Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Pragmatics
Vol. 20:1 (2019) ► pp.132–156

Doing Power Threatening Acts (PTAs) in ancient China

An empirical study of Chinese jian discourse

 | Nanjing University
 | Nanjing University
This study examines an unexplored type of speech act named jian, which took place uniquely in the context of ancient China. Taking it as a Power Threatening Act rather than a commonly studied Face Threatening Act, this study examined remonstrators’ strategic modulation of their jian, and the factors that might have influenced the choice of modulation strategies. The data come from Zizhi Tongjian. The major findings are as follows: first, the speech act of jian contained both ritualised and non-ritualised aspects; second, remonstrators would adopt different modulation strategies when performing jian, which can be generally divided into three modulation orientations of redress, aggravation, and a combination of redress and aggravation, with different degrees of rituality; third, the choices of modulation strategies reflected the game playing of the requirements of affiliational propriety and illocutionary effect within the jian act.
Keywords: court context, jian , modulation, power threatening act, ritual, speech act
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Definition of jian
      • 2.1.1A social cultural account of the jian phenomenon in ancient China
      • 2.1.2Previous research on jian in neighbouring disciplines
    • 2.2Previous research on historical Chinese politeness
  • 3. Jian as a Power Threatening Act
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Research questions
    • 4.2Data collection
    • 4.3Data analysis
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Characteristics of the speech act of jian
    • 5.2Modulation orientations and strategies of jian used in the data
    • 5.3Possible rationale behind remonstrators’ choices of modulation strategies
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.17002.she
References (64)
References
Archer, Dawn and Jonathan Culpeper. 2011. “Identifying Key Sociophilological Usage in Plays and Trial Proceedings (1640–1760): An Empirical Approach via Corpus Annotation”. In Jonathan Culpeper (ed.), Historical Sociopragmatics, 109–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bax, Marcel. 2010. “Epistolary Presentation Rituals Face-work, Politeness and Ritual Display in Early Modern Dutch Letter-Writing”. In Jonathan Culpeper and Dániel Kádár (eds), Historical (im)Politeness, 37–85. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chao, Zhongchen [晁中辰]. 2010. “中国古代谏议思想与谏议制度刍议” [“A Modest Proposal on the Theory and System of Ancient Chinese Remonstration”]. Dongyue Tribune (9): 63–67.Google Scholar
Chao, Zhongchen (ed.) [晁中辰等（编）]. 2015. 中国谏议制度史 [The History of Ancient Chinese Remonstration System]. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Google Scholar
Chen, Qian. [陈谦]. 2008. “从‘协调关系’的传播功能看中国古代谏议” [“Ancient Chinese Remonstration Revisited from the Perspective of the Communicative Function of ‘Coordinating Relation’”]. Guangxi Social Sciences 71: 99–103.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3): 349–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Elena Semino. 2000. “Constructing Witches and Spells: Speech Acts and Activity Types in Early Modern England”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (1): 97–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeCapua, Andrea and Joan Findlay Dunham. 2007. “The Pragmatics of Advice Giving: Cross-Cultural Perspectives”. Intercultural Pragmatics 4 (3): 319–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 1992. The Political System of Empires. Guiyang: Guizhou People’s Publishing House.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2009. “Relationship Thinking and Human Pragmatics”. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (1): 60–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flor, Alicia M. 2005. “A Theoretical Review of the Speech Act of Suggesting: Towards a Taxonomy for Its Use in FLT”. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 181: 167–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fu, Shaoliang. [傅绍良]. 2006. “唐代谏诤风气与文学家谏官的命运” [“Remonstration Atmosphere and the Fate of Literati as Remonstrators in the Tang Dynasty”]. The Journal of Humanities 51: 95–101.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company.Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise. 2001. “Expressing Criticism and Evaluation During Three Centuries”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (1): 115–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2008. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. (Third edition revised by Christian M. I. M. Mathiessen.) Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press and Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Han, Weizhi. [韩维志]. 2005. “儒家对强谏的抑扬与强谏者形象的形成” [“Confucian Modulation of Forced Admonishment and the Formation of the Images of Admonishers”]. Seeking Truth 51: 113–18.Google Scholar
