語言學(xué)概論英文課件：Chapter 8-language in use pragmatics

1、Chapter Eight Language in UseI. A brief introduction of PragmaticsPragmatics: It was originated from Morris(1938), as the Latin root pragmameaning “act” or “action”.I. A brief introduction of PragmaticsPragmaticsthe study of language in use or context.(對(duì)語境中語言運(yùn)用的研究）。Pragmatics is the study of how spe

2、akers of a language use sentences to achieve successful communication.I. A brief introduction of PragmaticsSemantics vs. PragmaticsSemantics: the study of meaning is more closely related to the linguistic forms (more constant and inherent)Pragmatics: the study of meaning is more closely related to t

3、he context (more indeterminate/unfixed, speakers meaning, utterance meaning or contextual meaning)The meaning depends on “context”.4. Sentence meaning VS Utterance meaningWhat does X mean?Sentence: a grammatical concept, abstract, self-contained unit in isolation from contextSentence meaning: abstra

4、ct, intrinsic property, decontexualizedWhat do you mean by X?Utterance: sth. a speaker utters in a certain situation with a certain purposeUtterance meaning: concrete, context-dependent Speakers meaningContextual meaning 5. Context（何兆熊，1987：25）Context (1) Situation:A father is trying to get his 3-ye

5、ar-old daughter to stop lifting up her dress to display her new underwear to the assemble.)Father: We dont DO that.Daughter: I KNOW, Daddy. -You dont WEAR dresses.(2) A: You speak beautiful English. B: Thank you. I had very good teachers. Context(3) A: How did Mary and Bill do in the math exam? B: M

6、ary did fine.Bill didnt do well in the math exam.(4) A: My computer has gone wrong. Can you ask your father to help me? B: He is a lawyer.(5) A: Your mother is a doctor. What about your father? B: He is a lawyer. The important theories of pragmatics Speech Act Theory (SAT), the Oxford philosopher Jo

7、hn Langshaw Austin, How to do Things with Words in 1962.Conversational Implicature, CP, Oxford philosopher Herbert Paul Grice, logic and conversation, 1975.Politeness Principle (PP), the British linguist G.N. Leech, 1983.Relevance theory, Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, Relevance: Communication and

8、Cognition, 1986. 8.1 Speech Act Theory(p.186)John AustinHow to Do Things with Words (1962)speech acts: actions performed via utterancesE.g. compliments, refusal, requesting, questioning, etc. 1）Words and Deeds 言與行（1952） 2） How to Do Things with Words 如何以言行事（1962）we are performing various kinds of ac

9、ts when we are speaking.Constatives: sentences which describe what the speaker is doing at the time of speaking (True or False)Performatives: sentences which do not describe things, but the utterance of the sentences is the doing of an action.8.1.1 Constatives 敘事句vs. performatives施為句8.1.1 Constative

10、s 敘事句vs. Performatives施為句(1) China is the biggest country in Asia.(2) Youre fired (said by a boss to his employee who has just made a serious mistake). Performatives are sentences used to perform such functions as promising, naming, warning, inviting, requesting, ordering and asking etc. I name this

11、 ship Queen Elizabeth.I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.I give and bequeath my watch to my brother.I promise to finish it in time.I apologize.I declare the meeting open.I warn you that the bull will charge.Felicity conditions: A. (i) There must be a relevant conventional procedure 規(guī)約程序. (ii)

12、the relevant participants and circumstances must be appropriate.B. The procedure must be executed correctly and completely.C. Very often, the relevant people must have the requisite thoughts, feelings and intentions, and must follow it up with actions as specified. Minister: addressing the groom (Gr

13、ooms Name), do you take (Brides Name) for your lawful wedded wife, to live together after Gods ordinance, in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love, honor, comfort, and cherish her from this day forward, forsaking all others, keeping only unto her for as long as you both shall live? XXX，你是否愿意娶x

14、xx為妻，按照圣經(jīng)的教訓(xùn)與她同住，在神面前和她結(jié)為一體，愛她、安慰她、尊重她、保護(hù)他，像你愛自己一樣。不論她生病或是健康、富有或貧窮，始終忠於她，直到離開世界？Groom: I do. （a peformative)Characteristics of PerformativesA. A speaker intends to be performing in uttering the sentence.B. They cannot be performed unless language is used;C. They have connected with performative verb

15、s, the occurrence of which as a main verb in a present tense, indicative陳述的, active.ConstativesIn contrast to performatives, sentences like “I pour some liquid into the tube” is a description of what the speaker is doing at the time of speaking. The speaker cannot pour any liquid into a tube by simp

