英语修辞格的语用学分析毕业论文.doc

英语修辞格的语用学分析毕业论文Contents. Introduction.11.1Relationship between rhetoric and pragmatics. 1 1.2Classification of English rhetorical devices.2 1.3Purpose,approach and significance.4 1.4Literature review.7 1.5The main content of the thesis.9II.Literature review.102.1Definition of hyperbole.102.2 Production of the rhetorical effect of hyperbole.112.3Pragmatic function of hyperbole.6III. Relationship between rhetoric and pragmatics.73.1Definition of irony.7 3.2 Positive expression of the negative meaning.9 3.3 Negative expression of the positive meaning.103.4 Pragmatic function of irony.13IV. Classification of English rhetorical devices.154.1 Definition of oxymoron.154.1.1 Introduction to the interaction theory.15 4.1.2 Some defects of the interaction theory.164.2Production of the rhetorical effect of oxymoron.19 4.2.1 The philosophical basis of lakoffian theory.19 4.2.2 Lakoffian theory on the mechanism of metaphor.214.3 Pragmatic function of oxymoron.29 4.3.1 An introduction to the conceptual integration theory.294.3.1.1 Four mental spaces.29 4.3.1.2 Three processes of BT.334.3.1.3 Optimality principles of BT.34 4.3.2 The advantages of BT in solving the paradox of former theories344.3.2.1 The generic mental space.344.3.2.2 The blending space and emergent structure.354.3.2.3 The other advantages of BT.40V.Pragmatic Analysis of Common English Figures of Speech5.1Hyperbole5.1.1Definition of hyperbole.5.1.2Production of the rhetorical effect of hyperbole5.1.3Pragmatic function of hyperbole5.2Irony.Chapter Six Metaphor6.1 Definition of metaphor6.2 Metaphor and Simile6.3 Production of the rhetorical effect of metaphor6.4 Pragmatic function of metaphorConclusion.41Bibliography.45Acknowledgements46Undergraduate Thesis of Faculty of Foreign Studies Yangtze University College of Arts and ScienceUndergraduate Thesis of Faculty of Foreign Studies Yangtze University College of Arts and ScienceI Chapter One Introduction 1.1 Relationship between rhetoric and pragmaticsIt is universally acknowledged that rhetoric originated in Greece about 24centuries ago. During the time of Aristotle (384-332B.C.), rhetoric was considered to be one of the few important branches of learning. It was Aristotle who was the first one to define rhetoric as the art of persuasion. So he was regarded as the father of rhetoric. Today, rhetoric is regarded as a science of heightening linguistic effective expressions, and the art of effective communication. Rhetoric studies the optimal selection among multiple expressions of the similar meaning. The purpose of rhetoric is to help people express themselves better and communicate effectively in order to secure a desired result by employing rhetorical means efficiently. The highest principle of rhetoric is to adapt to specific situation, that is, adaptability or appropriateness. In order to achieve the best results, we have to understand the person being written or spoken to, and do what is appropriate for that particular occasion. In other words, we use different words or different expressions for different situations. Rhetorical device is a practice of utterance, which pursues the optimal language effects.Atics is of great importance as a branch of linguistics that has been developing rapidly in recent years. The modern usage of the term atics is attributable to the philosopher Charles Morris (1938), the founding father of pragmatics, who was concerned to outline the general shape of a science of signs, or semiotics. Within semiotics, Morris distinguished three distinct branches of inquiry: syntactics, being the study of the formal relation of signs to one another, semantics, the study of the relation of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable,and pragmatics, the study of whatever relations between signs and their users or interpreters. Yule defines it as the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). 9 Leech defines it as the study of how utterances have meanings in situation. Pragmatics studies the appropriateness and effects of language communication. Pragmatic use of language is the communicational behavior between language signs and language users. Pragmatics is closely associated with rhetoric. Leech holds that pragmatics itself is a kind of rhetorical study. Morris also argues the inseparable relationship between pragmatics and rhetoric and calls rhetoric as the guiding discipline of pragmatics. s Rhetorical phenomena are also the matter that pragmatics attempts to resolve, because rhetorical phenomena are inevitably concerned about conversational implicature. Grice once includes irony, hyperbole and metaphor into one category that floats the maxim of Quality, for those phenomena can all be viewed as having untrue utterance content. There are various convergences between pragmatics and rhetoric. First, Adaptability, appropriateness and context of language are the important elements that both pragmatic study and rhetorical study are involved in. Second, it is the utterance meaning that both pragmatics and rhetoric study. Both of them regard utterance meaning as the special skills of language use. If we traced back to see rhetoric in Greece more than 2000 years ago, the adoption of utterance meaning in language use was frequent then, for the devices such as irony, hyperbole and metaphor in rhetoric were the use of utterance meaning. Third, generally speaking, both belong to the study of the level of sentence or the unit above sentence. Figures of speech study the matter of utterance requiring a certain context rather than that of sentence or the unit below sentence while such meaning beyond the scope of sentence meaning is the objective of pragmatics