《白象似的群山》中的会话分析

《白象似的群山》中的会话分析摘要《白象似的群山》是海明威的一部短篇小说。

海明威的作品以及他本人的生平一直受到无数学者及评论家的青睐。

整篇小说以会话为主，小说中的人物通过对话表达自己的真实意图，也给读者留下了深刻的印象。

小说会话是小说文学体裁的重要组成部分。

与真实会话相同，小说中的会话也遵循一定的语言规则和策略。

人们通过会话直接或间接地表达自己的意图，以达到某种目的。

本文会运用会话合作原则和福柯的话语权利理论对《白象似的群山》中的会话进行分析，解读小说人物角色的真实意图。

同时也有助于更好的理解合作原则和话语权利在会话中的应用, 对今后的文学鉴赏及教学也有借鉴作用。

关键词：小说会话，合作原则，话语权利理论，言语行为理论Conversation Analysis in Hills like White ElephantsAbstractHills Like White Elephants is a short story written by Hemingway, whose works and life has been favored by countless critics. Most of the short story is in the form of conversation. Characters in the novel express their true intentions through the dialogue, which leaves readers a deep impression. Just like real-life conversations, its conversations in the short story also have to follow some linguistic rules and strategies. People express their intentions through conversations directly or indirectly to achieve a certain purpose. This paper will apply the principle of cooperation and Foucauldian discourse analysis to analyze the conversations in Hills Like White Elephants and interpret the true meaning of the characters' words. At the same time, it is also helpful to have a better understanding of the application of the principle of cooperation and Foucauldian discourse analysis in conversation, which would be helpful in literary appreciation and teaching.Key Words: conversation, the principle of cooperation, discourse power, Speech Act Theory1. IntroductionHills like White Elephants is one of the masterpieces of Ernest Hemingway. It was first published in 1927 and embodied in Hemingway’s second collection of shortstories—―Men Without Women‖. The story bears an open ending, as the heroine Jig states ―But I don’t care about me. And I’ll do it and then everything will be fine‖. The short story is no more than 1500 words, and also with no excited plot. However, Western critics regard the short story as one of the most terrible story of Hemingway’s works. It takes place in last century in Spain. A young American man and a woman sit in a railway station next to a small inn. They drink beer and talk with each other unhappily while waiting train. The topic is around nothing more than an operation. During the conversation, the man seems to be very patient and generous all the time, but the woman named Jig sometimes looks at distant mountains, sometimes stares at the words on a curtain of the inn, sometimes is absent-minded and sometimes is hysterical. The man wants the girl to do the operation, while the girl is not willing to do it. When the train is arriving, these two people stop the talk abruptly. As for the operation, others can make nothing of it. The story seems to be a simple conversation between these two lovers, but actually it includes a discourse confrontation between the man and the woman. The conversation demonstrates some discourse power and some disobedience of the principle of cooperation.Another feature of Hemingway’s works is his ―iceberg theory‖. As for ―iceberg theory‖, Hemingway has his own explanation. He thinks that if a write r knows well about what he want to write, he may omit what he has known in his work. If the writer express properly and full of emotion, readers are able to understand the omitted part. It is obvious that Hemingway is in favor of ―iceberg theory‖. Accordin g to Hemingway’s explanation, we can know that iceberg theory is to create a distinctive image through simple words. There are writers’ thought and emotion under their words. So works in this kind are full of emotion but with more implication, which makes readers pursue the deep meaning of work through these distinctive characters.The Hemingway’s iceberg theory also has a reflection in this short story. We can see that there is no obvious and direct expression both for the man and the girl. They all like to imply the other to get their own purpose. The girl always uses metaphor to ask the man about their future, while the man seems not wants to take his responsibility. Readers can use their imagination to explore any possibility of theshort story. Maybe the man in novel has married, forcing his lover to do the abortion. Maybe the man thinks that the fetus will be a trouble for the girl and her sake. As for the girl, maybe she is willing to do the abortion because of the less time. Maybe she agrees to do the abortion for the man’s sake. Milan Kundera thinks that Hemingway is good at construct dialogues both in reality and in literature. He creates a simple, clear and meaningful structure that gives readers a wonderful story.Hills like White Elephants is full of conversations. There are all together five rounds of conversations. Each conversation was words against and words struggle, which makes the whole story more interesting and intriguing. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze Hills like White Elephants by the cooperative principle from the pragmatic perspective, we can understand the characteristics of Hemingway 's "iceberg theory" from another angle and understand the author' s intention. This thesis will analyze Hills like White Elephants from two aspects. One is the application of principle of cooperation in the story’s conversation; another one is the discourse power reflected in the story.The thesis includes four chapters. The main contents of each chapter are as follows:Chapter one deals with the literature review and background information. It reviews the features of the short story, the relevant theories as well as the pragmatic theories and principles, which provide a basis for future analysis of dialogues in the short stories.Chapter two introduces the principle of cooperation and its application in discourse. The principle of cooperation is put forward by Grice. Cooperative principles refer to the rules that speakers in a conversation are supposed to obey, which can promote ideal conversations. But in real conversations, these principles are hard to obey for that people would disobey some principles to get some purpose. The analysis of cooperative principles in this novel can reveal the relationship between literal meaning and the real meaning of the utterance. In this chapter, we can understand the true purpose of the man and the girl and the true meaning of their words.Chapter three uses pragmatic theories to analyze dialogues in story. This chapter will use Foucault’s theory of discourse to explore the power of characters’ words. Discourse can produce power, in return, power can also influence the discourse. This