5 Neo-Gricean Pragmatics
语用学——精选推荐
语⽤学⽐喻metaphor表达类expressives表述句constatives不可分离性non-detachability不可取消性non-cancellability不确定性indeterminacy承诺类commissives代码模式code model等级含意scalar implicatures地点指⽰space deixis调节性规则regulative rules动态语⽤学dynamic pragmatics断⾔类assertives对⽅修正other-repair⼆元关系dyadic relation发展语⽤学developmental pragmatics反讽/反语irony⽅式准则manner maxim⾮规约性non-conventionality讽刺sarcasm符号sign符号关系学syntactics符号学semiotics负⾯礼貌策略negative politeness strategy 负⾯⾯⼦negative face 负向转移negative transfer概念意义conceptual meaning功能语⾔学functional linguistics共知common knowledge构成性规则constitutive rules 关联/关联性relevance关联理论relevance theory关系准则relevant maxim规定语法prescriptive grammar规约含意conventional implicature规约性conventionality规则rule含混ambivalence含意implicature合适条件felicity condition后指⽤法cataphoric use互补性complementarity互动语⽤学interactive pragmatics互明mutual manifestness互知mutual knowledge互指co-referential话轮turn-taking话语utterance话语分析discourse analysis话语意义utterance meaning话语指⽰discourse deixis缓叙meiosis会话分析conversation analysis会话含意conversational implicature 会话结构conversational structure会话修正conversational repair会话原则conversational principle或然性probability记号symbol间接⾔语⾏为indirect speech act交际⽬的communicative goal/purpose 交际能⼒communicative competence 交际意图communicative intention交际⽤意communicative force交际原则communicative principle近指proximal terms经济原则principle of economy旧信息old information句法学syntax句⼦意义sentence meaning可接收性acceptability可取消性cancellability可推导性calculability可⾏性feasibility客观环境physical situation夸张hyperbole跨⽂化语⽤学cross-cultural pragmatics离格deviance礼貌politeness礼貌策略politeness strategy礼貌原则politeness principle连贯coherence两可性ambiguity量准则quantity maxim临床语⽤学clinical pragmatics笼统性generality论⾔有所为How to do things with words逻辑语义学logical semantics蒙塔古语法Montague grammar⾯⼦face1明⽰-推理过程ostensive-inferential process 明说explicature 命题⾏为propositional act模糊限制语hedges模糊性fuzziness内嵌施为句embedded performatives恰当性appropriateness前提presupposition前提触发语presupposition triggers前指⽤法anaphoric use⼈称指⽰person deixis⼈类⽂化⽅法论ethnomethodology认知效果cognitive effect认知语⽤学cognitive pragmatics认知语⽤学cognitive pragmatics认知原则cognitive principle弱陈meiosis三元关系triadic relation社会语⽤学societal pragmatics社交语⽤学social pragmatics社交-语⽤学socio-pragmatics社交指⽰social deixis施为动词performative verb施为假设performative hypothesis施为句performatives施为⽤意illocutionary force时间指⽰time deixis实⽤主义pragmatism顺应理论adaptation theory说话⼈意义speaker meaning 随意⾔谈loose talk 特殊含意particularized conversational implicature 同义反复句tautology投射规则projection rule推理努⼒processing effort威胁⾯⼦的⾏为face threatening acts委婉语understatement未知信息unknown information衔接机制cohesive device显性施为句explicit performatives新格赖斯会话含意理论neo-Gricean theory of conversational implicature新格赖斯语⽤学neo-Gricean pragmatics新信息new information信息意图informative intention信息照应information bridging形式语⽤学formal pragmatics修辞学rhetoric宣告类declarations选择限制selectional restriction⾔语交际verbal communication⾔语情景speech situation⾔语⾏为speech act⾔语⾏为理论speech act theory⼀般会话含意generalized conversational implicature 已知信息known information以⾔成事perlocutionary act以⾔⾏事illocutionary act以⾔⾏事⽬的/施为⽬的illocutionary goal以⾔指事locutionary act意思sense意图intention意向性intentionality隐含结论implicated conclusion隐含前提implicated premise隐性施为句implicit performatives隐喻metaphor语法性grammaticality语际语interlanguage语际语⽤学interlanguage pragmatics语境暗含contextual implication语境化contextualization语境假设contextual assumptions语境效果contextual effect语境意义contextual meaning语境因素contextual factor语句sentence语句意义sentence meaning语⾔学转向linguistic turn语⾔语境linguistic context语⾔语⽤学linguistic pragmatics语义前提semantic presupposition语义学semantics语⽤代码pragmatic code语⽤含糊pragmatic vagueness语⽤含意pragmatic force语⽤类属pragmatic category语⽤能⼒pragmatic competence语⽤歧义pragmatic ambiguity语⽤迁移pragmatic transfer2语⽤前提pragmatic presupposition语⽤推理pragmatic inference语⽤⾏为pragmatic act语⽤学pragmatics语⽤移情pragmatic empathy语⽤语⾔学pragmalinguistics语⽤原则pragmatic principle寓意⾔谈metaphorical talk元交际⾏为metacommunicative behaviour 元指⽤法meta-phoric use原意或刻意⾔谈literal talk原则principle远指distal terms约略性approximation蕴涵entailment哲学语⽤学philosophical pragmatics正⾯礼貌positive politeness正⾯⾯⼦positive face正向转移positive transfer指称reference指令类directives指⽰词语deictic expressions指⽰语deixis, indexicals质准则quality maxim中介语/语际语interlanguage主题topic字⾯⽤意literal force⾃我修正self-repairadaptability顺应性（1.2.2）affective mutuality情感共享（4.5.3）agreement maxim⼀致准则（2.2.1）anaphora前照应（6.1.1）anaphoric use前照应⽤法（6.1.1）approbation maxim赞誉准则（3.2.4）appropriate conditions合适条件（3.2.4）assertives断⾔类（以⾔⾏事）（3.2.3）behabitives表态类以⾔⾏事（3.2.1）calculability（含意的）可推导性（4.4.2）calendric time units历法时间单位（6.1.3）cancellability（含意的）可取消性（4.4.2）change-of-state verbs状态变化动词（6.2.4）code model代码（交际）模式（2.1.1）cognitive environment认知环境（5.2）cognitive mutuality认知共享（4.5.3）cognitive pragmatics认知语⽤学（1.5）collaborative performatives协作性施为句（3.2.1) commissives承诺类（以⾔⾏事）（3.2.1) common knowledge共知（5.2）communicative competence交际能⼒（7.1）communicative intention交际意图（1.3.2）communicative language ability语⾔交际能⼒（7.1）constatives表述句（3.2.1)context语境（1.1)context of situation情景语境（5）contextual assumptions语境假设（1.5.4）contextual correlates语境相关因素（5.1.1) contextual effects语境效果（1.5.4）contextual features语境特征（5.1.1）contextual implication语境暗含（1.5.4）contextual meaning语境意义（1.2.3)contrastive markers对⽐性标记语（6.4.1) contrastive pragmatics对⽐语⽤研究（1.5.2）conventional implicature常规含意（4.4.1）conventionalization规约化（1.3.2）conversation analysis/CA会话分析（1.2.2）conversational implicature会话含意（4.4.1）conversation structure会话结构（1.2.2）cooperative principle/CP合作原则（2.1.2）co-text上下⽂（5.1.1）cross-cultural communication跨⽂化交际（8.1）cross-cultural pragmatics跨⽂化语⽤学（1.2.2）culture-loaded words富含⽂化内涵词语（8.2.1）declarations宣告类（以⾔⾏事）（3.2.3）decoding解码（2.1.1）defeasibility（含意的）可废除性（6.2.5）deictic center指⽰中⼼（6.1.1）deictic expression指⽰语（1.1）deictic use指⽰⽤法（6.1.1）deictics指⽰语（1.1）deixis指⽰语（1.1）developmental pragmatics发展语⽤学（1.6）directives指令类（以⾔⾏事）（3.2.3）disambiguation消除歧义（5.4）discourse deixis话语指⽰（6.1.1）discourse markers话语标记语（1.2.4)discourse meaning语篇意义（1.2.4）discourse operator话语操作语（6.4）3discourse particles话语⼩品词（6.4）dynamic pragmatics动态语⽤学（4.6）elaborative markers阐发性标记语emphathetic deixis移情指⽰encoding编码encyclopaedic information百科信息entailment蕴涵equivalent effect等值效果/等效essential condition（实施⾔语⾏为的）基本条件ethnography（of communication）（交际中的）⼈类⽂化学exercitives⾏使类（以⾔⾏事）explicature明说explicit performatives显性施为句expositives阐述类（以⾔⾏事）expressives表情类（以⾔⾏事）extended speech act theory扩充的⾔语⾏为理论face⾯⼦face theory⾯⼦理论face threatening acts/FTA威胁⾯⼦的⾏为factive verbs叙实性动词felicity conditions合适条件filler填充语gambits话语策略语general pragmaticsgeneralized implicature⼀般会话含意generosity maxim慷慨准则gestural use⼿势⽤法grammatical competence语法能⼒group performatives群体性施为句guiding culture主⽂化hearing meaning听话⼈意义hedge模糊限制语illocutionary competence施为能⼒illocutionary force施为⽤意implicated conclusion暗含结论implicated premise暗含前提implicative verbs含蓄性动词implicature暗含/含意implicit performatives隐性施为句indeterminacy（含意的）不确定性indirect speech act间接⾔语⾏为inference推理inferential markers推导性标记语语⽤学重要术语英汉对照解释1、Adjacency pair: 相邻对 A sequence of two utterances by different speakers in conversation. The second is a response to the first, e.g., question-answer.2、Background entailment: 背景蕴涵Any logical consequence of an utterance.3、Commissive: 承诺句A speech act in which the speaker commits himself or herself to some future action, e.g. a promise.4、Content conditions: 内容条件In order to count as a particular type of speech act, an utterance must contain certain features, e.g. a promise must be about a future event.5、Conversational implicature: 会话含义An additional unstated meaning that has to be assumed in order to maintain cooperative principle, e.g.if someone says “The President is a mouse”, something that is literally false, the hearer must assume the speaker means to convey more than is being said.6、Declaration: 宣告句A speech act that brings about a change by beinguttered, e.g. a judge pronouncing a sentence.