pragmatics：an introduction

合集下载

Chapter One An Introduction to Pragmatics

Chapter Ten Systemic Functional grammar
Chapter Eleven Critical discourse analysis
Chapter Twelve Pragmatic transfer in intercultural communication
Grice suggested that pragmatics should centre on the more practical dimension of meaning, namely the conversational meaning which was later formulated in a variety of ways (Levinson, 1983; Leech, 1983).
The Anglo-American VS Continental tradition of pragmatic study
The Anglo-American tradition of pragmatic study focuses on how language users express and interpret communicative intention.
The development of pragmatics owes much to the heated dispute over Chomsky’s view of language.
Chomsky believes that people are born to have the LAD.
Many linguists are against Chomsky’s practice of ignoring the social and contextual factors in language use.

英语人称指示语分析

文化长廊英语人称指示语分析陈富强辽宁大学外国语学院摘要：随着我国对外开放的推进，越来越多的中国人开始学习和使用英语以达到与外国人交流沟通的目的。

受到中英不同文化的影响，英语指示语和汉语指示语并不完全相同，如果用汉语思维理解英语指示语，就容易产生误会、影响交流。

本文搜集了一些日常生活中的话语作为语料，分别分析了英语第一、第二、第三指示语的实际含义，为学习英语的中国人了解并正确使用英语指示语提供了理论帮助。

关键词：指示语；汉语思维作者简介：陈富强（1995-），男，山西太原人，辽宁大学外国语学院外国语言学及应用语言学专业研究生。

[中图分类号]：H313 [文献标识码]：A[文章编号]：1002-2139(2018)-09-174-011、引言人称指示语是指示语的重要组成部分。

人称指示语是对出现在言语活动中的交际双方及言语活动谈及的其他角色的符号指称。

人称指示语可以分为三种类别：第一、第二、第三人称指示语。

对于人称指示语的研究通常局限于语法层面，主要研究人称指示语的指示意义。

实际上，人称指示语是用于特定语境中表达意义的，它不仅表达指示意义还表达社交意义。

不同语境下的人称指示语并不相同。

本文将分析不同语境下的英语人称指示语的意义，对英语学习者理解并使用英语人称指示语提供帮助。

2、英语第一人称指示语在英语中，第一人称可以分为第一人称单数指示语“I”和第一人称复数指示语“we”。

人们常常利用第一人称单数指示语“I”表达自己的看法和态度，体现了说话者对该观点正确性的信心以及说话者愿意承担话语后果的责任，增强了话语的说服力。

在第一人称复数指示语“we”的使用中，一般有四种情况。

第一种，“we”既包括说话者又包括听话者，在这种情况下，说话者将他与听话者放到同一个立场上，缩短了他与听话者的心理距离。

这种“we”常常使用在说话者为听话者提出建议或请求的语境中；第二种，“we”不包含说话者，这种用法可以弱化说话语气，从而使听话者更容易接受说话者的想法，所以常常用于祈使句当中，如We can’t do this again, Tom，这是Tom的母亲劝诫Tom不要再做某事时使用的，这句话中的we指代Tom, 说话者用we代替you缩短了会话双方Tom和母亲的心理距离，使Tom 更容易接受母亲的劝告；第三种，“we”不包含听话者，说话者在使用这种“we”时可以体现他的权威与社会地位；第四种,“we”常在第一人称指示语的位置上，显示出说话者将观点的提出归功于团队的共同努力，使说话者的观点听起来更加客观，更可信赖，而且显现了说话者谦虚的态度，从而使说话者的观点与想法更容易被接受。

语用学第一章

• Definition 2: • Pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of meaning not captured in a semantic theory. • 语用学是对所有那些未能纳入语意理论的意义侧面的研究。
• Definition 3: • Pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context that are basic to an account of language understanding. • 语用学是对语言和语用之间对于说明语言理解来说是十分根本的那些关系的研究。
Component vs. perspective分相论与综观论
• • Component view of pragmatics Davis points out in his book Pragmatics: A Reader(1991) that pragmatics, like phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics, is a component of linguistics. • Perspective view of pragmatics Verschueren(1999) proposes that pragmatics is not a component of linguistics, but a new way of looking at language. Pragmatics is specified as “a general cognitive, social, and cultural perspective on linguistic phenomena in relation to their usage in forms of behavior”(Verschueren,1999) 语用学是语言各个方面的功能总览, 即研究人类生活中语言的认知、社会和文化的功能。

英语语言学硕士研究生必读书目

英语语言学硕士研究生必读书目1. Cook, V.and Newson, M. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction.外语教学与研究出版，20002. Radford,A. Syntactic theory and the structure ofEnglish.London:CUP,19973. Quirk, et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.Longman,1985.4. 胡壮麟. 语言学教程. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2001.5. 何兆熊. 新编语用学概要. 上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000。

.6. Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.7. Mey, J.L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.8. Austin, J.L. How to Do Things with Words. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.9. de Saussure, F. 1983. Course in General Linguistics. London: Duckworth.10.Quirk, R et al, 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London/New York: Longman.11.Joseph, G. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers(5th edition). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.12.朱刚：《二十世纪西方文艺批评理论》（英文），上海外语教育出版社，2001；13.刘炳善：《英国文学简史》（英文），郑州：河南人民出版社；14．常耀信：《美国文学简史》（英文），天津：南开大学出版社；15.文学方向必读期刊：Critical Inquiry, published by the University of Chicago; New Literary History, published by the Johns Hopkins University Press; Comparative Literature, published by University of Oregon;《外国文学评论》、《外国文学研究》、《外国文学》、《国外文学》、《当代外国文学》或其他与外国文学相关的核心期刊。

