Communication interculturelle et literature
Yüklə 0,49 Mb.
|
Bibliography http://www.artline.ro/Folclorul-s-a-nascut-la-sat-si-traieste-la-oras-1256-1-n.html. Bauman, Richard, Folklore, Cultural Performances and Popular Entertainments: a Communications-centered Handbook, New York, Oxford University Press, 1992. Candrea, Ion-Aureliu, Iarba fiarelor: studii de folclor din datinile şi credinţele poporului român, Bucureşti, Fundaţia Naţională pentru Ştiinţă şi Artă; Academia Română; Institutul de Istorie şi Teorie Literară „G. Călinescu”, 2001. Danzer, Gerald A.; Newman, Mark, Excerpt from „Tuning In”, a Curriculum Development Project. The Camera’s Eye; Imagery and Technology, in: Social Studies, vol. 83, nr. 3, 1992, p. 183, Electronic document,http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=trueHYPERLINK "http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ458406&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ458406"&HYPERLINK "http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ458406&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ458406"_HYPERLINK "http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ458406&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ458406"&HYPERLINK "http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ458406&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ458406"ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ458406HYPERLINK "http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ458406&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ458406"&HYPERLINK "http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ458406&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ458406"ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=noHYPERLINK "http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ458406&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ458406"&HYPERLINK "http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ458406&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ458406"accno=EJ458406, accesed November 4, 2011. Eretescu, Constantin, Vrăjitoarea familiei şi alte legende ale oraşelor lumii de azi, Bucureşti, Compania, 2003. Fernback, Jan, Legends on the net: an examination of computer-mediated communication as a locus of oral culture. In: New Media Society, 2003, 5, Electronic document,http://nms.sagepub.com/content/5/1/29.abstract, accesed November 15, 2011. Heyd, Theresa, Formal and functional characteristics of email hoaxes: a genre study. Electronic document, http://www.ncess.ac.uk/events/conference/2007/dc-papers/Heyd_paper.pdf, accesed October 24, 2011. Jeffrey, Victor, Satanic cult rumors as contemporary legend, in: Western Folklore, vol. 49, nr. 1. Kibby, Marjorie D., Email forwardables: folklore in the age of internet, (in): New Media Society, vol. 7(6), 2005. Electronic document, http://nms.sagepub.com/content/7/6/770.full.pdf+html, accesed November 2, 2011. Ong, Walter J., Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the word, London, Routledge, 1982. Smith, Marc A.; Kollock, Peter (ed.), Communities in cyberspace, London, Routledge, 1999, p. 223, Electronic document, http://bcub.etailer.dpsl.net/home/html/moreinfo.asp?isbn=0203194950HYPERLINK "http://bcub.etailer.dpsl.net/home/html/moreinfo.asp?isbn=0203194950&whichpage=1&pagename=category.asp"&HYPERLINK "http://bcub.etailer.dpsl.net/home/html/moreinfo.asp?isbn=0203194950&whichpage=1&pagename=category.asp"whichpage=1HYPERLINK "http://bcub.etailer.dpsl.net/home/html/moreinfo.asp?isbn=0203194950&whichpage=1&pagename=category.asp"&HYPERLINK "http://bcub.etailer.dpsl.net/home/html/moreinfo.asp?isbn=0203194950&whichpage=1&pagename=category.asp"pagename=category.asp, accesed November 16, 2011. PRESSEFREIHEIT IN DEUTSCHLAND Lect. drd. Aurelia IANA, Institut für Studien der Öffenlichen Ordnung des Innenministeriums Abstract: Die Presse - und Medienfreiheit ist eine der wichtigsten Freiheiten der heutigen Welt da von ihr die Gesellschaft abhängt. Bei einer Presse- oder Medienfreiheit kann die Gesellschaft informiert bleiben über politisches Geschehen und selber entscheiden ob sie dieses befürwortet oder sich dagegen stellt, bei einer Zensur