-7、Deixis: 指⽰“Pointing” via language, using a deictic expression,e.g. “this”, “here”.8、Directive: 指令句A speech act used to get someone else to do something,e.g. an order.9、Discourse analysis: 话语分析The study of language use with referenceto the social and psychological factors that influence communication.10、Dispreferred: 不期待The structurally unexpected next utterance as aresponse, e.g. an invitation is normally followed by an acceptance, so a refusal is dispreferred.411、Entailment: 蕴涵Something that logically follows from what is asserted.12、Expressive: 表达句A speech act in which the speaker expresses feelings or attitudes, e.g. an apology.13、Face: ⾯⼦A person’s public self-image.14、Felicity conditions: 恰当条件 The appropriate conditions for a speech act to be recognized as intended.15、Generalized conversational implicature: ⼀般性会话含义An additional unstated meaning that does not depend on special or local knowledge. 16、Honorific: 敬语 Expression which marks that the addressee is of higher status.17、Illocutionary force: ⾔外之⼒The communicative force of an utterance.18、Insertion sequence: 插⼊系列 A two part sequence that comes between the first and second parts of another sequence in conversation.19、Manner Maxim: ⽅式准则One of the maxims, in which the speaker is to be clear, brief, and orderly.20、Maxim: 准则One of the four sub-principles of the cooperative principle.21、Particularized conversational implicature: 特殊会话含义An additional unstated meaning that depends on special or local knowledge.22、Performative verb: ⾏事动词A verb that explicitly names the speech act, e.g. the verb “promise” in the utterance “I promise to be there”.23、Perlocutionary act: 以⾔成事 The effect of an utterance used to perform a speech act.24、Person deixis: ⼈称指⽰Forms used to point ot people, e.g. “me”, “you”.25、Pragmatics: 语⽤学 The study of speaker meaning as distinct from word or sentence meaning. 26、Preferred: 期待的The structurally expected next utterance used ina response.27、Preparatory conditions: 准备条件Specific requirements prior to an utterance in order for it to cont as a particular speech act.28、Presupposition: 前提Something the speaker assumes to be the case.29、Projection problem: 映射问题The problem of the presupposition of a simple structure not surviving when part of a more complex structure.30、Quality maxim: 质量准则One of the maxims, in which the speaker has to be truthful.31、Quantity maxim: 数量准则One of the maxims, in which the speaker has to be neither more nor less informative than is necessary.32、Reference: 照应An act by which a speaker uses a word, or words, to enable a listener to identify someone or something.33、R elation maxim: 相关准则One of the maxims, in which the speaker has to be relevant.34、Representative: 阐述句A speech act in which the speaker states what is believed or known, e.g. an assertion.35、Sincerity conditions: 诚意条件Requirements on the genuine intentions of a speaker in order for an utterance to count asa particular speech act.36、Social deixis: 社会指⽰Forms used to indicate relative social status.37、Speech act: ⾔语⾏为An action performed by the use of an utterance to communicate.38、Textual function: 篇章功能The use of language in the creation of well-formed text.39、Turn-taking: 轮换The change of speaker during conversation5。
(完整版)语用学级期末复习思考题
I。
Put the following English terms into Chinese. (1'×10＝10’)所指对象referent所指论Referential theory专有名词 proper name普通名词 common nouns固定的指称记号 rigid designators指称词语deixical items确定性描述语definite descriptions编码时间 coding—time变异性variability表示反复的词语 iterative表述句 constative补救策略redressive strategies不可分离性 non—detachability不确定性indeterminacy不使用补救策略，赤裸裸地公开施行面子威胁行bald on record without redressive actions 阐述类言语行为 representatives承诺类言语行为 commissives指令类言语行为directives表达类言语行为expressives，宣告类言语行为declarations诚意条件 sincerity condition次要言外行为 secondary illocutionary act等级含义 scalar implicature等级划分法 rating scales副语言特征 paralinguistic features非公开施行面子威胁行为 off record非规约性non—conventionality非规约性意义 non-conventional implicature非论证性的 non—demonstrative非自然意义non—natural meaning (meaning—nn)否定测试法negation test符号学 semiotics构成性规则 constitutive rules古典格莱斯会话含义理论 Classical Gricean theory of conversational implicature关联论Relevance Theory关联原则Principle of Relevance归属性用法 attributive use规约性含义conventional implicature人际修辞 interpersonal rhetoric篇章修辞textual rhetoric含蓄动词 implicative verbs合适条件 felicity conditions呼语 vocatives互相显映 mutually manifest会话含义 conversational implicature话语层次策略 utterance-level strategy积极面子positive face间接言语行为 indirect speech acts间接指令 indirect directives结语 upshots交际意图communicative intention可撤销性 cancellability可废弃性 defeasibility可推导性 calculability跨文化语用失误cross—cultural pragmatic failure跨文化语用学cross—cultural pragmatics命题内容条件 propositional content condition面子保全论 Face-saving Theory面子论 Face Theory面子威胁行为 Face Threatening Acts （FTAs）蔑视 flouting明示 ostensive明示－推理模式ostensive—inferential model摹状词理论Descriptions粘合程度 scale of cohesion篇章指示 discourse deixis前提 presupposition前提语 presupposition trigger强加的绝对级别absolute ranking of imposition确定谈话目的 establishing the purpose of the interaction确定言语事件的性质 establishing the nature of the speech event 确定性描述语 definite descriptions认知语用学 cognitive pragmatics上下文 co—text社会语用迁移sociopragmatic transfer社交语用失误 sociopragmatic failure施为句 performative省力原则 the principle of least effort实情动词 factive verbs适从向 direction of fit手势型用法 gestural usage首要言外行为 primary illocutionary act双重或数重语义模糊 pragmatic bivalence/ plurivalence顺应的动态性 dynamics of adaptability顺应性adaptability语境关系的顺应(contextual correlates of adaptability)、语言结构的顺应(structural objects of adaptability)、顺应的动态性（dynamics of adaptability)和顺应过程的意识程度（salience of the adaptation processes）。
后格莱斯理论之列文森
Types of Q-implicature
Q-scalar implicature Q-clausal implicature (p or q,p and q,since p then q,if p then q,know that,believe that) Q-alternate implicature,which come from a nonentailment semantic (contrast) set.
<succeed,try˃ In 1888,Van Gogh tried to set up an artist's studio at Arles. +˃In 1888,Van Gogh did not succeed in setting up an artist's studio at Arles. <boil,grill,stir-fry˃ Stir-fry the bean sprouts,please. +˃please,don't,for example,boil the bean spouts as well. (Yan Huang2009:44)
In Sperber and Wilson's approach and that of Horn's,it is exactly adopted what grice had anticipated--to use the principle of revelance to subsume the second maxim of Quantity.Now Levinson believes that is mistaken.In his view, maxims of Quantity have to do with the quantity of information,while the maxim of Relation is “a measure of timely helpfulness with respect to interactional goals”(p.401).and “is largely about the satisfaction of others' goals in interaction,and the satisfaction of topical and sequencing constraints in discourse,as in the expection that answer will follow a question”(Levinson 1989:467).It is not,at least not primarily,about information.So he renames the second maxim of Quantity the Principle of Informativeness,I-principle for short;and the first maxim of Quantity the Principle of Quantity,or Q-principle.
语言学重点讲解
三星级重点章节07年冬天，学校组织了一个讲座，请老师给我们谈考试重点，同时学生有什么问题，可以当面问他。
他说前五章是最重要的，第七和第八次之，第六，第九和第十二章也有考的内容，但不会很多，剩下的十章和十一章可以不看！所以，我就用三颗星表示最重要；俩颗星表示第二重要，一颗星表示第三重要。
王老师说只要把胡壮麟那本书背会了，肯定能考好！因为考试覆盖的知识点都在书上！其实，背会那本书是不实际的，而把那本书过5到6遍是可能的，也是必须的。
而且重点章节要在理解的基础上反复看。
虽然我们文科的知识，背时关键，但是理解更重要，尤其语言学这门课，比较抽象，不理解就背，效果不好，不容易背会。
北语没有提供考纲之类的东西，只告诉语言学参考书是胡壮麟的《语言学教程(修订版)》。
（09年不知是否会换成该书的第三版）所以能知道该书哪些章节是重点，能让我们有的放矢。
我这里所说的三星级重点，即最重要的章节是该书的前五章。
不知道外校的考生，他们学校开过这门课没有！我们北语大三下学期讲前五章，大四上学期讲的6，7，8，9，12这几章。
下面，我们先谈谈前五章该如何复习。
Chapter1: Invitations to linguistics；Chapter2: Speech Sounds；Chapter3: Lexicon；Chapter4: Syntax (新版中，这章改成From Word to Text，是变化最大的一章，变化的结果是比以前的简单了）；Chapter5: Meaning。
这五章可以说是语言学的基础和考试的重点。
我们一定要反复看，理解其中的定义等知识点。
一定要在理解的基础上记忆。
Chapter1: Invitations to linguistics这章是该书的开篇，目的是让大家对语言学这门课有个初步的了解，为后面几章作个铺垫。
也许你会说这种章节肯定不重要。
错！奇怪的是这一章居然很重要。
因为考点还不少！Design features of language: Arbitrariness, duality, creativity, displacement. 这四个特征要求理解，牢记，能背出定义。
Unit 3 Gricean Pragmatics Implicature格莱斯语用学会话含义
Implication
Definition:
Implication belongs to the
logical semantics, it discusses the relationship between two
1
propositional logics.