普通语言学 8-Pragmatics讲解

Jef Verschueren (1999): Adaptability theory
5. 为什么研究语用学？
Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -neither more nor less.”
英美语用学: 语用学的成分论 (component view of pragmatics)
欧陆语用学: 语用学的综观论 (perspective view of pragmatics)
英美语用学
语用学是语言理论的核心组成部分，与语音学、音位学、形态学、句法学、语义学的地位相同。
语用学研究的是依赖于语言使用的意义。
Carnap (1942)：order of degree of abstractness: syntax is the most and pragmatics is the least abstract, with semantics lying somewhere in between. Syntax provides input to semantics, which provides input to pragmatics.
主要研究：含意、预设、言语行为、指示语
欧陆语用学
语用学为语言行为的各个方面提供一个功能的视角或综观。
语用学在总体上被看作是语言交际的理论。
包括社会语言学、心里语言学、语篇分析所涵盖的领域。
欧陆语用学
更加接近Morris（1938）的语用学思想
Jacob Mey (1993):
1. Micropragmatics: context, implicature and reference; pragmatic principles; speech acts; conversation analysis

语用学Pragmatics An Introduction

Pragmatics: An Introduction
1
Chapter 1:Defining Pragmatics
Preliminaries Pragmatics: definition and delimitation What use is pragmatics?
2
Preliminaries
15
Dynamic communication perspective: Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance. (Yule, 1996:3) Pragmatics is the study of the ability of language users to pair sentences with the contexts in which they would be appropriate. (Levinson, 1983:24)
11
The complementarity by Leech
Semanticism (pragmatics inside semantics) Pragmaticism (semantics inside pragmatics) Complementarism (complementary but independent)
12
Definitions
Speaker’s perspective: Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning. (George Yule, 1996:3) Pragmatics is the study of how people use language for successful communication. (Kempson, 1977:84)

英语幽默的语用分析

英语幽默的语用分析【摘要】幽默可以在我们的日常对话中发现。

这是语言在交流中的一种有意识的积极应用。

它有助于我们打破交流僵局，缓和需求方式，建立稳固的群体关系。

幽默作为一种语言行为和一种传统的温婉结果，与上下文紧密相连，而上下文又是语用学中的一个关键概念之一。

我们可以从合作原则、前提假设、言语行为和相关性几方面来分析英语幽默。

这样做，我们可以更好地理解以英语为母语国家的英语幽默和文化。

【关键词】幽默；语用；原则；分析（Philip Barcock Gove，1220）根据韦氏词典的定义，幽默是“说或做出来的旨在逗人开心或发笑的东西；尤其是一个简短的口头描述用来曲解或否认。

”幽默存在于对话、公共演讲、广告、电视节目、大众杂志当中。

语言交流中的幽默应用能够反应制造幽默的人的知识、教养、智慧和交际技巧。

从语用学的观点看，幽默与产生它的上下文紧密相关，因为通过上下文幽默才能产生，被理解和被欣赏。

幽默无法脱离语言的内在规则而存在。

但在特定的上下文中，通过非正常的原则应用，对话暗示可以产生。

只有当具有更好的语言知识，强大的认知和推断能力时，讲话人才能成功地推断出含义，而真正的意义可能导致对幽默的成功立即和欣赏。

我们可以从以下几个语用方面来将语用原则应用到英语幽默分析上。

一、幽默和合作原则美国哲学家和逻辑学家H.Paul Grice试图解释平常对话的过程，而这种过程包含了频繁使用的信息。

1967年，他提出人们遵守一种合作原则和一套所谓的谈话真理，来自我们的谈话交换。

他认为听者以这种真理为基础获取真实含义的线索，甚至即使在违背该真理的情况下，说话者也遵循合作原则。

这种合作原则（缩写为CP）由四种语用次原则或者准则组成。

1.数量准则：①使你的言语尽量按要求有益。

②不要让你的言语的内涵超出要求。

2.质量准则：①不要说你相信的东西是假的。

②不要谈那些你没有足够把握的东西。

3.关系准则：让你的言谈有关联。

4.方式准则：清楚，明确。

第一堂课笔记

Provisional syllabus1.defining pragmatics(semantics vs. pragmatics)2.deixis3.prepositional meaning vs. implicature4.speech acts vs. illocutionary force5.presupposition6.conversational structure参考书目：Pragmatics: An introduction(何兆雄，姜望琪，何自然)Assignment: some 2500 words on pragmatic topicsImportant distinctions1.utterance vs. sentenceAn utterance from a particular word, phrase, or sentence because ana particular Speaker, Hearer, time, place, available things, and recent language, in addition to its own linguistic form. I'll sometimes refer to the Speaker and Hearer as utterance participants. For example, we can put the English words I, like, and it together to make the English sentence I like it, but this sentence is a different utterance each time it is uttered.Each utterance has its own context, and, as we will see below, for each context the sentence has a different meaning. That is, meaning always changes from one utterance context to another.（for the same sentence）The figure below is one way of representing the elements of an utterance context.different situation. For example, the Speaker role is filled by a particular person, and the Location role is filled by a particular place. We will meet the concept of role again later in this book; in fact it is one of the most fundamental notions in cognitive science.Distinction between usage and useThe term usage refers to conventions, most often to those of language. Thus, "English usage" or"French usage" refers to the conventions of those languages, respectively. When we refer to "word usage," we mean the conventions for using words; when we refer to "use of words," we mean only the employment of words: "This text describes the principles of word usage." "He is noted for his frequent use of wrong words."Usage: the way that words are used in a language:the way in which something id used, or the amount of it that is used 词语的使用，东西抽象、归纳的使用：car usage has increased dramatically.(使用方法，用量) a book on modern English usage关于现代英语用法的书Use：1 when people use something to do something: Are you in favor of the use of animals for research?2. A purpose for which something can be used the drug has many uses.3.If you have the use of something, you are able to use it or someone has allowed you to use it运用能力；使用权：Joe's given me the use of his office.Robin LakoffFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRobin Tolmach Lakoff (born 1942) is a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley. Lakoff's writings have become the basis for much research on the subject of women's language. In a 1975 article, she published ten basic assumptions about what she felt constituted a special women's language. Much of what Lakoff proposed agreed with theories originally proposed in the 1920s by Otto Jespersen in Growth and Structure of the English Language (1905, revised and republished several times).Lakoff's most famous work, Language and Woman's Place, introduced to the field of sociolinguistics many ideas about women's language that are now commonplace. She proposed (Language and Woman's Place) that women's speech can be distinguished from that of men in a number of ways, including:1.Hedges: Phrases like "sort of," "kind of," "it seems like"2.Empty adjectives: divine, adorable, gorgeous, etc3.(Super-)Polite forms: "Would you mind…" "Is it o.k if…?" "…if it’s not too much to ask"4.Apologize more: "I'm sorry, but I think that…"5.Speak less frequently6.Avoid coarse language or expletives7.Tag questions: "You don't mind eating this, do you?". Subsequent research has cast somedoubt on this proposition8.Hyper-correct grammar and pronunciation: Use of prestige grammar and clear articulation9.Indirect requests: "Wow I'm so thirsty." – really asking for a drink10.Speak in italics: Use tone to emphasis certain words, e.g., "so", "very", "quite".Lakoff also developed the 'Politeness Principle', in which she devised three maxims that are usually followed in interaction. These are: Don't impose, give the receiver options and make the receiver feel good. She stated that these are paramount in good interaction. By not adhering to these maxims, a speaker is said to be 'flouting the maxims'.。

