生态话语分类的不确定性

Indeterminacy in the Classification of Ecological Discourse Types

生态语言学研究的一种常见做法是研究者根据自己的生态观对话语作分类并进行生态分析,但是,关于话语(语篇)的分类,不同学者往往会采用不同的标准。Stibbe(2015)在生态语言学研究话题下提出区分破坏性话语、中性话语和有益性话语三种话语类型。本文通过实例分析表明:话语(语篇)类型之间的界限常常是不确定的、模糊的,不容易泾渭分明地归类的,因此应该使用连续统的概念来区分和讨论话语类型。本文的研究还表明:中国语境下的生态语言学研究有其特点,生态语言学研究是有价值取向的,受到政治、历史、社会、文化等因素的制约,因此生态话语研究要结合中国的实践。

In the linguistic study of ecological issues and discourses,there is a common approach which is concerned with the classification of discourse types according to the analyst’s ecosophy and understanding of the nature of ecology.However,scholars from different cultural backgrounds with different viewpoints of ecosophy may use different criteria in their classification of discourse(text)types.Arran Stibbe in his book entitled Ecolinguistics:Language,Ecology and the Stories We Live By proposes that in the study of ecolinguistics three types of ecological discourse(i.e.destructive discourse,ambivalent discourse,beneficial discourse)be identified,according to the analyst’s ecosophy.This proposal is important but may not be as useful as it sounds.Based on the analysis of examples of ecological discourse,this paper illustrates that the boundary between different discourse(text)types is often indeterminate and fuzzy,which leads to the authors’argument that the concept of cline should be used to distinguish between the discourse types,as there is no clear-cut line between one type of discourse and another type.Taking into consideration the Chinese context,the paper also argues that ecolinguistic studies in China have their own characteristics,that ecolinguistic studies are value-laden and culture-specific,and that ecolinguistic studies in China should be conducted by considering both the political,historical,cultural,social and economic backgrounds and the social practices in the Chinese context,apart from other factors.