He, Ziran and Wei Ren. 2016. “Current Address Behaviour in China”. East Asian Pragmatics 1 (2): 163–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, Eli. 1994. “Appropriateness of Advice as L2 Solidarity Strategy”. RELCJournal 251: 71–93.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Appropriateness of Advice: DCT and Multiple Choice Data”. Applied Linguistics 18 (1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ide, Sachiko. 1989. “Formal Forms and Discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness”. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 8 (2–3): 223–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1994. “The Feasibility of Historical Pragmatics”. Journal of Pragmatics 22 (5): 533–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Irma Taavitsainen. 2000. “Diachronic Speech Act Analysis: Insults from Flyting to Flaming”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (1): 67–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Daniel Z. 2007. “On Historical Chinese Apology and Its Strategic Application”. Journal of Politeness Research Language, Behaviour, Culture 3 (1): 125–50.Google Scholar
2010. “Exploring the Historical Chinese Polite Denigration/Elevation Phenomenon”. In Jonathan Culpeper and Daniel Z. Kádár (eds), Historical (im)Politeness, 117–45. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012. “Historical Chinese Politeness and Rhetoric. A Case Study of Epistolary Refusals”. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 81: 93–110.Google Scholar
2013. Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Daniel Z. and Yuling Pan. 2011a. “Politeness in China”. In Daniel. Z. Kádár and Sara Mills (eds), Politeness in East Asia, 125–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Daniel and Yuling Pan. 2011b. Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
King, Jeremy. 2010. “Please from the New World: The Structure of Directive Head Acts in Colonial Spanish Familiar Letters”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11 (2): 250–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 2000. “Explicit Performatives in Old English: A Corpus-based Study of Directives”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (2): 301–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kong, Fanmin. [孔繁敏]. 1994. “论中国古代谏诤的几个问题” [“Discussion on Ancient China Remonstration”]. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 51: 84–89.Google Scholar
Kwarciński, Wojciech. 2006. “A Diachronic Speech Act Analysis of Sworn Testimonies in Polish Criminal Trials”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7 (2): 293–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Li, Eden Sum-hung. 2010. “Making Suggestions: A Contrastive Study of Young Hong Kong and Australian Students”. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (3): 598–616. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Qing. [李青]. 2014. “中国古代言谏制度初探” [“A Primary Probe into Ancient Chinese Remonstration System”]. Journal of China National School of Administration (41): 70–74.Google Scholar
Mao, Zhixiang and Jiyong Hou. [冒志祥、侯吉永]. 2007. “谈古代进谏公文的说服修辞” [“On Persuasive Rhetorics Used in Ancient Remonstration Documents”]. Rhetoric Study 61: 76–78.Google Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 2010. “Directive Speech Acts: A Cross-Generic Diachronic Study”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11 (2): 219–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pan, Yuling and Daniel Z. Kádár. 2011. “Historical vs. Contemporary Chinese Linguistic Politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (6): 1525–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papi, Marcella B. 2000. “Is a Diachronic Speech Act Theory Possible?” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (1): 57–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peng, Guoyue. 1999. “Chūgokugo ni keigo ga sukunai no ha naze? (What is the reason for the small number of honorific forms in Chinese?)”. Gengo 281: 60–63.Google Scholar