ist dies nicht möglich und Behörde können über die entsprechende Zensur nur Teile von Informationen an das Volk weitergeben das auf diese Art und Weise beeinflusst werden kann. Keywords: Deutschland, Konflikt, Pressenfreiheit, Journalisten In Deutschland gibt es zwei wichtige Texte an denen sich Journalisten orientieren müssen um ihre Rechte aber auch Pflichten bei Veröffentlichungen ausüben zu können. . Zum einen gibt es die im Grundgesetz Deutschlands [Das Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Abschnitt „Grundrechte“] verankerte Pressefreiheit, die in Artikel 5 garantiert, dass jeder Bürger seine Meinung äußern darf, solange er sich an die entsprechenden Gesetze hält, zum anderen gibt es den Pressecodex der vom Presserat und den Presseverbänden veröffentlicht wurde und an den sich alle Journalisten halten müssen, auch wenn sie nicht einem Presseverband angehören. Von einerVeröffentlichung darf man aber ohne besondere Anhaltspunktenicht ausgehen. Schließlich gehört es zu den Grundsteinen der Pressefreiheit, dass Journalisten selbst entscheiden, was sie wie veröffentlichen – eben ohne Zensur, also ohne staatliche Vorabkontrolle [Noelle-Neumann, 1971:210-216]. Am 5.5.1965 schrieb Dr. Paul Sethe in Der Spiegel,: „Im Grundgesetz stehen wunderschöne Bestimmungen über die Freiheit der Presse. Wie so häufig, ist die Verfassungswirklichkeit ganz anders als die geschriebene Verfassung. Pressefreiheit ist die Freiheit von zweihundert reichen Leuten, ihre Meinung zu verbreiten. Journalisten, die diese Meinung teilen, finden sie immer. Ich kenne in der Bundesrepublik keinen Kollegen, der sich oder seine Meinung verkauft hätte. Aber wer nun anders denkt, hat der nicht auch das Recht, seine Meinung auszudrücken? Die Verfassung gibt ihm das Recht, die ökonomische Wirklichkeit zerstört es. Frei ist, wer reich ist. Das ist nicht von Karl Marx, sondern von Paul Sethe. Aber richtig ist es trotzdem. Und da Journalisten nicht reich sind, sind sie auch nicht frei (jene wenigen Oasenbewohner ausgenommen).“ [Erinnerung, Sethe, Frei ist,wer reich ist]. Der Deutsche Presserat plädiert für konkretere Handlungsanweisungen. Es gibt ja vielfältige Möglichkeiten, wie Konflikte zu regeln sind. So können statt der Beschlagnahme einer Kamera eine gemeinsame Presse und Staatasnwaltschaft Sichtung der Bilder die mildere Polizeimaßnahme sein. Da muss man auch medienpolitisch aktiv werden, bevor der Staat weitere Freiheitsrechte kassiert. Seit den Terroranschlägen von 2001 wurde die Pressefreiheit [Noelle-Neumann, 1971:269-286] immer wieder in der öffentlichen Diskussion als scheinbarer Konflikt dargestellt. Die seit Herbst 2001 erlassenen Sicherheitsgesetze haben die Pressefreiheit deutlich eingeschränkt. Vorratsdatenspeicherung, Telekommunikationsüberwachung und verschärfte Akkreditierungsrichtlinien bei Großereignissen in Deutschland sind jüngste und prominente Beispiele. Mit dem umstrittenen BKA-Gesetz sind seit Anfang 2009 auch Online-Durchsuchungen von Computern möglich. Vor diesem Hintergrund hat der DJV-Verbandstag 2007 in Saarbrücken eine Erklärung verabschiedet, die ein Umdenken der Politiker fordert. Da die Presse einen wesentlichen Gestaltungsfaktor deutscher sozialen Realität und menschliches Wirklichkeitsverständnisses darstellt, steht zur Klärung an, welche ethischen Mediennormen in deutscher pluralen Demokratie - und darüber hinaus auch auf internationaler Ebene - einen Geltungsanspruch erheben können. In der Normfrage muss ein Grundkonsens erzielt werden, damit sichergestellt bleibt, dass die Medienwelt dem Wohl möglichst aller Menschen dient und nicht einseitig handfeste Interessen verfolgt. Folgende erstrebenswerte, realisierbare Werte kommen in Betracht: - Wertorientierung für Medienschaffende; - Aufgeschlossenheit, Mut, Zivilcourage, um Missstände mit ihrensozialschädlichen Folgen aufzuzeigen, ohne jedoch einem Aktionsjournalismus zu verfallen; - Redliches Bemühen um eine möglichst umfassende, wahrheitsgemäße Berichterstattung und eine gerecht bewertende, konstruktive Stellungnahme; - Toleranz gegenüber Minderheiten und Andersdenkenden; - Sensibilität und Engagement, ohne allerdings einen penetrantenBetroffenheitsjargong