Chapter 8 language in use

Chapter 8 language in use“A policeman is coming.” : The meaning of the words + structural meaningA description of something in realityA warningThe second type of meaning is sometimes referred to as speaker’s meaning, utterance meaning or contextual meaning, and the discipline that concentrates on this type of meaning is called pragmatics = meaning - semantics.Speech act theory(重点)This is the first major theory in the study of language in use. It originated with the Oxford philosopher Austin and presented in How to Do Things with Words.Performatives（言语行为句）and constatives（表述句）Austin classifies sentences in two categories: performatives and constatives. Performatives do not describe things. They can not be said to be true or false. Uttering them is, or is a part of, doing an action, e.g.I name this ship Queen Elizabeth.I apologize.I declare the meeting open.I sentence you ten years of imprisonment。

Constatives are descriptive statements, capable of being analyzed in terms of truth-values, e.g.I pour some liquid into the tubeFelicity conditions（适宜条件）of the performatives:A (i) There must be a relevant conventional procedure, and(ii) Tthe relevant participants and circumstances must be appropriate.B The procedure must be executed (i) correctly and (ii) completely.C V ery often, (i) the relevant people must have the requisite thoughts, feelings and intentions, and (ii) must follow it up with actions specified.However, Austin soon realized that these conditions could only apply to some cases. For example I apologize. and I promise to come early tomorrow. may be produced without a strict procedure. And, on the other hand, The present king of France is bald, is infelicitous in the same way as I bequeath my watch to my brother. said by someone without a watch.Then Austin explored the possibility of separating performatives from constatives on grammatical and lexical criteria. Typical performatives use:first person singular pronouns as subjects,the indicative mood,the simple present tense,the active voice,and performative verbs.But there are counterexamples:Pedestrians are warned to keep off the grass. (passive) (I warn you to keep off the grass.)Turn right. (imperative) (I order you to turn right.)You did it. (past) (I find you guilty.)Thank you (imperative) (I thank you.)And state can be used as a performative varb, e.g.I state that I’m alone responsible.It seems that the distinction between performatives and constatives can not be maintained. Allsentences can be used to do things.A theory of the illocutionary actAccording to Austin, there are three senses in which saying something may be understood as doing somethingIt’s cold in here.Locutionary act（表述性言语行为、言中行为）: the act of producing speech sounds, words or sentences.Illocutionary act（施为性言语行为、言外行为）: the act of making known the speaker’s purpose or the intended meaning: asking or answering a question, giving some information or a n assurance or a warning, pronouncing sentence, making a request or an appointment or a criticism, making an identification or giving a description, and many others.Austin acknowledges that force or illocutionary force can be regarded as part of meaning, when the latter is used in a broad sense. But he thinks it is better to distinguish force from meaning, with the latter used in a narrow sense, or what we say the more constant, inherent side of meaning (studied in semantics). Thus interpreted, force may be said to be equivalent to speaker’s meaning, contextual meaning, or extra meaning (studied in pragmatics).Perlocutionary act（言后行为）: the consequential effect of a locution upon the hearer. By saying something the speaker may change the opinion of the hearer, misleading him, surprising him, or induce him to do something. Whether these effects are intended by the speaker, they can be regarded as part of the act performed by the speaker. This is what is called perlocutionary act.The theory about illocutionary acts is the central issue in the speech act theory. One can even say that the speech act theory is in fact a theory of the illocutionary act. In this general theory, the original performatives are only special types in which the illocutionary force is made explicit by the performative verb.The theory of conversational implicature（会话含义）(重点)Associated with another Oxford philosopher H.B. Grice and presented mainly in his Logic and Conversation.Grice noticed that in daily conversations people do not usually say things directly but tend to imply them. For example, when A said to B about C, “Oh he’s quite well I think. He likes his colleagues, and he hasn’t been to prison yet.” A certainly implied something though he did not say it explicitly. Grice coined the term implicature（avoid the term implication used in semantics）to refer to this type of implied or suggested meaning. And he investigated the ways in which people manage to convey implicature.According to Grice, in daily conversations, people are cooperative. They often recognize a common purpose or a set of purposes or at least a mutually agreed direction for the conversation to develop. That is, they follow a cooperative principle or CP for short. The cooperative principle has four categories of maxims:Quantity1.make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange)2.do not make your contribution more informative than is required.Quality1.do not say what you believe to be false.2.do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.RelationBe relevantMannerBe perspicuous1.avoid obscurity of expression.2.avoid ambiguity.3.be brief4.be orderlyThese maxims are meant to describe what happens in conversations and can be compared to unwritten laws.Violation of the maximsThe use of the term principle and maxim does not mean that the CP and its maxims will be followed by everybody all the time. People do violate them and tell lies. But Grice first distinguishes telling lies from other types of violations. In his view conversational implicature can only be worked out on the basis of the CP. If somebody deliberately tells lies, the basis for accurate interpretation is lost, so lies are not implicature proper.Examples of the violation of the maxims(1) A professor wrote a reference letter for his past student X who is applying for a lectureship inphilosophy. The letter reads:Dear sir,Mr. X’s command of English is excellent, and his attendance at tutorials has been regular. Yours, XXXX.The professor violated the maxim of quantity, implicating that X is not good at philosophy. (2) A: Where does C live?B: Somewhere in the south of France.(3) Boys are boys and war is war.(4) A: Where’s X?B: He’s gone to the library. He said so when he left.(5) He is made of iron.(6) Every nice girl loves a sailor.(7) At a genteel tea party,A: Mrs. X is an old bag.B: The weather has been quite delightful this summer, hasn’t it?(8) At home,A: Let’s get the kids something.B: OK, but I veto I-C-E C-R-E-A-M.Characteristics of implicature1)calculability （可计算性）Implicature is calculable in that it can be worked out on the basis of previous information, including: 1) the conventional meaning of the words, 2) the CP and its maxims, 3) the context, 4) other items of the background knowledge, 5) the fact that all relevant items falling under the previous headings are available to both participants and both participants know or assume this to be the case.2)Cancellability （可删除性）Also known as defeasibility. A conversational implicature relies on a number of factors as discussed in the part for calculability. If any of them changes, the implicature will also change. Example (4) above.3)non-detachability（非可分离性）A conversational implicature is attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to the linguistic form. Therefore it is possible to use a synonym and keep the implicature intact. For example, John’sa genius and John’s a mental prodigy said ironically both implicate that John’s an idiot.And example (7) above. But conversational implicature related to the Manner maxim are an exception. Example (8) above.4)non-conventionality（非规约性）conversational implicature is by definition different from the conventional meaning of words. To show this more clearly, we can have a look at some examples of entailment (a logical relationship between two sentences in which the truth of the second necessarily follows from the truth of the first, while the falsity of the first necessarily follows from the falsity of the second: I saw a boy and I saw a child):John has three cows.John has only three cows. (implicature)John has some cows. (entailment)John has some animals. (entailment)John has something. (entailment)Somebody has three cows. (entailment)Somebody has some cows. (entailment)Somebody has some animals. (entailment)Somebody has something. (entailment)Entailments is part of the conventional meaning. If you do not know the entailment of a word you have to look it up in a dictionary. There is no way to work it out on the basis of the CP and the context. Entailment is constant in all contexts. In this sense entailment is determinate. However, implicature varies with context and therefore indeterminate.Finally, conversational implicature and illocutionary force are both concerned with the contextual side of meaning. These two theories differ only in the mechanisms they offer for explaining the generation of contextual meaning.。