问候卡上的套话：话虽空，意却深

2018-08-06ByDanielFraser

英语学习 2018年7期

By Daniel Fraser

Cliché is the nemesis1 of creativity. This statement pervades2 contemporary attitudes to language， both in the field of literature and in conventional human interactions. Across the landscape of the written word， clichéis continually depicted as an abject3 failure of language. This failure is demonised as obfuscating true expression， offering little more than banal sentimentality，4 and to be avoided at all costs.

As a method of communication， the giving of greeting cards stands in stark contrast to this phobic attitude to cliché， and functions in a manner that throws many of the problems of this phobia into sharp relief.5 Cliché is the life-blood of greeting cards， they thrive on it. Their messages are ones that have been used and discarded over and over again：

Sorry for your loss. Thinking of you. Our deepest sympathies. I love you. Congratulations on finding each other. Best of luck. Happy birthday. Get well soon.

And so on.

The exchanging of these cliché-ridden tokens6 shows no sign of slowing down. Even within the context of the explosive proliferation7 of electronic communication and social media that characterise human forms of connection and conversation today， greeting cards have remained a huge industry. In the United States， approximately 6.5 billion greeting cards are bought each year， and the annual retail sales figures are valued at between $7—8 billion.

Greeting cards present themselves at some of the most important， and often difficult， events of our lives： the loss of a family member or a friend， an outpouring of love and devotion， or even the simple recognition of times passing. The strange thing is that these moments of love and loss are not the place where language finds its truest expression of meaning but are in fact the place where meaning itself starts to break down， where language as a whole reveals its incapacities. The cliché is a marker， or a stand-in8， for something we arent sure how to express. Whether the message is pre-printed or one we resort to writing ourselves， clichés appear where words fail. In this way， greeting cards function as material testament to the lack of articulation at the heart of human experience，9 drawing attention to the gap between language and life.

This gap is at once infinitesimally10 small and so vast that it might never be adequately crossed. Small because， despite the opening between the two， it is through language that human beings encounter the world. Yet also vast because， aside from anything else， this participation is a conceptual structure formed by human beings to interpret life. Language is always a falsehood imposed upon the reality of silence.

At the extreme end of this， Georg Hegel11 wrote in the Jena Lectures （1805—6） that language murders the living things that it names. The implication is that when we speak or write， the nouns we use subsume12 the individual under a universal. In the act of identifying a “tree”， a “cat” or “sadness”， we destroy that objects individuality by categorically aligning13 it with all the other trees， cats and moments of sadness that have been and gone or are yet to come. Inscribing14 these sensations and objects into the historical register of languages conceptuality enacts a double violence： both refusing to recognise the uniqueness of the object， or feeling， and calling attention to its finitude， pointing directly towards its inevitable destruction. Language then appears to feed vampirically off the organic entities to which it becomes attached. It is both the way in which we gain access to life and that which destroys life through its very operation.

While we might wish to take this as a paean for quietness， a sign for us to take up Samuel Becketts aphorism that “every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness”，15 we know this is not possible. No matter what violence language commits against life， or what scale of human loss seems to render all speech meaningless， it is inevitably language that remains. Though there is a futility in languages attempt to express feeling， the card cannot be left blank. Something has， in the end， to be said.

Clichéd statements such as “I love you” and “Sorry for your loss”call attention to this double futility： language always fails but it is impossible to remain silent. Nowhere is this clearer than in the sympathy card phrase “There are no words”. Though the statement is true， in order to be given meaning it must be expressed and， in doing so， is falsified. This axis16 of articulation and absence， of speaking and silence， is the dilemma that language continually re-presents.

To take the elements of human experience and seek to mould them in the most mellifluous manner is to miss that very thing thats missing， the unsettling and moving lack that leaves language seeming clumsy and cumbersome.17 Greeting cards and cliché more generally bear witness to18 the fact that the most banal and the most meaningful regularly coincide， and that something always remains beyond the reach of words. Cliché is a place where life and language resist one another.

By recognising the radical imperfection of language， cliché can help ameliorate19 the damage it does. The continual return of these stock phrases reminds us that， though language can say “I love you” or “Our deepest sympathies”—which ties the love and grief we feel with all those who have ever， and will ever， love and grieve—it can never completely capture this grief or this love. After that， the universality of our love， our grief， begins to feel less like an act of violent conceptuality and more like an act of community， transposing us into a commune20 with all the living and the dead.

Greeting cards serve as a reminder that it is often with the clichéd and the ordinary that the fabric of language starts to unravel21， and the pulse of life—that which will always remain beyond words—begins to bubble up from beneath.