zu wählen oder einseitig Partei zu ergreifen; - Fairer Umgang der Medienproduzenten untereinander — Wertorientierung für Medienrezipienten; - Freiheit als Voraussetzung für ungestörte, eigenverantwortlicheMediennutzung; - Achtung und Schutz der Menschenwürde und Menschenrechte; - Medienkompetenz und fundierte Medienkritik; - Informationsanspruch und Wahrheitssuche; - Identitätsstärke und Informationsflut (durchdachter Standpunktund geistige Aufgeschlossenheit sowie Auseinandersetzung mit der täglichen Nachrichtenfülle). Eine enumerative Auflistung normativer Verbindlichkeiten kann es nicht geben wegen der ständigen Veränderungen im Medienbereich und der aktuellen Anlässe, in jedem Konfliktfall einen gerechten Ausgleich zwischen den verschiedenen Interessen anzustreben.
[1] Das Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Abschnitt „Grundrechte“, Artikel 5. [2] Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann , Winfried Schulz, (Hrsg.):Fischer Lexikon Publizistik. Frankfurt/Main: 1971, S. 210-216. [3] http://www.gerdgruendler.de/index.html, Erinnerung an Paul Sethe, in Der Spiegel, 5.5.1965, Frei ist,wer reich ist. [4] Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, Winfried Schulz (Hrsg.):Fischer Lexikon Publizistik. Frankfurt/Main: 1971, S. 269-286.
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth, Schulz, Winfried (Hrsg.): Fischer LexikoPublizistik. Frankfurt/Main: 1971. http://www.gerdgruendler.de/index.html, Erinnerung an Paul Sethe, in Der Spiegel, 5.5.1965, Frei ist,wer reich ist. ON TELEVISION DIALOGUE – NOTES ON REALITY TV GENRE Drd. Valeria MAFTEI, Universitatea „Ovidiusˮ, Constanţa Résumé: Le présent article met en évidence des caractéristiques du dialogue utilisé dans les programmes de téléréalité, à partir de l’analyse de deux transcriptions issues d’émissions de télévision roumaine. L’étude est focalise sur les critères comme l’attitude dialogique, la coopération pragmatique et la politesse verbale. On peut constater que les participants au dialogue ignorent délibérément les principes de coopération (notamment les maximes de pertinence et de manière) et échouent a suivre une attitude coopérant, en menaçant fréquemment le „moi socialˮ du co- locuteur. En termes de langage, le registre familier et les figures de style sont préférées pour atteindre l'effet perlocutoire. Mots clés: coopération pragmatique, comportement dialogique, politesse, impolitesse, langage The aim of this paper is to emphasize some features of the dialogue within reality TV type, based on a brief analysis of two fragments of dialogue. This work follows two major guidelines: pragmatic politeness and the use of language style. We chose to approach an analysis of the dialogue within reality programmes, due to the proliferation of this type on Romanian channels, in the last decade. The paradox of this genre of shows and, largely, the cause of its huge success, is the claim that the show „has the opportunity to put the viewer in the presence of displayed reality, perfectly similar to ontological reality - unmediatedˮ[Zeca-Buzura, 2007: 74], however, like any other media, the television is a tool which refigures reality. This simulation of reality is possible, first of all, due to the unchained behaviour and freed language of participants. The main reference works we used for this study are the works of Sacks about dialogue structure, Grice’s article on cooperation and Brown & Levinson face theory, and Lakoff's article on impoliteness. In terms of definition, we chose Bignell’s concise view on this type of programme ‘where the unscripted behaviour of „ordinary peopleˮ is the focus of interest’ [2004:330] in order to illustrate the realistic appearance of the show. Compared to other televisual genres, tele-reality is quite homogeneous, in terms of structure, being surpassed only by the entertainment shows. In this respect, we mention a journalistic mixture of species such as interviewing, discussion, portrait, investigation. Despite this heterogeneous aspect, the show has an established format, bringing in front of the cameras a relatively large number of participants (6-12) who acknowledge the