语言学conversationalimplicature演示文稿

合集下载

8 Conversational Implicature

1.3 Context and meaning (deixis)
• Person deixis: identify participants in the discourse. I, you, he • Space deixis: indicate the spatial relation between the speaker and the referred object and place. Come/go, bring/take Is Johnny there? I want you to put it there. • Time deixis: indicate time relations. Now, them… Pull the trigger now. John lives in Chicago now.
Summary:
• Locution: the literary meaning. LA is what linguists have been studying all the time. • Illocution: the speaker’s communicative intention or the function it is intended to perform. IA is what speech act theory is most concerned with. • Perlocution:can be as the same as the illocution when it is recognized and satisfied, very different from it when it is not recognized or when it is ignored. It involves many psychological and social factors, of which we are still more or less in the dark.

语用学-5--Conversational-implicaturePPT课件

10
-
1.2 Defining implicatures
What is intended by the speaker, or the intended
speaker meaning.
Invisible meaning or implicit meaning.
Additional conveyed meaning that is more than
importance of the conditions governing conversation Implicature
2
-
What is said what is implied— Conventional implicature Non-conventional implicature General principle of discourse CP Rational cooperative Submaxims (Kant) Aesthtic, social, moral See talking as a special case of purposive
In what context does this dialogue occur?
Please explain the meaning that B intends to convey.
5
-
How is it possible for the speaker and the hearer to understand each other?
16
-
E.g. It is cold in here. Setting: in a classroom Speaker: teacher hearer: student Analysis: from Searle? Grice? The speaker X intends to make a request of the

语言学课件

A: 昨天上街买了些什么? B: 就买了些东西。 > I don’t want to tell you what I bought.
Dear Sir,
Mr. X’s command of English is excellent, and
his attendance at tutorials has been regular.
萍：爸爸，不过四凤同鲁贵在家里都很好,很忠诚的。朴：恩，我很累了。我预备到书房歇一下。你叫他们送一碗浓一点的普洱茶来。
> 我不这么认为，但是现在也不想再过多地讨
论这个问题。
Violation of the maxims (Manner)
1. Avoid obscurity of expression

Make your contribution such as required at the
stage at which it occurs by the accepted
purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.
Yours > Mr. X is not suitable for the job.

--- Where does John live? --- Somewhere in the south of France. Or: In order to hold the Quality maxim, he has chosen to violate the first maxim of Quantity.

2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Aunt: How did Jimmy do his history exam? him things that happened before the

Conversational Implicature 会话含义

Definition
• In 1967, American philosopher Grice put forward 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” (Hu, 2001, p. 282-283). • And in order to further explain the Cooperative Principle, Grice divided it into four categories of maxims: the maximum of quantity, quality, manner and relation.
Levinson's three principles of CI
• Quantity Principle • Information Principle • Manner Principle RULE: Q>M>I
Conversational Implicature
The Cooperative Principle Neo-Gricean pragmatics

Mao Yan
The Cooperative Principle
In the process of understanding a conversation, it needs the interlocutors' common sense, shared knowledge, and inferential capability. Besides, cooperation is a key principle in communication.

Chapter 7Conversational Implicature

• 但在现实交际中,人们出于种种原因,并不都严格地遵守合作原则及其相关准则.因而就产生了会话含义。
Flouting the Maxim of quality(说自知是虚假的话;说缺乏足够证据的话)
• Many figures of speech like irony, metaphor, hyperbole, rhetorical questions and etc.belong to this kind of flouting.eg: He is made of iron.(metaphor) Women are tigers. • The obvious false statement:no human beings are made of iron.No women are tigers. • Its implicature is he has characteristics like iron like hardness, non-flexibility, durability.