套话是创造力的死敌。当下，不管是在文学领域，还是在人与人的常规交流中，这一看法都非常普遍。在书面语言领域，套话更是被描绘成语言的悲惨失败。这种失败更被妖魔化，被说成是模糊了真实的表达，徒然是平庸煽情，应竭力避免。

作为一种交流方式，互送问候卡却与上述对于套话的恐慌形成鲜明反差；问候卡的功用更是暴露出上述恐惧症的诸多问题。套话是问候卡的关键所在，问候卡依靠套话存在。卡上的信息被一遍遍使用、丢弃：

为您的损失而悲伤。想着你。深表同情。我爱你。祝贺二位终成眷属。祝您好运。生日快乐。早日康复。

等等等等。

交换此类满载套话之物的行为毫无减缓的兆头。电子交流与社交媒体大爆炸式增长已成今日人类联系、交谈的典型方式；然而，即便如此，问候卡仍然是一个巨大产业。在美国，每年大约有65亿张问候卡售出，年零售额在70—80亿之间。

问候卡出现在生活中某些最重要或最难过的场合：失去家人或朋友，倾诉爱与忠诚，抑或仅是感叹时间流逝。奇怪的是，在这些有关爱或失落的时刻，语言无法精确达意，事实上，此时，意思自身开始瓦解，语言作为整体，展现出其无力。套话是一种标识或替代品，用以替代我们无法确切表达的东西。不论此类信息是预先印刷，还是我们亲笔所写，当语言无法传情之时，套话便有了用武之地。如此，问候卡便成为一个物质明证，证明在人类体验核心的语言的匮乏；于是，便使人们注意到语言与生活之间的隔阂。

这隔阂可以小到微不足道，也可以大到无法逾越。小，是因为二者之间虽确有间隙，但人类终究是要通过语言与世界交流。大，则是因为，且不论其他，这种交流行为首先是人类为了解释生活而建立的概念框架。因而，语言总是强加在寂静现实之上的一层假象。

说得极端些，比如，格奥尔格·黑格尔在《耶拿讲座》（1805—6）中讲到，语言谋杀了其描摹的活生生的事物。意即，当我们说话、写字时，我们使用的名词会将个体淹没在群体之内。在认定一棵“树”、一只“猫”，或者“悲伤”时，我们便毁掉了那个实体的个性，而将其类化，与其他树、猫和那些或已消失，或将出现的悲伤时刻混为一谈。将这些感受和事物拉入到语言概念的历史纪事之中，会形成一种双重暴力：既拒绝认识某事物或感受的唯一性，也让人们注意到它的局限性，直接指向它不可避免的毁灭。语言于是仿佛吸血鬼一般，靠压榨其依附的有机体而存活。语言是我们借以进入生活的方法，却也因自身的运行而摧毁生活。

可能有人認为这是给寂静唱赞歌，是吟诵塞缪尔·贝克特的名言“每一个词都像沉默与虚无身上无谓的污渍”的时候了；但事实并非如此。无论语言对生活做出何等暴力之举，无论人类的损失何等惨痛，以至语言全无意义，最终留下的还是语言。虽然试图用语言传情仍是徒劳，问候卡总不能只是白纸一张。最终，总要说些什么。

俗套之词，如“我爱你”、“为您的损失而悲伤”，让我们注意到这种双重的徒劳：语言总是失败，但又无法保持沉默。这一点在“言语无法表达”这样表达同情的问候话语中，最明显不过了。虽然这个表述是真实的，但要使它具有意义，那就还要把它表达出来，而此行为本身，便使得这个表述为伪。这种表达与缺失、发声与沉默的互搏，正是语言持续展现出的困境。

尝试将人类体验中的诸多成分以最顺畅的方式融合在一起，还是会缺失它所缺失的东西，那令人不安、让人感动的缺失感，使语言显得笨拙、多余。问候卡和套话普遍见证了这个事实：最俗套与最有意义的东西往往重合，有些东西总是言语难以企及。套话提供了一个生活和语言互相抗拒的场合。

套话承认语言极不完美，因而可以帮助我们减少语言造成的伤害。陈词滥调反复出现，提醒我们，虽然语言上可以说“我爱你”或“深表同情”——这些话把我们感受到的爱和伤感与所有曾经、将会去爱、去伤感的人连在一起——语言永远无法完全抓住这种爱或这种伤感。于是，我们的爱和伤感的普遍性，开始感觉不太像一种暴力的概念化行为，而更像是一种彼此联系的行为，它把我们传送到一个所有生者与逝者共存的群体之内。

问候卡提醒人们，许多时候，正是凭借着那些俗套、平庸的东西，语言的构造才开始展现出来，而生活的律动——它总是超出语言所能表达的范围——也开始从深处汩汩涌出。

1. nemesis： // 天谴，克星。

2. pervade：遍及，弥漫。

3. abject：卑贱的，蹩脚的。

4. obfuscate： // 使混淆，使困惑；banal：平庸的，索然无味的。

5. phobic：恐怖的，源于phobia（恐惧感）；throw... into sharp relief：凸显某事，使某事变得显而易见。

6. token：象征，记号。

7. proliferation：激增，涌现。

8. stand-in：临时替代者，代行职务者。

9. testament：确定的证明；articulation：发音，表达。

10. infinitesimally： // 极微小地，微不足道地。

11. Georg Hegel：格奥尔格·威廉·弗里德里希·黑格尔（1770—1831），德国哲学家，人们普遍认为其思想标志着19世纪德国唯心主义哲学运动的顶峰。