presence of the cameras. Interaction with the public varies: from the indirect contribution of viewers (via phone or internet messaging) to direct intervention, via calls taken live, during the show. Daniela Zeca-Buzura [2007: 80] names 4 main types of reality TV shows which presently coexist on the major channels in Romania: tele-casting, tele-experiment, tele-seduction, tele-counseling. This paper aims to show some features of the dialogue from two different shows: Exchange of mothers (tele-experiment) and Daughter- in-law for my mother (tele-seduction). Particularities of the communication situation Reality programs take place both indoors (studio / house) and outdoors. They present facts, issues and real people in dramatic or humorous situations. Participants are filmed during all their activities. There is a pre-established regulation and participants must obey it. The evaluation of participants’ performance / skills is made by a jury and / or by the viewers. The shows have a serial character. Particularities of communication network The dialogue is either direct or mediated (especially via telephone). Communication networks vary in complexity depending on the purpose of communication, most communication situations are wheel type, type X or star-like. Although most dialogue units are not clearly organized in a pre-established form, there are sequences in the show where we recognize the use of the interview format (dialogue between the host and one of the competitors) or debate (the decisive moment in the competition). Balance of power Regarding the distribution of roles, it varies depending on the type of verbal interaction: controlled or free. Unstructured dialogical units, where none of the participants plays a pre-allocated role, are fewer (such is the case of free discussions in the „houseˮ in tele-seduction shows). Most of the structured dialogues have a leader (formal: the host) or informal (one of the participants) who usually has the legitimate power or the coercive one. Particularities of the dialogical behaviour The cooperative behaviour between competitors rarely manifests, usually among those who agree on a particular issue, their speech is typically consensual, with positive reinforcement and back-up behaviour. For example, in tele-seduction shows, most such discussions are carried out between 2 or 3 people, the association being made by common interests: between mothers, between girls/ boys but seldom between girls and mothers. In these free associations we notice the use of unstrained language, relaxed, at several times uncensored, despite the awareness of the cameras: „For me, the situation at present is so distorted and so confused. If I’dsay yes I would lie.ˮ „I know how it is.ˮ „Understand?ˮ „I know how it is, I know this stuffˮ. The particularity of the situation is the cooperative behaviour shown by the colocutor, as evidenced by positive reinforcement, forms of empathy („I know how it isˮ) and support of the social face of the other, by generalizing the situation described, by extending and prevaricating the referent of the situation („this stuffˮ). We recognize in the reality TV genre almost all typologies of communicative behaviour, especially heuristic and reinforcement or the autocentrat. For this purpose we have chosen to illustrate two fragments of dialogue, on different structures: the first is a mediated dialogue via telephone, the communication network used was the „wheelˮ and the second is a direct dialogue on the network type X. The major difference between the two cases is the dialogic behaviour: in the first case, all collocutors censor more or less their replies; in the second situation collocutors (children) are not inclined to cooperation dialogue. This difference in attitude derived from an unequal balance of power: in the first case, the leader of the conversation is the viewer who went live, which has the rewarding power (the participants in the studio know that depending on what they say the public will vote them or not). In the second case, the ‘mother’ has, in theory, coercive power, but it is obvious that the role of mother is not accepted by the children.