Example:
p: The president was assassinated.
semantics
Logical implication （逻辑蕴含）
meaning
Pragmatics
Conversational implicature （会话含义）
Implicature & Implication
The word ‘implicature’, like its cognate(同源词) ‘implication’, is derived from the verb ‘to imply’. Etymologically speaking（从词源学 角度讲）, ‘to imply’ means ‘to fold something into something else’. What is implied, or ‘folded in’ has to be ‘unfolded’ in order to be understood.
Example sentences: natural meaning
1
The number of concentric rings（年轮） means that the tree lived so many years.
2
2 Those black c来自ouds mean rain.
4
新格赖斯原则
4.荷恩考察的语言现象
• （1）元语言否定 • 一般否定，表示“原来的叙述太过分了”，而元语 言否定，则表示“不够充分”，通过语音手段实现 ,“强项成立” 如he didn't eat three carrots→he ate four of them. • （2）避免使用同义词 • Lee stopped the car. Lee got the car to stop. • （3）间接言语行为句 • Can you pass the salt?
•实际上，荷恩的意思是，包含其他成分的句子都 衍推包含末尾成分的句子。当这些句子为真时， 包含末尾成分的句子必真。如果倒过来，从逻辑 上讲，就不一定了。 •数量等级中只有<hot，warm>，或者<cold， cool>，而没有<hot，cold>，因为使用同一个数 量等级中词语的句子要具备衍推关系，这一条规 定把严格反义词，排除在数量等级之外 (1)This soup is hot (2) This soup is not cold (3)This soup is cold
〈5〉条件完备型推导: • If you can show me your IC, I will let you in . (A)如果 你能向我出示 IC,我就让你进去。→If and only if you can show me your IC, I will let you in .(B)当且仅当你 向我出示 IC 的条件下,我才会让你进去。 〈56〉模式型推导: • Jack pushed the cart to the checkout .(A)杰克推着购 物车来到出口的计价处。→Jack pushed the cart full of groceries to the checkout of the supermarket in order to pay forthem .(B)杰克推着装满食品杂货的购物 车走到超级市场出口的计价处, 以便付款后离去。
pragmatics语用学-PPT
Non-detachability
• John is a genius( a mental prodigy; an enormous intellect; a big brain; an exceptionally clever human being).
conversation, in which implicated messages are frequently involved.
• In daily conversations people do not usually say things but tend to imply them. The word “implicature” is used to refer to the extra meaning that is not explicitly expressed in the utterance. In making a conversation, the participants must first of all be willing to cooperate; otherwise, it would not be possible for them to carry on the talk. This general principle is called the cooperative principle : “make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”
2-参考文献格式(APA格式)
References (in APA style papers)In an APA style paper, the citation sources are listed in References on a separate page, which follows the final page of the text. Entries appear alphabetically according to the last name of the author; two or more works by the same author are listed in chronological order by the date of publication. All entries in the References page must correspond to the sources cited in the main text. The writers are supposed to observe the following rules:(1)All lines after the first line of each entry in the reference list should have one-half-inchhanging indentation from the left margin.(2)Authors’ names are inverted (last name first). If the work has more than seven authors, list thefirst six authors and then use ellipses after the sixt h author’s name. After the ellipses, list the last author’s name of the work.(3)Reference list entries should be alphabetized by the last name of the first author of each work.(4)If you have more than one article by the same author, single-author references ormultiple-author references with the exact same authors in the exact same order are listed in order by the year of publication, starting with the earliest.(5)All major words in journal titles are capitalized.(6)When referring to books, chapters, articles, or Web pages, capitalize only the first letter of thefirst word of a title and subtitle, the first word after a colon or a dash in the title, and proper nouns. Do not capitalize the first letter of the second word in a hyphenated compound word.(7)Italicize titles of longer works such as books and journals.(8)Do not italicize, underline, or put quotes around the titles of shorter works such as journalarticles or essays in edited collections.1. Single-Author BookAitchison, J. (1987). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Bach, K. (1987). Thought and reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2. Book with Two or More AuthorsFodor, J., & Lepore, E. (2002). The compositionality papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.3. An Edited VolumeCole, P. (Ed). (1981). Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.4. Book without Author or Editor ListedWebster’s new collegiate dictionary. (1961). Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam.5. Secondary ResourcesSperber, D. (1994). The modularity of thought and the epistemology of representation. In L. A.Hirschfeld, & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp.39-67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.6. JournalsBarsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent information and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory & Cognition, 10, 82-93.Hu, Y., Wood, J. F., Smith, V., & Westbrook, N. (2004). Friendships through IM: Examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), 38-48.7. DissertationMarunowski, K. R. (2006). The Euro: a multimodal study in presence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.8. An Entry in an EncyclopediaBergmann, P. G. (1993). Relativity. In The new encyclopedia britannica (Vol. 26, pp. 501-508).Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica.9. Conference ProceedingsRichardson, J. F., & Richardson, A. W. (1990). On predicting pragmatic relations. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Parasession on the Legacy of Grice (pp. 498-508).Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.10. Article in a MagazineHenry, W. A., III. (1990, April 9). Making the grade in today’s schools. Time, 135, 28-31.11. Article in a NewspaperSchultz, S. (2005, December 28). Calls made to strengthen state energy policies. The Country Today, pp. 1A, 2A.12. Article From an Online PeriodicalBernstein, M. (2002). 10 tips on writing the living Web. A list apart: For people who make websites, 149. Retrieved from /articles/writelivingSample ReferencesReferencesBergmann, P. G. (1993). Relativity. In The new encyclopedia britannica (Vol. 26, pp. 501-508).Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica.Bernstein, M. (2002). 10 tips on writing the living Web. A list apart: For people who makewebsites, 149. Retrieved from /articles/writelivingCarston, R.(1998). Informativeness, Relevance and Scalar Implicature. In R. Carston & S. Uchida(Eds.), Relevance theory: applications and implications(pp. 179-236). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford:Blackwell.Castle, G. (2007). New millennial Joyce [Review of the books Twenty-first Joyce, Joyce’s critics:Transitions in reading and culture,and Joyce’s mes sianism: Dante, negative existence, and the messianic self]. Modern Fiction Studies, 50(1), 163-173. Available from Project MUSE Web site: /journals/modern_fiction_studies/toc/mfs52.1.htmlGreen, G. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax & semantics: speech acts (vol.3) (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.Henry, W. A., III. (1990, April 9). Making the grade in toda y’s schools. Time, 135, 28-31. Hirschberg, J. (1985). A theory of scalar implicature. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Horn, R. (1984). Towards a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic applications (pp. 11-42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Horn, R. (1989). A nature history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Huang, Y. (2004). Neo-Gricean Pragmatic Theory: Looking Back on the Past; Looking Ahead to the Future. Journal of Foreign Languages, 149, 2-25.Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Jiang, W. Q. (2000). Pragmatics: Theories and applications. Beijing: Beijing University Press. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Levinson S. C.(1991). Pragmatic Reduction of the Binding Conditions Revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 107-61.Levinson, S. C. (1987 a). Minimization and Conversational Inference. In J. Verschueren & M.Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.),The pragmatic perspective(pp. 61-129). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.Levinson, S. C. (1987 b). Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora: a Partial Pragmatic Reduction of Binding and Control Phenomena. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 379-434. Matsui, T. (1993). Bridging reference and the notions of “topic” and “focus”. Lingua, 90, 49 - 68. Matsui, T. (2000). Bridging and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Morgan, J. L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 9 (pp. 261-280). New York: Academic Press.Neale, S. (1992). Paul Grice and the Philosophy of Language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 509-559.Parker-Pope, T. (2008, May 6). Psychiatry handbook linked to drug industry. The New York Times.Retrieved from Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4, 295-329. Recanati, F. (2002). Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind and Language, 17, 105-26.Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Richardson, J. F., & Richardson, A. W. (1990). On predicting pragmatic relations. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Parasession on the Legacy of Grice (pp. 498-508).Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Sadock, I. (1986). Remarks on the Paper by Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber. Chicago Linguistics Society, 22, 85-90.Schultz, S. (2005, December 28). Calls made to strengthen state energy policies.The CountryToday, pp. 1A, 2A.Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1998). Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Welker, K. (1994). Plans in the common ground: toward a generative account of conversational implicature. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Yuan, Y. L. (1993). On the valence of nouns in Mandarin. Linguistics, 3, 137-206.。
Pragmatics—关联论几个概念对比
2
(Sperber, D & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 1986:63)
2.4 Ostensive-inferential communication
结合语码模式和推理模式，Sperber和Wilson 提出了明示推理交际(Ostensive-inferential communication)的概念。
然而，语码模式和推理模式都有其自身的不足，虽然 人类的交际很少有不涉及语码的运用，但通过语码而 表达的思想一般来说是比较简单的，复杂思想内容的 交际语码模式就不能解释，而且在言语交际中也存在 着纯推理交际；从另一方面来说，大部分的交际都涉 及语码的运用，这也是毋庸置疑的，所以推理模式也 只部分地解释了交际。（何兆熊2002：185）
Levinson 的会话含义三原则
Sperber & Wilson 的会话关联理论
1.2 Code Model & Inferential Model
From Aristotle through to modern semiotics, all theories of communication were based on a single model, which we will call the code model. According to the code model, communication is achieved by encoding and decoding messages. Recently, several philosophers, notably Paul Grice and David lewis, have proposed a quite different model, which we will call the inferential model. According to the inferential model, communication is achieved by producing and interpreting evidence.
cognitive pragmatics演示文稿cognitive pragmatics演示文稿
• The Approaches to Cognitive Pragmatics
• The Relationship between Cognitive Pragmatics and Cognitive Linguistics
3.From Philosophy of Language to Cognitive Science
• Broadly speaking there are two perspectives on pragmatics : the “philosophical” and “cognitive ” .