Chapter One An Introduction to PragmaticsPPT教学课件

2020/12/09
5
Chapter One Introduction to pragmatics
1.1 The origin and development of pragmatics
1.2 Definitions of pragmatics 1.3 Focus of pragmatics 1.4 Criticisms of pragmatics
He ignores the use of language and the communicative function of language.
2020/12/09
11
In 1950, he discovered Syntax. Like the structuralists, he focused his study on language form, still regarded meaning as too messy for serious contemplation.
2020/12/09
7
The term “pragmatics” is attributed to the philosopher Charles Morris (1938) who was concerned to outline the general shape of a science of signs or semiotics as Morris
one part of semiotics, studying the origin of signs, the usage and the function of signs in behaviour.
The development of pragmatics owes much to the heated dispute over Chomsky’s view of language.

supplementary reading unit 6

Unit sixText OneDirection: The following text is about the aims of pragmatics. Do you agree on the author’s point when you finish reading the text? (J. L. Mey. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001: 14-15)In linguistics, it has long been an article of faith that the science of language has to be practiced for its own sake. Linguists have talked about the ―immanence‖ of linguistic theory, by which they mean that linguistics is accountable only to itself as to its methods and objectives. Historically, this has been understandable in a relatively young science such as linguistics: It needed to be independent of the surrounding sciences, and to carve out its own domain, so to speak. But for a developed science, the desire for immanence is not a sign of maturity; on the contrary, the immanent approach to the study of language has tended to isolate its different aspects, and in many cases the practitioners of linguistics have not been able to talk to each other except in very general terms. When it comes to doing things for a prupose, such as describing languages, often thought of as the prime practical endeavor of linguists, the consensus remains largely theoretical. Here is an example.In the course of the past decades, it has become increasingly clear that the descriptive endeavor of linguistics is in great danger of being irrevocably thwarted. All description is strictly a terminal process, that is, a process with a built-in terminus ad quem: When everything has been described that there is to describe, description has to come to an end.In the heydays of description, this never used to be a real concern: there were always enough languages to describe. The times when every Ph. D. candidate in linguistics could travel to the ―field‖ and pick himself or herself a language to work on are not so long past, after all.However, with the ever-increasing westernization and industrialization of the Third and Fourth, many languages of those worlds have begun to disappear as an ever-more rapid speed. According to fact-based projections, we are looking at a loss of languages in the order of several thousand in the next fifty years or so. Linguists speak of ―endangered languages‖, and vote on resolutions about what to do to ―save‖ those languages.For the describer, it is clearly a loss to have one’s potential object of description vanish from under one’s eyes. And as long as the purpose of descriptive linguistics is to go ―out there‖ and collect as many as possible of the vanishing species of languages, it is clearly a catastrophe when those species start disappearing on a grand scale. The linguistic remedy for this evil is to save the languages by accelerating and perfecting the descriptive process, through better targeted and more generous funding, through the training of native linguists, through providing teachers and other personnel that can help in ―alphabetizing‖ those mostly unwritten and unrecorded languages, so that we at least may have some documentation to show our successors in the trade, and can parry the reproach of having squandered away the linguistic patrimony of generations to come, by saying: ―Here’s what we have done—it may not be perfect, but we did our best.‖However, the best in this case isn’t good enough. Description, as the ultimate aim of linguistic science, digs its own grave; but when all is said and done, describing the language that has disappeared has not done a thing for the people that went with it. The question—Why do languages disappear and what can we do about the causes of this linguistic decay? –is seldom raised. In other words, saving languages is thought of as a process of putting away, cataloguing describing; not as a process that saves the languages by saving their users, providing the latterwith living conditions that allow them to continue using their languages. A pragmatic look at the problems of endangered languages tells us not just to go out there and describe, but to fight what has been called ―linguistic genocide‖, or ―linguicide‖ for short.Text TwoDirection: The following text is about spatial deixis in English. Please have a contrastive analysis between English and Chinese spatial deixis. (G. Y ule. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: 12-13)The concept of distance already mentioned is clearly relevant to spatial deixis, where the relative location of people and things is being indicated. Contemporary English makes us of only two adverbs, ―here‖ and ―there‖, for the basic distinction, but in older texts and in some dialects, a much larger set of deictic expressions can be found. Although ―yonder‖ (more distant from the speaker) is still used, words like ―hither‖ (to this place) and ―thence‖ (from that place) now sound archaic. These last two adverbs include the meaning of motion toward or away from the speaker. Some verbs of motion, such as ―come‖ and ―go‖, retain a deictic sense when they are used to mark movement toward the speaker (―Come to bed!‖) or away from the speaker (―Go to bed!‖) One version of the concept of motion toward the speaker (i.e. becoming visible), seems to be the first deictic meaning learned by children and characterizes their use of words like ―this‖ and ―here‖ (=can be seen). They are distinct from ―that‖ and ―there‖ which are associated with things that move out of the child’s visual space( =can no longer be seen).In considering spatial deixis, however, it is important to remember that location from the speaker’s perspective can be fixed mentally as well as physically. Speakers temporarily away from their home location will often continue to use ―here‖to mean the (physically distant) home location, as if they were still in that location. Speakers also seem to be able to project themselves into other locations prior to actually being in those locations, as when they say ―I’ll come later‖(=movement to addressee’s location). This is sometimes described as deictic projection and we make more use of its possibilities as more technology allows us to manipulate location. If ―here‖means the place of the speaker’s utterance (and ―now‖ means the time of the speaker’s utterance), then an utterance like (5) should be nonsense.(5) I am not here now.However, I can say (5) into the recorder of a telephone answering machine, projecting that the ―now‖ will apply to any time someone tries to call me, and not to when I actually record the words. Indeed, recording (5) is a kind of dramatic performance for a future audience in which I project my presence to be in a required location. A similar deictic projection is accomplished via dramatic performance when I use direct speech to represent the person, location, and feeling of someone or something else. For example, I could be telling you about a visit to a petstore, as in (6).(6) I was looking at this little puppy in a cage with such a sad look on its fact. It was like, ―Oh, I’m so unhappy here, will you set me free?‖The ―here‖ of the cage is not the actual physical location of the person uttering the words (the speaker), but is the location of that person performing in the role of the puppy.It may be that the truly pragmatic basis of spatial deixis is actually psychological distance. Physically close objects will tend to be treated by the speaker as psychologically close. Also, something that is physically distant will generally be treated as psychologically distant (forexample, ―that man over there‖). However, a speaker may also wish to mark something that is physically close (for example, a perfume being stiffed by the speaker) as psychologically distant ―I don’t like that‖. In this analysis, a word like ―that‖ does not have a fixed (i.e. semantic) meaning; instead, it is ―invested‖ with meaning in a context by a speaker.Similar psychological processes seem to be at work in our distinction between proximal and distal expressions used to mark temporal deixis.。

