浅析句末助词“吧”的机能

浅析句末助词“吧”的机能［Abstract］The Chinese utterance-final particle ba has been described in various ways depending on the sentence type and/or the context in which it appears. In this paper, after reviewing some previous discussions on the function of ba, we attempt to provide a unified account of its role in discourse by using the notion of ‘higher-level explicature’in Relevance Theory. It is shown that the utterance-final particle ba contributes to the procedural meaning and constrains the relevance in the utterance.［Key words］utterance-final particle,Relevance Theory,higher-level explicatureI. IntroductionResearchers have presented various explanations for the meaning of the Chinese particle ba. Chao (1968) describes ba as the ‘advisative’particle (e.g., 快点儿走吧！‘Better hurry up and go!’).[1] 807 Li and Thompson (1981) argue that its core semantic function is to “Solicit Agreement” (e.g., 你喝水吧。

‘Why don’t you drink some water?’).[2] 307-311 Cheung et al. (1994) suggest that its basic function is to indicate uncertainty or supposition[3] 166 and Ross and Ma (2006) show that the sentences with utterance-final ba may convey a command (e.g., 给我吧！‘Give it to me!’), suggestion (e.g., 多吃一点吧！‘Eat a little more!’) or supposition (e.g., 你是王老师吧。

‘You must be Professor Wang!’).[4] 328-351Depending on the sentence type and/or the context, sentences containing the particle ba could be variously interpreted. In this paper, after examining some previous discussions on the function of ba, we will attempt to present an alternative proposal of a unified account of its role in discourse from the perspective of Relevance Theory.Ⅱ. Mitigation of a Face-threatening ActCheung et al. (1994) argue that the basic function of the particle ba (hereafter BA) is to indicate uncertainty or supposition.[3] 166 Consider the following pairs:(1) a. 这是我的。

This is mine.b. 这是我的吧。

This is mine, right?(2) a. 我们去看电影。

We will go see a movie.b. 我们去看电影吧。

Let’s go see a movie.(3) a. 你走！Get out!b.你走吧！Why don’t you leave?[3] 167In each (a) sentence, the speaker seems to be certain of the utterance content, while in each (b) sentence the speakeruses BA to mitigate the illocutionary force of declarative (1a), suggestion (2b) and imperative (3a) utterances.Similarly, Lee-Wong (1998) regards utterance-final BA, along with a/ya and ne, as politeness strategies in direct requests, namely, imperatives.[5](4) a. A department head asking a driver to pick a visitor up from the station:看，你去一下吧。

Look, you go (and fetch him) BA.Core request: Go and fetch him.b. A university supervisor asking a student to change an appointment:就明天晚上，你来吧。

So, tomorrow evening you come BA.Core request: Come (to see me) tomorrow evening.[5] 393The use of BA in (4) has a mitigating effect on the meaning of each of these requests. In each context, the speaker softens the illocutionary force of direct imperatives —that is, using BA to ameliorate aface-threatening act. Speakers use BA to avoid sounding too blunt or assertive in situations where they cannot or do not wish to issue imperatives directly.Ⅲ. Markers of the Speaker’s Attitude towards His/HerPropositionThe following examples of expressed speaker attitude are presented in Chu (2009).[6] 286 The rising intonation in (5A) is an indication that the speaker is not quite sure that s/he should answer in the affirmative. The expression 就(‘well’) in (6A) is a sign of the speaker’s hesitation about making the decision of donating 200 yuan.(5) A: 我们晚上去看电影，你去不去？We are going to the movie tonight. Are you going (with us)?B: 好吧！OK BA. (with a rising intonation) ［hesitation］(6) A: 我捐一百块。

