The“Art”of Quarrel in Love—a Pragmatic Analysis of Conflict Talks

【Abstract】This paper selects conflict talks from five movies and novels as linguistic data， and by applying “Speech Act theory” and “Cooperative Principle” into the study， this paper classifies conflict talks into four basic categories in terms of the cause. By systematically discussing and organizing the conflict talks in love， this paper aims to enlighten people the significance of maintaining a harmonious love relationship through the art of language from the opposite perspective i.e. the negative pragmatic effect of conflict talks.

【Key words】conflict talks; pragmatics; speech act; cooperative principle; love relationship

【作者簡介】海江凝（1998.06.04-），女，回族，河南鄭州人，中央民族大學(xué)，本科在讀，研究方向：英語語言文學(xué)。

1. Introduction

The explanation of “conflict” in the context corresponding to conflict talks in Oxford English Dictionary is “a situation in which there are opposing ideas， opinions， feelings or wishes.” Accordingly， a conflict talk can be collectively called the antagonistic discourse caused by the participants different opinions， positions， perspectives etc.，such as arguments， wrangles， disagreements， rebuts， and so on. American philosopher-linguistic John Searle divided speech acts into five general categories on the basis of his classification of illocutionary acts（ Weidong Dai， Zhaoxiong He 82）. This paper borrows from Searles classification and divides the conflict talks into four types--conflict talks of representatives， directives and expressiveness， along with another illocutionary point which is not included in Searles classification， the interrogative conflict talks. Conflicts talks are a common linguistic phenomena in a love relationship which are not only blocking the normal communication but also destroying the relationship.

2. Linguistic data and theory application

Five sets of conversations are selected from English movies or novels as the linguistic data of this paper. John Austins Speech Act theory， John Searles classification of speech acts and the Cooperative Principle raised by Paul Grice are applied into the analysis. The speaking turn will be represented by the letter “T”.

3.Case analysis?

3.1 Conflict talks of “representatives” in love

The conflict talks of “representatives” refer to speech conflicts that are cause by the hearers disagreement with the speakers stating or describing which the speaker believes to be true.

Conversation1 from novel Pride and Prejudice： This conversation happens between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy in Kent when Elizabeths prejudice towards Darcy reached a boiling point. Darcy proposed to Elizabeth but got rejected， then they had a conflict talk about the past， including Darcys relation with his adopted brother Mr. Wickham.

[T1] Elizabeth： You have reduced him to his present state of poverty，comparative poverty...You have deprived the best years of his life...You have done all this！

[T2] Darcy： And this is your opinion of me！ This is the estimation in which you hold me！...Could you expect me to rejoice in the inferiority of your connections？ （Jane Austen 182）

Apparently， from Elizabeths statement， Darcy was the culprit for Mr. Wickhams misery（[T1]） and Darcy was irritated by her untrue describing. Instead of keeping the conversation on the topic of Wickham， Darcy shifted his focus on Elizabeths opinion of him and Elizabeths family and their relationship（[T2]）， which is flouting Crices maxim of relation. By flouting the cooperating principle， Darcy successfully shited the topic and got his meaning across.

3.2 Conflict talks of “directives” in love

The conflict talks of “directives” refer to speech conflicts caused by the hearers discontent and defiance to the speakers directives which aim to get the hearer to do something. Inviting， suggesting， requesting， advising etc. are the typical forms of directives. In this part， two sets of conversations are selected for analysis.

Conversation 2 from Tess of the DUrbervilles： This is a conversation between Tess and Angel Clare which happens on their wedding night in the house. After Angel told Tess about his unclean past， Tess told Angel of her losing of chastity and begged him to forgive her.

[T1] Tess： Forgive me as you are forgiven！ I forgive you， Angel.

[T2] Angel： You--yes， you do.