(Flouting the maxim of quality) Cal:I had hoped you would come to me last night Rose:I was tired~~~I'm your fiancee Cal:My fiancee! My wife in practice, if not yet by law. So you will honor me~~~
4.2 Cooperative Principle
• Grice introduces Cooperative Principle (CP) in his book Logic and Conversation 《逻辑与会话》in 1975 • 在格赖斯看来，要使交谈顺利进行，就要求交谈参与者共同遵守一般原则，即在参与交谈时，要使你说的话符合你所参与交谈的公认目的和方向。

(完整版)语用学-5--Conversational-implicature

implicature吗？
1. What is an implicature? E.g. A: I have a fourteen year old son. B: Well, that's all right. A: I also have a dog. B: Oh, I'm sorry.
Conversational implicature
Divergence in meaning: Formal devices VS. natural L Formalist VS. informalist Construct an ideal L Inadequte attention to the nature and
E.g. The duck ran up to Mary (p) and licked her (qBut this is not always true in real life as in the above example. Whenever p & q is true, it logically follows that q & p is true:
The logical representation of conjunction: p & q
This logical expression stands for: if p is true and q is true, then p & q is true. If either p or q is not true (i.e. false), then the conjunction of p and q is necessarily false.
B means more than what he or she says, but A can understand it or interpret it well in the context. How does this happen? How does the hearer get from what is said to what is meant, from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning.

语用学The Theory of Conversational Implicature

Conversational Implicatures
• A conversational implicature is an inference from the semantic content depending on context, speaker's intention, hearer's attitude and the mutual['mjuːtʃʊəl] assumption共同假设. • Grice's Theory of Conversational Implicature (1967) is "one of the single most important ideas in pragmatics" (Levinson, 1983)
Cancellability (可撤消性): If the linguistic or situational contexts changes, the implicature will also change. A: Do you want some coffee? B: Coffee would keep me awake. (I do not like coffee.) B: Coffee would keep me awake. I want to stay up.
• 2) The Cooperative Principle
• to explain the mechanisms(['mek(ə)nɪz(ə)m]机制,原理) by which people interpret conversational implicature or to explain why people often mean more than what they say, Grice (1975) proposed the Cooperative Principle and introduced four conversational maxims • The general principle • Both the speaker and the hearer try to be cooperative in the ongoing communicative exchange according to certain purposes. • a rational (合理的；理性的) speaker in normal cases will follow this general principle

语言学-5Con-Implicature-Ippt课件

——科技在进步，新的药物在研制，希望总是有的。
（quality） 13. —— Where is Mary?
—— She’s not well. (relation) 14. —— Is he brave?
—— He’s a lion. (manner)
.
特殊会话含意
人们应该遵守合作原则——他现在蔑视或违反合作原则——他是在故意蔑视或违反合作原则—— 他其实是在另一个层次上参与合作——更高的合作层次产生“含意”。
.
合作原则的准则/次则（内容）
合作原则
Co-operative Principle
量准则
质准则
关系准则
方式准则
The Maxim of Quantity The Maxim of Quality The Maxim of Relation The Maxim of Manner
.
量准则
Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). 说话要足量。 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. 但也别多说。
( hard-working, indifferent, precise about what he does etc.)
.
规约含意：语义层面的含意
个别词语和表达是否具有“含意”的属性？肯定的回答引申出规约含意（conventional implicature）的概念。特点为：不可消除可分离（与词语有约定俗成的联系）不可推导（不需合作原则的帮助进行推导） 22. She is poor but honest. （“对照”意不可消除）

conversational implicature(1)

•量的准则：指所提供的信息的量。 ① 所说的话应包含为当前交谈目的所需要的信息； ② 所说的话不应包含多于需要的信息。 •质的准则：所说的话力求真实，尤其是： ① 不要说自知是虚假的话； ② 不要说缺乏足够证据的话。 •相关准则：在关系范畴下，只提出一个准则，即所说的话是相关的。 •方式准则：清楚明白地说出要说的话，尤其要： ① 避免晦涩； ② 避免歧义； ③ 简炼（避免啰嗦）； ④ 有条理。
• There is a gap between what is literally said and what is implied. This gap is so substantial(本质的) that we cannot expect a semantic theory to explain how we communicate using language. The notion of implicature, however, bridges the gap by explaining how meanings are effectively conveyed. •It allows one to claim 'that natural language expressions do tend to have simple, stable and unitary senses (in many cases anyway), but that this stable semantic core often has an unstable, context-specific pragmatic overlay – namely, a set of implicalures.' (Levinson, 1983:99)

