Pragmatics -lecture-3
Teaching pragmatics
IntroductionKathleen Bardovi-HarligRebecca Mahan-TaylorTeaching Pragmatics explores the teaching of pragmatics through lessons and activities created by teachers of English as a second and foreign language. This book is written for teachers by teachers. Our teacher-contributors teach in seven different countries and are both native-speakers and nonnative speakers of English. Activities reflect ESL and EFL classroom settings. The chapters included here allow teachers to see how other teachers approach the teaching of pragmatics and to appreciate the diversity and creativity of their endeavors. Taken together, the activities constitute a spectrum of possibilities for teaching pragmatics. Each submission provides novel insight into the ESL/EFL classroom and the fact that there is no single approach to the teaching of pragmatics. The variety of approaches means that pragmatics can be integrated easily into any classroom whether traditional or communicative.What is pragmatics?The study of pragmatics explores the ability of language users to match utterances with contexts in which they are appropriate; in Stalnaker’s words, pragmatics is "the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are performed" (1972, p. 383). The teaching of pragmatics a ims to facilitate the learners’ sense of being able to find socially appropriate language for the situations that they encounter. Within second language studies and teaching, pragmatics encompasses speech acts, conversational structure, conversational implicature, conversational management, discourse organization, and sociolinguistic aspects of language use such as choice of address forms. These areas of language and language use have not traditionally been addressed in language teaching curricula, leading one of our students to ask if we could teach him “the secret rules of English.” Pragmatic rules for language use are often subconscious,and even NS are often unaware of pragmatic rules until they are broken (and feelings are hurt, offense is taken, or sometimes things just seem a bit odd). Neither does pragmatics receive the attention in language teacher education programs that other areas of language do. Nevertheless, rules of language use do not have to be “secret rules” for learners or teachers. A grow ing number of studies exist that describe language use in a variety of English-speaking communities, and these studies have yielded important information for teaching. From the teacher’s perspective, the observation of how speakers do things with words has demystified the pragmatic process at least to the point that we can provide responsible and concrete lessons and activities to language learners. We are in the position to give assurance that they too can learn pragmatics in their second or foreign langua ge and that they can be “in the club” of English speakers. Teachers can successfully decode the apparently secret rules for classroom learners.Why teach pragmatics in language classes?We advocate teaching pragmatics because quite simply, observation of language learners shows that there is a demonstrated need for it and that instruction in pragmatics can be successful.Learners show significant differences from native speakers in the area of language use, in the execution and comprehension of certain speech acts, in conversational functions such as greetings and leave takings, and in conversational management such as back channeling and short responses. (See for example, Bardovi-Harlig, 1996, 1999, in press; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Kasper & Rose, 1999.) Without instruction, differences in pragmatics show up in the English of learners regardless of their first language background or language proficiency. That is to say, a learner of high grammatical proficiency will not necessarily show equivalent pragmatic development. As a result, learners at the higher levels of grammatical proficiency often show awide range of pragmatic competence. Thus, we find that even advanced nonnative speakers are neither uniformly successful, nor uniformly unsuccessful, but the range is quite wide.The consequences of pragmatic differences, unlike the case of grammatical errors, are often interpreted on a social or personal level rather than a result of the language learning process. Being outside the range of language use allowed in a language, committing a type of pragmatic mistake, may have various consequences, as identified by the teachers contributing to this volume: It may hinder good communication between speakers (Takenoya), or make the speaker appear abrupt or brusque in social interactions (Lee), or rude or uncaring (Yates). Even maintaining a conversation in English requires a certain amount of knowledge underlying responses that prompt a speaker to continue, show understanding, give support, indicate agreemen t, show strong emotional response, add or correct speaker’s information, or ask for more information, as Gallow points out; Berry also discusses the importance of learning how to take turns, and demonstrates that listening behaviors that are polite in one language, may not be polite (or recognizable) in another. Unintentional insult to interlocutors (Mach & Ridder) and denial of requests (Weasenforth) have also been identified as other potential pragmatic hazards.Left to their own devices such as contact with the target language in and out of the classroom, the majority of learners apparently do not acquire the pragmatics of the target language on their own (Bouton, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, Bardovi-Harlig, in