【精品】chapter 6 pragmatics

1、chapter 6 pragmatics can you explain the meaning of “im tired”? discussion: semantics or syntax: describe the speakers physical state (feeling weak and lacking power in the body or mind; needing rest or sleep) discussion: john: can you get me some food? jane: im tired. pragmatics complements syntax

2、and semantics by examining language in relation to its context and users. 6.1.1 definition i. definition: pragmatics is the study of how speakers of a language use sentences to effect successful communication. 6.1 some basic notions ii. development of pragmatics 1937: the term was invented (by charl

3、es morris) ; 1950s: speech act theory (by john austin) took shape; by the early 1980s: pragmatics had been accepted as one of the basic branches of linguistics. iii. two major traditions 1. the anglo-american tradition: treats pragmatics as a branch of linguistics; focuses on the study of specific l

4、anguage phenomenon (deixis, speech acts, indirect language, structure of conversation, politeness, cross- intercultural communication, presupposition, etc.) iii. two major traditions 2. the european continental tradition: treats pragmatics as a general cognitive, social, and cultural perspective at

5、the use of language 6.1.2 pragmatics vs. semantics semantics: the study of meaning in isolation from the context of use pragmatics: the study of meaning in the context 6.1.3 context (by john firth in 1930s) the knowledge of the language; the knowledge about the world: the general knowledge about the

6、 world, the specific knowledge about the situation in which linguistic communication is taking place. context is regarded as constituted by the knowledge shared by the speaker and the hearer. 6.1.4 sentence meaning vs. utterance meaning sentence: a grammatical unit of the language system. utterance:

7、 a unit of language in use. sentence meaning: abstract, decontextualized; utterance meaning: concrete, context- dependent 6.1.4 sentence meaning vs. utterance meaning my bag is heavy. semantic analysis: bag (be heavy) pragmatic analysis: the speakers intention a straightforward statement: the speake

8、rs bag is heavy; an indirect, polite request: can you help me take the bag? a refusal: i cant help you now. what are the possible interpretations of the same utterance “my bag is heavy.”? 6.2 speech act theory traditional philosopher focused on the truth-value of sentences. state a fact; describe a

9、sate of affairs 6.2 speech act theory john austin (1911-1960): british philosopher how to do things with words (1962) speech acts: actions performed via utterances 6.2.1 austins model of speech acts constatives vs. performatives constatives: utterances which roughly serves to state a fact, report th

10、at something is the case, or describe what something is; verifiable. i go to the park every sunday. i teach english. constatives vs. performatives performatives: utterances which are used to perform acts, do not describe or report anything at all; the uttering of the sentence is the doing of an acti

11、on; not verifiable. i do. i name this ship queen elizabeth. i bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow. i give and bequeath my watch to my brother. i promise to finish it in time. i apologize. i declare the meeting open. i warn you that the bull will charge. minister: addressing the groom) (grooms nam

12、e), do you take (brides name) for your lawful wedded wife, to live together after gods ordinance, in the holy estate of matrimony? will you love, honor, comfort, and cherish her from this day forward, forsaking all others, keeping only unto her for as long as you both shall live? ngroom: i do. first

13、 person singular speech act verbs / performative verbs: the present tense indicative mood active voice uttering a sentence is actually doing sth., or changing the world in some way. what are the features of performatives? conclusion: the distinction between constatives the literal meaning. an illocu

14、tionary act: the act of expressing the speakers intention; a perlocutionary act: the act performed by or resulting from saying sth; the hearers reaction. how to explain “its cold in here.” in three levels of speech acts? summary: linguists are most interested in the illocutionary act, i.e. how a spe

15、aker expresses his intention and how his intention is recognized by the hearer. 6.2.2 searles classification of speech acts speech acts: five categories (share the same illocutionary point, differ in strength) john searle, american philosopher and linguist representatives/assertives directives commi

16、ssives expressives declarations 1) representatives/assertives stating, believing, swearing, hypothesizing: saying what the speaker believes to be true (i swear) i have never seen the man before. (i state) the earth is a globe. 2) directives inviting, suggesting, requesting, advising, warning, threat

17、ening, ordering: trying to get the hearer to do sth. open the window! youd better go to the clinic. your money or your life! would you like to go to the picnic with us? 3) commissives promising, undertaking, vowing: committing the speaker himself to some future course of action. i promise to come. i

18、 will bring you the book tomorrow without fail. 4) expressives apologizing, thanking, congratulating: expressing feelings or attitude towards an existing state im sorry for the mess i have made. its really kind of you to have thought of me. 5) declarations bringing about immediate changes by saying

19、sth. i now declare the meeting open. i appoint you chairman of the committee. i fire you! how to ask somebody to close the door? will you close the door? can you close the door? do you mind closing the door? i would be very grateful if you could close the door! the door, please! close the door. the

20、door is open! 6.2.3 indirect speech acts indirect speech acts: the kind of speech acts in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another. primary speech act: the speakers goal of communication secondary speech act: the means by which the speaker achieves his goal pr

21、imary speech act: to make a request for the hearer to pass the salt secondary speech act: to inquire about the hearers ability to pass the salt how to explain “can you pass the salt?” according to indirect speech acts? primary speech act: to reject as suggestion secondary speech act: to make a state

22、ment about the fact that he has to study for an exam a: lets go to the movies tonight. b: i have to study for an exam. the relation between the primary speech act and the secondary speech act is that between end and means. summary: 6.3 principle of conversation discussion: what might the second spea

23、ker mean? 1) a: what do you think of my new dress? b: its red. 2) a: can you help me with moving the sofa? b: my arms hurt. 6.3 principle of conversation i. implicature the term coined by paul grice refers to what is suggested in an utterance. i. implicature 1. conventional implicature: based on the

24、 conventional meaning of certain words; implicautres are intrinsically tied up with linguistic items. joe is poor but happy. imply: “surprisingly joe is happy in spite of being poor”. i. implicature 1. conventional implicature inferences that depend on the existence of norms for the use of language.