S1 Victoria: „Alexandra! If you were out, would you have made a couple with a boy like Victor? Alexandra: Yes! PAUSE of 4 SECONDS. Victoria: Yes?! Alexandra: Yes I would have because … As I said uhh I give people chances and [we have started on a path, it remains to be seen whether our way...the end of this competition will be a happy ending or not. Do you understand? Victoria: [hm Victoria: [aha Yes, I understand, but ... not really. But, anyhow, it’s your business. If you believe that you will make a good couple, it’s your business!ˮ S2 Victoria: „Edina, you're nice, Edina dear, but I would like to ask you: why, if you think so much about the house and the friend that you had, why did you come here? Edina: Because I want to start a new life. Victoria: Well then, leave your past; Dragos is a very good boy. He knows how to speak and when to speak [...] I like you Dragos! [...] But learn this Edina: no boy with the graces that you do, will ever accept them! You are too…are always complaining about everything...no...no one can please you. Dragos is a very good boy! Edina: Well then, I want to disappoint you because Dragos does accept them.ˮ S3 Victoria: „Ionut you are an educated boy, but you made a bad shot with Diana. It’s your business! If you think you’ll do a good job with her, I stay out of it, but you kind of missed that. Think about it! Ionut: time will solve everything. Victoria: Ionut Yes, you're right! Diana likes to talk tall ... [but Diana: [I’m the tallest! Victoria: [but where you’ve been, you didn’t show good manners Diana: Why are you saying this, lady? Victoria: because I don’t like the way you talk, more than this, I have nothing to say to you [...]ˮ
Andreea: Thank you very much. [...] Victoria: Catalin is a smart boy. Catalin: Thank you kindly!ˮ During her intervention, the viewer adopts the heuristic behaviour and positive reinforcement (2, 3,4) but negative reinforcement as well (1,2,3,4). Reactions of those affected differ: there are some competitors who do not attack locutor’s positive face, even if they themselves were attacked; for example, the sequence 1, the question addressed to Alexandra doubted her choice, implying that she had made a bad choice, constrained by the circumstances. Alexandra’s answer vexes the viewer who is silenced, and a minimum verbalization, her interjections outlining the implication of distrust, scepticism, being as Magda Manu writes [2003: 91], an expression of offensive shock augmentation. In sequences 2 and 3 are illustrated collocutors’ different reactions, both defending their positive face. Edina uses irony, one of the forms of impoliteness and Diana uses expressions of mobilization by question - in response to the act of discourtesy committed by Victoria (offense). Victoria’s answer is unsatisfactory in terms of quantity maxim, involving deliberate offense, ignoring the desire of the other (an act of positive impoliteness): „more than this, I have nothing to say to you.ˮ Last sequence illustrates the positive reinforcement and, in the same time, expresses augmentation of polite opinion (Leech’s generosity maxim). As a general observation, it is noticed that all participants from the studio use deference forms - positive politeness - despite locutor’s negative politeness and in spite of the fact she is impolite and abuses of forms of direct mobilization or imperatives. The explanation for their tolerance towards viewer’s behaviour relies on the inequity of role power: the public viewer can either reward or punish the competitors. For comparison, we choose a different type of reality TV programme – the tele-experiment: Exchange of mothers. Its selection criteria were the large number of viewers and a different format from the previous show. The number of participants is relatively small (3-4 in each family), therefore the structure of the dialogue is less complex than in reality show. In general, communication network used by participants in the dialogue is X or simple (binary) when there are only two participants. On the TV show Exchange of mothers, the dialogue is the main way to learn / find out more about the participants (family of exchange), thus heuristic behaviour prevails, especially for „mothersˮ. Unlike in the reality show Daughter in law for my mother, the relationship between participants to dialogue is based on equal powers, none of the participants being given an advantage. However, sometimes the „motherˮ is spared, the other members showing obedience due to the fact that she is a guest, who is going to stay only a week in their house. From this point of view, there are two types of dialogue: a. the dialogue in which the collocutors are adults respects to a greater extent the communication principles and one can notice that there is an effort from the participants (usually between „motherˮ and father from the host family) to reach a consensus. b. the dialogue between an adult and a child, when, often, the communication fails. A communication situation that illustrates a different reaction of the child in contrast with the adult’s reaction is when the exchange mother tries to impose new rules in the house, in which case, theoretically, she has the coercive power: Communication context Date and place: Militaru’s house, village of Găujani, 30/10/2011 Participants: Exchange mother, Elena from Zalau, girls of