press; Kasper, in press). What makes pragmatics “secret” seems to be in some cases the lack of specific input, and in others the lack of interpretation of language use. Language classrooms are especially well suited to provide both input and interpretation. The first problem of input that instruction addresses is to make language available to learners for observation. Some speech acts, such as invitations, refusals, and apologies often take place between individuals, and so learners mightnot have the opportunity to observe such language without being directly involved in the conversation. Some speech events such as office hours and advising sessions can generally not be observed by a third party. But closed events need not be as private as going to the doctor, as one of our graduate students pointed out: A person might want to know the conventions for talking to a hair stylist in a second language, something equally difficult to observe!The second problem of input that instruction addresses is salience. Some necessary features of language and language use are quite subtle in the input and not immediately noticeable by learners; for example the turns that occur before speakers actually say “goodbye” and the noises that we make when encouraging other speakers to continue their turns are of this type. Di fferences in making requests by asking “Can I” (speaker-oriented) versus “Can you” (hearer-oriented) might not be immediately salient to learners. By highlighting features of language and language use, instruction can inform the learner.Finally, classrooms are the ideal place to help learners interpret language use. Instruction can help learners understand when and why certain linguistic practices take place. It can also help learners interpret the input that they hear, in both actual comprehension (“Wh at does this formula mean?”) and interpretation (“How is this used?” or “What does a speaker who says this hope to accomplish?”). A classroom discussion of pragmatics is also a good place to explore prior impressions of speakers. For example, Americans are often thought of as being very direct. As Howard reports, her learners often tell her that “you don’t have to be polite in English.” Instruction provides the opportunity to discuss the lack of some types of politeness markers in English and the presence and function of others that may not be immediately recognizable to learners.As discussed above, the need for pragmatics instruction is fairly easy to document. In addition there are recent studies that suggest instruction benefits pragmatic development in both production and comprehension. (For overviews see Kasper, 1997, and in press; for a collection of studies see Rose & Kasper, in press; for individual studies see Bouton, 1998, 1990, 1992, 1994).What are the goals of teaching pragmatics? What are the ultimate benefits to the learners? The chief goal of instruction in pragmatics is to raise learners’ pragmatic awareness and to give them choices about their interactions in the target language. The goal of instruction in pragmatics is not to insist on conformity to a particular target-language norm, but rather to help learners become familiar with the range of pragmatic devices and practices in the target language. With such instruction learners can maintain their own cultural identities (Kondo) and participate more fully in target language communication with more control over both intended force and outcome of their contributions. In her chapter Kondo notes that “successful communication is a result of optimal rather than total convergence” (Giles, C oupland, & Coupland, 1991). As the authors to the chapters have said, exposing the learners to pragmatics in their second or foreign language helps them expand their perceptions of the language and speakers of the language.The classroom provides a safe place for learners to learn and experiment. In the classroom learners are able to try out new forms and patterns of communication in an accepting environment. For example, they can experiment with unfamiliar forms of address, or attempt shorter conversational openings or closings than they are used to that might at first make them feel abrupt or they might try longer openings or closings that initially might feel too drawn out, just to get the feel of it. The instructor and other student participants can provide feedback.Instruction should allow for flexibility for the students in how much of the pragmatic norms of the culture that they would like to adopt or adapt to their own repertoire. No matter how much learners intend produce, as a result of the activities suggested in this book, they will be able to better interpret the speech of others. They will enjoy a greater level of acceptance or insight into the target culture. We believe that like the teacher-authors in this book, teachers reading this book will find that students genuinely enjoy participating in pragmatics lessons for reasons covered above, and because learning about pragmatics is like being let into a secret! How can pragmatics be taught?We emphasize that there is not a single best way to teach pragmatics. The teaching activities that we have included here represent a wide range of teaching styles and approaches. But regardless of method, they share some important pedagogical practices. Readers will find that 1) awareness activities generally begin the units described in the chapters, 2) authentic language samples are used as examples or models, and 3) input precedes interpretation by learners or production activities.Instruction in pragmatics may utilize