语用学 5 Conversational_implicature
语用学之会话含义
一位学英语的中国学生同一位刚来自英国的教师之间的对话 女教师对中国学生说： “Oh, what beautiful handwriting!” 学生听到表扬，很不好意思，连忙说： “No, no, not at all. You are joking.”
遵守质准则
强调礼貌原则，抛 开了质准则
一般情况下，上述合作原则的各条准则在 交际中应该遵守。但这并不表明没有违反这些 准则的情况。
5.合作原则的遵守与违反 格赖斯指出四种可能不遵守上述各条准则的 情况： （1）说话人明确指出不遵守合作原则即相关准则 “无可奉告”“我不能再讲太多内容了” （2）说话人可以悄悄地违反一条准则，有些情况 下可能会把听话人引入歧途，使听话人误解或上 当受骗 说谎 骗人 诈骗
（3）说话人在面临不同准则之间冲突的情况下， 可能为了维护一条准则，而不得不违反另一条准则
Yours, etc.
（2）故意违反“量”方面的第二条准则：所说 的话不应包含多于需要的信息，以使听话人推导出 其含义
2.利用质的原则推导的会话含义 （1）故意违反“不要说自知虚假的话”这条次 准则，而故意说些不符合事实的话，让听话人推导 出会话含义 一些使用反语（irony）、隐喻（metaphor）、 夸张（hyperbole）等修辞手打表达的话常常属于这 种情况。
第三章 会话含义与合作原则
一、什么是会话含义
交际中，很多信息不是直接传递的 说话人：通过某一话语传递的语用信息并非等于该 话语的字面意义或语义组合。 听话人：根据相关语境因素进行推理，获取字面意 义以外的交际信息to the cinema this evening. B:We’ll have the English exam tomorrow. (2)甲：下午踢球吧 乙：上午在换草皮。 隐含的非字面信息 需要听话人的推理能力 不能直接根据话语的字面意义或获取表面信息 在言语交际中，类似的字面意义或语义意义以外的 隐含信息就是我们要讨论的会话中的含义，即会话含义
从语用学角度看违背合作原则产生的会话含义
从语用学角度看违背合作原则产生的会话含义作者：成艳红来源：《青年文学家》2009年第09期摘要:我们的谈话通常是由一串互相关联的话语组成,否则就不合情理。
谈话的双方至少要抱着合作的态度,向一个共同的方向努力。
由此产生我们常说的合作原则。
当然合作原则并不要求每时每地都遵循。
如果说话人有意违反了合作原则,听话人就要根据当时的语境,越过字面意义,推断出其隐含意义,即会话含义(Conversational Implicature)。
本文主要从四个方面讨论对合作原则的违反如何导致会话含义的产生,并就如何学习和掌握用会话含义理论分析话语、提高语言鉴赏能力提出可行性建议。
关键词: 合作原则会话含义语用学【中图分类号】I045【文献标识码】A 【文章编号】1002-2139(2009)-09-0146-2一、引言根据格赖斯的理论,人们在日常会话中,为了达到交际的目的,总是遵循一套相互合作的基本准则,即合作原则。
合作原则被认为是谈话顺利进行的基础,但这并不意味着人们在交际中就一定恪守这些准则,人们有时会有意无意地违反这些准则。
若无意违反上述准则,则会闹出笑话或引起误解。
若有意违反上述准则,听话者就要根据当时的语境,推断出说话者的隐含意义。
因此,学习和掌握用会话含义理论分析话语,有利于提高语言鉴赏能力。
以下将逐个讨论对格莱斯合作原则四个方面的违背产生的会话含义,以及如何透过表面语言获得深层含义。
二、话语含义与合作原则格赖斯认为合作原则应包括以下四条准则:1.数量准则(Maxim of Quantity):所说的话应包括当前交谈目的所需的信息;所说的话不应超出需要的信息。
2.质量准则(Maxim of Quality):尽可能使自己所说的话是真实的;不要说自知是虚假的话;不要说缺乏足够证据之言。
3.关系准则(Maxim of Relation):说话要有关联,不要说与谈话无关的话。
4.方式准则(Maxim of Manner):避免晦涩;避免歧义;简练;条理清晰。
语言学conversational-implicature
▪ Grice's work: ▪ he proposed different kinds of
implicatures and used that term as he claimed that 'implication' was not the right word. ▪ He reprinted many of his essays and papers in his valedictory book, Studies in the Way of Words.
