论语义学与语用学的关系(全英文).doc

On the Relationship between Semantics and PragmaticsAbstract: Both semantics and pragmatics are concerned with the study of meaning. The former studies the natural and static meanings of linguistic signs, while the latter deals with how language users mean by different signs in different speech events or contexts. The essay first deals with the theoretical discussions on the relationship between semantics and pragmatics, then provides some analysis about the complementary relations between these two branches of linguistics in terms of Grices Cooperative Principle and Conversational Implicature. Keywords: semantics, pragmatics, complementary relations1. Debates on the relationship between semantics and pragmatics1.1 Leechs Classification Semantics is the level of linguistics which has been greatly affected by pragmatics, but the relationship between semantics (in the sense of conceptual semantics) and pragmatics has remained a matter of fundamental disagreement. Three logically distinct positions in this debate can be distinguished (Leech, 1981):1) Pragmatics should be subsumed under semantic.2) Semantics should be subsumed under pragmatics. 3) Semantics and pragmatics are distinct and complementary fields of study.As we can see, there are generally two theoretical positions: reductionism and complementarism. Within the former, we can make a distinction between pragmatic reductionism and semantic reductionism. The former holds the view that semantics is wholly included in pragmatics. On the other hand, the latter takes the view that pragmatics falls entirely under semantics.The reductionism approach runs counter into the fact that there are linguistic phenomena such as entailment which are relatively uncontroversially semantic, and there are also linguistic phenomena such as conversational implicature which are relatively uncontroversially pragmatic(Huang, 2007). Therefore, the complementarist viewpoint is more widely accepted in which semantics and pragmatics is considered as two independent and complementary components in language system. 1.2 Postulates on the distinction between semantics and pragmatics As semantics come into being, many linguists come up with various semantic theories form different angles, such as referential theory, stimulus-and-response theory, truth-conditional semantics and ideational theory. Pragmatics used to be regarded as a convenient waste-bin to which to consign annoying facts which could not be explained by semantics. The rapid development in semantics has enhanced the development of pragmatics. It is the close relationship between semantics and pragmatics that have caused the problems in the relationship between the two. There are a set of postulates on the distinction between semantics and pragmatics.1.2.1 Morris and Carnaps classification Pragmatics as a modern branch of linguistic inquiry has its origin in the philosophy of language. The modern use of the term pragmatics is attributable to philosopher Charles Morris, who made a threefold classification of semiotics (the study of signs):1) Syntax: the formal relation of signs to one another;2) Semantics: the relations of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable; 3) Pragmatics: the relation of signs to interpreters. Within each branch of semiotics, one could make the distinction between pure studies, concerned with the elaboration of the relevant metalanguage, and descriptive studies which applied the metalanguage to the description of specific signs and their usages (Levinson, 1983). This trichotomy was taken up by Carnap, who posed an order of degree of abstractness for the three branches of linguistics: syntax is the most abstract and pragmatics the least abstract, with semantics lying somewhere in between. Consequently, syntax provides input to semantics, which provides input to pragmatics.1.2.2 Leechs analysis of semantics and pragmatics In the most general sense, pragmatics studies the relation between linguistic expressions and their users. The distinction between semantics and pragmatics, therefore, tends to go with the distinction between meaning and use, or more generally, that between competence and performance (Leech, 1983). In practice, the problem of distinguishing language (langue) and language use (parole) has centered on a boundary dispute between semantics and pragmatics. Both fields are concerned with meaning, but the difference between them can be traced to the different uses of the verb” mean in the following two sentence: What does X mean? What did you mean by X? Semantics traditionally deals with meaning as a bivalent relation, as in , while pragmatics deals with meaning as a trivalent relation, as in . That is to say, semantics talks about X means Y, while pragmatics studies the speaker S means Y by X. For example, a mother speaks to his son “Tom, shoes!” when the boy is entering the house from outside. In the sight of semantics, what the mother says has no clear meaning. However, in terms of pragmatics, what the woman means is to ask his son to take off his shoes before going into the room. Thus meaning in pragmatics is defined relative to a speaker or user of the