the learners’ first language as we ll as the target language. Awareness raising activities can profitably involve demonstrations in the L1 or L1 language samples. Demonstrations may include the use of space, such as where people stand in a line, or nonverbal gestures that accompany certain types of talk, such as shaking hands during greetings or introductions. In Berry’s lesson on listening behaviors, students demonstrate active listening behavior in their own language(s) before observing native speakers. L1 language samples can serve to introduce learners to ideas in pragmatics in a context in which they native control of the language. They can also serve for the basis of L1-L2 comparisons as in Howard’s lesson on politeness in which L1 and L2 business letters are compared. It is worthwhile to keepin mind that all languages have pragmatic systems, and with a little encouragement all learners will recognize that their L1s also have “secret rules.”Pragmatics is an area of language instruction where teachers and students can genuinely learn together. The use of authentic language samples is important because as Wolfson (1988) pointed out, the intuitions of native speakers regarding language use are notoriously poor (in contrast to intuitions about language form or grammar). As a result, teachers as well as students benefit from the use of authentic language. The use of authentic language as the basis of the lessons presented in this book (rather than intuitions) also makes possible the teaching of pragmatics by nonnative speakers of English. In the chapters throughout the volume, the teacher-authors demonstrate many ways to collect authentic language samples on which to base lessons—from tape recording, to messages on answering machines, making use of internationally broadcast English language talk shows, educational films, using the world wide web, and saving letters and correspondence, to name just a few.The presentation of authentic language samples generally precedes interpretation or production activities, thus giving learners something to build on. It is important to take in to account the fact that, just as teachers cannot rely on intuitions in teaching pragmatics, learners cannot count on their intuitions about pragmatics in their second/foreign language prior to instruction.Pragmatics can be integrated into the English-langauge curriculum at the earliest levels: There is no reason to wait to introduce learners to the pragmatics of a second language. In fact, the imbalance between grammatical and pragmatic development may be ameliorated by early attention to pragmatics in instruction. Kontra’s lesson shows how pragmatics can be introduced to learners even at beginning levels.Contents and organizationEach chapter has five main sections: description of the activity, procedure, rationale, alternatives or caveats, and additional pedagogical resources. The chapters specify the level of the learners for whom the lesson was designed, the time needed, resources, and the goal of the activity. The chapters open with a description of the activity followed by the step-by-step procedure for implementing it with language learners. In the rationale sections, teacher-authors review the reasons behind the development of the activities. Applications of the activities to other learners, settings, modes, or areas of pragmatics, as well as expansions, elaborations, and caveats are presented in the alternatives and caveats section. Examples appear throughout the chapters, with worksheets and overheads following the chapters.This book is organized in five main sections. The chapters in each section are ordered according to the level of the learners for whom the lesson was designed, beginning with the activities for the lowest level learners and progressing to advanced learners. The first section, Awareness, p resents teaching activities that focus on raising learners’ awareness of pragmatic differences between languages. The sections following Awareness offer production activities. The activities that focus on production are organized by the area of pragmatics that they address: conversational management, conversational openings and closings, requests, and daily life. Conversational Management includes activities that address the mechanics of conversation, such as turn taking, active listening, relevant short responses, and using hesitation markers. Conversational Openings and Closings deals with the boundaries of conversations: how to begin and end conversations both in person and on the telephone.Requests deals with the specific speech act of asking someone to do something. Finally, Assorted Speech Acts presents a variety of speech acts including complaining during service encounters, turning down invitations, complimenting, and responding to compliments.Because each section contains chapters that are similar in some ways and different in others, this volume has an index designed to help teachers find activities that are appropriate for their students. The index is organized around major features such as level of learners, type of activities, content of activities, computer use, and nonverbal communication.ReferencesBardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Vol. 7, pp.21-39). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). The interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677-713.Bardovi-Harlig, K. (in press). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics and language teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bouton, L. F. (1988). A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 17, 183-196.Bouton, L. F. (1990). The effective use of implicature in English: Why and how it should be taught in the ESL classroom. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics andlanguage learning, (Vol 1, pp. 43-51). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.Bouton, L. F. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically--without being explicitly taught? In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.),Pragmatics and language learning, (Vol 3, pp. 53-65). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.Bouton, L. F. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicatures in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, (Vol 5, pp. 88-109). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (Eds.). (1991). Contexts of accommodation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? NFLRC Network #6, University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.[/nflrc/NetWorks/NW6/]Kasper, G. (in press). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.Rose, K., & G. Kasper, G. (Eds.). (in press). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Stalnaker, R. C. (1972). Pragmatics. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 380-397). Dordrecht: Reidel.Wolfson, N. (1988). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Additional ReadingsOverviews of teaching of pragmaticsThese sources provide general orientations to the teaching of pragmatics, including generalstatements of methods and pedagogical philosophy.Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Vol. 7, pp.21-39). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an InternationalLanguage.Bouton, L. F. (1996). Pragmatics and language learning. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Vol 7, pp.1-20). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Divisionof English as an International Language.Kasper, G. (1997b). The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. S. Hartford, (Eds.) Beyond methods: Components of language teacher education (pp.113-136). New York: McGraw Hill.Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in the classroom: Theoretical concerns and practical possibilities.In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Vol 8, pp. 267-295).University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an InternationalLanguage.Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.Practical examples of teaching pragmaticsThese practical sources provide concrete lessons on specific pragmatic features, including textbook evaluations.Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. A. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W.Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatic competence: Closing the conversation.ELT Journal, 45, 4-15.Boxer, D. (1993). Complaints as positive strategies: What the learner needs to know. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 277-299.Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49, 44-58.Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1991). Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers. In M.Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd edition, pp.154-190). New York: Newbury House.Holmes, J., & Brown, D. (1987). Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 523-546.Scotton, C. M., & Bernsten, J. (1988). Natural conversations as a model for textbook dialogue.Applied Linguistics, 9, 213-243.Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9, 45-58. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-culturalpragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.Yoshida, K., Kamiya, M., Kondo, S., & Tokiwa, R. (2000). Heart to Heart: Overcoming Barriers in Cross-Cultural Communication. Tokyo: Macmillan Languagehouse, Resources for teaching and language samplesThe following series is dedicated, as its name suggests, to pragmatics and language learning. The wide variety of articles provides excellent language samples that can be exploited in teaching, as well as descriptions of language learning in the pragmatic domain. Articles serve as excellent needs assessments for teachers and programs that are implementing instruction in pragmatics. Volumes in this series are available directly from the University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language.Bouton, L. F., & Kachru, Y. (Eds.). (1990-1994). Pragmatics and language learning, (Vols 1-5).University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an InternationalLanguage.Bouton, L.F. (1995-1999). Pragmatics and language learning, (Vols 6-9). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.。
Pragmatics -lecture-1.
Definition of pragmatics Pragmatics can be defined in various ways. A general definition is that it is the study of how speakers of a language use sentences to effect successful communication. As the process of communication is essentially a process of conveying meaning in a certain context, pragmatics can also be defined as the study of language in use.
Context Being essential to pragmatics, context is generally considered as constituted by the knowledge shared by the speaker and the hearer. There‟re two types of shared knowledge: the knowledge of the language they use, and the knowledge about the world, including the general knowledge about the world and the specific knowledge about the situation in which linguistic communication is taking place. Without such knowledge, linguistic communication would not be possible, and without considering such knowledge, linguistic communication cannot be satisfactorily accounted for in a pragmatic sense.
