《语用与交际》 论文Pragmatic Anlysis on Coversational Implicature.docx
- 文档编号:7281099
- 上传时间:2023-01-22
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:12
- 大小:28.62KB
《语用与交际》 论文Pragmatic Anlysis on Coversational Implicature.docx
《《语用与交际》 论文Pragmatic Anlysis on Coversational Implicature.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《《语用与交际》 论文Pragmatic Anlysis on Coversational Implicature.docx(12页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
《语用与交际》论文PragmaticAnlysisonCoversationalImplicature
成绩
评卷人
姓名
学号
华中师范大学
本科生课程论文
论文题目PragmaticAnlysisonCoversationalImplicature
完成时间2013.6
课程名称《语用与交际》
授课教师___________柯贤兵____________
专业辅修第二学位英语专业
年级2010英语双学位辅修
Title:
PragmaticAnlysisonConversationalImplicature
I.Introduction
1.1IntroductionofH.P.
Theoryofconversationalimplicatureisessentiallyatheoryabouthowpeopleuselanguagetogetadditionalmeaningsacross.ThetheorywasproposedbyH.PaulGrice,anOxfordphilosopherwholaterwenttoAmerica,intheWilliamJameslecturesdeliveredatHarvardin1967.Theselectureswereonlypartiallypublishedin1975,entitled‘’LogicandConversation’’,andin1978,entitled“FurtherNotesonLogicandCoversation”.Heattemptedatexplaininghowahearergetsfromwhatissaidtowhatismeant,fromthelevelofexpressedmeaningtothelevelofimpliedmeaning.
1.2Introductionthereasonofwhychoosethisaspect
Thereexistsagapbetweenwhatoneliterallysaysandwhatonecontextuallyconveys.Wheninaparticularcircumstances,thespeaker’smeaningsmaynoteasilybeunderstood.Inconversation,sometimesaspeakeringivingareplytoaquestion,trytomeansomethingbyjustsayingsomethingelse.Theintendedmeaningthatisnotcoveredintheliteralmeaningiscalledimplicature.Thetheoryofconversationalimplicatureisconsideredoneofthekeyconceptsinpragmaticsforitspowerfulexplanatoryroleinlanguagecommunication.ItwasfurstputforwardbyGrice,anAmericanphilisopherandlinguist,whoraisedthefamous“CooperativePrinciple”inordertoexplainconversationalimplicature.Ifwecanrealizethemeaningconveysintheworddeeply,wecanpreventusfrombeingmisunderstoodandunderstandingothersbetter.Inthisway,thegraspofconversationalimplicatureisimportantforEnglishlearners.
II.ThereticalFramework
Gricesconversationalimplicaturetheoryisthebasisofpragmatictheories,whereasrelevancetheoryhasmoreexplanatoryadvantagesthantheconversationalimplicaturetheory.Levinsonhelpstosimplifymeaningclassificationandcontributestotheformationofatheoryofgeneralizedconversationalimplicatureandthefurtherdevelopmentofconversationalimplicaturestudies.Inthisessay,wewillmainlytalkabouttheapplicationofconversationalimplicaturefromdifferentaspects.Ingrammar,wewilldiscusstheconversationalimplicaturesinsentencesandtext.Thetenseofwhataspeakerusesalsohasitsimplicativemeaningswhichareconsideredtobeimpropertosayitdirectly.Inrealcommunication,theconversationparticipantsnotalwaysfollowtheprincipleintheirtalkandthemaximsareoftenviolated.WhenitcomestotheviolationofCP,theconversationalimplicaturereferstotheextrameaningthatisnotcontainedintheutterance.
III.PragmaticAnalysisonconversationalimplicature
3.0.Letsstartwiththeseexamples
(1).AChineseexamplefromafilm:
aboysaystoagirl‘你不戴眼镜的时候很漂亮’andthegirlimmediatelyresponds‘那我戴眼镜一定很丑了’。
Nowtheboymayhavereasontodenythegirl’sinterpretationiswhathesaid.Buthemaynotabletodenyinallfairnessthatthisis,atleastpartly,whatheimplied.
Gricecoinedthetermimplicaturetoexplorethequestionhowpeoplemanagetoconveyimplicature,whichisnotexplicityexpressed.
(2)Thereisawomansittingonaparkbenchandalargedoglyingonthegroundinfrontofthebench.
Man:
Doesyourdogbite?
Woman:
No.
(Thenthemanreachesdowntopetthedog.Thebitestheman’shand.)
Man:
Ouch!
Hey!
Yousaidyourdogdoesn’tbite.
Woman:
Hedoesn’t.Butthat’snotmydog.
Theproblemofthecommunicationiscausedbytheman’sassumptionthatmorewascommunicatedthanwassaid.
Theproblemistheman’sassumptionthathisquestion“Doesyourdogbite?
’’andthewoman’sanswer“No”.bothapplytothedoginfrontofthem.Fromtheman’sperspective,thewoman’sanswerprovideslessinformationthanexpected.Inotherwords,shemightbeexpressedtoprovidetheinformationstatedinthelastline.Ofcourse,ifshehadmentionedthisinformationearlier,thestorywouldn’tbeasfunny.Fortheeventtobefunny,thewomanhastogivelessinformationthanisexpected.
(3)
1)Virginia:
Doyoulikemynewhat?
Mary:
It’spink.
2)Maggie:
Doyoulikemynewdress?
Linda:
Oh,it’sgreen.
3)Phil:
AreyougoingtoSteve’sbarbecue?
Terry:
Well,Steve’sgotthosedogsnow
4)Annie:
Wasthedessertanygood?
Mike:
Annie,cherrypieischerrypie.