▪ Significance: ▪ one of the foundations of the
modern study of pragmatics.
Categories of Implicature
Cooperative Principle
▪ Cooperative principle is a very important factor in the process of generating implicature.
Four Maxims of Cooperative Principle
▪ Quantity Maxim(数量准则) ▪ Quality Maxim(质量准则) ▪ Relation Maxim（关系准则） ▪ Manner Maxim（方式准则）
Quantity Maxim
▪ 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current perpose of the exchange).
▪ A:How are you? ▪ B:I'm dead. ▪ (possible speaker meaning:I'm very tired.)
Conversational Implicature 会话含义
An Overview
1 Significance of the Notion of Implicature 2 Conventional Implicature & Conversational Implicature 3 Grice’s Distinction between Generalized Conversational Implicature and Particularized Conversational Implicature
关于“自然意义”，他举了这样一个例子：
Those spots meant measles (那些斑点意味着麻疹)。
他指出，如果不存在施事者（因而也不涉及施事者的意图），话
语的意义只是“自然地”被理解，那么，这类话语就只表达“自 然意义”。
关于“非自然意义”，Grice 认为它具有如下特点：
S发出U，具有非自然意义，当且仅当： (i) S发出U，试图在H那儿引起某种效果Z； (ii) 通过H认可S的意图而使S的愿望不折不扣地实现。 S→说话人 H →听话人
B’s implicature:
Sorry, I don’t know the exact time of the present moment, but I can provide some information from which you may be able to deduce the appropriate time, namely ‘the milkman has come’.
Another example:
A: Can you tell me the time?
B: Well, the milkman has come. B’ semantic and literal meaning: Well, the milkman came at some time prior to the time of speaking .
语用学会话含义的案例分析
本稿以保镖托尼和钢琴家唐的会话为例，从语用学视角，基于会话含义理论对该影片进行 分析。试图通过分析片中两个主要人物在会话过程中对合作原则的违背，对其人物形象、性格 特征进行推导并探究该片引发广泛争议的深层原因。
0 4
分析
（一）违背质的准则（The maxim of quality): 1） 不要说自知是虚假的话； 2） 不要说缺乏足够证据的话。 质的准则要求说话人必须说正确且有充分依据的话，那么如果说话人言辞 虚假或者缺乏充分依据，他就违背了质的准则。 一些常见的修辞手法如隐喻（metaphor）、反讽（irony）等都是说话者 违反质量准则而产生的效果，使得说话语气强烈犀利或讽刺幽默。
THANKS
0 5
结论
综上所述，本稿通过对影片《绿皮书》中两个主要人物简短的会话分析中可 以看到：爵士钢琴家唐是一名受过良好教育却因肤色受到上层社会歧视的黑人， 保镖托尼是一个没有多少文化却精明善于打交道、受其他白人歧视的意大利人， 因为他们与往日黑人电影题材中反差巨大的形象，以及共同与种族歧视作斗争并 最终实现自我认同的故事引发了大众争议，吸引了大量观众。电影《绿皮书》对 人物在特定的文化背景中的描写刻画是其斩获奥斯卡多项大奖的重要原因。
0 3
语料介绍
会话不仅常见于现实日常生活中，也大量存在于影视作品中。众所周知，“人如对话，言 如其人”， 通过分析影视人物在会话过程中如何违背合作原则从而产生会话含义的方法，有助 于我们分析人物性格特征，推导其人物形象。
英语语言学期末温习
Chapter5 Semantics1. Definition1.命名论The naming theoryProposed by the ancient Greek scholar Plato. According to this theory, the linguistic forms or symbols, in other words, the words used in a language are taken to be labels of the objects they stand for, so words are just names or labels for things.(缺点：仅限于名词)2.意念论The conceptualist view Ogden and RichardsIt holds that there is no direct link between a linguistic form and what it refers to; rather, in the interpretation of meaning they are linked through the mediation of concepts in the mind.3.语境论ConceptualismIt’s based on the presumption that one can derive meaning from or reduce meaning to observable contexts. Here are two kinds of context: the situational and the linguistic context.4.行为主义论BehaviorismIt refers to the attempted to define the meaning of a language form as the situation in which the speaker utters it and the response it calls forth in the hearer. This theory somewhat close to conceptualism emphasizes on the psychological response.2. Lexical meaning:Sense: it is concerned with inherent meaning of linguistic form; it is the collection of all features of linguistic form; it is abstract and de-contextualized.Reference: it means the linguistic form refers to the real, physical world. It deals with the relationship between the linguistic element and the non-linguistic world of experience.3. Main sense relations1.同义词SynonymyIt refers to the sameness or close similarity of meaning or we can say that words are close in meaning are called synonyms.