Chapter 3 Conversational__ Implicature

Types of implicature

meaning-nn what is said what is implicated

conventionally
generalized
conversationally
particularized
Huang1994, 2009:57 Davis 1998

Those spot meant measles. Those spot meant measles, but he hadn‟t got measles. (Semantically anomalous) 格赖斯指出自然意义和非自然意义的区别可用逻辑方法把握。当x means p表达的是自然意义时, x means p为真, p就为真,它们之间有一种逻辑蕴含关系。
Levinson(1983:128-129)认为 “however, moreover, besides, anyway”等起连接作用的词， “sir, madam, mate, your honour”等称呼语都有常规意义。
Characteristics/properties of conventional implicature: 与会话含义相同的特点：不是真值条件意义，不是明说的一部分。与会话含义完全不同的特点： 1. 常规含义不具备可取消性(non-cancelability)； 2. 常规含义是可分离的(detachability)； 3. 常规含义是确定性的(determinacy)； 4. 常规含义不需要推导(non-caculability)； 5. 常规含义是规约性的(conventionality)。

The essence of meaningnn is that it is communication which is intended to be recognized as having been intended. Meaningnn is a matter of expressing and recognizing intention.

Lecture 3-conversational implicature

3) Stevenson, Morris and others Meaning should be analyzed in terms of the use – context – intention. Furthermore, Stevenson proposes two kinds of meaning: a. Descriptive /conventional meaning -- meaning with no individual will/intention and attitude; b. Psychological/pragmatic meaning -- intended meaning, or meaning dependent on the intention and feeling of the speaker/hearer. (9) Children are children / 美国就是美国 Descriptively (or conventionally) (9) is meaningless with no individual will and attitude; pragmatically (or psychologically) it is very meaningful, given an appropriate context.
B. Analysis of meaning and intention Meaningn (natural meaning) -- X means (meant) that P entails P’; Meaningnn (non-natural meaning) – X means (meant) P, but it doesn’t necessarily entails P’. Meaningnn is actually a notion of intention. With the speaker’s intention, “the three rings on the bus” may mean the bus-driver wants to go home earlier, or the bus is leaving; “a cough” may mean a warning, or a request for silence, etc. It’s wrong to say absolutely that ‘The three rings on the bell’ means “the bus is full”, or “His cough” means “the teacher is coming now”.

Chapter 8 (II) Conversational__ Implicature

The maxim of manner
Be clear. Try to avoid obscurity, ambiguity, wordiness, and disorderliness in your use of language.
（避免晦涩的词语；避免歧义；说话要简要；说话要有条理）
For example: He shaved and listened to the radio. He listened to the radio while shaving. He shaved and then listened to the radio.
Example 1: (A asks B how C is getting on.) “Oh, quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn’t been to prison yet.” What did B imply / suggest / mean?
Violation of the Maxim of Quantity
(P. 193) Make your contribution as informative as is required. (X is applying for a lectureship in philosophy. The professor is asked to write a reference letter.) Dear Sir, Mr. X’s command of English is excellent, and his attendance at tutorials has been regular. Yours, etc. (Some required information is not mentioned at all. Mr. X is not suitable for the job.)

语用学 5 Conversational_implicature II

存在问题?1医疗废物组织管理方面?1各医疗机构间医疗废物的长效管理效能参差不齐个别医疗机构领导不重视专项组织不健全或无组织医疗废物管理未真正纳入医院医疗质量管理体系无定期组织对医疗废物管理的督查及记录
Problems with Gricean maxims??

1• The maxims allow deriving all the possible implicatures
Post-Gricean developments

1. neo-Griceans (e.g. Horn 1984, 1988; Levinson 1995, 2000): rearranged Grice‘s maxims, reduced their number. Implicatures are explained as the result of the resolution of conflicts between maxims 2. Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986; Carston 2002): reduced Grice‘s maxims to one cognitive principle.

