回归伊塔卡——关于零交际的价值思考

Return to Ithaca: Reflection of the Value in Zero-Communication

莎士比亚名剧《哈姆雷特》的主人公经典独白"生存还是毁灭,这是一个值得考虑的问题"被举世吟诵。文章以"哈姆雷特为什么这样说话"为问,试图建立并探讨零交际的形态特征和价值意义。文章指出,零交际在形态上类似独白等非面对面交际,其特殊性表现在只有话语发授者,并且他的自言自语既可能是与自己交流,也可能是与不直接在面前的其他生者交流,甚至可能是与死者交流,与神化形象交流,与动物交流。导致零交际自语的原因除了环境对话语发授者造成的心理压力外,话语发授者缺少真情吐露而转移交际对象以寻求真实自我表征应该被认为负有主要责任。意义性零交际包括未能达到话语发授者真实意图的交际和未能传达事实真相的交际,前者的肇因与意义表达和阐释有关,后者来自谎言。表达与阐释的离合受私人语言与公共语言离合的影响。公共语言是交际常模,尽管私人语言在交际中被期望靠拢公共语言,但是存在主观态度和客观能力的差异。对于谎言的肇因解释在话语发授者为实现社会认同的基础上存在三种可能:社会性无奈,对方性满足,自私性实现。作者结论,当我们承认每个人都是一个完整世界时,我们同样应该承认这些世界的文化差异。在这个意义上,零交际成了跨文化交际的核心:每个人有为己的存在、为他的存在、为社会的存在,不可避免地在交际中摆动在真话和谎言之间。孰去孰从便是零交际的价值思考。

This paper,based on the world-famous classic soliloquy of the protagonist ＂To be,or not to be —— that is the question＂ from Shakespeare＇s famous play Hamlet,starts its investigation by inquiring ＂Why should Hamlet speak this way？＂ to attempt to scaffold the form and significance of zero-communication.It indicates that zero-communication is similar to such non-face-to-face communicative forms as of soliloquy and its features consist in having a speech sender only,thinking aloud to himself,or speaking indirectly to others alive but not in face,or even talking avidly to the dead,the deified,and animals.Besides the reason that the sender＇s mental stress is caused by the speech environment,it should be regarded as the main cause that the sender,being unable to speak his innermost out,seeks to identify himself by means of a transferred receiver of speech.Also,this paper shows that a look into the perspective of meaning in zero-communication consists of a communication unmeant by the sender due to failures in expression together with interpretation,and the one that fails to exhibit the real facts as seen in lying.The author argues that integrating or disintegrating expression and interpretation is in the control of integration and disintegration between the private speech and the public speech.It is accepted that the private speech is expected to adapt itself to the public speech that is designed as a communicative norm,but variations are unavoidable in subjective attitudes and the objective performances both of the sender and the receiver.It is noted that there are three possible accounts for lying to accomplish the social accommodation of the sender.They are social unwillingness,gratification for the partner,and realization of self goodness.The author concludes,on the basis that we admit everyone comprises a whole world and in the meantime we recognize the cultural differences from one world to another,zero-communication becomes the center of intercultural communication in which everyone pendulums between telling the truth and lying when they live for themselves,for others,and for social communities.The selective positioning lies in a reflection of the value in zero-communication.