(1)D ialectal synonyms—synonyms used in different regional dialects（方言）British Americaautumn fallflat apartment(2)S tylistic synonyms---Synonyms differing in style（文体）Old man daddy father male parent(3)Synonyms that different in their emotive or evaluative meaning（情感）Collaborator VS Accomplice(4)Collocational synonyms（搭配）Accuse VS Charge（accuse…of; charge…with）Rotten tomatoes VS Addled eggs(5)Semantically different synonyms（语义）Amaze VS Astound2.多义词PolysemyIt refers to different words may have the same or similar meaning; the same one word may have more than one meaning.Ball: 1. an round object used in game.2. a large formal social event at which people dance.3.同音(形)异义HomonymyIt refers to the phenomenon that words have different meanings have the same form, ., different words are identical in sound or spelling, or in both.1). Homophones同音异义It refers to two words are identical in sound. . rain/reign.2).Homographs同形异义It refers to two words are identical in form. . tear v. /tear n.3). Complete homonyms同形同音It refers to words that are both identical in sound and spelling. . tear v. /tear n.4.上下义关系HyponymyIt refers to the sense relation between a more general, more inclusive word and a more specific word. The word which is more general in meaning is called superordinate, and the more specific words are called its hyponyms. Superordinate: animalSubordinate: cat, dog, tiger, lion, wolf, elephant, fox, bear,5.反义词AntonymyIt is the term used for oppositeness of meaning on different dimension.a) gradable:品级反义词old-youngb) complementary：互补反义词male-femalec) relational:关系反义词father-son buy-sell4. Sentence sense relations:1）.X is synonymous with Y（同义）. He is a bachelor all his life.He never married all his life.2）. X is inconsistent with Y（不一致/反义）. John is marriedJohn is a bachelor.3）.X entails Y. (Y is an entailment of X)（包括于）. He has been to France.He has been to Europe.4）. X presuppose Y（Y是X的先决条件）. John’s bike needs repairing.John has a bike.5）. X is a contradiction（X是一个矛盾句）. My unmarried sister is married to a bachelor.6). X is semantically anomalous.（语义异样）. The table has bad intensions.5. Analysis of meaning1. Componential Analysis成份分析法----分析辞汇抽象意义It’s a way proposed by the structural semanticists to analyze word meaning. This approach is based upon the belief that meaning of a word can be dissected into meaning components, called semantic features.. Man=Adult +Male+ Animate+ Human2. Predication Analysis述谓结构分析(由British Linguist 提出)It’s a new approach for sentential meaning analysis. Predication is usually considered an important common category shared by propositions, questions, commands etc. (通过对论元argument和谓语predicate的分析，达到对句子意义进行分析的许多模式中的一种.)3.先设前提PresuppositionIt’s a semantic relationship or logical connection. A presupposes B.4.蕴涵EntailmentEntailment can be illustrated by the following two sentences in which sentence A entails sentence B.A: Mark married a blonde heiress.B: Mark married a blonde.第6章pragmatics本章要点：1. speech act theory言语行为的理论2. cooperative principle and its maxims合作原则及其准则an theory of conventional implicature格莱斯会话含义理论本章考点：语用学的概念；语义学与语用学的区别；语境与意义；言语行为理论（发话行为、行事行为和取效行为）；合作原则。
语言学The Theory of Conversational Implicature
Content
• • • • Violation of the Maxim of Quantity Violation of the Maxim of Quality Violation of the Maxim of Relation Violation of the Maxim of Manner
Violation of the Maxim of Relation
· be irrelevant
• A: What time is it? B: The mail has already come. • A: What do you intend to do today? B: I have a terrible headache.
Content
• 8.2.1 The Cooperative Principle (CP) • 8.2.2 Violation of the Maxims • 8.2.3 Characteristics of Implicature
8.2.1 The cooperative Principle (CP)
• To specify the CP further, Grice introduced
four categories of maxims as follows： • Quantity:(数量准则) • Quality:(质量准则)
• Relation(关系准则) • Manner(方式准则)
Quantity
2. Not be brief
A: Did you get my assignment?