the Militaru family: Marinela (18), Alice (12 years) and their father, Viorel (34). Cause of the dialogue: The rule of the show states that starting with the fourth day of her stay in the new family, the exchange mother has to impose her regulation. The purpose of dialogue: Elena, the „motherˮ, wants to make some changes in the host family, to optimize the relationship between family members and appropriate the education of the girls. Mother: Marinela and Alice have to clean up together Marinela: I can’t do it with her! She makes it faster, I make it slower… Mother: If I said that together, we do toGETHER! From NOW ON, Marinela No smoking in the room and no vulgar talking and no answering back Marinela: I don’t think so! Her father: That I will speak with her! Mother: If repeated, she’ll be [punished. Marinela: [PFU Mother: Because girls are plumper, [must do exercise and sport at least once a day! Alexia: [No! that I won’t respect, I don’t want to! Marinela: [Uh, ((laughs)) Alexia: [I do it in school, with the teacher! Mother: we shall do, we shall do sports. The father must always intervene when girls are naughty or refuse to do something. Father: Yes. ((Sigh)) Mother: So, now, what do you think of the new rules? Alexia: I don’t like it! Mother: what you don’t like? Alexia: the regulation. Father: WHEN I was telling YOU that no one is like your mother! You miss your mother now, isn’t it? She never said anything, never argued! Now you’ll see too how hard it is! ((The girls laugh and gesture)) The communication situation presented above illustrates the dialogue built on a network of type X, where „motherˮ holds the privileged position trying to impose a new regulation. But the father's intervention is needed, because girls do not cooperate. Given the context, the mother makes use of directives, formulating explicit requests. Responses are almost entirely indirect illocutionary acts involving girls refusing to grant requests. In the dialogue structure we can notice the adjacent pair of request-denial, in the exchange of words between mother and daughters, but the negative response of the girls is corrected each time by father's intervention. It is noticed that the father does not verbally punish girls’ impoliteness, but his statements build some implications: such as a promise (commissure act) when he says: „That's what I'll talk to herˮ or when he gives an affirmative answer to mother's request to interfere when girls do not listen. Father's final intervention shows, in indirect manner, his disapproval to the new regulation, by use of multiple negation: „She never said anything, never arguedˮ his comment implies he is unpleased with mother’s observations. We can say that this exchange of dialogue, although it was completed, does not meet the criterion of perlocutionary efficiency, since none of the family members does react as the „motherˮ expected. Referring to both passages quoted, what we remark is both unintentional and intentional violation of the principle of cooperation and specific maxims of Grice [1975]. For example, saying that „Andreea is at the top of the treeˮ, Victoria violates the manner maxim because she relies on the dialogic cooperation principle that the speakers share a common background of knowledge (in this case, the language code). In addition, even if she violates the manner maxim, and, implicitly the quantity maxim, by choosing this expression Victoria reaches linguistic economy and, in the same time, displays a polite behaviour according to Leech's rules, showing generosity in appreciation. Another example of violation of the maxims of cooperation but keeping the polite conduct provides Ionut: „Time will solve everything.ˮ His answer violates the relevance and quantity maxims, but diminishes the impoliteness and the offensive shock, by choosing an evasive reply implying a favourable solution to both parties. The same situation is found in Marinela’s reply: „I don’t think so!,ˮ the offensive shock is diminished by violation of relevance and quantity maxim. On the other hand, we can notice some situations of unintentional violations of the maxims due to hesitation and reiterations: „You are too…are always complaining about everything ... no ... no one can please youˮ.(Victoria to Edina – Sequence 2) To conclude, broadcast dialogue shows no pragmatic behaviour in accordance to the cooperation principles. Moreover, the dialogue within reality programs is much similar to mundane conversation, since the participants to the situation of communication usually display a natural behaviour, making use of colloquial style rather than the formal language. The aim is to gain viewers’ trust and you can only do it by acting and talking real or realistically. Television is, after all, a mirror of the real world and its broadcasts are nothing more than pure simulations, as close to the original as they can be.
[1] Daniela Zeca-Buzura, Totul la vedere: Televiziunea după Big Brother. Iaşi, Polirom, 2007, p. 74. [2] Jonathan Bignell, An Introduction to Television, Routledge, London, 2004. p. 330. [3] Daniela Zeca-Buzura, op.cit., p. 74. [4] Magda Manu, Expresii ale mobilizării si demobilizării în dialogul social românesc, Bucureşti, OscarPress, 2003, p. 91. [5] H.P. Grice, Logic and Conversation, 1975. Yüklə 0,49 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|