英语课件Chapter.ppt

Chapter 8,Language in use,-Youre a fool. -What do you mean? Although you know the reference of you, the sense of fool, the structure of the sentence, you do not know the speakers intention in uttering this sen., what he intends the sen. to mean. Or you do know the speakers intention, but you use it as a denial of what he has asserted. You use your own sen. with a meaning other than the conceptual.,This kind of meaning is referred to as speakers meaning, utterance meaning, or contextual meaning. It depends more on context rather than semantics on who the speaker of the sen. is, who the hearer is, when and where it is used. Pragmatics studies the use of lg in a context, study of lg in use. Meaning: inherent side of meaningsemantics; indeterminate side, more related to contextpragmatics. Pragmatics = meaning - semantics,8.1 Speech act theory,Oxford philosopher John Langshaw Austin (1911-1960) in 1952, How to Do Things with Words Two types of sens.: Performatives: the uttering of sens. is the doing of an action, no T/F E.g. (1)I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth. (2) I bequeath my watch to my brother. (3) I bet you six pence it will rain tomorrow. Constatives: is the description of what the speaker is doing at the time of speaking. (T/F) E.g. I pour some liquid into the tube.,Felicity conditions: A. (i) There must be a relevant conventional procedure. (ii) the relevant participants and circumstances must be appropriate. B. The procedure must be executed correctly and completely. C. Very often, the relevant people must have the requisite thoughts, feelings and intentions, and must follow it up with actions as specified.,Analysis: In ship-launching ceremony, only the person appointed has the right to name the ship, and this person must say the relevant word corresponding to the procedure; the person who bequeaths a watch must have a watch; the person who bets it will rain the next day must give the other person six pence if it turns out to be a fine day. These conditions only apply to some cases. Other cases in which one does not need a conventional procedure to product a performative.,E.g. “I promise.” “I give my word for it.” There is no strict procedure for doing it. Infelicitous in some constatives. E.g. “The present King of France is bald.” is infelitous in the same way as “I bequeath a watch to my brother.” said by a person without a watch. They both presuppose the existence of sth., which does not actually exist. People making statements must also have requisite thoughts, feelings and intentions. One cannot say “The cat is on the mat, but I dont believe it.”,Austin distinguish them on grammatical and lexical criteria. Performatives: (1) the first person singular subject (2) simple present tense (3) indicative mood (4) active voice (5) performative verbs,Counterexamples: passive performatives like “Pedestrains are warned to keep off the grass.”/ Other possible moods and tenses: “I order you to turn right” but “Turn right.” “I find you guilty.” but “You did it.”/ “:Thank you.” looks like an imperative without a subject but a performative: when uttering words, you express your gratitude to the hearer. No need to do other things, although jokingly saying “You cant just thank me with words.” The constative verb state is to describe things in “I state that Im alone responsible.”, making a statement and undertaking the responsibility. This distinction cannot be maintained. All sens can be used to do things.,8.1.2 A theory of Illocutionary Act,In what sense saying things is to do things. Austin: three senses (1) Locutionary act: when speaking, we move our vocal organs and produce sounds, organized in a certain way with a certain meaning. the act of uttering words, phrases, clauses. Its an act of conveying literal meaning by means of syntax, lexicon and phonology./the act of saying something: the utterance of a sentence with determinate sense and reference E.g. “Morning!” -What did he do (not say)? -He produced a sound, word or sentence”Morning!”,Within that act, there is another act. “In performing a locutionary act we shall also be performing such an act as: asking or answering a question, giving some information or an assurance or a warning, announcing a verdict or an intention, pronouncing sentence, making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism, making an identification or giving a description, and the numerous like” (1962:98-99) -What did he do? -He offered a greeting.,(2) Thus, when speaking, we produce some units of lg with certain meanings, and make clear our purpose in producing them, the way we intend them to be understood, or they also have certain forces. “Morning!” has the force of a greeting. This means saying sth. is to do sth. , and the act performed is an illocutionary act. the act of expressing the speakers intention; it is the act performed in saying something; its force is identical with the speakers intention. The making of a statement, offer promise, etc, in uttering a sentence, by virtue of the conventional force associated with it. the act of using a sentence to perform a function such as command, request, etc.,Force is part of meaning (broad sense) E.g. “He meant it as a greeting.” “What do you mean?”mean (broad sense) Distinguish force from meaning (narrow sense) the more constant, inherent side of meaning; force (illocutionary force) the equivalent to speakers meaning, contextual meaning, or extra meaning. （言外之意）,(3) Perlocutionary act: to say sth means to do sth. concerns the consequential effects of a locution upon the hearer. Telling sb. sth. the speaker may change the opinion of the hearer on sth., or mislead him, or surprise him, or induce him to do sth. etc. Whether or not these effects are intended by the speaker, they can be regarded as part of the act that the speaker has performed. This act, which is