• Grice took a philosophical appraoch to pragmatics. He was interested in such questions as what is meaning? What is i t for a speaker to say, or assert something as opposed to implying it? How might a rational hearer decide what a rational speaker intended to imply? Thus he introduced a new conceptual tool : the notion of imp licature.
I f i n a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n e x p l i c i t r e f e r e nc e i s made to the speaker or the user of the language, then we assign it (the investigation )to the field of pragmatics . If we abstract from the user of the language and analyze only the expressions and their designation, we are in the field of semantics . And , f i n a l l y , i f we abstract from the designation also and analyze only the relations between the expressions , we are in syntax .
Neo –Gricean Pragmatics
1.Q- and R- Principles
• Influenced by George Zipf’s Principle of least effort(1949),Horn points out people’s linguistic behavior is govered by: i.the force of unification(speaker’s econymy) ii.the force of diversification(auditor’s econymy) On the analogy of two forces,he proposes two parallel coversational principles: a.The hearer –based Q-principle: say as much as we can(on the condition of R-principle) b.The speaker-based R-principle:say no more than we must(on the condition of Q-principle)
2.Q-, I- and M-principles
• A.Quantity Principle or Q-Principle:Make your contribution as informative as required. Speaker’s maxim:Do not provide a statement that is informationally weaker than your knowledge of the world allows,unless providing stronger statement would contravene the I-principle; Recipient’s corollary:Take it that the speaker has made the stronger statement consistent with what he knows.
PragmaticsandSemantics
Ruprecht-Karls-Universität HeidelbergAnglistisches SeminarProseminar:Pragmatics-The many Facets of Language UseSemester: Sommersemester 2010Dozent: Iwo IwanovReferenten: Nicole Hoffstaetter, Sebastian GühringDatum: 09.07.2010Pragmatics and SemanticsThis chapter is about the pragmatics-semantics interface.As both,semantics and pragmatics,are concerned with the study of meaning, several questions arise. What is distinctively pragmatic and what semantic? Can semantics and pragmatics be distinguished? Do they overlap or are they autonomous? And to what extent and how do they interact with each other? In short, how does the relationship between semantics and pragmatics look like?I The two main theoretical positions•ReductionismAccording to reductionists,the distinction between semantics and pragmatics should be abolished. Levinson called this position pragmantics. It’s divided into two types:o Semantic reductionism: pragmatics should be entirely reduced to semanticso Pragmatic reductionism: semantics is wholly included in pragmaticsThe problem here is, that there are linguistic phenomena that are relatively distinctively semantic(e.g. entailments) or pragmatics (e.g. conversational implicature).•ComplementarismAccording to complementarists,the division between semantics and pragmatics should in principle be retained. There are also two types of complementarism:o Radical semantics: much of the study of meaning should be attributed to semanticso Radical pragmatics:much of the study of meaning should be assimilated topragmaticsThis point of view is more widely accepted, because it considers pragmatics and semantics as complementary though distinct sub-disciplines of linguistics, dealing with different aspects of meaning.II How to distinguish between semantics and pragmaticsThere are different approaches to find out how semantics and pragmatics can be distinguished. According to Bach these are the three most decisive ones:a.Truth-conditional vs. non-truth-conditional meaningThis approach, named Carnapian approach by Recanati, distinguishes semantics and pragmatics in the following way. Semantics is said to be concerned with truth-conditional meaning (/words-world relations (Recanati)), pragmatics with non-truth-conditional meaning. In short: pragmatics = meaning – truth conditions (Gazdar 1979: 2)But there are several problems about this approach:o Some linguistic forms don’t denote anything,so there’s no contribution to truth-conditional content. E.g. greetings, conventional implicature triggers (but) and syntacticconstructions (imperatives)o The truth-conditions aren’t always fully determined by the linguistically coded meaning of a sentenceo Often, pragmatic intrusion into the truth conditional content of a sentence is uttered. E.g.neo-Gricean conversational implicatures can intrude on to/contribute to the truthconditions of an uttered sentence.b. Conversational vs. non-conversational meaningAt this approach, semantics studies the conventional aspects of meaning and pragmatics those ofnon-conventional meaning.Therefore a semantic interpretation cannot be cancelled,but a pragmatic interpretation can (examples? audience?)But there are issues too.o Some linguistic expressions’ conventional meaning is closely associated with use. E.g. deictic expressions: To specify their semantic contribution one has to specify how they are to be used o The conventionality of a linguistic phenomenon isn’t always clear. E.g. the three types of implicature (conventional, generalized conversational, particularized conversational) form asemantics-pragmatics continuum whose borders are difficult to draw.o Depending on how the semantics-pragmatics distinction is defined, linguistic phenomena can be either semantic or pragmatic.c.Context independence vs. context dependenceAt this approach,semantics is concerned with linguistic phenomena that are insensitive to context and pragmatics with those that are.But according to Bach content also varies with context in semantics.(e.g.deictics,demonstratives).He distinguishes between two types of context:o Narrow context : contextual information relevant to the determination of the content of variables (e.g. those concerning who, whom, when, where)-> semantic in natureo Broad context : contextual information relevant to the working out of what the speaker overtly intends to mean-> pragmatic in natureThere is no systematic distinction between semantics and pragmatics, though they do have their own characteristics. According to Recanati there are three essential features of pragmatic interpretation, which are together called the hermeneutic character of a pragmatic interpretation.1.charity :if we presuppose that the interlocutors are rational,pragmatic interpretation ispossible2.non-monotonicity : a pragmatic interpretation is defeasible/cancellable3.holism : there’s no limit to the amount of contextual information that can in principle affect apragmatic interpretationIII Pragmatic intrusion into what is said and the semantics-pragmatics interfaceLinguists and philosophers of language, as well as pragmaticists and semanticists, debate about the division of labour between, and the interaction of, semantics and pragmatics. An important role plays the pragmatic intrusion into the classical Gricean conception of what is said.a.Grice’s concept of what is saidU said that p by uttering x if and only if:a. x conversationally means pb. U speaker meant pc. p is the conventional meaning of x minus any conventional implicatureb.before we can work out what is said, we need to:1.identify reference•Mr. Chen (1) thinks that Mr. Liu (2) is too arrogant, and (he(2)) looks always downupon himself(1)•Mr. Chen (1) thinks that Mr. Liu (2) is too self-abased, and (he(2)) looks always downupon himself(2)2.fix deixis•Mary: How do I look?John: You look really cool!3.resolve ambiguity and ambivalences•The view could be improved by the addition of a plant out there.(plant = living organism)•The view would be destroyed by the addition of a plant out there.(plant = factory)Levinson added two more:4.unpacking ellipsis•A: They won’t visit Mary’s parentsB: Old grudge.5.narrowing generality•I don’t drink.c.According to Bach,Grice's concept of what is said is needed to describe three kinds ofcases:1.The speaker means what he/she says and something else tooe.g. conversational implicatures and indirect speech acts2.The speaker means something else than what he/she sayse.g. metaphor, irony3.The speaker means nothing by saying somethinge.g. reading s.o. else’s poem out loud->What is conversationally implicated, is defined in contrast to what is saidd. Grice’s concept of what is conversationally implicatedBy saying p, U conversationally implicates q if:a.U is presumed to be following the maximsb.The supposition of q is required to maintain (a)c.U thinks that the recipient will realize (b)What is said should give us information about what is conversationally implicated, but in fact , we still need a pragmatic interference of some kinde.g.•The Gricean maxim of Relation in III 1.•Real-world knowledge in III 3.•Substantial amount of inference of the Gricean sort in III 4.