Pragmatics 语用学简介

Pragmatics
6. 2 Violation of CP and Conversational Implicature
• • • Dear Sir, Mr X’s command of English is excellent, and his attendance at tutorials has been regular. Yours,
Lecture 8
Pragmatics
Passage 23 Pragmatics • Questions: • 1. What are the definition and purpose of pragmatics? • 2. What are the speech act principles? • 3. What is illocutionary force? And what is implicit and • explicit illocutionary force? • 4. What are the conversational principles? • 5. What decides the appropriateness of speech? • 6. Why are implicit illocutionary force, conversation • principles, and presuppositions important?
9. Over-informativeness and additional information 10. Conversation analysis 11. Pragmatics and foreign language learning 12. Literary pragmatics

语用学学习心得

语用学学习心得黄燕红语用学是一门研究语言符号在实际交际中使用的学科，其研究对象是语言在使用中所产生的意义。

这种意义包含的是可能是等于或大于字面上的意义，甚至不等于字面意义。

语用学研究语言的使用，必不可少地要对语言使用的相关领域进行探讨，如句法学、语义学等语言学系统内部的科学，还涉及对认知科学、社会学、符号学、逻辑学等领域研究的知识。

在上世纪八九十年代，关于语用学的专著相继出版，它们反映了语用学研究的不同视角。

根本不同的研究方向，学界对语用学的研究分成了英美学派和欧洲大陆学派。

其中的论题，如指示（deixis）、含义（implicature）、前提（又称为“预设”）（presupposition）、言语行为(speech act)等，都是语用学的经典论题。

其中对于会话含义的研究，因为我对此感兴趣，在此将对它们的认识作一个简单的学习总结。

关于含义（implicature）的分析，英美和欧洲大陆两大学派的研究方向不一样。

欧洲大陆的语言学研究十分强调语言的社会功能，认为语言同社会、文化、环境等密不可分。

因此对会话的含义的理解与语境相结合的，而语境又是以使用者为指向的。

而相对欧洲大陆学派，英美学派更注重对具体语言现象和问题的研究。

他们注重语言内部的语义结构以及意义与人类交流过程的外部世界的联系。

就含义这个概念来说，是格莱斯第一次从语用学的角度提出来的术语。

他的这种从语言意义的细节出发，对含义进行分析，这被后人归纳为英美学派。

在他的理论中，他对话语的交流及意义的解释使用了两个理论：分别是意义的理论和会话含义的理论（Huang，2009：24-35）。

意义的理论，指向话语的语言学意义和外部世界的自然意义的关系。

而另一个重要的理论--会话含义理论中则提到，人们在用语言进行交流时，必定有一个潜在的原则决定语言使用的方式，使之最有效最充分地达到理性的交流活动。

这个原则就是他所说的合作原则。

该原则下分成了9条会话准则，分别属于4个范畴：数量、质量、关系、方式准则。

语用学文献综述

语用学文献综述摘要:语用学作为一门独立的学科,至今不过二十多年时间,但其发展速度和影响却是不可忽视的.本文将对语用学的发展做一个简要的回顾,并就其在我国的发展情况进一步作简要介绍.关键字: 语用学发展综述一引言语用学自20世纪70，80年代由西方学者们建立起来之后，其作为一门独立的学科,至今不过二十多年时间，但它却受到了各科学者极大的重视，取得了很大的发展，成为了外语界和汉语界共同研究的热点。

