any defect in existing research approaches and theory structures? If current theoretic systems are inappropriate to support the study of Chinese directive language, how should we set up a reasonable structure? How to analyze and study Chinese directive language behavior under a reasonable theoretical structure? These three questions above are what I'm mainly concerned about in this article.Generally two preferences are chosen to study Chinese directive language behavior. First one is the study of directive language behavior from the perspective of field of Pragmatics. The study mainly emphasize on behavior itself and ignore Chinese language form. The other one is the study of imperative sentence in the term of Grammarians. However in Chinese, directive language has more other forms than imperative sentence. If the study of directive language is simply equal to the study of imperative sentence, it will result not only in the incompleteness of Chinese directive behavior study, but also in the situation that there are scattered description of grammatical phenomena without a complete theoretical architecture.Firstly, starting from the nature of directive, we modify the knowledge of language behavior classification by Austin, Searle and Halliday. On the basis of redefinition of language behavior, we think that language behavior, as a logical system, is made up of 4 factors:"give", "ask for", "info", and "behavior". "directives" is the behavior to "ask for behavior" rather than one to "ask for info". Therefore the coordinate of directive language behavior is identified in whole language behavior system.Secondly, on the basis of clarifying the directive language behavior's coordinate, we modify the judgment criteria of directive language behavior by Searle and further propose 5 factors more logical than present ones. Then we explore the factors of restriction directive and come to a conclusion that discourse power is the most important one of all factors. Different from previous research, this paper don't think discourse power is a fixed mode chosen by a fixed directive method. Instead it's an adjustable mechanism. Directive language behavior's core is how to deal with discourse power, which provides a new evidence to classify directive language behavior. From the perspective of dealing with discourse power, we can separate directive language behavior into 3 categories including directive language behavior to emphasize speaker own "authority and voice discourse power", the one to fuzz up difference of "authority and voice discourse power" between speaker and hearer, and last one to emphasize hearer's "authority and voice discourse power".As discourse power is flexible and adjustable based on speaker's intention, its internal requirement (high or low scale value) produces directive scale in directive language behavior. Previous study generally think indirect directive is weaker and direct directive is stronger. Moreover the study of indirect directive has been based on questions and statements, a minor illocutionary act. The paper analyzes threat language behavior and points out some type of threat language behavior can be in the form of indirect directive with strongest directive power. so directive power can be considered as three grades:strong directive in the form of promise, normal directive in the form of normal direct directive and regulatory indirect directive, weak directive in the form of non-regulatory indirect directive. So the paper not only reanalyzes the branch point of "threat" adscription in a scientific term, but also broadens the research scope of directive language behavior.In addition, voice discourse power has a flexible external form, reflected in its grammatical form and constraints on the discourse markers.When speaker sends out directive by adjusting directive scale value on his own intention, directive must be in some language form. So what kind of constraints has the nature of directive language behavior on Chinese grammar selection? This paper studies on the constraint function of direct expression part of directive including the sentence, subject, verb, tone words, and semantic. Besides, the paper also has a special study on the grammar expression of Chinese directive language behavior. As the assistant moderator and expression of "voice discourse power flexible mechanism", the discourse marker is also analyzed on the basis of functionality in this paper. A theoretical assumption of "discourse markers and directive behavior's mutual selection" is made on "which discourse markers can be supportive part of directive language behavior" and then "say" language behavior is taken as example for empirical research. Besides, the paper analyze the function of discourse markers in the directive language behavior.Finally we explores the pragmatic rules of directive language behavior.In summary, this paper creates an innovative analysis framework of directive research in Pragmatics, imperative sentence and discourse markers in Grammer. Consequently we set up an innovative theoretical architecture of Chinese directive language behavior research with the core of dealing with "discourse power", moreover we attempt the study of grammatical constraints of Chinese directive language behavior under this new framework.This paper is a valuable supplement to present theory system of Chinese directive language behavior, and well solve existing problems of overemphasizing on characterization of individual grammatical description, unclear research idea, research content missing, and one-sided study object. Starting from theory architecture and looping back to empirical grammatical discussion, this paper demonstrates a relatively complete and reasonable theory architecture of Chinese directive language behavior.