•III 5. has to be pragmatically narrowed down to “drink alcohol”->We now found out,that in those examples there is pragmatic intrusion,namely thepragmatically inferred content, into the conventional, truth-conditional content involved inworking out what Grice called what is said. (Let us call this: pragmatic intrusion into what is said.Recanati also uses the phrasing “Truth Conditional Pragmatics” (TCP).)Sperber and W ilson - Relevance theorists‘ view :-there is intrusion of pragmatically inferred content into ‘what is said’ (in relevance theory explicit content or explicature)-Grice failed to recognize that pragmatics count to ‘what is said’-notion of explicature parallel to the notion of implicature (in relevance theory implicit content)(I) a proposition communicated by an utterance U is explicit (hence an ‘explicature’) if and only ifit is a development of a logical form encoded by U(II) a proposition communicated by U which is not explicit is implicit (hence an ‘implicature’) -This distinction applies only to the speaker’s communicative intentionpossibility of a difference between the proposition expressed by the speaker and her explicature(s); only when the proposition expressed is communicated is it about anexplicature of the utterance-explicatures typically serve to complete and enrich logical forms on several areas, e.g.disambiguation, saturation and free enrichment-Example for disambiguation:Bill passed the port in the evening.a.port=harbour;b. port=wineExplicature could be: Bill passed the harbour in the evening.Francois Recanati – the pragmatically enriched said-some effects of context on ‘what is said’ result from pragmatic processes that take place not because the linguistic material demands it, but because the utterance’s content is not faithfully or wholly encoded in the uttered sentence-‘what is said’ or the proposition associated with ‘what is said’ include unarticulated propositional constituents-three types of primary pragmatic processes to bridge the gap between sentence meaning and what is said1.)Saturation:- necessity of a contextual saturation of a slot, position or variable for the utterance toexpress a complete proposition- linguistic expressions in the utterance itself like comparison sets or possessiveconstructions give rise to it- e.g. I enjoyed reading John’s book can be pragmatically saturated into I enjoyed readingthe book [written by] John.2.)Free Enrichment:- linguistically decoded logical form of the sentence uttered needs to be conceptuallyenriched- optional and contextually driven “top-down” process- subtype of strengthening takes a complete proposition as inputand yields as output a richer proposition which entails the original input propositione.g. The Buddhist Temples are some distance away is strengthened into The BuddhistTemples are [a considerable] distance away- Subtype of expansion means that a contextually provided conceptual constituentneeds to be added; input proposition needs not to be included in the outputpropositione.g. I have nothing to wear is expanded into I have nothing [suitable] to wear [to John’swedding]3.)Semantic T ransfer- one points a to refer to b- e.g. the predicate “parked out back” in the sentence I am parked out back comes todenote a property of the driver whose car is parked out back due to semantic transferBach – Conversational Impliciture-Gricean distinction is essentially right and there’s no pragmatic intrusion into ‘what is said’-however, there’s a crucial intermediate level between ‘what is said’ and what is conversationally implicated which he called conversational impliciture-sentences that express an incomplete proposition (propositional radicals) can’t be recognized as either part of what is said or part of what is implicated-agreement with relevance theorists and Recanati about the role of pragmatics in arriving at the proposition(s) that the speaker intends to express-distinction of two sorts of pragmatic process-in order to become full propositions and to get a truth value propositional radicals need to be completed or filled in contextually by the pragmatic process of completion - e.g. the propositional radical in “John has finished” can be completed into the full proposition in “John has finished [writing his MBA thesis]”-in order to express what the speaker intends to mean the pragmatic process of expansion engenders a richer proposition of sentences which express only a minimal proposition - e.g. the minimal proposition in I have had a shower is expanded into I have had a shower [this morning]-an impliciture can be described as implicit strengthening, weakening, or specification of what is said-unlike implicatures they are built out of what is said-implicitures can be felicitously cancelled (I have had a shower, but not this morning) =>they can’t be constitutive of ‘what is said’Distinction of explicature/the pragmatically enriched said /impliciture from implicature -there are different attempts to differentiate between the different approaches but none of them is undisputed-Huang comes to the conclusion that the three approaches can’t be distinguished from conversational implicatures on a principled basisReferencesCarston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Recanati, François. 2004. Pragmatics and Semantics. In Laurence Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 442–462. Oxford: Blackwell.。
语用学笔记
语用学笔记一基础知识一语用学定义1 Levinson关于语用学的9个定义及批评2 定义：语用学研究在不同语境中话语意义的恰当表达和准确理解，寻找并确立使上述目标的基本原则和准则。
二语用学的由来、产生与发展1提出：语用学（Pragmatics）这一术语最早是由美国哲学家（C.W.Morris）于1938年在其专著《符号理论基础》（Foundations of the Theory of Signs）提出。
他指出符号学（Semiotics）包括三部分，即：句法学（Syntax）、语义学（Semantics）和语用学（Pragmatics）。
其中：1）句法学：研究“符号之间的形式关系”；2）语义学：研究“符号及其所指对象的关系”；3）语用学：研究“符号与解释者interpreters（后改为使用者users）之间的关系”2 发展：1）语言哲学家Ba r·Hillel提出语用学的具体研究对象是指引词语（indexical expressions）；2）英国哲学家奥斯丁（J.Austin）和塞尔（J.Searle）的言语行为理论（Speech-Acts Theory）；3）美国哲学家格赖斯（H.P.Grice）的会话含义理论（Conversational Implicature）及合作原则（）；4）列文森（S.C.Levinson）的《语用学》（Pragmatics）；5）利奇（G.N.Leech）的语用原则（Principles of Pragmatics）；6）Wilso n﹠Sperber的关联理论（Relevance Theory）；7）范叔伦（Verschueren）的语言适应理论（Theory of Linguistic Adaptation）及综合论（）；8）新格赖斯会话机制（Neo-Gricean Pragmatic Apparatus）；9）范叔伦（Verschueren）的统一理论框架（Coherent Theoretical Framework）三结构主义语言学的功过1 区分语言（langue）和言语（parole），指出语言是语言学真正的研究对象；区分内部要素和外部要素，主张就语言而研究语言；F.de.Saussure 区分共时状态（synchronic）和历时状态（diachronic），认为共时状态的语言系统是语言研究的重点；提出语言系统共时描写的理论和方法。
pragmatics levinson 中译本
pragmaticslevinson中译本简介：《Pragmatics》是一本重要的语言学著作，由著名语言学家AndrewRadford 和PaulGrice的合作研究发展而来。
本书旨在探讨语言在实际使用中的意义和功能，特别是言语行为和语境对语言理解的影响。
本书的中译本由Levinson教授本人亲自审校，对于国内读者更好地理解和应用Pragmatics提供了重要的参考。
主要内容：1.引言：Levinson教授在引言中简要介绍了Pragmatics的核心概念和研究目的，以及本书的主要内容和方法。
2.言语行为：Levinson教授详细介绍了言语行为理论，包括施事行为、表达行为、宣告行为等，以及它们在实际语言使用中的表现和意义。
3.会话含义：本书探讨了会话含义的生成和理解，分析了会话中的暗示、背景信息、关联意义等要素，以及它们在语言交流中的重要作用。
4.语境与语用：Levinson教授介绍了语境对语言使用的影响，包括文化语境、社会语境、情境语境等，以及如何根据语境来理解和解释语言。
5.语言与认知：本书探讨了语言与认知的关系，分析了语言对人类思维和推理的影响，以及语言如何塑造我们的世界观和思维方式。
6.结论：Levinson教授在结论部分总结了Pragmatics的主要观点和研究成果，并强调了言语行为和语境在语言交流中的重要性。
翻译特点：1.中译本保持了原版的风格和行文特点，准确传达了Levinson教授的思想和观点。
2.中译本注重对原文的注释和说明，为读者提供了更多的背景信息和参考资源。
3.中译本在语言表达上力求准确、简洁、明了，符合中文读者的阅读习惯。
总结：《Pragmatics:Levinson中译本》是一本深入浅出的语言学著作，对于语言学研究者、教师和学生具有重要的参考价值。
通过阅读本书，读者可以更好地理解Pragmatics的核心概念和研究方法，以及言语行为和语境在语言交流中的重要作用。
同时，本书的中译本也为中国读者提供了更好的理解和应用Pragmatics的机会。
是“会话含义”还是“会话含意”?
是“会话含义”还是“会话含意”？许有江【摘要】Conversational Implicature是格赖斯理论中的一个基本概念,对它的理解的正确与否直接关系到能否对该理论本身的准确把握.它的汉语对应语本来应当是“会话含意”,但许多学者却错误地把它译为“会话含义”,这对语言学入门者来说是误导.“含义”和“含意”的意思是大不一样的:前者仅指词语等所包含的意思,后者则是指话语或话语中的词语的暗含意义；前者所表示的内容具有客观性,而后者则是言外之意,具有主观性；前者所包含的内容是内在的、静止的、封闭的,而后者所指的内容则是在受话人理解过程中生成的,是外在的、动态的、可延伸的.因此,implicature与“含意”的含义不谋而合.【期刊名称】《学术界》【年(卷),期】2011(163)012【总页数】5页(P105-109)【关键词】格赖斯理论;Conversational implicature;含意;含义【作者】许有江【作者单位】安徽农业大学外国语学院,安徽合肥230036【正文语种】中文最近20多年来，古典格赖斯理论和新格赖斯理论在我国得到了广泛的传播和深入的研究，从而大大地推动了认知语言学，尤其是语用学在我国的发展。
由于implicature这个词是认知语言学中的基本概念，学界对它的阐释和讨论自然就十分频繁。
简单搜索一下，从上个世纪90年代初至今，涉及implicature这个概念的论文就达数千篇之多。
而在众多的出版物中，将implicature译成“含义”或“含意”的屡见不鲜，其中不乏知名学者也对“含义”和“含意”混淆不清。
以conversational implicature这一概念为例，在全国CSSCI类期刊发表的与之相关的众多论文中，就既有将其译成“会话含义”的，也有将其译成“会话含意”的，似乎让人感觉“含义”与“含意”是绝对的同义词。
〔1〕〔2〕〔3〕〔4〕本文拟对汉语“含义”、“含意”，以及格赖斯理论中的implicature这一概念的本义作些分析，对implicature的汉语对应语作些探讨，以便正本清源，还implicature的本来面目。
语用学后格莱斯理论介绍英文
The R ﹝elation﹞ Principle Make your contribution necessary . Say no more than you must ( given Q ) .
• Replace Grice's second maxim of quantity and the maxim of relation .
• This principle concerns mainly about the maximization of informational content.
• Ex. a. Some of my friends are linguists.
• b. Not all of my friends are linguists.
The Q- Principle ＆ The R- Principle
The Q ﹝uantity﹞ Principle Make your contribution sufficient. Say as much as you can ( given R ).
• Replace Grice's first maxim of quantity and the maxim of manner.
• Ostensive communication • Optimal relevance
• Ex. 1. a. George has a big cat. b. George has a tiger, a lion, a jaguar ( 美洲豹 ), etc.
c. George has a tiger. d. George has a tiger or a lion, I'm not sure which. e. George has a felid.