16、ly uttering these words. He must accompany his words with the actual pouring. Otherwise, one can accuse him of making a false statement. How to distinguish performatives from constatives1. Conditions: true or false (constative) felicity conditions (合適條件）2. grammatical criterion: (performative) first

17、 person singular subject simple present tense indicative mood 陳述語氣 active voice8.1.2 Illocutionary Act Theory- It was proposed by John Austin in 1962 in How To Do Things With Words.It was systematized by John Searle in 1969 in Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of LanguageThree Levels of Speech

18、 Acts:Locutionary Act Illocutionary ActPerlocutionary Act(1) an act of producing linguistic units.(2) the basic literal meaning of the utterance which is conveyed by particular words and structures which the utterance contains. inherent meaning of a sentence.(語義學(xué)研究的對(duì)象）Locutionary Act(發(fā)話行為/言中行為）propo

19、sition of speech actIllocutionary force行事語力Speakers meaning or intentionContextual meaningExtra-meaningIllocutionary Act言外行為/行事行為言外之意intention of speech actThe act performed through, by means of a locutionary act .The hearers interpretations or reactionsPerlocutionary Act言后行為/取效行為consequences of spe

20、ech actExample Shoot it！Locutionary act (X): In Shoot it！ = the meaning of the verb shoot + the meaning of the pronoun it.Illocutionary act (Y):In saying X, I was doing Y.In saying Shoot it, I was ordering the three soldiers to shoot at the target.Perlocutionary Act (Z):By saying X, and doing Y, I d

21、id Z.By saying Shoot it, and thus ordering the three soldiers to shoot at the target, I made it possible for the target to be shot by the three soldiers.e.g. A: 我唐老鴨今天過生日，請(qǐng)你去吃蛋糕喔。 B: 好??！ X=(唐老鴨)請(qǐng)你(小鴨B)去吃蛋糕 Y=邀請(qǐng) Z=小鴨B接受邀請(qǐng) Mary: Im hungry.John: I can get you something to eat.Mary: Thank you. X= Im hun

22、gry.Y= an indirect request for John to get her some foodZ= John offers to get Mary some food.Classification of illocutionary acts 1. Representatives（闡述類） （state, describe, swear, report) 2. Directives (指令類) （ask, order, request, command, advise)Illocutionary 3. Commissives（承諾類）Acts (promise, bet) 4.

23、 Expressives（表達(dá)類） (thank, congratulate, apologize, welcome, deplore哀嘆） 5. Declarations（宣告類） (name, declare, nominate, point, christen （施洗禮時(shí)命名)8.2 Conversational Implicature(p.176-)Herbert Paul GriceWilliam James lectures at Harvard in 1967Logic and Conversation in 1975Grice noticed that in daily con

24、versations people do not usually say things directly but tend to imply them. E.g. (p.176)According to Grice, conversations do not normally consist of a series of disconnected remarks which are characteristically, to some degree, cooperative efforts. Each participant normally recognizes in conversati

25、ons, to some extent, a common purpose.Given that conversation is a rational and purposivebehavior, it is possible that there is a generally acceptedprinciple which each participant is assumed to observein conversations.Period 2 Cooperative principle In other words, we seem to follow some principle l

26、ike the following: “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. To specify the CP further, Grice introduced four categories of maxims as follows:1. The Maxim of Quality

27、 Make your contribution one that is true Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.2. The Maxim of Quantity Make your contribution as informative as is required for thecurrent purpose of the conversation. Do not make your contribution more informat

28、ive than isrequired.3. The Maxim of Relevance - make it relevant4. The Maxim of Manner be clear, avoid obscurity, avoid ambiguity, be brief, be orderlyPeriod 2 Gricean maxims（p.177-)Quantity. A helps B to mend a car. If B needs 4 screws, A is expected to hand 4, not 2, or 6.Quality. If A asks for sa

29、lt, A does not expect B to hand A the sugar.Relation. If B needs a screw, B does not expect that A will hand B a hammer, remote control,Manner. Expect that from the way you carry out your action it is clear what contribution you are making.However, CP is often violated. When any of the maxims is bla

30、tantly （露骨地）violated or flouted/disobeyed, conversational implicature will arise.!重要！Conversational ImplicaturesAccording to Grice, utterance interpretation is not a matter of decoding messages, but rather involves (1) taking the meaning of the sentences together with contextual information, (2) usi

31、ng inference rules (3) working out what the speaker means on the basis of the assumption that the utterance conforms to 順應(yīng) the maxims. The main advantage of this approach from Grices point of view is that it provides a pragmatic explanation for a wide range of phenomena, especially for conversationa