language, whereas meaning in semantics is defined purely as a property of expressions in a given language, in the absence of particular situations, speakers, or hearers.1.2.3 Levinsons definition of pragmatics Levinson (1983) believes that the definition of pragmatics is by no means easy to provide, therefore he considers a set of possible definitions of pragmatics and finds that each of them has deficiencies or difficulties of a sort that would equally hinder definitions of other fields. One of his definitions for pragmatics is: Pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of meaning not captured in a semantic theory. This definition in fact makes a distinction between semantics and pragmatics.1.2.4 Huangs criticism on the distinction between semantics and pragmatics The distinction between semantics and pragmatics has been formulated in a variety of ways. Of these formulations, three, according to Bach, are particularly influential. They are (i) truth-conditional versus non-truth-conditional meaning, (ii) conventional versus non-conventional meaning, and (iii) context independence versus context dependence (Huang, 2007).1) Truth-conditional versus non-truth-conditional meaning According to this formulation, semantics deals with truth-conditional meaning, or words-world relations; pragmatics has to do with non-truth-conditional meaning.There are, however, a number of problems at the very core of this approach to the semantics-pragmatics division. First of all, there are linguistic forms that do not denote anything and therefore do no make any contribution to truth-conditional content. Secondly and more importantly, the linguistically coded meaning of a sentence does not always fully determine its truth conditions. Furthermore, there is often pragmatic intrusion into the truth-conditional content of a sentence uttered. 2) Conventional versus non-conventional meaningOn this view, semantics studies the conventional aspects of meaning; pragmatics concerns the non-conventional aspects of meaning. It should be noted at this point that there are certain overlaps between pragmatics and semantics. One case in point is concerned with conventional implicature. Conventional or generalized implicaturerefers to an implicature whose meaning or meanings are inferable without putting it in specific contexts. In the utterance “John went into a house and found a dog in front of a door”, for instance, we may infer that John has gone into a house, which is not his. At least this is the implied meaning of the “a + noun” phrase.Conventional implicature can be argued to fall either in pragmatics or semantics, depending on how they are defined. If pragmatics is taken to deal with those inferences that can be cancelled, then conventional implicature falls outside its province and within that of semantics, since it is not defeasible in pragmatics. On the other hand, if semantics is taken to be concerned with those aspects of meaning that affect truth conditions, then the investigation of conventional implicature is part of pragmatics but not of semantics, since conventional implicature does not make any contribution to truth conditions in terms of semantics.3) Context independence and context dependenceThe semantics-pragmatics distinction has been equated with context independence and context dependence. This characterization of the semantics-pragmatics distinction, however, rests on a mistaken assumption that context has no role to play in semantics. Contrary to this assumption, according to Bach, in the case of deictics and demonstratives (such as this, that, these and those), especially what philosophers of language call pure indexicals, such as I, here, now, it is on the side of semantics that content varies with context. Consequently, Bach postulated two types of context: (i) narrow context and (ii) broad context. Narrow context denotes all contextual variables such as those concerning who speaks to whom, when, and where. In contrast, broad context is taken to be any contextual information that is relevant to the working out of what the speaker overtly intends to mean.2. The complementary relationship between semantics and pragmatics Personally, I am in favor of the radical pragmatic position within the complementarist camp, in the belief that this is the more promising approach. Pragmatics deals with meaning from the angle of the language user and serves as a complementation to the traditional semantics. The significance of the pragmatic study is reflected on the two basic functions of language. On one hand, language is used to encode the real-world information and to represent feelings and understanding of the world. In this process, linguistic signs have established a certain relationship with the outside world. The semantic study of meaning on this level is context-independent and only concerned with the literal meanings of linguistic signs. On the other hand, language serves as a communicational tool to guarantee successful communication between people in specific contexts. The pragmatic study of meaning at this point is no longer restricted to the literal meaning, but concerned more with many other complicated factors