study.1.2 Classification of English rhetorical devicesFigures of speech refer to all kinds of striking or unusual configurations of words or phrases. They involve the variation of any unit of the language system-graphic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. Figures of speech aim at increasing vividness of language. Vivid language can arouse the audiences interest, hold their attention and enhance their comprehension with imagery and leave the audience with a fresh impression. To increase the impact of language, figures of speech are employed in both literary and non-literary, both written and spoken forms. They are used to embellish, emphasize or clarify expressions, to make language morecolorful, more forceful, or more explicit, thus making communication more efficient and more effective. On many occasions, figures of speech are the necessary means of communication, without which we cannot get across our idea. Similar to many other languages, English is abundant in figures of speech. Developed out of the long tradition of the English language and culture, most English figures of speech remain alive today and new ones are being created every moment in peoples life.Literary interest in, and use of, figures of speech reached its zenith in the Renaissance: Peachams handbook (1577) lists nearly 200 different types. 9 Although a decline in the study of classics and a growing suspicion of the rhetoric have led to a decline in their use in literary composition and public speaking, a hard core of figures still persists, and some are known reasonably well by name, for example, devices of repetition are common in public speaking; And figurative language is generally characteristic of advertising. In the second half of the twentieth century renewed interest in figures of speech came from French structuralism influenced by the earlier Russian formalists; And from stylistics in work on text analysis, speech act theory and pragmatics-modern fields of traditional rhetoric in many way anticipated. As a result, there have been several attempts at classifications of figures on a more rigorous, linguistic basis. It is true that the Greek forms of figures of speech are admittedly difficult to pronounce and remember. Many of them confusingly overlap with others in meaning, or appear to have more than one meaning. Undoubtedly, however, certain knowledge of rhetorical figures is of considerable importance to both our understanding of stylistic effect in literary language of earlier periods and our verbal communication in todays world. There is no definite conclusion about how many figures of speech there are in English. There are no compromising methods to specify English figures of speech. Sometimes a given figure of speech will fall mainly into a single category, as, for example, an apostrophe is used mostly for emotion, but more often the effects of a particular figure are multiple, and a single one may operate in one more categories. For instance, parallelism helps to order, clarify, emphasize, and beautify a thought. Occasionally a figure yields certain effects not readily identifiable or explainable so it is not always easy to tell why or when certain ones are good or should be used. In the thesis, English figures of speech are classified into three categories in accordance with devices of usage of English figures of speech. 1) Figures of speech adopting phonetic devices: alliteration and assonance; 2) Figures of speech adopting lexical devices; e.g., metaphor, hyperbole, personification; 3) Figures of speech adopting syntactic devices; e.g., inversion and repetition. Some common rhetorical devices such as metaphor, hyperbole, personification, pun, irony and oxymoron are dealt with in this thesis.1.3 Purpose, approach and significanceThe intention of writing this thesis is to explore English rhetorical devices from the perspective of pragmatics and to promote the optimal comprehension and application of English figures of speech in language communication. The main issues in studying the topic are as follows: 1) English rhetorical device is numerous, and there are no definite categories of English figures of speech. 2) Current pragmatic theories are conventional and lack novelty.3)The area that pragmatic study of figures of speech covers is so wide that it is not only associated with such branches of linguistics as rhetoric, pragmatics, phonetics, semantics, syntax, grammar, psychological linguistics, cognitive linguistics, functional linguistics, applied linguistics and cross-cultural communication but also related to psychology, aesthetics, literature, philosophy and logics. Pragmatic analysis alone seems to be insufficient to be persuasive. Current conditions and solutions to these issues are the following:In accordance with devices of usage of English figures of speech, they are classified into three categories in the thesis: 1 .1 figures of speech adopting phonetic devices, e.g., alliteration and assonance; 1.2 figures of speech adopting lexical devices, e.g., metaphor, hyperbole, personification; 1.3 figures of speech adopting syntactic devices, e.g., inversion, repetition. Because of the limited condition for the present writing task, only some common rhetorical devices such as hyperbole, irony, personification, oxymoron and metaphor are handled; New theories are expected to be explored and applicable to future rhetorical study. With the study of pragmatics deepened, some pragmatic principles and strategies have been put forth. The representative ones adopted in the thesis are the following: The Cooperative Principle presented by Grice who believes that conversation is confined to certain conditions. The reason