32、l implicautres a kind of extra meaning that is not literally contained in the utterance.2. Violation of the maxims (Quantity)（1）Make your contribution as informative as is required. e.g. A: 昨天上街買了些什么?B: 就買了些東西。I dont want to tell you what I bought.e.g. A: Where does D live? B: Somewhere in the South

33、 of France.Dear Sir, Mr. Xs command of English is excellent, and his attendance at tutorials has been regular. Yours（p.179) Mr. X is not suitable for the job.（2）Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. e.g.Aunt: How did Jimmy do his history exam?Mother: Oh, not at all well. T

34、eachers asked him things that happened before the poor boy was born.Her son should not be blamed.E.g.A:你叫什么名字?B:我叫魏淑芬，今年29，至今未婚。 She is eager to find a boyfriend.Violation of the maxims (Quality)（1） Do not say what you believe to be false. He is a tiger.He is made of iron.False statements-metaphorsP

35、eter: What do you think of Jack?Mark: Hes a fox. Implication: Jack is a cunning person.（2） Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.A: Beirut is in Peru, isnt it?B: And Rome is in Romania, I suppose. Its ridiculous.Violation of the maxims (Relation)Be relevant. A: Prof. Wang is an old ba

36、g.B: Nice weather for the time of year. I dont want to talk about Prof. Wang. (p.180)Jack: Lets play tennis.Pat: I have a stomach-ache.Implication: He does not want to play tennis with Jack. Two speakers (Fred and Hazel) are gossiping about a third person (Christine). Fred says: “Christine is always

37、 late for work. I think shes going to get fired. Shes a totally irresponsible worker.” Noticing that Christine is approaching and that Fred doesnt realize this, Hazel comments: “Do you think it will rain tomorrow today?”(a) Which of the maxims of the cooperative principle (quantity, relation, manner

38、 and quality) has Hazel violated?(b) What is the conversational implicature of this violation? That is, what additional information is Fred likely to read into Hazels utterance?Violation of the maxims (Manner)（1） Avoid obscurity 模糊 of expressionA: Lets get the kids something.B: Ok, but I veto C-H-O-

39、C-O-L-A-T-E.Dont give them chocolate.-Ambiguity （2） Avoid ambiguity A: Name and title, please?B: John Smith, Associate Editor and professor.買一贈(zèng)一。Buy one get one free.Buy one get two free.（3） Be brief A: Did you get my assignment?B: I received two pages clipped together and covered with rows of black

40、 squiggles.彎彎曲曲的線條 not satisfied.（4） Be orderly.They got married and had a baby.They had a baby and got married.3. Characteristics of implicature（1）Calculability 可推導(dǎo)性: hearers work out implicature based on literal meaning, CP and its maxims, context, etc.（2）Cancellability / defeasibility可取消性 （依賴語境）

41、: If the linguistic or situational contexts change, the implicature will also change.e.g. Reference letter (p.182)Primer Zhu Rongjis sppech at MIT（3）Non-detachability不可分離性 （依賴語義） : implicature is attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to the linguistic form; implicatures do not vanish

42、 if the words of an utterance are changed for synonyms.A: Shall we go the cinema tonight?B: Therell be an exam tomorrow. Ill take an exam tomorrow. Isnt there an exam tomorrow?The implicature is the same: I cant go to the cinema.Characteristics of implicature（4）Non-conventionality非規(guī)約性（不確定性，隨語境變化而變化）

43、 implicature is different from its conventional meaning of words. It is context-dependent. It varies with context.A1：下午踢球去吧！A2：老王住院了？ B：上午還在換草皮。A3: 足球場(chǎng)安裝了一個(gè)新門柱。Besides the case of violation of the CP leading to conversational implicature, there are other cases of violation of CP.1) He may quietly an

44、d unostentatiously 低調(diào)地violate a maxim. (lies)E.g. One farmer meets Sam and says: “Hey, Sam, my horses got distemper. What did you give yours when he had it?” “Turpentine,” grunted Sam. A week later they meet again and the first farmer shouts: “Sam, I gave my horse turpentine like you said and it kil

45、led him.” “So did mine.” nodded Sam. 2) The speaker shows clearly he is not cooperative, so there is no misunderstanding or deceiving or misleading.E.g. A: Where does he live? B: Someplace in Beijing. I dont know the exact place at all.3) The speaker may be faced with a flash. (violate one maxim in