[T3] Tess： But you do not forgive me？

[T4] Angel： Oh， Tess， forgiveness does not apply to the case！...（Thomas Hardy 229）

In this conversation， Tess wanted Angel to forgive her past with Alec DUrberville. She gives her directive by an imperative sentence（[T1]） but only got a respond that avoids her request（[T2]）. As a son from a bourgeois family， Angel couldnt forgive the impurity of this peasant girl and his answer of not answering flouts the maxim of quantity. According to the speech act theory， Angel was actually rejecting Tess with his inadequate speech. He did not reject Tess directly but performed indirect speech acts， which avoided the aggravation of their conflict. However， Angels answer can soften the intense atmosphere but cannot save their broken relationship. The implicature that results is “I cannot forgive you.”

Conversation 3 from Jane Eyre： This conversation happens when Jane Eyre found that Mr. Rochester is going to marry another woman. Jane is extremely disappointed and angry and refused Rochesters directive of coming to his side.

[T1] Rochester： Come to my side， Jane， and let us explain and understand one another.

[T2] Jane： I will never again come to your side; I am torn away now， and cant return.

[T3] Rochester： Come， Jane--come hither.

[T4] Jane： Your bride stands between us. （Charlotte Bront? 271）

Although Rochester asked Jane to come to his side gently（[T1]，[T3]）， Jane rejected his directive with more information that is required（[T2]，[T4]）. Obviously， Janes answer flouts the maxim of quantity. Different from Angels flouting of the same maxim， Jane offered more information than is required. Both of those two situations achieve the goal of defying the directives of the speaker.

3.3 Conflict talks of “expressives” in love

The conflict talks of “expressives” are the speech strategies taken by the hearer who disagrees with the speakers attitude or feelings towards an existing state. The hearer aims to express his/her different attitude or feelings and thus gives rise to conflict talks.

Conversation 4 from movie La La Land： This conversation between the hero Sebastian and the heroine Mia happens at dinner in Sebastians apartment when they were talking about Sebastians future plan of his music career. Sebastian wanted to give up his dream and settle down but Mia wanted him to keep going.

[T1] Mia： Do you like the music youre playing？

[T2] Sebastian： I dont know what it matters.

[T3] Mia： Well， it matters， because you are gonna give up your dream. I think it matters that you like the music youre playing on the road for years.

[T4] Sebastian： Do you like the music that I play？

[T5] Mia： Yeah. I do.

[T6] Sebastian： I just dont think that you did.

Evidently， there is a conflict talk on their attitude towards Sebastians dream and Mias attitude towards Sebastians music career. The hero gave an arbitrary judgement without enough evidence that the heroine didnt like his music， so he flouted the Grices maxim of quality and got his anger across.

3.4 “interrogative”conflict talks in love

The “interrogative”conflict talk which is not included in Searles classification refers to the speech conflicts caused by the hearers disagreement or discontent of the speakers interrogation.

Conversation 5 from Wuthering Heights： This is a conversation between Catherine and Heathcliff happens at the Grange when Tess was dying and Heathcliff came to see her. They tearfully talked about their past and each others sins.

[T1] Heathcliff： Do I want to live？ ...Would you like to live with your soul in the grave？

[T2] Catherine： Let me alone. Let me alone. If I have done wrong， Im dying for it. It is enough！ （Emily Bront?132）

Heathcliff loved Catherine but couldnt forgive yet her. They loved each other but death was going to separate them. Catherines discourse flouts the maxim of quality and manner， for she didnt answer Heathcliffs question and spoke with unnecessary prolixity. She got her confession across with indirect speech acts.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion， in the sense of pragmatics， the “art” of conflict talks can be systematically classified into those four categories and theres no doubt that conflict talks have a negative pragmatic effect on the love relationship. To maintain a harmonious love relationship， we ought to consciously avoid the deconstructive effects of conflict talks and strategically use the remarkable art of language.

References：

[1]Austen， Jane. Pride and Prejudice[M]. Nanjing： Yilin Press，2011. Print.

[2]Bront?， Charlotte. Jane Eyre[M]. Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press，2012，Print.

[3]Bront?， Emily. Wuthering Heights[M]. Nanjing： Yilin Press，2011， Print.

[4]Hardy， Thomas. Tess of the DUrbervilles[J]. New York： Penguin Books Ltd.， 2006，Print.

[5]戴煒棟，何兆熊.新編簡明英語語言學(xué)教程[M].上海：上海外語教育出版社，2018：82-83.