Levinson数量原则对爱情歌曲的解读
Levinson数量原则对爱情歌曲的解读作者：黄芳燕王飞来源：《校园英语·下旬》2018年第01期【摘要】Levinson提出了会话含义“三原则”，并以此建立了一个新的语用推理模式。
本文从Levison的数量原则出发，分析其强势和弱势原则在爱情歌曲中的运用，从而得出含有“因为”歌词的歌曲中，表达的多为对爱情的肯定和赞扬，表达对爱情的期许。
而含有“如果”歌词的歌曲，表达的多为对爱情的不确定，无望和失意。
【关键词】Levinson；数量原则；爱情歌曲；如果；因为【作者简介】黄芳燕（1992- ），女，江西宜春人，西华大学，硕士在读，研究方向：教学法；王飞，女，四川成都人，西华大学，博士，副教授，研究方向：英语教学法。
一、引言20世纪60年代，格雷斯提出“会话含义”与“合作原则”理论。
引发了语用学界对该理论的探讨。
虽其引起巨大反响，但由于其存在一些缺陷和不足，“新格莱斯”（Neo-Gricean）诞生。
Levinson 是“新格莱斯”主义学者中的集大成者，他总结了 Grice 和 Horn 等人的观点，加以改进，提出了会话含义“三原则”，即：数量原则（Q-principle），信息原则（I-principle）和方式原则（M-principle）。
本文侧重于Levinson的数量原则。
二、Levinson的数量原则说话人准则：在你知识范围允许的情况下，不要说信息量不足的话，除非提供足量的信息违反信息原则。
听话人推论：相信说话人的陈述就他所知而作收出的最强的陈述。
他的质量原则的特色在于把质量原则下的含义分为三种类型：极差Q原则（Q-scalar implicatures），小句原则（Q-clausal implicatures ）和变换Q原则（Q-alternate implicatures）. 在这一原则中，他引入了数理逻辑的方法，即荷恩等级关系，指出“强项蕴含弱项，弱项否定强项”。
例如的荷恩等级关系中，确定是强项，认为是弱项。
戈夫曼拟剧理论
三、拟剧理论
特点
“拟剧理论”将注意力集中在人与人之间面 对面的符号互动，日常生活中人们如何运用 符号预先设计或展示在他人面前的形象，如 何利用符号进行表演，并使表演取得良好效 果。
三、拟剧理论
拟剧理论主要包括
1、人们通过符号惊醒表演，目的是赢得观 众的认可
2、表演主要为前台行为和后台行为
三、拟剧理论
二、思想背景
1 亚当.斯密、休谟、弗格森、詹姆斯关于人的思想 2 鲍德温、杜威的社会思想 3 库利的“镜中我”理论 4 托马斯、米德和布鲁默的符号互动论思想
戈夫曼与布鲁默
相同点： 都以个人运 用符号的能力为出发 点；都强调个人内部 对话的反思的社会的 “我”；添加都文重字 视符号 在人际活动过程中的 作用；都具有主观主 义和形式化的倾向
局限于高阶层和高地位者群体
3、补救表演
印象管理是用来应付一些未预期的意外行动的， 如无意动作、不合时宜的闯入，失礼等都会导致表演 的不和谐。
如何解决表演过程中的不和谐问题？
四种补救措施
1
表演者自身的补救
2
观众和局外人的补救
3
表演者对观众的补救
4
观众对表演者的补救
总结
“拟剧理论”是一种日常生活中 非常常见的人际传播情景论，渗透 于人际交往的方方面面”
2
戈夫曼拟剧理论的实质是“印象管理”
1、理想化表演
理想化表演是掩饰那些与社会公认的价值、规范 与标准不一致的行动，而表现出与社会公认的价值、 规范与标准一致的行动
理想化表演主要是掩饰
2、神秘化表演
演员经常通过限制自己与观众之间的接触，而将 其演出神秘化
他们通过自己与观众之间的“社会距离”在观众 中造成令人敬畏的印象，避免观众对演出提出疑问， 进而达到目的
破产姐妹
AbstractSo far as the general collections among various sciences and courses developed, linguists‘ researches on Pragmatics has long not been restricted to the theory itself, but also been widely applied in Language teaching, translation, intercultural communication, interpersonal communication, and other fields. Meanwhile, many scholars have applied pragmatic theories to the analysis of humour phenomena, especially of humorous languages, which provides us a new and better viewpoint to understand humour.This paper separates verbal humor from conversational humour as a specific research subject. It goes though a pragmatic analysis on the humorous conversations in 2 Broke Girls, with synthetic method, induction, comparison and qualitative analysis. All the discussions are mainly based on presupposition, cooperative principle, politeness principle, relevance theory and other pragmatic theories.Through analysis it is found that different pragmatic theories have different interpretations and instructive effects on the analysis of humorous languages. Therefore multiple theories from different angles should be applied in the research and understanding. Additionally, as well as humorous languages, the pragmatic theories can be understood profoundly and comprehensively by analysing with corpus. It is the same case with the concurrence existing cooperatively and contradictorily among different theories and principles when interpreting a humorous dialog.Key words:2 Broke Girls, Humorous dialog, Pragmatic analysis, RelationshipsChapter One Introduction1.1Background of the StudyIt is known that every theory does not come from imagination. That is, a new theory is usually, based on some of the existed t heories, and then summed with others‘ intelligence and their own creativity. However, there are some procedures for a new theory to be well accepted since put forward. Stage 1 is theories propounding and formation, or original creation process. Stage 2 is a process to validate and perfect the theory. In the formation of a new theory, both of the stages are important. Lacking either one of them, the development of the theory will remain stagnant. It is the same with the theories of pragmatics. Every time when a new pragmatic theory is put forward, it meets controversial reactions from numerous scholars. They may criticise it, or consent it, or try to correct it from language behaviour theory to presupposition, deictic words, cooperative principles, and even to relevance theory and neo - Gricean theory of meaning. In the process, some scholars put forward a theory replace another one, or even replace any others. However, it is commonly recognized that the theories are interwoven no matter how different they are. There are also overlapping parts among some different theories. Since there are still a lot of differences, they still cannot be replaced, but mutually complemented by each other. So far by now, there is never a pragmatic theory to cover the whole language phenomena. Nevertheless, a more scientific and comprehensive theory has been working on.Nowadays, when it comes to pragmatics for language use regulation, scholars pay more attention to language teaching, translation, intercultural and interpersonal communications, and other fields, than just the pragmatic theories. Meanwhile, many scholars have applied pragmatic theories to the analysis of humour phenomena, especially of humorous languages, which provides us a new and better viewpoint to understand humour.1.2The significance of StudyThe main reason why humorous language is selected as the research subject in this paper, is that humour is a popular language form among the masses and easier to understand. The second reason is that many theories in pragmatics can be applied in analysing the formation of humour, including presupposition, deictic words, language behaviour theory, cooperative principles, relevance theory, politeness principles, and so on. ‗Any language itself is not humorous. While only when it‘s combined with a specific context, with a expression purpose, and with the harmony in disharmony, we can really understand humor. Humorous language is uttered under some certain situation. Listeners need to find the leads in the context and understand the expression purpose of the speaker by their own knowledge of language and non-language. Therefore, to understand humor is not a pragmatic problem, because it heavily relies on contexts and implications in works.‘ In reality, humor can be produced when o ne party mislays the presupposition and the indication, and break the principles of cooperative, relevance and politeness. To apply pragmatic theories to the analysis of humour languages will not only make humour understood thoroughly, but also help the study of pragmatics. Chapter Two Literature Review2.1 Literature Review on Studies of HumourRaskin firstly based humour language on linguistics in his book Semantic Script Theory of Humour, SSTH (1985). He reckoned one text is definitely humour if it is completely or partly fluent with two opposed scripts. In other words, two scripts, which are highly opposed but also comparatively compatible, are the key to humour production. Based on that, Attardo and Raskin brought up General Theory of Ver bal Humour, GTVH (1991) together. Besides of the framework opposition of the Semantic Script Theory, it includes other five factors: language, narrative strategy, objects, contexts and logic mechanism, which to some degree makes up the shortage of the Semantic Script Theory [1].It is another influential humour research in linguistics to apply pragmatics and discourse analysis theory to humour analysis. For example, Curcò(1995) detailed his research of humour based on relevance theory. Yu (2003) presented many contributions of relevance theory made to humour research [2]. He reckoned all humour has pragmatic components. Humour research based on relevance theory is coordinate with incongruity – resolution mode the in psychology and semantics. Humour is produced when the speaker guides listeners to choose one accessible interpretation under relevance theory, and then pass a final interpretation surprisingly and reasonably to invalid the first relevant answer.There are many articles about pragmatic theories‘ applications i n humour language analysis by predecessors. Jiang Chengsheng and Liao Dingzhong (2005) broke down pragmatic motivations of humour, from deictic words, premises, cooperative principle, language behaviours and relevance theory. Fang Chuanyu (2005) took discourse humour as a comprehensive semantic strategy. It consists of cooperative principle, politeness principle, discourse behaviour theory, presupposition and deictic words [3]. Meng Zhigang (2002) demonstrated humour language, and explored the basic regulations between pragmatics and humour, from the perspectives of deictic words, cooperative principle, premises, language behaviours and relevance theory. Wang Qinling (2005), with the framework of cognitive pragmatics, made ―a solid and comprehensive research on humour language‘s formation, interpretation, acceptance and applications‖ [4]. The included pragmatic theories are presupposition, deictic words, cooperative principle, discourse behaviour theory, face and politeness principle. Xie Yajun (2007) explained the production of humour from the viewpoints of cooperative principle and relevance theory, and pointed out the shortage of cooperative principle. Besides, other scholars like Li Qi (2007), Duan Lingli (2002), Chen Jin and Xu Yingying (2006), and Zhang Shujing (1998), have also made researches on humour under some of pragmatic theories [5].In the essay of relevance theory applied in humour research, Wang Wenbin and Lin Bo (2003) explored the psychological mechanism in interpreting humorous languages, from the perspectives of RT (relevance theory) CB (conceptual blending). They proposed that correct interpretations of English humorous discourses do not only count on relevance and inference, but also on conceptual integration and emerged structure. Xu Qingli and Wang Fuxiang (2002) on the other hand held that RT provides a solid and adequate theoretical explanation for humour discourses‘ delivery and acceptance, and especially for its translation.Liu Naishi (2005) thought that RT can properly explain cognitive operational mechanisms in the formation of humour and digestion process. Therefore it can be used as a supplement of Incongruity – Resolution theory [6]. Wang Yan (2005) thought that he path of the interpretation is a context hypothetical process from the most relevant to the best relevant. Deng Ting (2007), with the tool of relevance theory, analysed the implementation of humour from cognitive perspective. Her research revealed the process of implementation of humour under the perspective of relevance theory [7].2.1 Definition of Humour and Cold HumourConversational humour is one of the presentations of verbal humour. It normally happens in interpersonally verbal communications. To complete social purposes in a conversation, speakers may use funny, interesting, acrid or irony speeches according to the context, to entertain to audience. It is surprising but also makes sense. Recipients accordingly give a reaction unconsciously, like laughing, showing their sympathy, acknowledging, or being embarrasse d, silent, or thinking… At this time, the speak acts as an entertainer, or ice-breaker for different situations, in return it shows the humour teller‘s cleverness, optimism, and other characteristics [8].Hence, conversational humour is summed into three categories. 