Chapter6pragmatics语言学整理的资料
Chapter 61.pragmatics:自测：Pragmatics treats the meaning of language as something intrinsic and inherent. (T/F)术语：pragmatics语用学解释：语用学处理的是语言的实际意义，是在应用中的意义，而不是固有的意义。
术语：Pragmatics can be defined as the study of how speakers of a language use sentences to effect successful communication. 语用学是研究某一语言的言者是如何利用句子成功进行交际的。
解释：Pragmatic analysis of meaning is first and foremost concerned with the study of what is communicated by a speaker/writer and interpreted by a listener/reader. Analysis of intentional meaning necessarily involves the interpretation of what people do through language in a particular context. Intended meaning may or may not be explicitly expressed. Pragmatic analysis also explores how listeners/readers make inferences about what is communicated.语用学对意义的研究主要关注的是说者或作者要交流的是什么，听者或读者读到的是什么。
并且根据语境分析要表达的意义。
语言学名词
语言学名词语言学名词是用来描述和研究语言现象和语言结构的专门术语。
下面是一些常见的语言学名词及其解释：1. 语音学（Phonetics）：研究语音产生、传播和接收的学科，包括音素的分类、语音能力和语音现象等。
2. 语音：语言中的基本声音单位，通过调节声带、口腔和喉咙等发音器官产生。
语音可以被分类为辅音和元音。
3. 辅音（Consonant）：通过喉咙、口腔和鼻腔等部位的阻碍或摩擦，产生的声音单位。
4. 元音（Vowel）：发音器官不受阻碍或摩擦，使空气顺畅通过口腔而产生的声音单位。
5. 语音形式学（Phonology）：研究语音符号在特定语言中的组合和分布规律的学科。
6. 语音规则（Phonological rules）：用来描述声音变化和音系结构的一套规则。
7. 语法学（Grammar）：研究语言结构和组织的学科，包括句法、语义和语用等方面。
8. 句法（Syntax）：研究句子结构和成分之间的关系，以及句子的形式和结构组织。
9. 语义（Semantics）：研究词、短语和句子的意义和含义的学科。
10. 语用学（Pragmatics）：研究语言在特定语用背景下的使用和理解方式。
11. 词汇学（Lexicology）：研究词汇的起源、结构、使用和意义等方面。
12. 词（Word）：语言中的基本意义单位，具有独立的意义和语法功能。
13. 词法（Morphology）：研究词的内部结构、形态变化和构词法的学科。
14. 语素（Morpheme）：语言中的最小意义单位，可以独立存在或者是其他词的构成组成部分。
15. 词义（Word meaning）：词语所表达的概念或事物的内涵。
16. 语篇（Discourse）：由句子和词组组成的扩展语言单位，表达完整的意义。
17. 修辞学（Rhetoric）：研究语言如何用于说服和交流的学科。
18. 语族（Language family）：具有共同源头和结构相似的一组语言。
pragmatics ppt
2.对语言使用间接性的解释
• SA 理论认为语言使用的间接性来源于话语的词汇) 语义 结构, 例如:Can you pass me the salt? 这句话从表面 看是询问对方是否有能力把盐递过来, 但实际的言外之力 却是请求对方做这件事, 询问是次要的言外行为, 请求才 是主要的言外行为。它把话语当作第一位的,把语境、使 用者以及交际效果当作第二位的。
PA 是一种宏观的人类交际行为理论, 以行为对交际产生的 实际效果为中心, 把言语交际看作社团成员之间的社会) 文 化行为, 突出语境特别是社会、文化语境的重要作用, 认为 在“制度化了的社会活动中”, 情景(如教学、看病、茶会) 在某种程度上已经预先规定了言语的使用, 即依照情景,交 际者彼此期待对方使用某些话语, 这些话语将被认为是可 以接受的。 在情景中实施的SA 就是PA, 但PA不一定是SA, 因为PA也 可以通过身体动作甚至“沉默”这种行为得以实施。 换句话说, PA理论将语用研究重心由微观层面的言语本身, 转向宏观层面的、以言语为主的交际行为发生的情景及其 蕴涵的行为可能性以及实际的行为和行为效果。
The differences between PA and SA
• PA is belong to macropragmatics
• 讨论的是“社会文化层面对语 言运用者言语运用的宏观调控 中所体现的语用问题” • PA 的行为则指主要通过语言进 行的社会交往活动, 它包括说 话, 也包括如表情、动作等在 内的其他交际行为, 在情景中 言语和其他交际行为的地位是 平等的。
• SA is belong to micropragmatics
• 根据徐盛桓的观点, Mey 的微 观语用学是在“话语运用的层 次”上, “围绕着对语言符号 在言谈交际中的指称和意义中 的‘意图’的理解而展开的语 用学课题的讨论” • SA的行为专指说话, 即使用语y认为SA 的解释方向是由里及外的, 即从话语出发, 考察语言的使 用和理解, 而PA 的解释方向则是由外及里的, 即从语言使用和理解 的情景出发, 考察人们的交际自由与制约以及因之而决定的交际行为 的可能性和实际行为。 • SA以话语为中心,把言语交际这种人类活动完全看作个人行为, Mey认 为这种单纯的语言或思维理论不能解释具体情景中语言使用者的行为, 而对交际做语用考察时必须时刻考虑在特定情景中交际者各种交际行 为的可能性, 这就必然引出一个结论即必须用行为理论才能真正解释 语言使用现象, 或者说语用理论本质上必须是行为理论, PA就是这样 一种行为理论。