46、order to observe the other one)E.g. A: What time are they going to the airport? B: Sometime this morning.Drawback of CPGrice (1975，1978) 會(huì)話含義理論的弱點(diǎn)是:(1) 準(zhǔn)則之間有復(fù)疊情況 (比如方式準(zhǔn)則 (1) 和量準(zhǔn)則 (2) 有重復(fù))。(2) 準(zhǔn)則的實(shí)施未參考具體的文化交際語境。(3) Grice 的會(huì)話含義理論研究的是特殊會(huì)話含義，而未能涵蓋一般會(huì)話含義，這就限制了理論的解釋力。（4）合作原則只解釋了人們間接的使用語言所產(chǎn)生的會(huì)話含義，及其對(duì)會(huì)話含義的理

47、解卻沒有解釋在日常生活中人們?yōu)槭裁匆諒澞ń?，不采取直截了?dāng)?shù)姆绞竭M(jìn)行交際，讓聽話人去推導(dǎo)會(huì)話含義。即合作原則解釋了話語的字面意思和實(shí)際意義之間的關(guān)系，卻沒有解釋為什么人們會(huì)違反合作原則，以間接含蓄的方式表達(dá)思想，進(jìn)行交流。Why？CP and its maxims Four maxims Content (R,Q1,Q2) Form/Manner relevance irrelevance Imperspicuousness perspicuousness truth falsity Violation proper quantity improper quantity Observance

48、IV. Politeness PrincipleGrices CP does not explain why speakers often violate CP .Leech looks on politeness as the crucial in accounting for why people are so often indirect in conveying what they mean. He thus puts forward PP so as to rescue the CP in the sense that PP can satisfactorily explain ex

49、ception to and apparent deviations from the CP.A: Well miss Bill and Mary, wont we?B: Well, well all miss Bill. (violation of quantity maxim)Politeness is usually regarded as a strategy used by the speaker to achieve, such as saving face, establishing and maintaining harmonious social relations in c

50、onversation.Politeness principle (G. Leech) is one of the major social constraints on human interaction regulating participants communicative behavior by constantly reminding them to take into consideration the feelings of the others. (He Ziran 2003)The classification of Leechs theoryCompetitive（競(jìng)爭(zhēng)類

51、）Convivial（和諧類）Collaborative（合作類）Conflictive（沖突類）Leech的分類言外行為和禮貌的程度例子Competitive（競(jìng)爭(zhēng)類）禮貌和行為競(jìng)爭(zhēng)請(qǐng)求，命令，要求Convivial（和諧類）本質(zhì)上禮貌建議，忠告，提供，邀請(qǐng)Collaborative（合作類）無關(guān)聯(lián)聲言，報(bào)告，宣告Conflictive（沖突類）不可能禮貌威脅，恐嚇，詛咒Leech (1983) proposed politeness principle which is formulated in a general way from 2 aspects: 1) to minimize t

52、he expression of impolite beliefs2)to maximize the expression of polite beliefsFor some acts such as giving an invitation, a piece of advice and an offer are considered polite-natured, for other is always on the beneficial side.For other acts like a request, an order and a demand are considered impo

53、lite-natured, for other is always on the cost side. The polite-relating factorsSelf(自身)refers to the speaker. Other (他人)refers to the addressee or a third person, present or not. Benefit (惠) & Cost (損)Generally speaking, if there is benefit, there must be cost.Tact Maxim Generosity Maxim Approbation

54、 MaximModesty MaximAgreement MaximSympathy Maxim 1) The tact maxim Minimize cost & maximize benefit to other The first part of this maxim fits in with Brown and Levinsons negative politeness strategy of minimizing the imposition, and the second part reflects the positive politeness strategy of atten

55、ding to the hearers interests, wants, and needs.E.g. Would it be possiable for you to lend me your car?Could you lend me your car?Will you lend me your car？Lend your car.You must lend me your car！ 2) The Generosity maxim Minimize benefit & maximize cost to self. Unlike the tact maxim, the maxim of g

56、enerosity focuses on the speaker, and says that others should be put first instead of the self.E.g. You must have another sandwich.Do you have another sandwich？Please have another sandwich.Would you like to have another sandwich?Would it be possible for you to have another sandwich?Would you mind ha

57、ving another sandwich?3) The Approbation maxim Minimize dispraise & maximize praise to other The operation of this maxim is fairly obvious: all things being equal, we prefer to praise others and if we cannot do so, to sidestep the issue, to give some sort of minimal response (possibly through the us

58、e of euphemisms or to remain silent. The first part of the maxim avoids disagreement; the second part intends to make other people feel good by showing solidarity.E.g. I heard you singing at the karaoke last night. It was, um. different. John, I know youre a genius - would you know how to solve this math problem here? You are the best cook in the world.What a marvellous cook you are！You are really a good