Theadditionalordifferentmeaningswhichweobservedintheexamplesareconveyedbymeansofimplicature.
1.Idon’tlikeyourhat.
2.Iwon’thavesomecoffee.
3.Idon’tthinkI’mgoingtoSteve’sbarbecue.
4.No,thedessertwasprettyboring.
*Howcanwearriveatthesemeanings?
3.1.Thenotionofconversationalimplicature
Pragmaticshelpsoneaccuratelyinterpretwhataspeakerintendstomeanthronghhisorherutterance.However,invariouscontexts,theliteralmeaningofanutterancemaybedifferentfromwhatisreallymeantbythespeakerwhomakestheutterance.Theintendedmeaningthatisnotcoveredintheliteralmeaningiscalledmiplicature.
Hornhasdefinedtheconversationalimplicature:
aconversationalimplicatureis“acomponentofspeakermeaningthatconstitutesanaspectofwhatismeantinaspeaker’sutterancewithoutbeingpartofwhatissaid”.
3.2.Thecategoryofconversationalimplicature
Therearesomedifferentideasofthecategoryofconversationalimplicature.WhenGricefirstintroducedtheconversationalimplicature,hecategorizeditintotwokindsaccordingtothecontext.WhenpeoplefollowtheCooperativePrincipleandmaximsormaketheirconversationdeveloptowardsthistendency,theyproducegeneralizedconversationalimplicaturesthatcanbeachievedwithoutcertaincontextsorbackground.Tothecontraty,whenpeopleviolatethesemaximsintentionallytoconveysomeimplicature,theygenerateparticularizedconversationalimplicaturesthatdependoncertaincontextsandbackgrounds.
BasingonGrice’stheory,Levinsoncategorizedtheconversationalimplicatureexplicitlyaccordingtothecontextandprinciple.Whenspeakersobeytheprinciple,theyproducestandardconversationalimplicature.Onthecontrary,theyproducenon-standardconversationalimplicature.
Someotherexpertsalsohavetheirownopinions.Sadocksuggestedtoomitthenon-standardconversationalimplicature.姜望琪combinedthesetheoriestogether.
3.3.Theapplicationofconversationalimplicature
Itisheldthatasentenceinitselfhasafixedandclearmeaning,butwhenitisusedinacertaincontextbyacertainspeakerforacertainpruposeasanutterande,itsrealmeaningchanges.Conversationalimplicatureprovidessomeexplicitaccountofhowitispossibletomeanmorethanwhatisliterallyexpressedbytheconventionalsenseofthelinguisticexpressionsuttered.Usingit,wecaninferthespeaker’srealattention,appreciatefigureofspeechinliterarywork,andimproveourcommunicativecompetence.
(1)Grice’stheory
Grice’sdistinctionbetweensentence-meaningandspeaker-meaninghasnoticedthediscrepanciesbetweencontext-independentliteralmeaningandcontext-determinateconversationalimplicature.Forexample,“Heisafinefriend”saidironicallymaybeintendedbythespeakertocommunicatethecontradictorymeaning“Heisabadfriend”.Thedetailsofwhatisimplicatedwilldependupontheparticularcontextofutterance.
AccordingtoGrice,onesentenceindicatesmoremeanings.Howdoesthespeakerconveyimplicature?
Andhowdoesthehearerabsorbtheintendedmessage?
Incommunication,theintentionfromthemessagesenderisthemutualknowledgeofthesenderandthereceiver.Howcanthemutualknowledgebeacquired?
InGrice’sopinion,people’sconversationisnotasequenceofirrelevantwords,butakindofcooperativeeffortinstead.Griceintroducedthecooperativeprinciplewhichprovidessomecluestothemechanismofrecognition.
Grice’sdistinctionbetweensentence-meaningandspeaker-meaninghasnoticedthediscrepanciesbetweencontext-independentliteralmeaningandcontext-determinateconversationalimplicature.Forexample,“Heisafinefriend”saidironicallymaybeintendedbythespeakertocommunicatethecontradictorymeaning“Heisabadfriend”.Thedetailsofwhatisimplicatedwilldependupontheparticularcontextofutterance.
AccordingtoGrice,onesentenceindicatesmoremeanings.Howdoesthespeakerconveyimplicature?
Andhowdoesthehearerabsorbtheintendedmessage?
Incommunication,theintentionfromthemessagesenderisthemutualknowledgeofthesenderandthereceiver.Howcanthemutualknowledgebeacquired?
InGrice’sopinion,people’sconversationisnotasequenceofirrelevantwords,butakindofcooperativeeffortinstead.Griceintroducedthecooperativeprinciplewhichprovidessomecluestothemechanismofrecognition.
1TheCooperativePrinciple
Weknowthataspeakeringivingasuplytoaquestion,trytomeansomethingbyjustsayingsomethingelse.Howcanwegettheimpliedmeaningexactly?
Howcanaspeakertrytomeanmorethanwhatissaid?
PaulGrice,anAmericanlanguagephilisopher,proposesthatinordinaryconversation,speakersandhearersshareaco-operativeprinciple.Heindentifiesasguidelinesoffourbasicmaximsofconversationorgeneralprinciplesunderlyingtheefficientco-orperativeuseoflanguage,whichjointlyexpressageneralco-operativeprinciple.
TheGeneralPrinciple:
Makeyourcontributionsuchasisrequired,atthestageatwhichitoccurs,bytheacceptedpruposeordirectionfothetalkexchangeinwhichyouareengag
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 语用与交际 语用与交际 论文Pragmatic Anlysis on Coversational Implicature 交际 论文 Pragmatic
链接地址:https://www.bdocx.com/doc/7281099.html