二语用学的发展语用学的发展大致经历了以下几个发展阶段:1 语用学的源起:在回顾语用学的发展历程之前,我们有必要先了解一下语用学产生的背景.20世纪初,现代语言学的奠基人索绪尔区分了语言和言语, 历时研究和共时研究, 纵向替代和横向组合关系这三对重要的语言学概念. 在他的语言和语言学理论影响下,相继出现了结构主义语言学的几个重要学派. 一直到20世纪50年代,语言学领域一直是结构主义语言学一统天下的局面, 他们重视研究语言能力研究, 忽视语言运用研究. 直到20世纪中叶,乔姆斯基转换生成语法的提出, 使得人们开始重视起语义方面的研究, 一些学者出版了相关著作.语义研究的加强直接导致了语用学的产生和蓬勃发展. 但直到20世纪60年代, 语用学一直作为"废纸篓" 接纳语义学无法解决或者没有提及的内容.早在1938年,美国哲学家Morris 就已经提出将符号学分为三个部分:句法学, 语义学和语用学. 也是他第一个提出了"语用学"这个概念. 但是Morris在这里提到的语用学实际上有区别与我们今天所学习的语用学. 或者可以说, Morris 所研究的是符号语用学, 而我们今天所研究的属于语言语用学.虽然Morris的理论得到了一些学者的认同, 但在这之后的40年时间里, 其发展在语言学领域一直处于停滞状态.在50年代中期到60年代末, 语用学的发展取得了很大的进步.1955年,美国哲学家奥斯汀(Austin) 提出了著名的言语行为理论, 这是语用学上的第一个重要理论的出现. 他认为"任何言语都是在实施行为, 至于话语具体实施什么样的行为, 在一定程度上要依赖语境而确定."(杨文秀:2003). 他进一步将每一个言语行为划分为是在实施三个行为,即locutiongary action(言内行为), illocutionary action (言外行为) and perlocutionary action(言后行为). 言外行为是我们表达和研究的重点.奥斯汀的学生塞尔(Searle)继承并发扬了他的老师的观点.并进一步提出了间接行为理论", 即说话人不仅可以通过直接言语行为, 而且可以通过实施某种言语行为可以间接地实施另一种言语行为.美国哲学家格莱斯(Grice)提出了人类言语中普遍遵循的原则------合作原则, 并进一步将其细化为四个准则: 量的准则, 质的准则, 关联准则, 方式准则. 至此, 语用学的基本理论已经形成.1977年, <<语用学杂志>>在荷兰正式出版发行; 1983年, 第一本语用学教科书Pragmatics(由语言学家莱文森著)问世; 1986年国际语用协会(IPrA)成立. 这三件大事标志着语用学作为语言研究的一个相对独立地分科得到学术界地承认.3 语用学的繁荣发展90年代以来,语用学以惊人地速度发展着,除了大批学术论文外, 一批语用研究的专著相继问世.如:Grundy, Doing Pragmatics( 2000 )Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka. Interlanguage Pragmatics ( 1993)Mey, J. Pragmatics: An Introduction. ( 1993)Thomas, J.Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. ( 1995.)V erschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics. ( 1999.)George Yule. Pragmatics.(1996)etc.这几本专著的侧重点各自不同,而且每本著作里都有作者自己对语用学独到地见解,这对语用学的飞速发展创造了很大的条件.三语用学的基础知识莱文森(Levinson)认为,语用学可以分为两大流派, 一是英美学派,他们把语用学看作是语言学的一个分枝,与句法学,语义学等并列, 有人称其是语用学的分相论,其研究大多是脱离语境进行的. 现在这种观点多被称为微观语用学. 二是欧洲大陆学派,以May, V erschueren 为代表人物, 他们主张将语用学看作是语言功能的综观, 认为语用学没有具体的基本研究内容, 认为凡是与语言的使用和理解有关的都可以看作语用学的研究对象, V erschueren在他的著作Understanding Pragmatic 中,系统的阐述的这种综观论. 人们一般称其为宏观语用学,其研究分枝主要有社会语用学,跨文化语用学以及认知语用学等. 分相论一直被语用学界接受为普遍的看法.但是语用学的研究也并不是被这两种流派二分天下的, 德国当代著名思想家,哲学家哈贝马斯(Habermas)从强调交际中的语用规范出发,提出了"规范语用学"(formal pragmatics)的概念. 但事实证明这是一种建立在理想化语境下的研究,是不会成功的.2 语用学的主要研究内容目前, 一般把指别(deixis),会话含义(conversational implicature), 预设(presuppotion),言语行为理论(sppech act theory), 会话分析(conversational analysis) 以及微观上的礼貌原则(polite principle), 合作原则(cooperative principle)等作为语用学的主要研究内容.四语用学在我国的发展情况语用学从20世纪80年代初开始, 其理论和研究方法才开始被引入到我国,到现在也不过20几年时间, 但它在我国的传播却十分迅速. 一般认为我国学者在语用学方面的研究工作主要可以分为以下两个大的方向:一是引进国外理论,二是与汉语结合进行相关的语用学研究.最早在国内介绍语用学相关理论地是北京大学地胡壮麟教授. 它在<<国外语言学>>上发表的题为<<语用学>> (1980), 是最早也是最全面细致的介绍国外相关理论的学术文章.此后, 国内许多专家学者也纷纷开始出版,发表有关语言学的论文, 如:钱冠连, 语用学在中国: 起步与展望, (1990);何自然, 语用学方法论刍议, (1999);何自然, 我国近年莱的语用学研究, (2004);黄次栋. 语用学与语用错误, (1984);此外, 许多专家也出版了一些语用学方面的教科书并翻译了一些外国学术著作, 作为语言学专业学生了解这门学科的快速, 直接有效的途径, 如:索振羽, 语用学教程, (2000)姜望琪, Pragmatics: theories and applications, (2000)何自然,冉永平，语用学概论, (2002)何兆熊, 语用学概要, (1999)钱冠连等,语用学诠释, (2003) 等这些著作或是创作都为语用学理论何研究方法在我国的快速传播起到了巨大的推动作用.同时这也是为我国学者创造自己的理论而积蓄力量. 但直到目前, 我国学者所进行的基本上是对西方现有的语用学理论加以评论、修正和补充如钱冠连(1986,1989)对格赖斯的合作原则及其各会话准则提出不同的看法; 徐盛衡对“新格赖斯会话含意理论”这种语用推导机制修正和补充,进而提出自己的会话含意理论框架; 顾曰国(1990) 结合汉语对对“礼貌原则”的探讨,并对“礼貌原则”和“面子”概念作出了重要修正. 这些研究成果是我国学者在语用学道路上取得的巨大进步, 但是我们在自己的理论创造方面仍然急需加强.五结束语语用学是一门历史悠久的学科, 其内容早在古希腊、古罗马时期便受到学者的关注。