B: I received two pages clipped together and
covered with rows of black squirrels.
Conversational-Implicature
5 Indeterminacy（不确定性）
This refers to fact that can expression with a single. Meaning can produce different implicatures as the contexts and participants vary
说话人试图传达他的会话含义，而听话人也能理解这些会 话含义，这一事实说明，会话含义是可推导的。它们可以 根据已知信息被推导出来。
例如：约会后，男方问女方是否喜欢自己：
A：你喜欢我吗？ B：你说呢？
B在回答A的问题是明显违反了质、量和关系准则。但如何 结合具体语境，B的含义应该很容易被推导出来。如果当时 气氛融合，双方和颜悦色，女方语气温柔甜美，B想表达的 一定是肯定的含义。相反，如果当时气氛紧张，双方剑弩 张，女方语气怒气冲冲，B想表达的就是否定的含义了。
• For some of the inferences made when we listen, he proposed different kinds of implicatures. He used that term as he claimed that 'implication' was not the right word.
communicationwhatoneexpressionmeansmaycloselyconnectedactualintentionfurthermorewhatspeakermaydivergentformhearerscomprehensionconversationalimplicature格莱斯认为在所有地语言交际中为了达到特定的目标说话人和听话人之间存在着一种默契一种双方都应该遵守的原则他称这种原则为会话的合作原则cooperativeprinciple简称cp也就是说每一个交谈参与者在整个交谈过程中所说地话要符合交谈的公认目的或方向
- 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)。
Explanations why
from Grice--
people make a proposition (p) but often mean more than that? syntactic or semantic rules of languages— enough?? rules and principles of conversation—also needed!!
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 whunicated in context, not the
meaning of words, phrases or sentences.
2. Grice's theory of conversational implicature Two components: 1) meaning-nn 2) The Cooperative Principle (CP) The first theory of meaning-nn is regarded as a theory of communication which might be achieved in the absence of any conventional means for expressing the intended message. The second theory is essentially a theory about how people use language.
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 hearer Y to close the door. (Searle) The hearer Y is able to recognize this intention by doing the action of closing the door. (Grice)
How
is it possible for the speaker and the hearer to understand each other? 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.
Grice (1975) published an article "Logic and conversation" which raises the question how it is possible for a theory to deal with the fact that natural language utterances do not convey the same meaning that the corresponding logical proposition would. He made an attempt to offer a solution: The philosopher's assumption that natural language expressions diverge from the formal devices of the logicians is wrong. In other words, natural language expressions cannot be fully explained by formal logic.
For Grice, meaning has to be interpreted in terms of the hearer and so meaning and intention were brought together in his analysis. This is the crucial point in understanding Grice's theory and Searle's one. Searle's theory: meaning = intention represented by the speaker (intention to represent) Grice's theory: meaning = intention interpreted by the hearer (intention to communicate) So what is an intention by Grice's interpretation?
Explanations from truth semantics Some philosophers or logicians conclude that natural language is inadequate for the precise, logical representation of meaning, and. so it is necessary to devise ideal languages to solve the problem. Thus according to logical semantics, understanding the meaning of natural language is understanding a logical relationship between two propositions.
e.g. These spots mean measles. Clouds meant it is going to rain. His gesture meant that he was fed up. His cough meant that the supervisor had come to the classroom building. Questions: Is there any difference between the meaning of the verb mean in a) and b) and that of the verb mean in c) and d)? Natural meaning: factive or not involving intention entailment Non-natural meaning: non-factive and intention involved
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.
In what context does this dialogue occur? Please explain the meaning that B intends to convey.
Conversational implicature
Divergence in meaning: Formal devices VS. natural L Formalist VS. informalist Construct an ideal L Inadequte attention to the nature and importance of the conditions governing conversation Implicature
2.1 Meaning-nn Natural meaning and non-natural meaning (meaning-nn) Grice's analysis of meaning is mainly presented in his articles, Meaning, Utterer's Meaning and Intention, and Meaning Revisited (1978, 1981, 1989)
Observe: generalized
Fail: particularized
1.cancellability
2. non-detachability
3. non-conventionality
4. non-truth
conditionality 5. calculability Illocutionary force包括conversational implicature吗？
Grice's mechanism for pragmatic inference X intends to bring about a response on the part of Y by getting Y to recognize that X intends to bring about that response;Y does recognize X's intention, and is thereby given some sort of reason to respond just as X intends him to.