2) I-principle Speaker's maxim (the Maxim of Minimization) Say as little as necessary, i.e. produce the minimal linguistic information sufficient to achieve your communicational ends (bearing the Q-principle in mind). Speaker: as efficient as possible 力求简洁 Recipient's corollary (the enrichment rule) Amplify the informational content of the speaker's utterance, by finding the most specific interpretation up to what you judge to be mintended point. Hearer: benefit as much as possible

语言学-Application of Conversational Implications

Application of ConversationalImplications in English Audio-visual Course1. IntroductionNowadays, it is gradually emphasized that we should foster English major students with integrated skills. As a result, considerable attention has been devoted to English audio-visual course. However, the teaching effect of this course has been unsatisfactory, which has led to a central question in research about how to improve students’listening comprehension by watching English movies. In the past twenty years, this question has been the focus of many studies, for example, Yan Canxun (2005: 56) proposes a teaching method that oral English practice substitutes for listening training in listening classes while students learn autonomously after class; while Guo Suihong (2004: 45) advocates teaching rather than testing, paying more attention to authentic input and basing on the learner-centered approach, so that students’ listening comprehension can be developed; and recently, Lu Guojun and Wu Xingdong (2007: 25) focus on the structure inferences and the role of discourse intonation in listening, and try to improve the students’ listening comprehension by reading and intonation training.The researches above are meaningful in some ways, but one thing they often ignore is the importance of comprehension. According to Keith Johnson (2002: 254), there are strange phenomena in text comprehension. Sometimes it is possible to understand every word of a text and still not know what it is about, and sometimes it is possible to understand a message even when there is no evidence for your interpretation of the actual words on the pages. That is just the case in English audio-visual course. No matter how good one’s listening skill may be, he can never make thorough and authentic comprehension if he just stops at the literal meaning. This paper makes an attempt to use the conversational implicature, proposed by Paul Grice, to analyze the conversations in English movies, and get the real and correct understanding of these seemingly strange conversations. For example:(1)Doctor: I need to give you an anesthesia.Teddy: Do I look really that stupid?Doctor: I cannot do an operation like this without an anesthesia.(From Prison Break) Judging the conversation above from its literal meaning, Teddy’s answer did not show any sign of rejection or acceptance of an anesthesia. It seems that he made his reply totally unrelated to the doctor’s words. But if we make a little analysis of it, it is very easy for us to understand that he actually refused the doctor. His way of answering is an indirect way of refusal with much stronger force.How does the reply of Teddy mean “I know that you want to make me unconscious by giving me an anesthesia. And you’d better stop your plan because I’m not a fool.”? And how does the doctor understand, through the literal meaning, what Teddy indicates? The conversational implicature theory can give us convincing explanations. The above conversations frequently appear in English movies. If teachers do not employ the theory to explain them, students may often fail to understand them.2. Cooperative Principle and conversational implications2.1 Cooperative PrincipleIt is known that quite often a speaker can mean a lot more than what is said. The problem is to explain how the speaker can manage to convey more than what is said and how the hearer can arrive at the speaker’s meaning. Grice (1975: 45) believes that there must be some mechanisms governing the production and comprehension of these utterances. He suggests that there is a set of assumptions guiding the conduct of conversation. This is what he calls the Cooperative Principle. He formulates the principle and its maxims as follows: Make your conversational contribution as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the exchange in which you are engaged. (Yule, 2000: 145)To specify the Cooperative Principle further, Grice introduced four categories of maxims as follows:The maxim of quantity:1. Make your contribution as informative as required (for the current purpose of the exchange).2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.The maxim of quality:1. Do not say what you believe to be false.2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.The maxim of relation:Be relevant.The maxim of manner:1.Avoid obscurity of expression.2.Avoid ambiguity.3.Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).4.Be orderly.To put it very simply, the CP means that we should say what is true in a clear and relevant manner. It is important to take these maxims as unstated assumptions we have in conversations. We assume that people are normally going to provide an appropriate amount of information, and that they are telling the truth, being relevant, and trying to be as clear as they can. Speakers rarely mention these principles simply because they are assumed tacitly in verbal interactions (刘润清、文旭，2006：154).2.2 Conversational implicationsConversational implications, to put it simply, refer to a kind of extra meaning that is not literally contained in the utterance. It is a meaning different from the “meaning” in semantics. The “meaning”in semantics is the literal meaning of a word or a sentence. For example, “Have you read today’s newspaper?” just means that the speaker wants to know whether the listener has read the newspaper or not. The “meaning”in pragmatics is totally different, focusing on the meaning in a certain context. So the sentence above can mean “Please pass the newspaper to me since you have read it.”. The “meaning” in semantics and the “meaning”in pragmatics can be the same, and can also be different. When they are different, conversational implications are made (申小龙，2003：177).How does the speaker convey his implied meaning when he is speaking? And how does the hearer make the right understanding, through the literal meaning, of what the speakerindicates?Grice’s basic idea is that in communication, speakers aim to follow the CP and its maxims, and that hearers interpret utterances with these maxims in mind. According to Grice, utterance interpretation is not a matter of decoding messages, but rather involves (i) taking the meaning of the sentences together with contextual information, (ii) using reference rules, and (iii) working out what the speaker means on the basis of the assumption that the utterance conforms to the maxims. The main advantages of this approach from Grice’s point of view is that it provides a pragmatic explanation for a wide range of phenomena, especially for conversational implication—a kind of extra meaning that is not literally contained in the utterance (胡壮麟，2001:205).The conversational implications can be concluded by examining which maxim of the Cooperative Principle the speakers had violated. Take this following conversation for example:(2)A: Where does C live?B: Somewhere in the South of France.This violation can be explained by the adherence to the maxim of quality: Speaker B cannot truthfully provide more information. Alternatively, in some contexts, it can be explained as carrying an implication that the speaker does not, for some reason or other, want to reveal C’s precise location. If the maxims are fouled, the hearer infers that the speaker must have meant something else, that is, the speaker must have some special reason for having not observed the maxims.3. Application of conversational implications in English audio-visual courseIn order to improve students’ listening comprehension, we have both listening course and English Audio-visual course in our university for the first two years. In English Audio-visual course, we mainly watched some famous English movies and sitcoms and were sometimes required to write down actor’s lines. When doing this, we students were frequently confused with some seemingly strange conversations. Why, for example, does the protagonist say something that is unrelated to their topic? Why must the heroine make her speech so long and so ambiguous? All these made our comprehension impossible and consequently, the actor’sline impossible to be written down. But actually, all these can be explained by conversational implicature theory. Let’s take the commonest movies used in this course, Prison Break and Forrest Gump for example, and see how the conversational implicature can be applied in English audio-visual course.3.1 Violation of the maxim of quantity and its implicationsThe maxim of quantity prescribes the quantity of information transmitted when we are talking. It says that we should make our contribution as informative as is required, and should not make our contribution more informative than is required. To put it in brief, we should talk no more and no less. But its violations are frequently found in English movies. Let us first take a look at an example.(3) Principle: Forrest is right here. The state requires a minimum I.Q. of eighty to attend public school, Mrs. Gump. He's gonna have to go to a special school. Now, he'll be just fine.Mrs. Gump: What does normal mean, anyway? He might be a bit on the slow side, but my boy Forrest is going to get the same opportunities as everyone else. He's not going to some special school to learn to how to re-tread tires. We're talking about five little points here. There must be something that can be done.Principle:We're a progressive school system. We don't want to see anybody left behind. Is there a Mr. Gump, Mrs. Gump?Mrs. Gump: He's on vacation.(From Forrest Gump) The principle and Mrs. Gump are talking about whether Forrest, with such a low I. Q., can attend public school or not. Normally, saying “We’re a progressive school system. We don’t want to see anybody left behind.” is enough for the principle to express his opinion, but he adds “Is there a Mr. Gump, Mrs. Gump?”