pragmatics：an introduction

implication versus implicature
• implication: 1, a possible effect or result of an action or a decision • 2, something that is suggested or indirectly stated • 3, the fact of being involved,or of involving sb in sth,escepially a crime
• Implicature is a technical term in the pragmatics subfield of linguistics, coined by H. P. Grice, which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly implied (that is, entailed) by the utterance.[1] For example, the sentence "Mary had a baby and got married" strongly suggests that Mary had the baby before the wedding, but the sentence would still be strictly true if Mary had her baby after she got married.
在上述对话中，珍妮同样违反了数量准则，她没有使自己所说的话达到交谈的现时目的所要求的详尽程度。珍妮想告诉阿甘他就是孩子的父亲，可是她没有直说，而是间接地表达了自己的意思。观众可以很清楚地理解其中的会话含义，但是阿甘的智商决定了他没能理解其中真意而是继续询问，这种对于会话含义的不解风情毫无疑问会使了解真相的观众感到好笑。

北外蓝纯老师硕士生语用学课堂资料

Lecture 1An Introduction to Pragmatic ThinkingLan Chun (28 Feb., 2012)1. Brainstorming: 1) What is your understanding of pragmatics?2) What do you think pragmatics is mainly concerned with?2. Course descriptionagmatics:Mey‘s understanding of pragmatics:3. Mey‘s understanding of pr1) What is pragmatics all about?e.g. ‗I brought some sushi home and cooked it; it wasn‘t bad.‘2) Why do we need pragmatics?e.g. ‗I just met the old Irishman and his son, coming out of the toilet.‘‗I wouldn‘t have thought there was room for the two of them.‘‗No silly, I mean I was coming out of the toilet. They were waiting.‘ (David Lodge, Paradise News, 1992: 65)e.g. J: Do you know the way back to the dining hall? We can go in my car.M: Oh, I thought you didn‘t know the way to the campus.J: I thought you didn‘t know!J: I thought you didn‘t know!(whereupon they both start laughing)4. Yule‘s understanding of pragmatics:1) The four areas that pragmatics is concerned with:a. Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning.b. Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning.c. Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said.d. Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance.2) Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics3) The advantage and disadvantage of the pragmatic approache.g. Her: So –– did you?e.g. Her: SoHim: Hey –– who wouldn‘t?Him: Hey4) Regularitye.g. –– How do you do?e.g.- How do you do?e.g. I found an old bicycle lying on the ground. The chain was rusted and the tires1were flat. I found an old bicycle. A bicycle has a chain. The chain was rusted. A bicycle also has tires. The tires were flat.5. 5. V V erschueren‘s understanding of pragmatics1) Linguistics of language resources: components of a linguistic theory2) Linguistics of language use: the pragmatic perspective3) Pragmatics and interdisciplinarityPragmatics is a general cognitive, social, and cultural perspective on linguistic phenomena in relation to their usage in forms of behavior phenomena in relation to their usage in forms of behavior. .4) Summary6. 6. Grundy‘s understanding of pragmatics Grundy‘s understanding of pragmaticse.g. P: What‘s your name by the wayS: StephenP: Y P: Y P: You haven‘t asked my name back ou haven‘t asked my name backS: Wh S: What‘s your name at‘s your nameP: It‘s Pat P: It‘s Pat1) appropriacye.g. ‗Are we all here?‘‗Is it tea or coffee/ Would you like tea or coffee‘‗Is it tea or coffee/ Would you like tea or coffee‘2) indirect meaning and inferencee.g. ‗Radion removes dirt and odours‘e.g. Ph: Wasn‘t the wind dreadful in the nightP: I didn‘t h P: I didn‘t h P: I didn‘t hear it ear it Ph: Er it was dreadfulP: Y P: You know what they say ou know what they sayPh: I must have a guilty conscience3) Indeterminacye.g. ‗There must therefore be a very good case for not allowing anyone to proceed to Year 3.‘‗Should I read your book‘‗Should I read your book‘‗Reading one or writing one?‘‗Reading one or writing one?‘4) Context e.g. ‗I‘m tired‘5) Misfirese.g. ‗Will you have some more chocolate?‘H: Are you from Chengdu? C: It‘s always like this. When you say you are from Sichuan, peopleautomatically take you as from Chengdu.H: I asked you if you were from Chengdu because you said you were from Sichuan. If you are not from Chengdu, why didn‘t you just simply tell us where exactly you are form. Isn‘t that enough?7. Workshop1) Choose an item from the list below and brainstorm all the contexts in whichyou could utter it:I’m tiredI’m sorry Is it meI thought soDon’tWhy do you think a single proposition can function as so many different speech acts?2) a. Write a very short dialogue between two imaginary characters.b. Dictate each utterance to your colleagues b. Dictate each utterance to your colleagues –– as you dictate, they write down, not what you say but the contexts in which they imagine the utterance being spoken.c. Ask each person to read out what they have written down, and discuss the pragmatics of the utterances in relation to the contexts which have beenimagined for them.3) Get into groups. Each person should recall something surprising whichsomeone said to them. The other members of the group try to guess the context by asking Y asking Yes/No questions. es/No questions.Essential Reading for the courseBlack, E., 2006. Pragmatic Stylistics . Edinburgh: EUP.Blakemore, D., 1992. Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics .Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.Grundy Grundy, Peter, 1995. , Peter, 1995. Doing Pragmatics . Edward.Jaszczolt, 2002. 语义学与语用学：语言与话语中的意义（英文版），北京大学出版社.Leech, Geoffrey Leech, Geoffrey, 1983. , 1983. Principles of Pragmatics . Longman. Levinson, Stephen, 1983. Pragmatics . CUP .Mey , Jacob, 1994. Pragmatics: An Introduction . OUP .Peccei, J.S., 2000. Pragmatics . Beijing: FLTRP.Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics . OxfordUniversity Press.V erschueren, Jef, 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. Edward.Y ule, George, 1996. Pragmatics. OUP.，上海外语教育出版社。

