ABSTRACT It is widely accepted that emotional expressions can be rich communicative devices. We can learn much from the tears of a grieving friend, the smiles of an affable stranger, or the slamming of a door by a disgruntled lover. So far, a systematic analysis of what can be communicated by emotional expressions of different kinds and of exactly how such communication takes place has been missing. The aim of this article is to introduce a new framework for the study of emotional expressions that I call the theory of affective pragmatics (TAP). As linguistic pragmatics focuses on what utterances mean in a context, affective pragmatics focuses on what emotional expressions mean in a context. TAP develops and connects two principal insights. The first is the insight that emotional expressions do much more than simply expressing emotions. As proponents of the Behavioral Ecology View of facial movements have long emphasized, bodily displays are sophisticated social tools that can communicate the signaler's intentions and requests. Proponents of the Basic Emotion View of emotional expressions have acknowledged this fact, but they have failed to emphasize its importance, in part because they have been in the grip of a mistaken theory of emotional expressions as involuntary readouts of emotions. The second insight that TAP aims to articulate and apply to emotional expressions is that it is possible to engage in analogs of speech acts without using language at all. I argue that there are important and so far largely unexplored similarities between what we can “do” with words and what we can “do” with emotional expressions. In particular, the core tenet of TAP is that emotional expressions are a means not only of expressing what's inside but also of directing other people's behavior, of representing what the world is like and of committing to future courses of action. Because these are some of the main things we can do with language, the take home message of my analysis is that, from a communicative point of view, much of what we can do with language we can also do with non-verbal emotional expressions. I conclude by exploring some reasons why, despite the analogies I have highlighted, emotional expressions are much less powerful communicative tools than speech acts.

中文翻译：

---

如何用情感表达做事：情感语用学理论

摘要 人们普遍认为，情感表达可以是丰富的交流工具。我们可以从一个悲伤的朋友的眼泪、一个和蔼可亲的陌生人的微笑、或者一个心怀不满的情人砰的一声关上门，学到很多东西。到目前为止，还缺少对不同类型的情感表达可以传达什么以及这种沟通究竟是如何发生的进行系统分析。这篇文章的目的是介绍一个研究情感表达的新框架，我称之为情感语用学（TAP）理论。正如语言语用学侧重于话语在上下文中的含义一样，情感语用学侧重于情感表达在上下文中的含义。TAP 开发并连接了两个主要见解。第一个是洞察力，情感表达不仅仅是表达情感。正如面部运动行为生态学观点的支持者长期以来所强调的那样，身体展示是复杂的社交工具，可以传达信号者的意图和要求。情绪表达基本情绪观的支持者已经承认了这一事实，但他们没有强调其重要性，部分原因是他们陷入了一种错误的情绪表达理论中，即情绪的无意识读出。TAP 旨在阐明并应用于情感表达的第二个见解是，完全不使用语言就可以进行言语行为的模拟。我认为，在我们可以用语言“做”的事情和我们可以用情感表达“做”的事情之间，存在着重要的、迄今为止大部分尚未探索的相似之处。特别是，TAP 的核心原则是，情感表达不仅是表达内心的一种手段，也是指导他人行为、表现世界的样子和致力于未来行动的一种手段。因为这些是我们可以用语言做的一些主要事情，所以我的分析要带回家的信息是，从交际的角度来看，我们可以用语言做的大部分事情我们也可以用非语言的情感表达来做。我最后探讨了一些原因，为什么尽管我强调了类比，但情感表达是远不如言语行为强大的交流工具。因为这些是我们可以用语言做的一些主要事情，所以我的分析要带回家的信息是，从交际的角度来看，我们可以用语言做的大部分事情我们也可以用非语言的情感表达来做。我最后探讨了一些原因，为什么尽管我强调了类比，但情感表达是远不如言语行为强大的交流工具。因为这些是我们可以用语言做的一些主要事情，所以我的分析要带回家的信息是，从交际的角度来看，我们可以用语言做的大部分事情我们也可以用非语言的情感表达来做。我最后探讨了一些原因，为什么尽管我强调了类比，但情感表达是远不如言语行为强大的交流工具。