beyond language (such as social and cultural conditions).Thus, meaning in pragmatics is no longer static and stable as in semantics. It becomes an interaction in which the speaker and the listener together build up meaning on the basis of common knowledge. However, the traditional semantic study of meaning is still very important, due to the fact that language must be first used to express the conventional meaning before it can serve as the communicational tool. In fact, there is no such thing as communication without the fundamental conventional meaning. Thus, many pragmatic linguists place equal emphasis on both the pragmatic study of meaning and the study of the conventional meaning. For example, both locutionary act proposed by Austin and locutionary meaning stressed by Grice are almost the same as the conventional meaning discussed in semantics.3. The theory of conversational implicaturePragmatic linguists pay a great attention to two sets of concepts: sentence and utterance, sense of utterance and force of utterance. A sentence is considered as an abstract entity at the core of the semantic study, while an utterance in pragmatics is the realization of a sentence in a specific context. Sense of utterance or locutionary meaning is the basic literal meaning of the utterance which is conveyed by the particular words and structures the utterance contains. Force of utterance or illocutionary force is the effect the utterance or written text has on the listener or reader. For instance, in “Im thirsty the locutionary meaning is what the utterance says about the speakers physical state. The illocutionary force is the effect the speaker wants the utterance to have on the listener. It may be intended as a request for something to drink. Based on the two pairs of concepts mentioned above, we can see the important role pragmatics plays in the complementation of semantics. The term “implicature was first proposed by Grice in 1975, which is based on the disagreement between locutionary meaning and illocutionary force. That is to say, what is said is different from what is actually meant. Lets look at this example: Mother (says to her son): Is that your coat on the floor? When the mother asks the question, what she wants is not a Yes or No answer, or, in other words, the understanding of the locutionary meaning of the utterance. The real intention here is the illocutionary force to show her dissatisfaction or order the son to pick the coat up. A conversational implicature is an inference, an additional message, which the hearer is able to work out from what is said by appealing to the rules governing successful conversational interaction. Thus, Grice comes up with the Co-operative Principle ( CP ), which is comprised of four maxims: (1)The maxim of quantity: a. Make your contribution as informative as required. b. Dont make your contribution more informative than is required. (2)The maxim of quality a. Dont say what you believe to be false. b. Dont say that for which you lack adequate evidence. (3)The maxim of relation: Say things that are relevant. (4)The maxim of manner: Be perspicuous. a. Avoid obscurity of expression. b. Avoid ambiguity. c. Be brief. d. Be orderly. According to the maxims, speakers should speak sincerely, relevantly, clearly, and should provide sufficient information.(Levinson,1983: 101-102) In our daily life, speakers and listeners involved in conversation are generally cooperating with each other. In other words, when people are talking with each other, they must try to converse smoothly and successfully. In accepting speakers presuppositions, listeners have to assume that a speaker is not trying to mislead them.However, there are more cases that speakers are not fully adhering to the principles. But the listener will assume that the speaker is observing the principles “in a deeper degree”. Here is an example: A: Where is Bill? B: There is a yellow car outside Sues house.In the dialogue, B seems to be violating the maxims of quantity and relevance, but we also assume that B is still observing the CP and think about the relationship between As question and the “yellow car” in Bs answer. If Bill has a yellow car, he may be in Sues house. In this example, we can see that only when the sense of utterance and the force of utterance are both considered, can we understand the real meaning of the answer. Sometimes, the speaker may “flout” one or more maxims obviously in order to get the listener to find out what is said beyond the literal meaning. For example:A: Where are you going with the dog?B: To the V-E-T.In this little dialogue, the dog is known to be able to recognize the word “vet” and to hate being taken there. Thus, A makes the word spelled out. Here he is “flouting” the maxim of manner, making the implicature that he does not want the dog to know the answer. From all the examples mentioned above, we can see that conversational implicature is based on conventional meaning and the latter may develop into the former. In a word, implicature lies in the content rather than the linguistic form. This is also a clear reflection of the relationship between semantics and pragmatics.4. ConclusionSeman