语用学 pragmatics
语用学pragmatics语用学：语用学(pragmatics)是对人类有目的的行为所作的研究(广义)，对有目的的语言活动的研究(狭义)。
源起符号学(semiotics)。
符号学：符号学是系统地研究语言符号和非语言符号的学科。
有三个分支--符号关系学、语义学、语用学。
符号关系学(syntactics)研究符号之间的形式关系。
语义学(semantics)研究符号与符号所代表的事物之间的关系。
语用学(pragmatics)研究符号与符号解释者之间的关系。
语用学与语义学的联系和区别：语用学和语义学都是符号学的分支。
语义学主要指狭义的语义学，即逻辑语义学，它研究句子和词语本身的意义，研究命题的真值条件(truth conditions)。
语用学研究言语使用上的意义，研究传递语言信息的适宜条件(felicity conditions)。
语义学揭示的意义是二元关系的句子意义(sentence meaning)，解决"Whatdoes Xmean?"的问题。
语用学揭示的是三元关系的说话人意义(Speaker meaning)，解决"What did you mean by X?"的问题。
语境(context)：最狭义的语境是指语言的上下文。
语境还必须包括语言外的因素。
语境因素包括语言知识、语言外知识；语言知识包括对所使用的语言的掌握、对语言交际上文的了解；语言外知识包括背景知识、情景知识、相互知识，背景知识包括百科全书式的知识(常识)、特定文化的社会规范、特定文化的会话规则，情景知识包括交际的时间、地点、交际的主题、交际的正是程度、交际参与者的相互关系。
语境是一个动态的、发展的概念。
交际本身就是一个动态的过程，在交际过程中，语境也随之而变。
有些语境因素相对来说比较稳定，例如背景知识、交际的时间、地点等，但有些因素却会变化，特别重要的是相互知识这一因素，它在交际过程中不断扩大，原来不为双方所共有的知识完全可能在交际过程中变为相互知识，成为进一步交际的基础。
语言学--Pragmatics ppt课件
15
ppt课件
• Speech acts is a term derived from the work of the philosopher J. L. Austin (1962) and now used to refer to a theory which analyzes the role of utterances in relation to the behavior of the speaker and the hearer in interpersonal communication. It aims to answer the question “What do we do when using language?”
12
ppt课件
6.2.3 Anaphora
• You need to know: definition of anaphora, antecedent, anaphor indirect anaphora and direct anaphora
13
ppt课件
6.2.4 Presupposition
• a. Can I look at your Shakespeare? • b. Sure, it’s on the shelf over there. • You need to know • inference: process • reference: the act
9ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱ
ppt课件
6.2.2 Deixis
• You need to know: definition of deixis five types of deixis
10
ppt课件
definition of deixis
cognitive pragmatics演示文稿.ppt
• The Approaches to Cognitive Pragmatics
• The Relationship between Cognitive Pragmatics and Cognitive Linguistics
1.Introduction
• In this chapter we will briefly highlight a range of closely related, central cognitive pragmatics issues and approaches, including the philosophical origins of the term pragmatics, the main contributions of cognitive pragmatics, the approaches to cognitive pragmatics , the relationship between cognitive pragmatics and cognitive linguistics and the developing trends of cognitive pragmatics. The main purpose of this project is to provide a framework of how people understand utterances from a cognitive perspective
Morris is famous for his trichotomy syntax, semantics and pragmatics.