. He has deliberately given more information than required and has violated the maxim of quantity, which can be taken as having other motives than the utterance suggests. The conversational implication here is that he wants to take advantage of Mrs. Gump since she is so eager to let Forrest study there and has no other choice. This violation of maxim of quantity is noticed by Mrs. Gump and she infers his motive. So she makes a reply “He’s on vacation.”. If we go on seeing the movie we can seethat the evil motive of the principle is verified by his visiting Forrest’s house. Here is another different example from Prison Break:(4)Abruzzi: When were you planning on telling us about the money, man?Scofield: What money?Abruzzi: $5 million that Westmoreland planted in the desert in Utah.Scofield: Don't know what you're talking about.Abruzzi: You wish I didn't know.The answer of Scofield is, obviously, too simple. It does not convey the information wanted by Abruzzi. This violates the maxim of quantity, and it can be inferred that Scofield does not want to reveal any detail about the money. By saying “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” he means “This is none of your business. I don’t want you to know.”.If we have some background knowledge of Prison Break, we know that the relationship between Abruzzi and Scofield is not so close, and that Scofield wants to get the huge amount of money secretly. As a result, any detail about the money cannot be revealed. So the violation of the maxim of quantity is necessary in that situation.3.2 Violation of the maxim of quality and its implicationsThe maxim of quality prescribes the authenticity of our speech. That is to say, we cannot say what we believe to be false. Nor can we say that for which we lack adequate evidence. Though it is normally required to be that way, we still find violation of the maxim. Let’s look at an example from Forrest Gump:(5) Jenny: Hey, Forrest, look at me. Look at me, Forrest. There's nothing you need to do, okay? You didn't do anything wrong. Ok? Isn't he beautiful?Forrest: He's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. But... is, is he smart, or is he...Jenny: He's very smart. He's one of the smartest in his class.The reply of Forrest, “He’s the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen.”, at the level of what is said, is a false statement. Little Forrest could not be the most beautiful boy Forrest has ever seen. So Forrest is telling a lie. But why does he tell a lie? Why does not Jenny get angry, but instead, feel so happy after hearing this obvious lie? Because by violating the maxim of quality, Forrest expresses his love for little Forrest as well as for Jenny. His implied meaningis “He is the most beautiful boy in my heart.”. And Jenny has also comprehended his implicature, and has felt his love. By using this exaggerated expression—“the most beautiful”, the love among them can be expressed. And the exaggerated way of conversation is most commonly used by people in love.Just as Grice has pointed out, conversations expressed by rhetoric devices such as irony, metaphor, hyperbole, meiosis and rhetorical question often violate the maxim of quality (Grice, 1975:53). The following is a different example from Forrest Gump.(6) LJ: You heard from Veronica today? She didn’t show up, and only get me some court pointed stupid lawyers.Lincoln: No, I haven’t heard from her.LJ does not know what happened to Veronica. He is surprised at her absence, so when talking with his father through the telephone he asks that question. Lincoln has actually heard from her, and knows exactly what has happened to her. But he could not simply tell LJ the truth that Veronica has been killed by their enemy. If he did so, little LJ would be greatly frightened. What is more, the whole thing cannot be clearly explained to LJ by talking through the phone. So he chooses to violate the maxim of quality, to tell a well-meaning lie and conceal the fact. But the hearer, LJ, still assumes that he is observing the CP, and believes him. In daily conversations, such examples of well-meaning lie can be found frequently.3.3 Violation of the maxim of relation and its implicationsThe maxim of relation prescribes that our speech should be relevant to the topic, and that we should not talk about something that is not to the point. The following is an example violating this maxim.(7) Doctor: I’m sorry, sir, I…I don’t think I can do this. There are nerves. Look, you needa specialist, okay? You need somebody who knows what they’re doing.Teddy: I don’t have the luxury of choice here, Doctor. My hand has been in that box for hours now, it is dying.Doctor: Sir, I am not capable of doing this.Teddy: I only have one hand, but I can stick this into your neck before you get to that door. Now if that’s not incentive enough for you, I see that you have a Mrs. Gudat out there.With a name like that in a county like this, old Mrs. Gudat would not be too hard to find now, would she?Doctor: Fine, but I can promise you nothing.