言语行为理论与外语教学-2019年教育文档

言语行为理论与外语教学一、言语行为理论言语行为理论最初由英国语言哲学家奥斯汀提出，其基本思想是“言即行”。

20世纪50年代，奥斯汀在美国哈佛大学作了一系列的讲座，题为《论言有所为》（How to do things with words）在其论述中，贯穿一个思想，人们说话的目的不仅仅是为说话，当他说一句话的同时可以实施一个行为。

言语行为理论的基本出发点是：人类语言交际的基本单位不应是词，句子，或其它语言形式，而应是人们用词或句子所完成的行为。

奥斯汀认为，传统语法把句子按其功能分成陈述句，疑问句，祈使句等类型，这不利于人们对言语的理解和使用，因为同一句子在不同的语境中具有不同的功能。

“Can you come here this evening？”从形式上看这个句子是个疑问句，但就说话者的意图和场合不同，其功能既可以是提出一个问题，又可以是提出一个请求。

因此，他认为不少话语不仅是提供信息，而且是完成或帮助完成许多行为。

奥斯汀在此基础上提出了言语行为理论。

早期奥斯汀将话语分为表述句（constatives）和施为句（performatives）。

表述句是指陈述事实或描?L事物。

施为句则具有行事能力，说出来就是一种行为，可以表达允诺，道歉，指责，感谢，祝贺等。

例如：He promised to be here at six.是表述句，而I promise to be here at six .是施为句。

两者在性质上有很大的区别：表述句是描写某一事件，过程或状态，因而有真假之分。

施为句是用来实施某种行为的，说话本身就是在做一件事，因此无真假之分。

更多的例子：I name this ship Liberate. I apologize.I welcome you. I advise you to do it.后来，奥斯汀将施为句分为显性施为句（如：I order you to shut the door.）和隐性施为句（如：shut the door.）两类。

语用翻译：语用学理论在翻译中的应用(3)

英语知识4. 语用翻译本文所谓的语用翻译是指从语用学的角度探讨翻译实践问题，即运用语用学理论去解决翻译操作中涉及到的理解问题和重构问题、语用和文化因素在译文中的处理方法以及原作的语用意义（pragmatic force）的传达及其在译作中的得失等问题。

语用学的翻译观可以说是一种等效翻译理论（何自然，1997），它更多地探讨口头语言、修辞性和艺术性语言的翻译。

Grice (1957)的意义理论以及Leech (1983)关于语用语言学的观点都认为，要理解说话人的意图，听话人首先必须正确识别和理解语言的基本意思和规约意义。

词句的基本意义或者说规约意义是理解话语和作品含义的前提条件，因此语言错误也是一种语用失误（张新红，2000），会导致理解失误。

试想，如果我们连语言系统中的词、短语或者句子的基本意思和规约意义都搞不清楚，又怎么能指望理解交际者/作者的交际意图呢？因此，语言系统知识是说话和理解的必备基础，是推导话语含义的基础。

请看下面这个例句：(2) Can you lift the box?听话人要理解这句话，首先必须知道句中各个词语的意思，此外还应当知道这种询问能力的句子的规约意义，即“请您帮我抬这个箱子”。

如果听话人仅仅照字面意义做出回答擸es, I can.敚缓笠廊徽驹谝槐呖醋潘祷叭艘桓鋈朔丫⒌靥ё畔渥佣蝗グ锸郑敲纯梢运邓挥姓嬲斫馑祷叭嘶坝锏囊馑肌Ａ饺酥涞慕患适О堋* 在翻译过程中，任何对原文词句层次上的不解或误解都会导致对原作者意图的不解或曲解，导致在译作中出现误译。

这里我们拿指称词语的识别问题作为例子。

正确识别指称词语所指的对象（例如交际的参与者、交际事件以及交际过程中所论及的对象等）的能力是找到关联（Sperber & Wilson，1986）、进行推理、实现语篇的语义连贯（coherence）的必要条件之一。

正因为交际者不仅具有识别指称对象的能力，而且还具有解释特定指称对象的意义的能力，有解释它与其他语境及互文特征之间关系的能力，因此才能够找到和识别语篇的语义连续性（或称关联、连贯），才能推导出该指称词语的含义（Baker, 1992）。

