Author(s)

YiShun Tao, Hang Yu^*

Affiliation(s)

School of Foreign Studies, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710129, Shaanxi, China.

Corresponding Author

Hang Yu

ABSTRACT

This paper conducts a literary pragmatic study on the linguistic representation of Chinese American women’s trauma and its recovery on the basis of specific textual analysis, with the novel The Kitchen God’s Wife by Chinese American writer Amy Tan as a case. As a result, it is found that the linguistic representation of trauma as well as the recovery vary in terms of lexicon, grammar and speech acts. Specifically, the symptoms of the heroine’s trauma are composed through the use of hedges, mixed narrative tenses, and directive speech acts; the causes of her trauma are highlighted via the use of imperative if-conditional sentences and directive speech acts by the people around her; her efforts to gradually recover from the trauma are framed in her increasing use of positive adjectives, narrative tenses with explicit adverbials of time, and assertive speech acts. All these findings not only shed new light on interpreting women’s trauma from a pragmatic perspective, but also enrich the veins of Chinese American literature and trauma literature analysis.

KEYWORDS

Chinese American literature; Women's trauma; Recovery; Linguistic representation

CITE THIS PAPER

YiShun Tao, Hang Yu. Trauma and recovery: a literary pragmatic reading of Chinese American women in the kitchen god's wife. History and Culture Journal. 2025, 2(1): 44-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/hcj3012.

REFERENCES

[1] Lakoff G. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logical fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1973, 4: 458-508.

[2] Tan A. The Kitchen God’s Wife. New York: Ivy Books, 1991.

[3] Tang R Y. Analysis of Pragmatic Functions of Hedges in Female Language from the Perspective of Relevance Theory—Taking Pride and Prejudice as an Example. Journal of Huangshan University, 2022, 24(1): 98-102. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-447X.2022.01.020.

[4] Zhang K D. Grammar-pragmatics interaction: Looking into directive if-conditional construction in English. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2018(6): 18-25+143-144. https://doi.org/10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004538

[5] Rowbotham S. Woman’s Consciousness, Man’s World. London: Penguin Books, 1973: 32-33.

[6] Beauvoir S D. The Second Sex. Translated and edited by H. M. Parshley. London: Lowe and Brydone, 1956.

[7] Li C Q. The linguistic representation of trauma writing in contemporary Asian American poetry. Foreign Literature Studies, 2023, 45(1): 105-116. https://doi.org/10.19915/j.cnki.fls.2023.0008.

[8] Herman J. Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books, 1992.

[9] Felman S, Laub D. Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis and History. New York: Routledge, 1992.

[10] Archer A M N, Kam C D. She is the chair (man): Gender, language, and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 2022, 33(6): 101610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101610.

[11] Féron é. Memories of violence in the Rwandan diaspora: Intergenerational transmission and conflict transportation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2024, 47(2): 274-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2023.2261285.

[12] He Q. Reconstructing the past: Reproduction of trauma in Maxine Hong Kingston’s The Woman Warrior. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2019, 9(2): 131-136. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0902.02.

[13] Heidarizadeh N. The significant role of trauma in literature and psychoanalysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, 192: 788-795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.093.

[14] Huang X T. Time and Explorations in Personality Psychology. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press, 2006.

[15] Balaev M. Contemporary Approaches in Literary Trauma Theory. Berlin: Springer, 2014.

[16] Searle J R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

[17] Straus B. Women’s words as weapons: Speech as action in “The Wife’s Lament”. Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 1981, 23(2): 268-285.