performed through, by means of, a locutionary act.,“Morning”a way to keep friendly relations with the hearer (friendliness effect on hearer) Normal: negligible/ tense: change and mediate itHes made peace with his friend. (hearers prejudice against the speaker-hypocrisy) bad-worse relationship Illocutionary and perlocutionary act, one is related to the speakers intention, the other not.,Locutionary act is what linguists study: how sounds, words and sens are made, and what inherent meanings they have. Perlocutionary act involves psychological and social factors. Illocutionary act is Austins focus, that is the speech act theory. In terms of this general theory, the original performatives are only a special type in which the illocutionary force is made explicitly by the performative verb.,8.2 The theory of Conversational Implicature,Oxford philosopher Herbert Paul Grice (1913-1988) William James lectures at Harvard in 1967 Logic and Conversation in 1975 People do not usually say things directly but tend to imply them.,8.2.1 The cooperative principle,E.g. (A-B) How C is going on? -Oh, quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasnt been to prison yet. (B implied sth. he didnt say explicitly.) -你不戴眼镜的时候很漂亮。 -我戴眼镜的时候一定很丑。 Grice: How people manage to convey implicature, which is not explicitly expressed.,There is some regularity in conversations. They are cooperative; each participant recognizes in them a common purpose or set of purposes, or a mutually accepted direction. (1975:45) “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”This principle is Cooperative Principle (CP).,Grices four maxims of CP: 1. Quantity (more/less information) (1) Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). (2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. 2. Quality (T/F) Try to make your contribution one that is true. (1) Do not say what you believe to be false. (2) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.,3. Relation Be relevant. 4. Manner Be perspicuous. (1) Avoid obscurity of expression. (2) Avoid ambiguity. (3) Be brief (avoid prolixity). (4) Be orderly.,CP & its component maxims are, imperative seemingly prescriptive, its aims is to be descriptive what actually happens in conversation. With sth. like them in mind, (un)consciously, we try to say things that are true, relevant, informative in a clear manner. Implied meaningimplicature.,A Speaker knows his implicatures and make it clear that he doesnt intend that particular implicature when he doesnt want the other to interpret it. E.g. Premier Zhu: when he was in Tsinghua, he wished to have a chance to study and get a degree at MIT some day. “但是，校长先生请不要误会，我绝对不是要个荣誉学位”。 CPunwritten laws like “ladies first”/礼尚往来,8.2.2 Violation of the Maxims,People tend to be cooperative and obey CP, but they are not followed by everybody all the time; they may violate them and tell lies. CPconversational implicature-the extra meaning not contained in the literal utterances, understandable to the listener only when he shares the speakers knowledge or knows why and how he violates intentionally one of the four maxims of the cooperative principle. /CPconcealing factslies,Violation of Quantity Make your contribution as informative as is required. A: 昨天上街买了些什么? B: 就买了些东西。 I dont want to tell you what I bought.,(Student X for a lectureship in philosophy) Dear Sir, Mr. Xs command of English is excellent, and his attendance at tutorials has been regular. Yours A is reluctant to write this reference letter which needs much more information than it. So he violates this maxim and implies that Mr. X is not suitable for the job.,Quantityin conflict with Quality E.g. A: Where does C live? B: Somewhere in the south of France. B doesnt give enough information, because maybe he doesnt know the exact answer himself. So he doesnt say the false or unsure answer (obey the Quality), violates the Quantity. E.g. Boys are boys. War is war. Superficial level-uninformative; deep level-implied informative. Implicatures like “boys are naughty and mischievous by nature. Its no use lamenting the tragedies of war, terrible things always in.”,2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. E.g. Aunt: How did Jimmy do his history exam? Mother: Oh, not at all well. Teachers asked him things that happened before the poor boy was born. Her son should not be blamed.,Violation of Quality 1. Do not say what you believe to be false. E.g. 8-3 A: Where is X? B: Hes gone to the library. He said so when he left. The first part is enough for this answer, but B may indicate that he is not sure whether X has gone to the library.,E.g. He is made of iron. Every nice girl loves a sailor. From literal levelfalse statementnot a person but a robot, metaphorhe has the character like iron.; implicaturemany girls love sailors. Without evidence, “It maybe the case that/Im not sure that”,2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. A: Beirut（黎巴嫩首都） is in Peru（秘鲁国家）, isnt it? B: And Rome（意大利首都） is in Romania（罗马尼亚）, I suppose. Its ridiculous.,Violation of the maxim of Relation: Be relevant. E.g. A: Mrs. X is an old bag. B: The weather has been quite delightful this summer, hasnt it? B refuses to be relevant with As words and implies that I dont want to talk about Mrs. X or As remarks shouldnt be discussed because A has committed a social gaffe.,Violation the maxim of Manner: 1. Avoid obscurity of expression A: Lets get the kids something. B: Okay, but I veto C-H-O-C-O-L-A-T-E. Dont give them chocolate. 2. Avoid ambiguity “Never seek to tell thy love, love that never told can be.” love may refer to an emotion or the person one loves. “love that” may mean either “love that cannot be told” or “love that if told cannot continue to exist.” 买一赠一。