25、 2. conversational implicature 1) generalized conversational implicature 2. conversational implicature the implicature is worked out depending on the utterance alone and the assumption of the participants cooperativeness without any particular knowledge of the current context or any related backgrou

26、nd information. a: how did john and pike do in the match? b: john won a medal. 1) generalized conversational implicature 2. conversational implicature 2) particularized conversational implicature a: lets go out drinking tonight? b: my grandma is ill. particularized implicature is derived from partic

27、ular knowledge of the current context and some related background information. i. implicature 1. conventional implicature 2. conversational implicature 1) generalized conversational implicature 2) particularized conversational implicature: grices focus of study 6.3 principle of conversation ii. coop

28、erative principle (cp) paul grice: british philosopher a paper entitled logic and conversation (1975) 6.3 principle of conversation ii. the cooperative principle (cp) make your conversational contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the

29、talk exchange in which you are engaged. the formulation of cp is based on some basic assumptions and observations. people talk rationally in conversation. talk exchanges represent some cooperative efforts to some degree. the interlocutors understand that they have a common purpose or a common direct

30、ion for the ongoing conversation. the maxim of quality do not say what you believe to be false. do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. a: what country are you from? b: i come from china. a: how old is john? b: hes about thirty. the maxim of quantity make your contribution as informati

31、ve as required (for the current purposes of the exchange). do not make your contribution more informative than is required. a: what date is your birthday? b: december 26. / it is in december. / december 26, the day after the christmas day. the maxim of relation be relevant. a: what date is your birt

32、hday? b: december 26. / im an american. the maxim of manner avoid obscurity of expression. avoid ambiguity. be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). be orderly. john: open the door, jane. john: walk up to the door, put the key into the lock, turn the key clockwise twice and push. summary: the maxim o

33、f quality: the most important; other maxims come into operation on the assumption that this maxim of quality is satisfied. it is assumed that participants generally observe cp in the course of conversation, but in fact their cooperation takes various forms of non-cooperation. the intentional deviati

34、on from one or more of the maxims is associated with the generation of conversational implicature. iii. non-observance of the maxims two travelers arrived at the hotel and were shown a rather dingy room. “what,” said one, “does this pigsty cost?” promptly the owner replied, “for one pig, two dollars

35、; for two pigs, three dollars.” flouting the maxim of quality chandler: where is the book you are reading? monica: its in the living room where there is also light and no one will kick you in the shin. chandler: what? flouting the maxim of quantity mother: doctor, come at once! our baby swallowed a

36、fountain pen! doctor: ill be right over. what are you doing in the meantime? mother: using a pencil. flouting the maxim of relation the farmer whose pig was killed by an automobile was raving mad. “dont worry,” said the motorist, trying to pacify the bereaved owner, “ill replace your pig.” “you cant

37、,” growled the farmer, “you are not fat enough.” flouting the maxim of manner (avoid ambiguity) summary cp is meant to describe what actually happens in conversation. people tend to be cooperative and obey cp in communication. however, cp is often violated. violation of cp and its maxims leads to co

38、nversational implicature. 6.4 cross-cultural pragmatic failure what are the problems with the sentences? he are a student. you must to do it. the green idea is laughing. the bachelors child is a cat. a: its cold in here, isnt it? b：so it is. (b continues his reading.) 6.4 cross-cultural pragmatic fa

39、ilure jenny thomas the inability to understand what is meant by what is said. 言语交际中，说话人在表达思想时出言语交际中，说话人在表达思想时出 现语法错误，至多被认为是现语法错误，至多被认为是“说得不说得不 好好”：但违反交际规则如礼貌原则就：但违反交际规则如礼貌原则就 会被认为是会被认为是“举止不好举止不好”，被认为是，被认为是 “不真诚的，存心欺骗的或居心不良不真诚的，存心欺骗的或居心不良 的人的人”。 i. pragmalinguistic failure it is closed linked with la

40、nguage itself and refers to the case that learners unconsciously transfer native expression into the target language while ignoring their pragmatic meaning, or use inappropriate expressions of the target language. i. pragmalinguistic failure a: thanks a lot. / thats a great help. b: never mind. viol

41、ation of the normal way that a language is used b: youre welcome. i. pragmalinguistic failure a: you dont like classical music, do you? b: yes, i dont like it. / no, i like it very much. different expressions for the same illocutionary point b: no, i dont like it. / yes, i like it very much. i. prag

42、malinguistic failure shop assistant: what would you want? use of the chinese-english shop assistant: can i help you? i. pragmalinguistic failure a: is it a good restaurant? b: of course. inappropriate transfer of semantically equivalent structures “of course” implies: the question is self- evident; what a stupid question. b is rude i. pragmalinguistic failure a: john, have you finished y