1). Conversational humour is represented as conversations in verbal communication. As general conversation works, it consists of two or more turns and has its own processes of occurrence, developing and ending [9]. 2) Some words in conversational humour are unexpected and legitimate at the same time. It not only helps the speaker complete their social purposes, but also deliver the speaker‘s wit and humour. It largely benefits from the special collecting feature of conversational humour. 3) As a special language activity, conversational humour has other potential functions as well as entertainment function [10].Chapter Three A Pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Cold Humour in American Sitcom 2 Broke Girls3.1 The Sitcom 2 Broke Girls2 Broke Girls is an American television sitcom created for Warner Bros. Television by Michael PatrickKing and Whitney Cummings. It premiered on CBS in the United States on September 19, 2011.The series is set in borough of Brooklyn, New York City. Its plot line follows with two girls from totally different backgrounds. Max was born in a poor family, while Caroline was from a wealth family, but now is disgraces and penniless. Therefore she has to find a job in a restaurant where Max works. Two girls planned to save $25,000 together for their new career. Max is a sophisticated girl. She works two jobs a day. One of the jobs is a waitress in restaurant. Caroline is a very adjustable girl, who was a daughter of a trust fund boss. She lost everything due to her father. In the restaurant, these people are working with the 2 girls: Oleg, a perverted cook, Earl, a 75 years old kidult cashier, and Mr. Han Lee, a new boss of the restaurant who is always long for customers‘ appreciation.Once by accident Caroline finds Max is good at baking cupcake, then she comes up with an idea for both of them to get rid of poverty. The only problem is that we need to raise enough money to start up their bakery business. After all they still have to work in the restaurant penny by penny. While there is a will where is a way. As long as they stick to their dream and work hard together, they will find their place in the fantastic city.Since its premiere, 2 Broke Girls was generally well-reviewed. It won the award for Favourite New TV Comedy at the 38th People's Choice Awards.3.2 Analysis on the comedy effects of breach of cooperative principle in 2 Broke Girls3.2.1 Analysis on humorous dialogs in 2 Broke Girls with cooperative principleAmerican philosopher Grice found, in all verbal communication activities, every conversationalist shares a certain principle for social purposes. He names it Cooperative Principle. It consists of 4 maxims, and they are Quality Maxim, Quantity Maxim, Relevance Maxim, and Manner Maxim. Grice thinks that conversationalists should coordinate their words with the conversational purposes and direction in the conversation. However, in reality, it does not always work that way. The maxims are often breached intentionally or unintentionally, and that is where humour comes into being.1) Breach of quantity maxim and verbal humourThe quantity maxim demands speakers to speak no more than it asks. Speakers may provide enough information for communication, neither inadequate nor too much information. However, there are exceptions. In some situation, it is also a way to show humour by giving unnecessary and repetitive information, or to avoid awkwardness by keeping the information un-uttered but obvious. Most of the time, speakers provide much information than, or less than it needs for entertainment or humorous atmosphere, especially Max in 2 Broke Girls. She is the central person for humour creating, and she breaches the quantity maxim a lot. For example:Customer: You made these cupcakes?Max: Yeah, what‘s the problem? Spit it out, I‘ve got a life.Customer: We just want to tell you that your flavour palate is amazing.Max: Welcome to the neighbourhood. I knew I liked you guys.When a customer asks Max if she made the cupcakes, it would be enough to answer Yes or No. However she thought that the customer was going to criticise it, and added ‗Spit it out, I‘ve got a life‘ to show her impatience. When she realised that the customer was to praise her, ‗Welcome to the neighbourhood‘ would be enough to th ank for the appreciation, however she uses an obvious lie ‗I knew I liked you guys‘. Overloaded information thoroughly illustrates out Max‘s personality, and two contradictory attitudes amuse the audience.2) Breach of quality maxim and verbal humourQuality maxim requires the integrity of the conversation, chatters should not say anything unreal or anything lack of sufficient evidence. However, in actual communication, out of politeness or out of reaching some kind of irony, metaphor, or exaggerated rhetoric effect, the speaker uses some false or insufficient evidence to hide their true feelings, to take into account the person's face. The main characters often use the exaggerated and irony and appropriate face expression, to violate the integrity of the expression and produce the comic effect. For example:Caroline: I was trying to get your T-shirt back．I wanted you to have it，because you lit up at the will when you saw it.Max: I don‘t light up，okay? There‘s no light inside me．What you‘re seeing is probably radiation from the summer I collected uranium tubes by the train tracks．That was good money.To help Max take back the T-shirt that had been robbed of in the second-hand shop, Caroline fight with people in the bar. She said she want Max to have that T-shirt, because Max‘s eyes glowed when she saw it in the second-hand shop. Max‘s words all violated the quality maxim; all the words were out of her belief. "I don‘t light up，okay? There‘s no light inside me．What you‘re seeing is probably radiation fr om the summer I collected uranium tubes by the train tracks．That was good money." Max is an outgoing and cheerful girl but ashamed to express her own heart, so that she lied her heart is dark, and fabricated the lie of collecting tube of uranium to earn mo ney. Max‘s bizarre lie precisely is the punch line.3) Breach of the maxim of relation and humourThe maxim of relation requires the words said should be associated with the current topic. But in the real communication, irrelevantly answer is everywhere, on the surface, the words run out of the question, but in the deep of the pragmatic level, the speaker still put themselves in the current context. The listener can still get real conversational implication by reasoning. When the characters meet some topics that they don't like or others put forward some unreasonable demands, they will deliberately get away from the current context, ignore each other‘s feelings, and cause communication incoherent in order to achieve the comedy effect.For example, when the Thanksgiving Day comes, Caroline was away from home and spent the holiday alone for the first time. She originally hoped to visit her father in the jail; however, her father didn‘t hope she saw his sorehead looking. As a result, Caroline was very disappointed.Max: Well，I have two things to say．First of all，I'm incredibly proud of us for spreading the spirit of Thanksgiving together．And secondly，someone left an adult diaper in this booth，and I'm not dealing with that…Max: What's the sad face about? You saw the bathroom?Caroline: It's just even though we fed the homeless，it doesn't feel like Thanksgiving without my father．At this time, Caroline sits aside listlessly. Max said, ‗Well，I have two things to say．First of all，I'm incredibly proud of us for spreading the spirit of Thanksgiving together．And secondly，someone left an adult diaper in this booth，and I'm not dealing with that.‘ Obviously, the first half sentence of Max‘s words expressed her sympathy to her friend, and for the second half sentence, she purposively got out of the presumed context that she set to Caroline. She talked another thing that was totally not relevant and even killjoy with the Thanksgiving. When she saw her friend had not reaction. She continued to say that, ‗What's the sad face about? You saw the bathroom??‘ The two sentences breached the maxim of relation, however, it showed the care to friend with a kind of humour, and hoped that her friend can smile and forget the sadness.4) Manner maxim and humourTo avoid obscurity and ambiguity, manner maxim requires clear and accurate expression. However, in real communication, the speaker often uses the indirect or obscure, fuzzy words to express the conversational implication, resulting in a humorous effect. Grice's manner maxim in cooperative rule has the following requirements: avoid obscure and ambiguous, be concise, in perfect order. Breach of manner maxim refers to the way the speaker beats around the bush so as to cause ambiguity, the humour occurs in the process. Such kind of conversation in the play is everywhere.The winter comes, Caroline‘s horse is still in the yard, and has no place to pass the winter. Max is very worried about this. She kindly reminded Caroline; however, Caroline took it for granted that winter is still far away.Max: That's the snow when you are rich． The only snow angels you'll see this year are the six crack addicts frozen to our stoop． Not to mention the adorable frozen horse we have illegally living in the backyard．