,3. Be brief. (avoid prolixity) E.g.8-7 a. Miss X sang “Home sweet home”. b. Miss X produced a series of sounds that corresponded closely with the score of “Home sweet home”. the prolixity of b implicates that Miss Xs performance is so poor that the word “sing” can not be applied.,4. Be orderly. a. They had a baby and got married. b. They got married and had a baby. They are both acceptable in good/clear word orders and reality, so a doesnt violate this maxim. “屡败屡战”。(exploitation of this maxim),8.2.3 Characteristics of implicature,(1) Calculability The fact that speakers try to convey conversational implicatures and hearers are able to understand them suggests that implicatures are calculable. They can be worked out on the basis of some previous information. Grice lists necessary data: (1) The conventional meaning of the words used, together with the identity of any references that may be involved; (2) the CP and its maxims; (3) the context, lc or otherwise, of the utterance; (4) other items of background knowledge; and (5) the fact (or supposed fact) that all relevant items falling under the previous headings are available to both participants and both participants know or assume this to be the case. (ibid. p.50),Grice suggests a general pattern for this: Sb. says sth. (apparently nonsense), what you will do is to try to find out its implied meaning but not to think it simply or stop thinking. Based on the information available, one interpretation support your previous assumption, get the real point the speaker intends to get across. E.g. Reference letter: reader doesnt think it simply or throw it away, but assumes that the speaker follow the CP and tries to say sth. true and relevant whether X is qualified for the job. It includes nothing explicitly, but assumes that he has some negative views on that.,(2) Concellability (defeasibility) Conversational implicature relies on conventional meaning of words used, the CP, the lc and situational contexts, etc. If any of them changes, implicature will also change. 8a implies b, adding sth. to c, then b is cancelled, and c means d. Ex. 8-8 a. John has three cows. b. John has only three cows. c. John has three cows, if not more. d. John has at least three cows.,By adding “though I dont mean hes not good at philosophy” to the reference letter, the original implicature is no longer there. Premier Zhus speech at MIT also shows that implicatures can be cancelled by adding clauses. Cancelling conversational implicature by situational context: (three cowssubsidy) e. Has John really got the requisite number of cows? f. Oh, sure, hes got three cows all right. In reference letter, if for English lectureship, it is a favorable comment.,(3) Non-detachability It means that a CI is attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to the lc form. It is possible to maintain the CI with synonyms. CI is not detached, or separated from the utterance as a whole. E.g. 8-9 a. Johns a genius./ b. a mental prodigy./ c. an exceptionally clever human being./ d. an enormous intellect./ e. a big brain. 8-10 Johns an idiot. 8-9 ironically implicate 8-10.,Mrs. X is an old bag. (relation) Any utterance not directly relating to it will generate such an implicature “You shouldnt talk about that now”, like “What a beautiful dress!” “The music is great!”etc. Manner maxim (exception) for depending on forms not content. “But dont give them ice creams” reveals the game.,(4) Non-conventionality (CI is different from conventional meaning) Entailment is a logical relationship between two sentences. (T-T,F2-F1) Ex.8-8a implies 8b, also 8-12a-g Ex.8-12 a. John has some cows./ b. animals./ c. sth./ d. sb.three cows./ e. sb.some cows./ f. sb.some animals./ g. sb. has sth. Entailment is part of conventional meaning.,Entailment is constant in all contexts. 8-8a is T, then 8-12a-g are no false context. So it determinate. Implicatue is indeterminate which varies with the context. CI is a type of implied meaning, which is deduced on the basis of conventional meaning of words, text, CP and its maxims. It equals to illocutionary force （言外之意） in SAT for focusing on contextual side of meaning.,8.3 Post-Gricean Developments,1. Relevance theory Dan Sperber & Deirdre Wilson (1986) Revelance: Communication and Cognition They argue that all Gricean maxims, including the CP itself, should be reduced to a single principle of relevance, which is defined as: Every act of ostensive communication communicates the presumption of its own optimal relevance. (p.158),They agree with Grice that communication is not simply a matter of encoding and decoding, it also involves inference (only to the hearer). The speakers act of expressing sth. is ostensive act. A complete characterization of communication is that it is ostensive-inferential. Ostensive/inferential commu.,Presumption of optimal relevance: An assumption is relevant in a context if and only if it has some contextual effect in that context. (p.122) But what exactly is context? All the background info Sometimes some info must be excludedchosen relevance Generally the assumption people are processing is relevant,Revised version: An assumption is relevant to an individual at a given time if and only if it is relevant in one or more of the contexts available to that individual at that time. (p.144) Relevance is “not just a property of assumptions in the mind, but also a property of phenomena (stimuli, e.g. utterances) in the environment which lead to the construction of assumptions”. (p.150-1),A communicator cannot directly present an audience with an assumption. All a speaker, or a writer, can do is to present a stimulus in the form of a sound, or a written mark. The presentation of this stimulus changes the cognitive environment of the audience, making certain facts manifest, or more manifest. As a result, the audience can mentally represent these facts as strong or stronger assumptions, and even use them to derive further assumptions.,Final version: A phenomenon is relevant to an ind