chapter can help readers feel the power and the charm of language.Chapter four is the conclusion of the whole thesis, the major findings of the analysis, the limitations of the study as well as the suggestions for the further.2. Conversation Analysis of Hills like White Elephants2.1. Principle of cooperationH.P.Grice, an American philosopher, puts forward the "cooperative principle" in the conversation, which means speakers and listeners should comply with some principles to achieve specific goals in communication. Cooperative principle includes four criteria: Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of Quality, Maxim of Relevance, Maxim of Manner. Maxim of Quantity refers to that the content of a conversation should contain all necessary information and should not have redundant information; Maxim of Quality requests speakers to tell truth. What is more important is that speakers cannot say somet hing they don’t know or they don’t have enough evidence; Maxim of Relevance means that speakers should say something related to the main idea of conversation. Anything irrelevant is not accepted; Maxim of Manner holds that speakers should express their ideas in a simple and clear way, trying their best to avoid ambiguity.[1]However, the principle of cooperation is hardly to be obeyed in some conversation. Sometimes when people need to express themselves in a euphemistic way, they will disobey some principles of conversation, even disobey all these four principles, instead of expressing something directly.2.2. Conversation analysis in Five – round conversation―The hills across the valley of the Ebro were long and white.‖[2]the Landscape description at beginning of the story keeps with the title Hills Like White Elephants. Then the woman overlooks the mountains and expresses her emotion. The first round conversation focuses on the hills'They look like white elephants,' she said.'I've never seen one.' The man drank his beer.'No, you wouldn't have.''I might have,' the man said. 'Just because you say I wouldn't have doesn't prove anything.'[3] In this dialogue, the woman brought up the subject first. She made metaphors of the shape and color of the mountains in the distance. The man seemed to be not interested in this. When the woman complaint the man’s indifference, the man suddenly changed the argument and refuted her. In this part the man only has two sentences and that obviously disobey the maxim of quality. It is obviously that the man didn’t say the truth, or what he said is not reliable. It was not harmony for their relationship. There were some complains between them. However, neither of them can persuade the other. Their dialogue can demonstrate the rift of their relationship.When the woman saw that this dialogue couldn’t go on, she changed to another subject. She suggested having a kind of drink. The man and the woman both made an evaluation after drinking.It tastes like licorice,' the girl said and put the glass down.''That's the way with everything.''Yes,' said the girl. 'Everything tastes of licorice. Especially all the things you've waited so long for, like absinthe.''Oh, cut it out.''You started it,' the girl said. 'I was being amused. I was having a fine time.'[4] The woman thought the drink tasting like licorice, but the man thought that all things were the same. When the woman compared something she desired for a long time to this drink, she was interrupted by the man. Because the man could understand the true meaning of the woman, but he didn’t like to face the topic ―Especially all the things you've waited so long for, like absinthe‖. He disobeyed the maxim of relevance to avoid this topic. His series of behaviors further confirm the exclusion of something in his heart, avoiding or even fear. The woman seems to see through his heart. She is in violation of the maxim of quality to relieve the man by overturning the previous words and denying her comments. Compared with the previous round of dialogue, this round of dialogue is not even coherent. The speakers are not very cooperative with each other.The initiator of the third round of dialogue was the man. He praised the taste of wine. The woman also agreed with him. But then the man changed the topic suddenly, talking about the operation, which disobeyed the maxim of relevance. This sudden change of topic make listener shocked and curious. Then the man said that the operation was very simple more than one time, which was in violation of the maxim of quantity. For this, the woman’s reaction was silence, which disobeyed the maxim of relevance. Along with the going on of the conversation, the truth between these two people was unveiled. The man was eager to persuade the girl to do abortion. But the woman thought differently from the man. After being in silence for a while, the woman asked the man about their future. The answer from the man was as simple as that their future will be the same as before as long as they can deal with the trouble at present, the operation. This dialogue lasted until the woman walked towards the end of the station, looking at the scenery across the railway. During the dialogue, the man and the woman disobeyed the maxim of quantity. On the one hand the man reiterated that he would not force the woman to do the operation if she didn’t like. This sentence appeared of four times totally. On the other hand the man put the emphasis on that this operation is simple. The woman asked the man about their relationship and feeling again and again. When receiving the reply from the man, the woman seemed to have a decision, saying that she didn’t care about herself. In this dialogue, neither the man nor the woman express their true meaning directly. They both wanted to imply each other by repeating what they said again and again. They were both in violation of the maxim of quality and the maxim of quantity, which leads to the failure of their conversation.The second half of the short story is still dialogue-based. The girl saw farmland, trees and mountains on the other side of the railway across the river. All scenes symbolize the infinite vitality and reproduction, which makes her dejected. ―No, we can’t‖, the girl repeated these words three times, denying the wonderful future the man ha ve described. She knew the fact clearly. The fact is that ―And once they take it away, you never get it back‖. She also warned the man ―We'll wait and see‖. The girl didn’t tell us what did the ―it‖ refer to. The ―it‖ may refer to a baby, a relationship,。