Caroline: Max，don't overreact． Chestnut's fine． It's gonna for weeks．Max: All right，have it your way． But I wouldn't want to be the next tenants who have figure out why a pissed off horse is haunting a Brooklyn apartment． I was cold and she thought she knew weather patterns．In the above conversation, Max‘s friend didn‘t listen to her remind, but she didn‘t directly tell the truth that the horse will be cold die. Instead, she said ‗you can stick to your mind‘. She assumed that she don‘t want to listen to the other tenants‘ complaint that a pissed off horse is haunting a Brooklyn apartment, ‗I was cold and she thought she knew weather patterns.‘ Meanwhile, due to avoid direct expression, although it breaches the manner maxim, it complies with the tat maxim in the politeness principle, as a result, the effect of humour occurs.3.2.2 Analyze humorous dialogues in Two Broke Girls from pragmatic presuppositionIn pragmatics, presupposition means presupposed relationships in connection with faith, supposition, intentions between the speaker and the object. Presupposition is a kind of pragmatic inference, and it satisfies three conditions: appropriateness or felicity; mutual knowledge and revocability. In linguistic communication, to reach the goal of the communication, both of the two sides should have common linguistic presupposition. But in real communication, presupposition would possibly lose efficacy, however, when applied in sitcoms, skilful process on presupposition can create humour effects. For example:Caroline: Listen, toni ght I thought of a way we could make some extra money. They‘ve totally underestimate the price point on those red velvet cupcakes. In Manhattan the asking price is at least seven, so we can sell them for seven, and then pocket the difference.Max: Nothing about that sounds wrong to you?Caroline: It‘s not our fault that the idiot who makes the cupcakes doesn‘t know their worth.Max: I am the idiot who makes the cupcakes.Caroline: New information.This dialogue happens on the first day Caroline starts working in the restaurant. Caroline excitedly advises Max: today I thought of a way we could make some extra money. They‘ve totally underestimate the price point on those red velvet cupcakes. In Manhattan the asking price is at least seven, so we can sell them for seven, and then pocket the difference. Max thinks that 7 dollars is kind of over exaggerated and nobody will buy their cupcakes. Caroline explains: It‘s not our fault that the idiot who makes the cupcakes doesn‘t know their worth. Their talk doesn‘t share a same presupposition. Not until Max says angrily that she is the idiot who makes cupcake does Caroline realize that she said something wrong. It is embarrassing. It is the dialogue which violates the mutual acknowledgement in presupposition and creates the comedy effects that make audience laugh.3.2.3 Analyze humorous dialogue in Two Broke Girls from the theory of politenessIn 1987，Brown and Levinson systematically discussed the politeness theory in their books, which theory contains three basic concepts: face, face threatening acts and face-saving acts. They thought that face is a kind of individual expression that every adult would try to get in any public places. Face threatening acts include commands, suggestions and proposals. They divided face into positive face and negative face. Positive face refers to people in communicative acts hoping to receive affirmation and acknowledgement from others and that their wishes coming true; negative face means people are free of any invasion or intervention when making any independent choices or taking actions. In daily communication, when in embarrassing situations, one who is speaking would usually try to save their face by changing topic, covering errors, finding excuses or using exaggerated words. Humorous effects naturally arise when all these means are applied in sitcoms. For example:Max: Hi, so, what hell is this?Customer: Excuse me, I don‘t understand.Max: Dogs aren‘t allowed in the diner.Customer: He‘s legally allowed to be here.He‘s my regis tered emotional companion.Max: You mean you don‘t have a boyfriend.Customer: No, I suffer from anxiety.Max: You mean you don‘t want to eat alone.Customer: No, I have a note from a doctor.Max: You mean you have a printer and the Internet. Admit it, and the dog can stay.Customer: It‘s really hard meeting guys.In the restaurant, a woman takes a dog with her, but by rule, dogs are not allowed in the restaurant. So Max goes to the woman and says: So, what the hell is this? Woman: Excuse me, I don't understand. Max: Dogs aren‘t allowed in the diner. To save her face, the woman finds an excuse and says: He‘s legally allowed to be here. He‘s my registered emotional companion. Max continues to push her step by step with the face threatening act: I understand, you don‘t have a boyfriend; or you don't want to eat alone, maybe you have internet and printer in your house. Admit it, and the dog can stay. The woman still try to save her face by covering her words and answers: No, I suffer from anxiety. I have a note from doctor. Finally, as the woman still want to eat there, she has no choice but admit: Yes, it‘s really hard meeting guys. In the dialogue, the sense of humour is created by saving face and threatening face.Chapter Four Conclusion4.1 Major FindingsH umorous dialogue not only is the sole of sitcoms, but also adds fun to peoples‘ daily life. It works under its own rules, and it is closely related to some particular environment and pragmatics.In this thesis, several theories of pragmatics are used to analyze the humorous dialogues in Two Broke Girls. Different theories can guide the thesis to analyze humorous dialogues from various aspects, and they indicate that we can use those them to understand and study the words from different ways thoroughly. So on one hand, the audience and readers can understand the humours better- knowing what and why; on the other, applying real communication to theory introduction and analysis can let us understand them more deeply.4.2 Limitations of ThesisAs this thesis adopts only some limited fragments in Two Broke Girls to conduct some pragmatic analysis on its humorous dialogues and to explore the relations among different pragmatic theories, so this research is not a thorough one.Reference[1] Brown，G.& Yule，G. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge University Press，1983[2] Curcó，C. Some Observations on the Pragmatics of Humorous Interpretations: Relevance Theoretic Approach [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics，1995(7):27—47[3] Halliday，M.A. K. & Hasan，R. Cohesion in English [M]. London:Longman，1976[4] Hoey，M. Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000[5] Yus，F. Humor and the Search for Relevance[J]. Journal of Pragmatics，2003(35):1295—1331.[6] 蔡辉，尹星. 西方幽默理论研究综述[J]. 外语研究，2005(1):5—15[7] 崔金明. ―悲中带喜‖ ―雅而不俗‖―雅俗共赏‖——从《老大的幸福》看―范式幽默‖ 的语言特色[J]. 新闻爱好者，2010(19):59[8] 陈春华. 会话幽默的语用分析[J].解放军外国语学院学报，1999.22(1):21—24[9] 陈平. 话语分析说略[J]. 语言教学与研究，1987(3):4—19[10] 戴连云. 小说人物对话话轮形式层面衔接手段及翻译[J]. 安徽理工大学学报，2005(2):48—55。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
5.2 Q-, I- and M-Principles
• Levinson (1987) points out that Horn confuses formal minimization with semantic minimization. • formal minimization: the use of an unmarked simpler or shorter form as compared to a more complicated form
5.3 Anaphora: a case study
• The Binding Theory proposed by Noam Chomsky (约束理论): anaphor pronominal r-expression
5.3 Anaphora: a case study
• According to Levinson, only the a-clause is necessary because the other two can be generated by the Q-, I- and M-principles (Levinson 1987: 410):
5.2 Q-, I- and M-Principles
• b. Information Principle (I-Principle) Do not make your contribution more informative than required. Speaker’s maxim: Recipient’s corollary:
• semantic minimization: the use of a more specific rather than a more general expression
5.3 Anaphora: a case study
• Yan Huang黄衍：提出并系统发展了包括指代的新格赖斯语nd R-Principles
• a. the force of unification单一化力量 the speaker’s economy use one word for all meanings • b. the force of diversification多样化力量 the auditor’s economy use one word for one meaning
Unit 5 Neo-Gricean Pragmatics
Contents
• 5.1 Q- and R-Principles • 5.2 Q-, I- and M-Principles • 5.3 Anaphor: a case study
5.1 Q- and R-Principles
• Lawrence Horn points out that there are two competing forces governing people’s linguistic behavior: a. the force of unification单一化力量 b. the force of diversification多样化力量
5.2 Q-, I- and M-Principles
• c. Manner Principle (M-Principle) Speaker’s maxim: Recipient’sቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱcorollary:
5.2 Q-, I- and M-Principles
• a. Quantity Principle (Q-Principle) based on the first sub-maxim of Grice’s Quantity Maxim b. Information Principle (I-Principle) based on the second sub-maxim of Grice’s Quantity Maxim c. Manner Principle (M-Principle) based on the Manner Maxim
5.1 Q- and R-Principles
• Horn proposes two parallel conversational principles: a. The hearer-based Q-principle: Say as much as we can; b. The speaker-based R-principle: Say no more than we must.
5.3 Anaphora: a case study
• Horn scale霍恩级差规则
根据霍恩级差规则，语句的意义有强弱之分，同一含意的不同语句 可视其强度大小排列为<S, W>系列，在一定条件下说出弱项语句表 明强项语句的意义不能成立。
5.2 Q-, I- and M-Principles
• b. Information Principle (I-Principle) stereotypical relations常规关系： 从话语的理解特别是含意推导来 说 ， 常 规 关 系 被 提 炼 为 常 规 范 型 (stereotype)，在话语中体现为含意或称隐性表述(implicit expression)的具体内容，对语句的显性表述(explicit expression)作出阐 释或补足，使话语得以理解为相对完备的表达，达至交际的理解 （徐盛桓 2002: 6-7）。 徐盛桓. 2002. “常规关系与认知化 ——再论常规关系”.《外国语》 （1）：6-16.
5.1 Q- and R-Principles
• a. The hearer-based Q-principle: Say as much as we can; (the first sub-maxim of Quantity Maxim; the first two submaxims of Manner Maxim) • b. The speaker-based R-principle: Say no more than we must. (the second sub-maxim of Quantity Maxim and Relation Maxim; the third sub-maxim of Manner Maxim)
5.2 Q-, I- and M-Principles
• a. Quantity Principle (Q-Principle) Make your contribution as informative as required. Speaker’s maxim: Recipient’s corollary:
5.2 Q-, I- and M-Principles
• Proposed by Stephen Levinson a. Quantity Principle (Q-Principle) b. Information Principle (I-Principle) c. Manner Principle (M-Principle)