格莱斯合作原则理论指导下的《生活大爆炸》言语幽默研究英语论文

I 本科生毕业论文（设计）册 学院 XXX学院 专业 英语教育 班级 XXXX级英语教育X班 学生 XXX 指导教师 XX

XXXX大学本科毕业论文（设计）任务书 II

编 号： 论文（设计）题目：格莱斯合作原则理论指导下的《生活大爆炸》言语幽默研究 学院： XXX学院 专业： 英语教育 班级： XXX级英语教X班 学生姓名： XXX 学号： XXXX 指导教师： XX职称：副教授_ 论文（设计）研究目标及主要任务 本论文的研究目标是探讨《生活大爆炸》中，违背合作原则产生的幽默。其主要任务是通过分析这些幽默产生的原因帮助观众更好的理解幽默并培养幽默感。 2、论文（设计）的主要内容 本论文分为四章，第一章介绍进行该研究的原因、合作原则和《生活大爆炸》，第二章文献综述，第三章对《生活大爆炸》中违背合作原则产生的幽默案例。最后一章是对本论文的总结。 3、论文（设计）的基础条件及研究路线 本论文的基础条件是不同的学者对《生活大爆炸》中产生的幽默从不同角度进行研究。 研究路线是对《生活大爆炸》中违背合作原则产生的幽默的目的进行阐述，并将其分别应用在日常生活中和之后幽默情景剧的台词设计中。 4、主要参考文献

Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. New York : Mouton de Gruyter. Chiaro , Delia. 1992. The language of Jokes: Analyzing Verbal Play London and New York: Routledge. Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. New York: Academic Press. 何兆熊，1989，《语用学概要》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。 胡壮麟，2006，《语言学教程》，北京：北京大学出版社。 5、计划进度 阶段 起止日期 1 确定初步论文题目 3月16日前

2 与导师见面，确定大致范围，填开题报告和任务书，导师签字 3月16日-3月23日 3 提交论文提纲 3月23日-3月30日 4 交初稿和文献综述 3月30日-4月20日 5 交终稿和评议书 5月8日前 指 导 教师： XX 年 月 日 教研室主任： 年 月 注：一式三份，学院（系）、指导教师、学生各一份

XXXX大学本科生毕业论文（设计）开题报告书 XXX 学院 英语教育 专业 XXX 届 III

学生 姓名 XXX 论文（设计）题目 格莱斯合作原则理论指导下的《生活大爆炸》言语幽默研究

指导 教师 XX 专业 职称 XXX 所属教研室 英语基础教研室 研究方向 语言学

课题论证：从违背格莱斯合作原则等方面论证违背合作原则在《生活大爆炸》中产生的幽默及其应用。

方案设计：第一章介绍研究该论题的原因、合作原则和《生活大爆炸》， 第二章文献综述， 第三章对《生活大爆炸》中违背合作原则产生的幽默进行个例研究， 第四章对本论文进行总结。

进度计划：3月16日前确定初步论文题目 3月23日前写开题报告、任务书 3月30日前提交论文提纲 4月20日前提交初稿和文献综述 5月8日前交终稿和评议书

指导教师意见：

指导教师签名： 年 月 日 教研室意见：

教研室主任签名： 年 月 日

XXXX大学本科生毕业论文（设计）文献综述 IV

Literature Review The notion “context” has a long history. Different linguists have different understandings about it. Context only refers to the neighboring sounds, words, or phrases in Saussure’s modern linguistics. In his 1923 The problem of meaning in primitive languages, Malinowski first used the notion “language context”. In his opinion, language is a mode of action other than a symbol of thought. The function of language is to organize human’s common action. Malinowski argues that the utterances itself becomes only intelligible when it is placed within its context of situation. According to him, there is no way to categorize the meaning of utterances or the basis of internal considerations of language alone, and the meaning of its functions in the particular situation, with reference to the given culture (Hu zhuanglin, 1988:35). There is no doubt that the meaning of language is situation and culture. However, it also resides in the relation to the linguistic context. Linguistic context here refers to the internal consideration of language. Linguistic context cannot entirely take the place of physical and cultural contexts, but it often helps in understanding the particular meaning of the words, phrases etc. Utterances are also never detached from the linguistic context. Based on these theories, Firth forms and develops his own context theory. Firth believes that context has different levels and that the “sound context” is the most fundamental one in the context system and there is no lower contextual level. Firth denies that the meaning of a language comes from the language itself. On the contrary, he thinks that “each word when used in a new context is a new word” (Firth, 1957:190). Firth views that a context of situation for linguistic work brings into a relation of the following categories: A. the relevant features of participant: persons, personalities. (i) the verbal action of the participants; (ii) the non-verbal action of the participants; B. the relevant objects; C. the effect of the verbal action. He claims that the meaning of the language should be studied through a hierarchy of contexts in the sense that meaning may be defined as the relationship between an element of any level and its context on that level: (i) the relationship of each phoneme to its phonetic V

context; (ii) the relationship of each lexical item to the others in the sentences; (iii) the morphological relations of each word; (iv) the sentence type of which the given sentence is an example; (v) the relationship of the sentence to its context of situation. Both Malinowski and Firth regard language as a social process and a way of living. They both choose the actual language used in a certain context as their researching objects. Another linguist who has made great contributions to linguistics is Halliday. He receives and develops Firth’s two basic theories: “context of situation” and “system”. He thinks that language is a form of doing, not a form of knowing. In his opinion, language only differs in linguistic behavior potential and actual linguistic behavior. Language is the product of social process (Halliday, 1978: preface), and it is not a kind of knowledge or competence. Different with the traditional view that context acts only as a background, Halliday treats context as importantly as language. Context and language affect each other. Contexts determine the ways of language expressions whereas specific language expressions’ methods create certain contexts. Halliday’s another contribution to linguistics is the development of the notion “register”. By virtue of its use, various languages can be distinguished. Language varies as its function varies; it differs in different situations. According to him, register involves what features of context determine the choice of language in the particular context and it can be classified in terms of field of discourse, tenor of discourse, and mode of discourse. These three dimensions of classification collectively define the context of a discourse. After Halliday, another great linguist needs to be mentioned is Hymes. He is an American socialist and classifies the context into eight components: setting; participant; ends; art characteristics; key; instrumentalities; norm of interaction and of interpretation; genres. He analyses context and language together other than treating them as related opposites. He believes that there is no language that can exist without context and no context that has nothing to do with language. His notion of context has some similarities with that of Halliday. It is concerned with what determines the appropriateness of the utterances in the particular context , just as himself says, “In