Zhang Yimin

（School of Foreign Languages Anhui Agriculture University，Hefei Anhui 230036）

Ⅰ.Zen buddhism，its linguistic philosophy and Zen Koans

1.A brief history about Zen Buddhism

Buddhism originated from India，and was introduce d to China through the Western Regions in the Han Dynasty.In the process of cillision and compromise，Buddhism has more and more Chinese elements，and has been reconstructed to blend into Chinese culture，creating one of the most typical Chinese Bud-dhism schools— Zen Buddhism，which is an important part of Chinese culture.Zen Buddhism lays emphasis on“human beings”，which is quite different from the original doctrin of laying emphasis on“Buddha”by Indian Buddhism.〔1〕

2.Zen’s linguistic philosophy and koans

Generations of Zen masters guide learners to know Zen Dharma by studying koans，and broaden their insight into the Buddhist teachings.The word koan originally meant the documentation of decided legal cases.Used in Zen Buddhism，it refers to the records of what the Zen masters said or did（similar to a“public case”or“teacher’s book”）.It is made the role of judging or enlightening someone who searches the way of Buddhism.Many koans are the essence of Zen Buddhism.〔2〕

Zen takes a dialectical attitude towards language.On the one hand，it claims that language is useless and meaningless in helping disciples enlightened.But，on the other hand，language is a necessary way of imparting its tenets.This situation is consistent with the doctrines of Prajna（般若）that emphasizes the nothingness of everything on the one hand，but also acknowledges its extricating function.The rational pursuit of“not to establish language”has to accept the situation of“not being dependent of scriptures”（不離文字）.Thus，voluminous sutras of Buddhism are collected by its followers and these sutras form the classical Tripitaka （三藏），including the scriptures，the commandments，and the treatises.However，we should bear in mind that the language of Zen is always illogical，and takes a beat-around-the-bush way when teaching.

Zen’s language attempts to deconstruct Buddhist classics，overthrow the orthodox Buddhist authority，and disdain the sacred.To the late Tang Dynasty，there appeared a tendency of rebelling against orthodox teachings，scolding the Buddha and the patriarchs.In this speech strategy，there is a prevailing ideological trend of anti-culture and non-culture.For example，

我先祖見處即不然，這里無祖無佛，達(dá)磨是老臊胡，釋迦老子是干屎橛，文殊、普賢是擔(dān)屎漢。（《五燈會元》卷七《德山宣鑒禪師》）

Deshan Xuanjian always let his students get rid of persistence by staff and shout，even abusing the Buddhas and the patriarchs.Deshan’s abusing Buddha is by no means of insulting the Buddhas and the patriarchs.It is in accordance with the thought of“no sage in enlightened ones”suggested by Bodhidharma when he arrived in China.What Master Deshan did was meant to tell the followers not to be the slaves of icons.Becoming a Buddha could come only through self-cultivating，self-insight and self-testifying，but not the outside assistance.〔3〕

Zen flaunts its characteristic of being easy to understand for the populace.Zen’s language faces the ordinary populace and is close to their lives.To deconstruct Buddhist classics and overthrow the orthodox Buddhist authority is to construct its own way of speech that appeals to the populace.Master Baizhang Huaihai（百丈懷海）regulated some monastic commandments（百丈清規(guī)）to ask all the followers to cultivate fields to support themselves.Thus，there appeared such peasantry things as donkey，donkey dung，and maggot in Zen koans.

Zen’s language is unreserved as much as it can.Sometimes，it is bold and goes beyond what is proper.Zen’s language nearly has no restriction on taboo.For example，the bald-headed monks may curse other bare-headed persons as“老禿奴”（old baldicoot）.It is its revolutionary speech strategy that makes Zen’s masters dare to break through the taboos of language，and use rough and foul words that have a relation with Zen’s way of existence and ideological views.

Ⅱ.Indirect speech act and meaning inference

Indirectness is a universal phenomenon in all natural languages.Indirectness occurs when there is a mismatch between the expressed meaning and the implied meaning.〔4〕Speakers do not always show their intentions bluntly while communicating，so the hearer must get his pragmatic inference involved to derive the real indirect meaning.

Searle is the first one who put forward indirect speech act theory.Searle’s Indirect Speech Acts（1975）emphasizes that the basic unit of human communication is not linguistic expressions，but rather the performance of certain kinds of illocutionary acts，such as making statements，asking questions，giving directions，apologizing，and thanking.Searle defined indirect speech acts as“cases in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another”.The majority of the acts in everyday conversation and some written works are indirect.〔5〕Searle classifies indirect speech acts into two types：conventional indirect speech acts and non-conventional indirect speech acts.The former refers to those illocutionary acts which are customarily and standard used to make indirect speech acts.The latter，non-conventional indirect speech acts，refers to those speech acts，which depend much more on the mutually shared background information and the context in which the utterance is being produced.To be more specific，an account of such act will require such things as：a theory of speech acts，certain general principles of cooperative conversation，mutually shared factual background information of the speaker and the hearer，together with an ability on the hearer to make inferences.That is，a hearer must have some inferential strategy to understand the implied meaning.