(From Prison Break) Teddy wants the doctor to give him an operation, but the doctor indirectly rejects him by saying that he is not capable of doing it. On hearing this, Teddy says something that is seemingly unrelated to their topic. First he says he can still kill the doctor with his single hand, and then he says something even stranger, that the doctor’s old mother is easy to be found. It seems that literally he does not reply directly to the doctor, that he has violated the maxim of relation. But the doctor knows that his mother is old and sick, and Teddy can easily find her out by her unusual name and kill her, if he does not do as he is told to. Thus he can infer that these words about his mother are actually a threat made by Teddy. Then he gets Teddy’s conversational implicature: do as I told you, if not, you and your mother will be in danger.This kind of reasoning is based on some shared background knowledge. Just as He Zhaoxiong (1989: 146) pointed out, conversational implicature is a very common phenomenon, which needs pragmatic analysis. In the process of analyzing, the common sense, shared background knowledge and reasoning ability of the speakers are required. Let’s look at another example.(8)Ma-Hone: how long do you think it’d take to get something like that?An underling: 100hours, or maybe 200Ma-Hone: The tattoo artist who gave it to him must have spent a lot of time on him then, right?The underling: I’ll find out who it was.(From Prison Break) The conversation above is a typical example that violates the maxim of relation. Literally Ma-Hone is asking his underling whether he agrees with him or not, and the underling’s reply should be “yes” or “no”. But the underling knows that Ma-Hone means more than simply an inquiry. His implied meaning is that “Since the tattoo artist who gave it to him had spent so much time on Scofield, he (or she) must remember him clearly. So if we want to get some clues, just go and find the tattoo artist.”. The underling gets this implied meaning, and responds in such a way “I’ll find out who it was.”, showing that he has understood his boss.This kind of conversation that needs analysis and reasoning is very common in the police station because they are good at reasoning.3.4 Violation of the maxim of manner and its implicationsThe maxim of manner requires us to be perspicuous, and to avoid ambiguity and obscurity of expression. Violation of this maxim can convey certain implied meaning. Let’s look at an example.(9)Doctor: I’m sorry, sir, I…I don’t think I can do this. There are nerves. Look, you needa specialist, okay? You need somebody who knows what they’re doing.Teddy: I don’t have the luxury of choice here, Doctor. My hand has been in that box for hours now, it is dying.Doctor: Sir, I am not capable of doing this.Teddy: I only have one hand, but I can stick this into your neck before you get to that door.(From Prison Break) The doctor refuses to do the operation for Teddy and uses an excuse, but Teddy insists that his hand be grafted immediately. Now that it is in oral English, the doctor can simply say “I can’t do this.”, but instead, he says “I am not capable of doing this.” seriously. This has obviously violated the maxim of manner, which requires us to be brief. His conversational implicature is “I am serious.”. By doing this he wants to convince Teddy of his goodness. Another example:(10) Abruzzi: Where we going?Scofield: Somewhere we can stop being cons, and start being civilians.Abruzzi: You know, why don’t you cut out all the riddles, and just give it to us straight.(From Prison Break) The answer of Scofield is an obvious violation of the maxim of manner. When asked where they are going, Scofield is expected to give a clear answer. But his response “Somewhere we can stop being cons and start being civilians.”is obscure and ambiguous, without telling Abruzzi the exact place. It can be explained as carrying an implicature that hedoes not, for some reason or other, want to reveal his destination. In this way, the maxim of manner is fouled, and in this way Abruzzi can infer that he must mean something else, that is, he must have some special reason for not observing the maxims. So he requires Scofield to “Cut out all the riddles, and just give it to us straight.”.From these examples analyzed above, readers can have a better understanding of the conversational implication. Normally when talking, the speakers are expected to obey the Cooperative Principle. But in the process of conversation, speaker of one side would deliberately break the maxim, thus an implied meaning comes into being. Here the listener should understand that the speaker does this only to arouse his or her attention that the speaker wants him or her to think carefully about his or her utterance, and try to get the implied meaning from the literal meaning. This is how conversational implication come into being.4. Suggestions for teaching English audio-visual courseAfter the introduction of how conversational implication can be applied to English audio-visual course, here are some suggestions for teachers to teach this course.The first thing for teachers to do is to explain the Cooperative Principle and conversational implication to the students by using some specific examples, which can help them to have a basic understanding