After Morris’s version of trichotomy, the German philosopher and logician Rudolf Carnap in his book Introduction to Semantics reformulated the trichotomy as follows:
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
This goes some way to explaining why he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. But it also highlights another type of inference that we make when interpreting utterances.
I. Presupposition For the following sentence, can you assign it either true or false? (Note that ‘true’ and ‘false’ are not quite the same as ‘yes’ and ‘no’) a) Abraham Lincoln is the current president of the USA. b) The Eiffel Tower is in Paris. c) A car is an automobile. d) Have a cookie. e) Be careful of the cars. f) Where was Abraham Lincoln born? g) How much did the car cost?
I. Presupposition
a) Abraham Lincoln is the current president of the USA. b) The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.
c) A car is an automobile. d) Have a cookie. e) Be careful of the crumbs. f) Where was Abraham Lincoln born? g) How much did the car cost? Problem in assigning T or F occurs in sentences d) to g). These sentences do not have a declarative structure. (What sentence structure they belong to?)
I. Presupposition
We know that Tom’s mother is a woman is true based on what was happening in the Language or on the knowledge of language itself, while Tom’s mother is a doctor is true based on what was happening in the world.
Pragmatics——Language in Use
Teaching Materials of lecture 3: I. Presupposition II. Difference between entailment and presupposition III. Practical usage of presupposition
I. Presupposition
a) Abraham Lincoln is the current president of the USA. b) The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.
c) A car is an automobile. d) Have a cookie. e) Be careful of the crumbs. f) Where was Abraham Lincoln born? g) How much did the car cost? Here a) is F b) is T based on your knowledge about the world, c) T based on your knowledge of what car and automobile mean. These three sentences have a particular kind of grammatical structure. They are declarative Sentences
I. Presupposition
a) Abraham Lincoln is the current president of the USA. b) The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.
c) A car is an automobile. d) Have a cookie. e) Be careful of the crumbs. f) Where was Abraham Lincoln born? g) How much did the car cost? In imperative sentences, which typically function as ‘commands’, there is no subject present although it is ‘understood’ as you as in Run away!
I. resupposition
a) Abraham Lincoln is the current president of the USA. b) The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.
c) A car is an automobile. d) Have a cookie. e) Be careful of the crumbs. f) Where was Abraham Lincoln born? g) How much did the car cost? And for sentences f) and g), they are neither declarative nor imperative. (What are they?)
I. Presupposition
a) Abraham Lincoln is the current president of the USA. b) The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.
c) A car is an automobile. d) Have a cookie. e) Be careful of the crumbs. f) Where was Abraham Lincoln born? g) How much did the car cost? Declarative sentences typically function as ‘statement’. Such as you ran away with you the subject and ran the predicate. So for declarative sentences, we can assign T or F to them, no matter they are analytic or synthetic.
I. Presupposition
a) Abraham Lincoln is the current president of the USA. b) The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.
c) A car is an automobile. d) Have a cookie. e) Be careful of the crumbs. f) Where was Abraham Lincoln born? g) How much did the car cost? Interrogative sentences typically function as ‘questions’. Some interrogatives begin with words like who, what, when, where, why, how etc., since the majority of these words begin with wh-, they are also called wh-words as in: Why did you run away? (but Did you run away?)
Pragmatics——Language in Use
Teaching Materials as a whole course: 1. What is pragmatics? 2. Entailment & Presupposition 3. CP & Conversational implicature 4. Speech acts 5. Politeness 6. Making sense 7. Post-Gricean development 8. Exploring pragmatics: projects
I. Presupposition For each of the following utterances decide whether the sentence being uttered is declarative, imperative or interrogative and whether the accompanying inference sentence seems valid. a) Where has Faye looked for the keys? b) Did you buy this awful wine? c) Don’t sit on Annie’s sofa. d) Stop being lazy. e) Lucy knows that George is a crook.
Pragmatics——Language in Use Teaching Objectives: The purpose of studying this subject aims at * encouraging the students to look a t different levels of meaning within sentences; * Providing basic understanding of some key pragmatic concepts; * introducing two highly influential approaches: co-operative principle and speech act theory; * encouraging the students to apply some basic analytical tools to real data * Providing a range of activities and some further related readings.