语言学阅读书目

语言学阅读书目应用语言学方向1. Brown, H. D. (2001). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Beijing: FLTRP.2. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, U.K.: OUP.3. Johnson, K. (2002). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Beijing: FLTRP.4. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (2000). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Beijing: FLTRP.5. O’Malley, J. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learni ng Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.6. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.7. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2005). Teaching and Researching Reading. Beijing: FLTRP.8. Hughes, R. (2005). Teaching and Researching Speaking. Beijing: FLTRP.9. Hyland, K. (2005). Teaching and Researching Writing. Beijing: FLRTP.10. James, C. (2001). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. Beijing: FLTRP.11. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. 2007 (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. Beijing: Peking University Press.12. Robinson. P. (Ed.). (2007). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Beijing: WPC.13. Rost, M. (2005). Teaching and Researching Listening.Beijing: FLTRP.14. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP.15. Thomas, J., & Short, M. (2001). Using Corpora for Language Research. Beijing: FLTRP.语用学方向1. A New Course in Pragmatics，Chen Xinren，Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2009.2. Notes on Pragmatics, He Ziran, Nanjing Normal University Press, 2002.3. Pragmatics, J. Peccei, Routledge, 1999.4. Pragmatics, G. Yule, Oxford: OUP, 1996.5. Pragmatics, Huang Yan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.6. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics, J. Thomas, London: Longman, 1995.7. Pragmatics: An Introduction, J. Mey, Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.8. Principles of Pragmatics, G. Leech, London: Longman, 1983.9. Understanding Pragmatics, J. Verschueren, London: Arnold, 1999.10. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, P. Brown and S. Levinson, Cambridge: CUP, 1987.11. Relevance: Cognition and Communication, D. Sperber and D. Wilson, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986/1995.12. Doing Pragmatics, P. Grundy, London: Edward Arnold, 1995.13. Pragmatics, S. Levinson, Cambridge: CUP, 1983.14. Cross-cultural Pragmatics, Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (eds.), Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1989.15. Interlanguage Pragmatics, Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka (eds.), Oxford University Press, 1993.16. Pragmatics in Language T eaching, Rose, K. & G. Kasper (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.17. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse, K. M. Jaszczolt, Pearson Education Limited, 2002. /北京大学出版社,2004.18. Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, Louise Cummings, Edinburgh University Press, 2005.19. Pragmatics and Grammar, Mira Ariel, Cambridge: CUP, 2008.20. Experimental Pragmatics, Ira A. Noveck & Dan Sperber (Eds.), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.认知语言学方向1. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.2. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press.3. Goldberg, Adele 1995. Constructions: a construction grammarapproach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.4. Jackendoff, Ray 1995. Patterns in the mind. Basic Books.5. Ungerer, Jans-Jorg and Friedrich Schmid. 1996. AnIntroduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Longman.6. Jackendoff, Ray 1997. The architecture of language faculty. The MIT Press.7. Radford, Andrew, et al. 1999. Linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge University Press.8. Talmy, Leonard 2000/2003. Toward a cognitive semantics. The MIT Press.9. Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner 2002. The Way We Think. Basic Books.10. Taylor, John 2002. Cognitive Grammar. OUP.11. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav 2005. Argumentrealization. Cambridge University Press.12. Goldberg, Adele 2006. Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. OUP.13. Geeraerts, Dirk 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton.14. Geeraerts, Dirk and Hubert Cuyckens 2007. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. OUP.。

Chapter 7 Pragmatics

E.g. By uttering Morning!, a speaker performs three senses of acts: i. producing a number of sounds and conveying a greeting message (locutionary act), ii. greeting someone (illocutionary act), and iii. exerting effect on the hearer by means of a locutionary act and a consequential action on the hearer’s part.
3. Conversational Principle and Implicature
3.3 Characteristics of implicature (p181)

Calculability: CI can be inferred on the basis of some previous information. Cancellability (defeasibility): CI changes as context changes. a. John has three cows. CI: John has only three cows. b. John has three cows, if not more. CI: John has at least three cows.
3. Conversational Principle and Implicature
3.1 The Cooperative Principle (CP) (p176)
“Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” (Grice 1975:47) The maxim of quantity: • Make your contribution as informative as required; • Do not make your contribution more informative than required.

语言学考博书目

语言学考博书目1. 引言语言学考博是一项对语言学专业研究生的综合知识和能力的考核。

作为一门学科，语言学涵盖了广泛的领域，包括语音学、语法学、语义学、语用学等等。

因此，在准备语言学考博时，需要广泛阅读相关的书籍，以提高自己的知识水平和研究能力。

本文将介绍一些与语言学考博相关的经典书籍，这些书籍涵盖了语言学的各个领域，可以帮助考生全面了解语言学的基本概念和理论，提供深入的研究素材和方法。

2. 语音学语音学是语言学的一个重要分支，研究语音的产生、传播和感知。

在语言学考博中，语音学是一个必备的基础知识领域。

以下是一些经典的语音学书籍：•“The Sounds of Language” by Henry Rogers•“An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology” by John Clark, Collin Yallop, and Janet Fletcher•“Principles of Phonetics” by John Laver这些书籍涵盖了语音学的基本概念、国际音标的使用和语音学研究的方法。

通过阅读这些书籍，考生可以了解语音学的核心概念，掌握国际音标的使用方法，并学会如何进行语音学研究。

3. 语法学语法学是语言学的另一个重要分支，研究语言的结构和规则。

在语言学考博中，语法学是一个必备的核心领域。

以下是一些经典的语法学书籍：•“Syntactic Structures” by Noam Chomsky•“A Course in GB Syntax” by Gengfu Feng•“Introduction to Transformational Grammar” by Kyle Johnson这些书籍介绍了语法学的基本概念、语法分析的方法和理论。

通过阅读这些书籍，考生可以了解语法学的发展历程，了解不同的语法理论，并学会如何进行语法分析和研究。

4. 语义学语义学是语言学的一个重要分支，研究语言的意义和语义关系。