why peoples conversation could be possibly carried out is that the two sides of the conversation should all obey a principle called the Cooperative Principle that consists of four maxims and some sub-maxims; The Politeness Principle put forward by Leech who believes that the Cooperative Principle only interprets the relationship between literal sense and intended sense of utterance, explains how the inexplicit meaning is produced and comprehended, but it does not explain the reason why people deliberately violate the Cooperative Principle to convey their real intention. Leech has found the answer to the question: its out of the consideration of politeness. The Politeness Principle is said to save the Cooperative Principle; the Face-Saving Theory advanced by Brown& Levinson who hold interlocutors should cooperate to save faces for each other while interacting in conversation. Face means honor, self-esteem, public self-image. People are governed by two desires: to be unimpeded in actions and to be approved of. The first is dubbed the negative politeness, the other positive politeness. Positive politeness can be realized as suggesting commonality, understanding, and joint action. Negative politeness is expressed in showing respect and maintaining social distance. Face is said to be a universal notion, there is no faceless communication. Whether a person loses face or not relies much on others. If one does not want to lose face, he/she should not damage others faces. Therefore in order to save faces for both in communication, the best way is to use polite language. The shortcomings of the theory are: the content of face differs in different cultures; Sperber D. &D. Wilson raised the Relevance Theory from the perspective of cognitive pragmatics to substitute Grices Cooperative Principle. Sperber D. & D. Wilson hold that language communication activity aims to convey the purpose of the speaker. Language communication activity covers a pair of information: the purpose of information and the purpose of communication. That is to say that the speaker shows not only his intention to pass some information but also the intention itself during conversation. In communication the speakers will always express themselves in explicit words so as to make the audience comprehend their purpose while the audience will infer the implied information from the information provided by the speaker. The comprehension of utterance meaning is a dynamic process of cognitive inference, during which the two sides of the conversation obey Relevance Theory. The information provided by the speaker should be fully relevant; The audience will merely concern and process the information that is closely relevant to the speakers words when he tries to comprehend the utterance correctly. Previous studies only focus on the utterance meaning of the speaker while the relevance theory shifts the pragmatic emphasis from it to the study of psychological process, during which the audience tries to catch the implied intention of the speaker. Relevance Theory has neither maxims nor principles that the speaker should obey during speaking. It only describes peoples cognitive process in comprehending every utterance, namely, the relevance between utterance itself and context, enabling the audience to make reasonable inference to the speakers intention. Correct cognition is based on searching for relevance. The relevance theory does not believe that the speaker makes the audience comprehend the intention by deliberately floating certain maxims. However, the context-sensitiveness of Relative Theory is not concrete sufficiently, namely the standard of context identification is vague and general. Moreover the theory has a trend to simplify pragmatics, ignoring the peculiarity of things. The Pragmatic Inferential Model based on the Relevance Theory is raised in the thesis, which holds that pragmatic studies can basically be embodied in the concept of relevance and the process of human verbal communication is none other than a process of searching for the optimal relevance under a certain concrete context. This process, with cooperation as its presupposition might use unusual relevance out of consideration for politeness and other factors. The proposal of a relevance-based pragmatic inferential model can either be applied as a whole, or can be divided into parts with each part practicing a certain function, that is, each of the pragmatic principles can stand on its own and work to explain linguistic and cultural phenomena.With the rapid development of pragmatic study, the scope and depth of pragmatics are increasingly wider and further, new disciplines across pragmatics and other disciplines such as cognitive pragmatics, cross-cultural pragmatics and inter-language pragmatics occur, the obstacle will be removed. The area that pragmatic study of rhetorical devices involves in is wild. If we comprehend it from a broad sense, we need to regard pragmatics as an approach to language study that combines context and process of usage.The significance of the thesis lies in exploiting the inseparable relationship between figures of speech and pragmatics. The thesis intends to study the English rhetorical devices at the pragmatic level comparatively thoroughly and systematically by means of combining theories quoted from both home and abroad. The thesis also raises its own points of view: With a synthetic analysis of the three major pragmatic principles, namely, the Cooperative Principle, the Politeness Principle and the Relevance Theory. The Pragmatic Inferential Model based on the Relevance Theory is raised, which holds that pragmatic studies can basically be embodied in the concept