. 2000. Kindai Chūgokugo no keigo shisutemu [‘The Polite Language System of Pre-modern Chinese’]. Tokyo: Hakuteisha.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2004. “‘I Wol Sterve’: Negotiating the Issue of a Lady’s Consent in Chaucer’s Poetry”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5 (1): 137–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte. 1976. “Für eine historische Analyse von Sprechakten” [“For a Historical Analysis of Speech Acts”]. In Heinrich Weber and Harald Weydt (eds), Sprachtheorie und Pragmatik [Language Theory and Pragmatics], 113–19. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. Tradition des Sprechens: Elemente einer pragmatischen Sprachgeschichtsschreibung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Schrott, Angela. 2000. “Quí los podrié contar? Interrogative Acts in the Cantar de mio Cid: Some Examples from Old Spanish on Asking Questions”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (2): 263–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheng, Hong. [盛洪]. 2015. “宪政结构中的谏议制度及其现代意义” [“The Remonstration System in the Constitutional Structure and its Modern Implication”]. Tian Fu Xin Lun (31): 41–52.Google Scholar
Shi, Wei. [史伟]. 2012. “言谏政风与贞观谏议制度之发展” [“The Political Climate of the Remonstrance and the Development of the Remonstrance System in the Zhenguan Period”]. Journal of Henan Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) (31): 131–35.Google Scholar
Sima, Guang. et al. (eds). [司马光等（编）]. 2011. Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Available online at: [URL]
Skewis, Malcolm. 2003. “Mitigated Directness in Honglou Meng: Directive Speech Acts and Politeness in Eighteenth Century Chinese”. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2): 161–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Andreas H. Jucker. 2010. “Trends and Developments in Historical Pragmatics”. In Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics, 3–30. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wang, Changhua and Pengge Zhao. [王长华、赵棚鸽]. 2010. “《毛诗》美、刺与唐代谏诤精神” [“Chanting and Irony in Mao’s Annotations of Book of Songs and Persuasion and Remonstration in Tang”]. Journal of Hebei Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) (61): 36–42.Google Scholar
Wang, Jin. [王谨]. 2008. “中国上古谏政制度” [“The System of Remonstrative Politics in Ancient China”]. Journal of Shanxi University (Philosophy and Social Science) (41): 44–48.Google Scholar
Wang, Xueyu and Xinren Chen. 2013. “Studies on Historical Pragmatics Abroad”. Modern Foreign Languages 36 (3): 308–14+331.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Jing. [吴兢]. 2011. Zhen Guan Zheng Yao. Changsha: Yeulu Press.Google Scholar
Xiao, Zhanpeng and Wei Liu. [肖占鹏、刘伟]. 2008. “试议谏诤精神对唐代文学写实倾向的影响” [“The Influence of Remonstrant Spirit on Literature in the Tang Dynasty”]. Nankai Journal (Philosophy, Literature and Social Science Edition) 61: 99–104.Google Scholar
Zeng, Zhenyu. [曾振宇]. 2007. “孟子孝论对孔子思想的发展与偏离 – 从‘以正致谏’到 ‘父子不责善’” [“Inheritance and Departure: Mencius’s Idea on Confucius’ Filial Thoughts – From ‘Exhortation between Father and Children’ to ‘Nonexhortation between Father and Children’”]. Journal of Historical Science 111: 29–36.Google Scholar
Zha, Qinglan. and Qingping Zha. [查清兰、查清平]. 2009. “婉转曲折辞简意深 –《左传》谏说辞令的解读” [“Implicit yet Profound – an Interpretation of the Remonstration Language in Zuo Zhuan ”]. Masterpieces Review 91: 10–12.Google Scholar
Zhang, Gui. [张贵]. 2015. “宋仁宗朝谏官活动与怪奇文风研究” [“Study on Remonstration of Officials during the Reign of Song Renzong and Eccentric Style”]. Seeking Truth (21): 128–34.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yushu and Tingjing Chen (eds) [张玉书、陈廷敬等（编）]. 2004. Kangxi Dictionary. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Available online at: [URL]
Zhou, Yu and Shuiyuan Huang [周妤、黄水源]. 2010. “清人论纳谏与谏铮之道” [“The Qing Dynasty People’s Discussions about the Methods of Accepting Opinions and Advising”]. Journal of Hunan University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition) 41: 57–60.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Wu, Yujun
2024. Research on Text Value and Linguistic Characteristics in Ancient Literature Based on Text Mining Technology. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1 DOI logo
Zhang, Haili
2024. An Inquiry into the Factors Influencing the Role of Marxist Chineseization on the Discourse System of Chinese-Style Modernization. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1 DOI logo
Kuo, Yueh Hsin
2022. From deontic modality to conditionality. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 23:1 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Kádár, Dániel Z., Juliane House, Fengguang Liu & Yulong Song
2021. Admonishing. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 31:2 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Ridealgh, Kim & L. Unceta Gómez
2020. Potestas and the language of power: Conceptualising an approach to Power and Discernment politeness in ancient languages. Journal of Pragmatics 170 ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.