Why can we relate pragmatics to Zen koan？These two agree with one another in at least two aspects.For one thing，Zen koans are rich in indirect speech acts，and thus conversational implicature.One of the cores of Pragmatics is to describe and interpret how to communicate through conversational implicature.〔6〕But the language surface of most Zen koans is semantically illogical，and is out of the reach of common language conventions.So the commonlyused inference of implicature，which relies on the logical and explainable dis-course and context，is nearly useless in analyzing Zen koans.For another thing，the language used in Zen koans is intentionally chosen when Zen masters are guiding learners.Identically，the making of linguistic choice is just what pragmatics is concerned about.Therefore，the analysis of Zen koans by using the theory of indirect speech acts is of theoretical significance.

Ⅲ.Indirect speech act in Zen Koans and its inference

Enlightenment is the objective of Zen practice，but when the question“what is enlightenment”is asked，the Zen tradition offers no systematic or even straightforward answer.Throughout classical Zen literature，whenever disciples ask about the definition of enlightenment，masters always give inexplicable answers such as“clouds hang in the sky and water sits in the jar”，or“a cypress tree in the garden”.These questions demand a deeper exploration of the role of language in the experience of enlightenment，which seems to indicate a paradox.On the one hand，enlightenment is at the center of the discourse of Zen；on the other hand，it is against the spirit of Zen to define or establish an intellectual scheme of enlightenment.So，lots of indirect speech acts are used in Zen koans.

1.Intentional indirectness used in Zen koans

The intentional indirectness may be embodied in the following aspects：illogical speeches；non-verbal methods，such as behaviors and acts；and extreme acts，such as beating，shouting.

Wilson discussed in the Relevance Theory that the literal relevance is not a necessary condition，but the relevance of utterance meaning is important.〔7〕Zen masters’answer has no logical relation with the disciples’question.And，it is obvious that the master INTENTIONALLY did it.In Zen’s literature，there are many such illogical examples.If one judges these koans by the literal meaning，he will certainly get confused.The irrelevant answer is used to enlighten the monk that his question itself is not appropriate.What he should do is to be introspective，to find his true nature.

If we make a survey of Zen koan and Yulu，we’ll find that some pragmatic principles are nearly of little use in interpreting them.For example，among the Zen koans，there are many examples show the violation of Politeness Principle（PP），F(xiàn)ace-saving Principle，etc.，by scolding or even cursing Buddhas and patriarches.The following example of the famous “Master Yunmen’s oneword answer”（云門一字關(guān)）violates the Quantity，Quality，Relation and Manner Principles of the CP，and also the Relevance theory the at the same time.

問：“如何是禪？”師（云門文偃）云：“是。”進(jìn)云：“如何是道？”師云：“得?！眴枺骸案改覆宦牪坏贸黾?，如何得出家？”師云：“淺?！边M(jìn)云：“學(xué)人不會?！睅熢疲骸吧??！薄对崎T廣錄》

Master Yunmen’s answers are completely IRRELEVANT to his disciple’s questions.The one-word answers cannot form a concept that the formal logic requires.Thus we cannot make judgments about them and infer their meanings.“Conversation is basically egoistic；some degree of cooperation is only aprice interlocutors have to pay”.〔8〕According to Laurence Horn’s Q-principle and R-principle，the speaker who employs the R-principle uses the minimal form，so that the hearer is entitled to infer that the speaker means more than he says.This example is a case in point.These seemingly illogical answers bear deep intention beyond the literal meaning.There is no way of forming ajudgment about it.His disciples have to think it over that there must be finer and profound points involved in the answers.

According to Thomas，in intentional indirectness，the speakers are behaving in a rational manner.Given the universality of indirectness，they may obtain some social or communicative advantage through employing indirectness，or avoid some negative consequence by employing indirectness，such as，avoid hurting someone else or appearing “pushy”or to show how clever they are，etc.Indirectness is costly and risky.It is“costly”in the sense that an indirect utterance takes longer for the speaker to produce and longer for the hearer to process.It is“risky”in the sense that the hearer may not understand what the speaker is getting at.Whatever the underlying motivation for using indirectness，the use of indirectness itself is perfectly rational，if it enables the speaker to achieve his or her goal or to avoid unpleasantness.〔9〕What Thomas said is just the case of Zen koans.Zen Masters created these koans intentionally to break down the learners’rigid indulgence in rational thoughts and expressions，because language is just a tool for learners to see their own nature and get enlightened.If we are rigidly addicted to the logical language，we cannot master the Buddha-nature.So，Zen koans are still inferable—the rational intention is in the disguise of irrational words.

2.Inference of Zen koans

The dialogues between the masters and the disciples always seem difficult to understand.Apart from the reasons of temporal or regional dialects and obscure conversational contexts，the root cause of the difficulty lies in the special strategies in teaching Buddhist dharma.The special strategies are out of their special ideological intention，which is at the macro-pragmatic level.Koans emphasize the non-conceptional insight that the Buddhist teachings are pointing to.Koans can be used to provoke“great doubt”，and test a student’s progress in Zen practice.While there is no unique answer to a koan，practitioners are expected to demonstrate their understanding of Zen through their responses.The teacher may approve or disapprove of the answer and guide the student in the right direction.