of what conversational implication are. And then, teachers can begin to apply the theory in the teaching process.When doing this, teachers should better choose the English movies carefully. According to the Input Theory, comprehensible input is the most important thing in learning a language. So if teachers want to make the course effective, they should better first use some easy materials with a few conversational implication. Only when students have mastered them, can they use some difficult materials.Secondly, teachers can motivate students when watching movies. According to the affective filter hypothesis, students need some appropriate emotions to prompt learning a language. So when they meet some materials with conversational implication, usually jokes, lies or sweet words, teachers can associate them with their real life, and tell students that these are not difficult to understand if they make a little analysis. In this way, students can havemore confidence in doing it.Another suggestion is to combine listening with speaking, and require students to practice after watching an English movie. The forms are various, from role-play to speaking on a given topic. When students are speaking English themselves, they can not only have a better understanding of conversational implication, but have an English thinking pattern as well.When students have mastered some reasoning skills, and can analyze conversational implication without difficulty, the key of teaching this course can be transferred to the cross-culture comprehension. Teachers should understand that English audio-visual course is not only a part of English teaching, but something related to society, politics, economy and culture. Therefore, when teaching they can contrast Chinese and English from the perspective of culture and cognition disparities. By doing so, student s’ communicative competence and knowledge about English culture can be greatly improved.5. ConclusionSome dialogues violating the Cooperative Principle and thus creating conversational implication have been analyzed in the previous parts. By analyzing them, how conversational implication can be applied to conversations hard to understand in English movies becomes very clear, and it is also known that almost every violation of the Cooperative Principle can bring to a barrier in comprehension, especially for us foreign language learners. So if someone wants to improve his listening comprehension, understanding the literal meaning of a given material is far from enough. He also needs to get the real meaning hidden behind the literal meaning. Only by doing this, can the comprehension be thorough.With these findings, it is strongly recommended that teachers introduce some basic knowledge of conversational implication to students when teaching English audio-visual course. It is also expected that this paper can offer some reference to the teaching of English audio-visual course and some guidance to improve students’ English listening comprehension and communicative competence.References[1] Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation [C]. Cole & Morgan. Syntax and Semantics, V ol. 3:Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1975.[2] Johnson, K. An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.[3] Yule, G. The Study of Language (second edition) [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teachingand Research Press, 2000.[4] 郭遂红. 考试还是教学：大学英语听力教学改革诌议[J]. 中国外语，2004（2）.[5] 何兆熊. 语用学概要[M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1989.[6] 胡壮麟. 语言学教程[M]. 北京：北京大学出版社，2001.[7] 刘润清, 文旭. 新编语言学教程[M]. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2006.[8] 陆国君, 吴兴东. 语篇结构图式与语调范式对英语听力理解的影响[J]. 外语教学与研究，2007（2）.[9] 申小龙. 语言学纲要[M]. 上海：复旦大学出版社，2003.[10] 严灿勋. 一项关于大学英语听力教学改革的探索实践[J]. 中国外语，2005（1）.AcknowledgementsFirst and foremost, I hasten to express my sincerest thanks for my supervisor, Professor Yang Ruping, for his patient throughout my study. Due to his constant encouragement and patient guidance, his constructive suggestions and correction of the mistakes, I can finish this thesis successfully.I'm deeply grateful thanks to Ms. Shen who helps me a lot with the knowledge about teaching pattern.Deep appreciation goes to all professors and my classmates.In addition, my special thanks to the schools in Bazhong which give me chance to do this research.。

TheTheoryofConversationalImplicature会话含义理论PPT教案

Non-detachablity 不可分离性
A conversational implicature is attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to the linguistic form; implicatures do not vanish if the words of an utterances are changed for synonyms. e.g: a. John's a genious. b. John's a mental prodigy. John's an idiot. c. John's a big brain. ······
第7页/共11页
Cancellability 可取消性
Also known as defeasibility (可废除性) The presence of a conversational implicature relies on a number of factors: the conversational meaning of words used, the CP, the lingistic and situational contexts, etc. So if any changes, the implicature will also change. e.g: 通过附加分句来取消句子含义 a. John has 3 cows. b. John has only 3 cows. c. John has 3 cows, if not more. d. John has at least第38页c/共o11w页 s.
第9页/共11页