Transcript 语用学

English Linguistics: An Introduction
Chapter 7 Pragmatics
Chapter 7 Pragmatics
0. Warm-up Questions
1. Basic Notions
2. Speech Act Theory
3. Conversational Principle and Implicature
4. Relevance Theory
0. Warm-up Questions

What is context? What are the components?

How do you understand the statement “Speaking is more
than uttering words”?

Why do listeners sometimes give indirect or passive
response?

What are your suggestions for polite conversations?
1. Basic Notions
1.1 What is pragmatics?


Definition: The study of how speakers of a language
use sentences to effect successful communication, or
simply the study of language in use.
Related topics: deixis, speech acts, indirect language,
conversation, politeness, cross-cultural communication,
and presupposition
1. Basic Notions
1.2 Context


Definition: the relevant constraints of the
communicative situation that influence language use. It
is generally considered as constituted by the
knowledge shared by the speaker and the hearer.
Components of shared knowledge: language
knowledge, co-text knowledge, situational knowledge
and world knowledge.
1. Basic Notions
1.3 Sentence meaning vs. utterance meaning



Sentence meaning: abstract, intrinsic, de-contextualized,
conventional
Utterance meaning: concrete, variable, contextdependent, contextual
E.g. The sentence My bag is heavy [BAG (BEING
HEAVY)] can be uttered as a straight forward statement,
an indirect, polite request for help, or declining
someone’s request for help.
2. Speech Act Theory
2.1 Perfomatives and constatives (Austin, 1950s) (p172)




Performatives are unverifiable statements that are
uttered to perform acts.
E.g. 1. I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth.
2. I promise to finish it in time.
Constatives are verifiable statements that either state or
describe.
E.g. 1. I pour some liquid into the tube.
2. I believe there is a cat on the mat.
2. Speech Act Theory
2.2 Three kinds of speech act (Austin, 1962) (p174)




Locutionary act: of conveying literal meaning (What is
done?) 言内
Illocutionary act: of expressing the speaker’s intention
(What is meant?) 言外
Perlocutionary act: the effect of the utterance (What is
effected?) 言后
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.
2. Speech Act Theory
2.3 Classification of illocutionary acts (Searle, 1976)






Representatives: state, believe, swear, hypothesize,
assert, claim, deny, etc.
e.g. The earth is a globe.
Directives: request, ask, invite, suggest, advise, warn,
order, tell, etc.
e.g. Open the window! It is stuffy in here.
Commissives: promise, vow, undertake, pledge, refuse,
guarantee, etc.
e.g. I promise to come.
2. Speech Act Theory
2.3 Classification of illocutionary acts (Searle, 1976)




Expressives: apologize, boast, thank, congratulate,
greet, etc.
e.g. I’m sorry for the mess I have made.
Declarations: declare, appoint, fire, nominate, bless,
christen, etc.
e.g. I now declare the meeting open.
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.
3. Conversational Principle and Implicature
3.1 The Cooperative Principle (CP) (p176)








The maxim of quality:
•Do not say what you believe to be false;
•Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
The maxim of relation:
Make your contribution relevant.
The maxim of manner: Be perspicuous, and specifically:
•avoid obscurity •avoid ambiguity
•be brief •be orderly.
3. Conversational Principle and Implicature
3.2 Violation and implicatures (p178)









Violation of the maxim of quantity
— Boys are boys.
CI: Boys are naughty and mischievous by nature.
Violation of the maxim of quality
— He had a lioness at home.
CI: His wife is dominant at home.
Violation of the maxim of relation
— What do you intend to do today?
— I have a terrible headache.
CI: I don’t intend to do anything.
3. Conversational Principle and Implicature
3.2 Violation and implicatures (p178)



Violation of the maxim of manner
— Shall we get something for the kids?
— Yes. But I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M.
CI: I don’t want the kids to know we are talking about
getting them ice-cream.
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
3.3 Characteristics of implicature (p181)




Non-detachability: CI is attached to the semantic
content of the utterance.
John’s a genius / a big brain said ironically will
implicate John’s an idiot.
Non-conventionality: different from the conventional
meaning of words
John has three cows necessarily entails John has three
animals and may implicates John can get 100 RMB.
3. Conversational Principle and Implicature
3.4 The Politeness Principle


Leech (1983) proposed the Politeness Principle which is
formulated in a general way from 2 aspects:
1) to minimize the expression of impolite beliefs
2) to maximize the expression of polite beliefs
To be specific, there are six maxims:
 Tact maxim: minimise cost to other; maximise benefit
to other
3. Conversational Principle and Implicature
3.4 The Politeness Principle





Generosity maxim: minimise benefit to self; maximise cost
to self
Approbation maxim: minimise dispraise of other; maximise
praise of other
Modesty maxim: minimise praise of self; maximise dispraise
of self
Agreement maxim: minimise disagreement between self and
other; maximise agreement between self and other
Sympathy maxim: minimise antipathy between self and
other; maximise sympathy between self and other
4. Relevance Theory
4.1 Relevance (of an input, in a context)

The greater the cognitive effects, the greater the
relevance
Cognitive effects:
 a. Strengthening existing assumptions;
 b. Contradicting and eliminating existing assumptions;
 c. Combining with existing assumptions to yield
contextual implications.
4. Relevance Theory
4.1 Relevance (of an input, in a context)

The smaller the processing effort, the greater the
relevance.

Processing effort: The effort of perception, memory and
inference needed to represent the input, access a context
and derive the cognitive effects (of that input, in that
context).
4. Relevance Theory
4.2 Outline of Relevance Theory



Utterances automatically create expectations of
relevance.
Different interpretations of an utterance are relevant in
different ways.
A rational hearer would choose the interpretation that
best satisfies his expectations of relevance.
4. Relevance Theory
4.3 Cognitive Principle of Relevance

Human cognitive processes are aimed at processing the
most relevant information available in the most
relevant way. OR Human cognition tends to be geared
to the maximisation of relevance, or achieve the greatest
possible cognitive effect using the smallest effort.
4.4 Communicative Principle of Relevance

Every utterance (or other ostensive stimulus) / every act
of ostensive communication communicates a
presumption of its own optimal relevance.