Zen master will show the disciples a koan，and use the method of spiritual force to let them think bitterly.We already know that the expressions are usu-ally irrational，so the learners will never find a rational answer to the question.In a normal conversation，the hearer does not have to go through any conscious process of inference to derive the conclusion that such utterance as“Can you pass the salt？”is a request to pass the salt.But if a case arises that is not easily classified（that is，we don’t understand the intentions involved），it catches our attention，and we may spend more effort to resolve the matter.In general，if one speaks unidiomatically，hearers assume that there must be a special reason for it.Thus，the learners will probably be deeply confused about the rational way to get an answer.After endless turns of“contextual assumption→trial interpretation→failure”，various inferential assumptions of koan will be suspended，and the learners finally have to give up the rational way.The rational inference comes to a dead-end now.Finally，the learner will fall into a state of meditation，that is，“Thoughtlessness”（無念），“Formlessness”（無相），and“Non-attachment”（無住）.

Chen Jian thinks that reading Zen koans is like a criminal brought to trial.All his excuses，disguises will be given up if he is given torture to coerce confessions.Similarly，under spiritual force，the Zen-practioners will give up the persistence on rational language，and discover his own nature.〔10〕

Ⅳ.Theoretical significance of Zen Koan

The language use of Zen koans broadens the pragmatic perspective.

First，the semantically illogical language surface can convey a rational intention，which aims to break down the barrier of logical language.During the language competition for a supremacy in interpreting Zen，a new and peculiar speech genre sprang up，that is，Jifeng（機(jī)鋒），which is the product of constructing Zen’s own speech genre by deconstructing the orthodox scriptures of traditional Buddhism.The commonest way of expressing Jifeng is giving an irrelevant answer to a question，answering in a contradictory way and repeating a sentence or other meaningless and illogical methods.The use of Jifeng mainly aims to break down the disciples’superstition and fancy towards logical words and expressions.The masters magnify the absurdity of language to its highest point deliberately，and try to free their followers from the hindrances caused by language and lead them into a state of pre-language and non-thinking to experience the intuitiveness in achieving enlightenment.

Second，the intention of the indirect speech acts of koan is different from that of daily language.In daily communication，indirectness is primarily used to reduce the negative effects caused by impolite or imposing utterances.But，quite differently，in koans，indirectness is primarily used to make learners shocked，confused，and finally enlightened.

Third，non-verbal communication has a great significance in Zen koans.Generally，as a sub-category，non-verbal communication is just used to aid verbal communication，but it is widely used in koans.Acts such as beating，shouting，wrenching，or other non-verbal actions are used to break down the disciples’logical thought.Zen Master Linji Yixuan often hits or shouts to his students with a staff to enlighten them.This way of teaching is called“the staff and shout of Linji”（臨濟(jì)棒喝）.According to Morgan，the notion “conversational implicature”can be naturally extended to non-linguistic acts.〔11〕So，those strange acts can also have a“conversational implicature”.

Ⅴ.Conclusion

The language of Zen is always illogical，and takes a beat-around-thebush way when teaching.So，no logical meaning will be inferred from the seemingly irrational expressions，but we may still infer Zen’s rationality in the disguise of linguistic irrationality.Zen Masters created these koans rationally to break down the learners’rigid indulgence in rational thoughts and expressions，because language is just a tool for learners to see their own nature，get enlightened and attain Buddha-nature.

〔1〕李霞：《從關(guān)注“人生”到彰顯“人文”——中國佛教的現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)型》，《學(xué)術(shù)界》2006年第2期，第165-171頁。

〔2〕〔3〕劉濤：《中國禪：漢英對照》，合肥：黃山書社，2013年。

〔4〕〔9〕J.Thomas，Pragmatics and Indirectness，《語用學(xué)文獻(xiàn)選讀=Selected Readings for Pragmatics》，何兆熊主編，上海：上海外語教育出版社，2003年，第343-361頁。

〔5〕Searle，J.R.，Indirect Speech Acts，In Cole and Morgan （eds.）New York：Academic Press，1975.

〔6〕胡作友、張小曼：《意圖性與語用翻譯》，《學(xué)術(shù)界》2005年第3期，第203-208頁。

〔7〕〔8〕D.Wilson，Relevance and Understanding，《語用學(xué)文獻(xiàn)選讀=Selected Readings for Pragmatics》，何兆熊主編，上海：上海外語教育出版社，2003年，第435-466頁。

〔10〕陳堅(jiān)：《“乾屎橛”、“柏樹子”——禪宗“公案”與“參公案”探賾》，《宗教學(xué)研究》2002年第1期，第62-67頁。

〔11〕J.L.Morgan，Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Act，《語用學(xué)文獻(xiàn)選讀=Selected Readings for Pragmatics》，何兆熊主編，上海：上海外語教育出版社，2003年，第316-341頁。