I’ll donate a hundred yuan.B: 这是做好事, 你应该多捐一点。

This is to help the needy. You should give more.A: 那我就捐两百吧。

Well, in that case, I’ll donate 200 BA.［willy-nilly agreement］Speaker B in (6) accepts the proposal from A reluctantly. Similarly, B in (5) appears to acquiesce to A’s suggestion. Both speakers in (5B) and (6A) comply with the request from the other speaker, but they express their unwillingness or hesitation by using BA and, in doing so, commit an act that threatens the other speaker’s face. Though Chu claims that BA interacts with the propositional content, the propositional meaning remains the same if the particle is removed. This offers further evidence that the particle acts as a marker of the speaker’s attitude towards his/her proposition.Ⅳ. Relevance TheorySo far we have seen that, depending on sentence type and context, utterance-final BA can mitigate a face-threatening act, or it can have the opposite effect, effectively committing a face-threatening act—though not to the extent that of intentional impoliteness. In this section we will introduce the notion of Relevance Theory and describe how it offers a unified account of BA.According to Sperber and Wilson’s (1986, 1995) Relevance Theory, an utterance typically has several explicatures.[7] 182 For example, Mary’s utterance in (7b) might include the explicatures in (8):(7) a. Peter: Can you help?b. Mary (sadly): I can’t.(8) a. Mary can’t help Peter.b. Mary says she can’t help Peter.c. Mary believes she can’t help Peter.d. Mary regrets that she can’t help Peter.By encoding (7b) linguistically, we can identify the basic explicature in (8a). Other explicatures of (7b) include, for example, speech-act descriptions such as (8b), or propositional attitude descriptions such as (8c) or (8d). Wilson and Sperber (1993) call (8b-d) higher-level explicatures of (8a). Not only is the proposition expressed by the utterance linguistically communicated but also are all of its higher-level explicatures. A higher-level explicature describing the speaker’s belief could make a major contribution to the relevance of the utterance.Now let us look at how a higher-level explicature might help a hearer interpret an utterance. Consider the example in Chu (2009)[6] 287,(9) ［A mother had failed to get her son to wear warm clothes when he went out a ball game in the afternoon. Later in the evening, the son came home coughing and sneezing］Mother: 感冒了吧！(You’ve got a cold? BA!)In this utterance the particle了(‘le’) also appears, which can be used to signal a change in what Li and Thompson call the Currently Relevant State (1981).[2] 290Compare the following utterances:(10) a. 感冒了！You’ve got a cold!b. 感冒了吧！You’ve got a cold!What did I tell you BA?The meaning of (10b), which (10a) necessarily doesn’t have, can be understood with the relevant background in (9). (10b) could have a number of higher-level explicatures (11):(11) a. I say that you’ve caught cold.b. I believe that you’ve caught cold because you went out in light clothes.c. I want you to remember that I told you to wear warm clothes.It seems that the effect of connecting the present state to the previousone is carried out by the particlele to some degree. The marker that causes the hearer to recognize the higher-level explicature is BA, which conveys the content unobtrusively.Li and Thompson (1981) cite some sentences as unacceptable examples to illustrate that BA cannot occur with questions.(12) a.*谁喝酒吧？Who drinks alcohol BA?b.*他好看不好看吧？Is he good looking BA ?c.*你好吗吧？How are you BA ?They explain that BA cannot occur with question-word questions (as in 12a), disjunctive questions (as in 12b), or questions containing the interrogative particle ma (‘吗’), (as in 12c). Since the function of questions is to request certain types of information, they cannot be converted into sentence types that request the hearer to agree to some statement.[2] 310 In their view, then, the unacceptability of (12a-c) is a result of the incompatibility of questions with the function Solicit Agreement.As they point out, a question in general requires information and questions are therefore a type of sentence lacking a truth value. We conclude that BA cannot be added to the question type sentences becausethe speaker is uncertain about the content of the sentence. Therefore, BA is not compatible with the uncertainty encoded in the sentence.Li and Thompson (1981) compare the example (13a) (from Chao 1968) with (13b):(13) a. 你到底要什么吧？Tell me, what do you want BA?b. *他要什么吧？What does he want BA?Both of the sentences are question-word questions like that in (12a), yet only (13a)—which contains a different subject and an extra adverb 到底(‘ultimately’) — is acceptable. Given an appropriate context, the meaning of (13a) is approximately as follows:(14) OK, don’t you think you should let me know what in the world you want?[2] 311On the other hand, (13b), which has the same question-word as (13a), is unacceptable since it is unlikely to have a context similar to (14). From a different point of view, however, this sentence seems to be a kind of rhetorical question whose answer is obvious. Provided the speaker does not actually demand (or expect) an answer, (13b) can be interpreted to mean that the speaker intends to convey a higher-level explicature as in (15):(15) I don’t believe he wants for anything because he’s had enough.As Blakemore explains[8] 116, one of the key concepts of Relevance Theory is “procedural constraints on interpretation.” Blakemore illustrates the principle through a discussion of the English adverb then:…For example, while Are we going to town might, in a given context, be optimally understood as a question requiring a yes/no answer, Are we going to town then might, in its context, be optimally understood as an invitation to confirm that speaker and hearer have agreed to go to town. In this case ‘then’acts as a constraint limiting the interpretation of the utterance.In the same manner as then, BA contributes to the procedural meaning and constraints on the relevance in the utterance.To confirm that BA is a constraint on higher-level explicatures, we will adopt as a test frame the cooccurrence probability of performative sentences and the particle. Because performatives whose speech act verbs are embodied in higher-level explicatures and BA as a constraint on the higher-level explicatures are semantically and functionally the same, they are not generally compatible in the same utterance and are regarded asoddities when they co-occur as seen in (16b) and (17b).(16) a. 我们去看电影吧。