Chapter10 Pragmatics.ppt

1、Chapter 11 Pragmatics,Dec 2010,Contents,Introduction Speech act theory Classical theory of implicature Post-Gricean Development,Introduction,Pragmatics is a new arising discipline. Its English name was invented by American logician Charles William Morris in 1937(Jiang Wangqi). The first definition w

2、as the Morriss famous definition: “the study of the relation of signs to interpreters”(1938:6)(J.L. Mey, Pragmatics: An Introduction 2001: 4). In a modern, communication-oriented terminology, pragmatics focuses on the language-using humans. In contrast to traditional linguistics, which concentrates

3、on the elements and structures, it is interested in the process of producing language and in its producers, not just in the end-product, language.,Definition of pragmatics: It is the study of language in use. It is the study of the use of language in communication, particularly the relationships bet

4、ween sentences and the contexts and situations in which they are used. Usually conceived as a branch of semantics concerned with the meanings that sentences have in particular contexts in which they are uttered. (Oxford concise dictionary of linguistics 2000:290),Mey: Pragmatics studies the use of l

5、anguage in human communication as determined by the conditions of society. (J.L. Mey, Pragmatics: An Introduction 2001: 6),Pragmatics includes:,How the interpretation and use of utterances depends on knowledge of the real world. How speakers use and understand speech acts. How the structure of sente

6、nces is influenced by the relationship between the speakers and the hearer. Pragmatics is sometimes contrasted with semantics, which deals with meaning without reference to the users and communicative functions of sentences.,Pragmatics and semantics:comparison (Leech),Semantics asks: What does X mea

7、n? Semantics traditionally deals with meaning as a dyadic relation(二元关系), meaning is defined purely as a property of expressions in a given language, in abstraction from particular situations, speakers, or hearers. Linguistic form - meaning,Pragmatics asks: What did you mean by X? Pragmatics deals w

8、ith meaning as a triadic relation（三元关系）. The meaning in pragmatics is defined relative to a speaker or user of the language. Linguistic form user-meaning,(Leech, Principles of Pragmatics: 6),Theory and development: three stages,John Langshaw Austin (Oxford philosopher): How to Do Things with Words (

9、published in1962): proposed the 1rst major theory: performatives and constatives; then the modified theory of illocutionary act. Herbert Paul Grice (American philosopher): developed Austins theory and proposed the 2nd major theory: conversational implicature under the principle of “the cooperative p

10、rinciple” (four maxims) in his book “Logic and Conversation”(1967). Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson: relevant theory in their book “Communication and Cognition” (1986). They reduced all Gracean theories into a single principle of relevance.,11.2 speech act theory,J. L. Austin in his work “How to Do T

11、hings with Words”(1962), an impact on linguistic philosophy and on linguistics known as speech act theory. He thought there are two types of sentences: constatives (表述句): is an utterance which asserts something that is either true or false. E.g. Chicago is in the United States. （you may answer yes,

12、it is. or no, it isnt）,While uttering the sentences, some actions are accompanied with them, such as pouring tea or water, opening a window. These kind of sentences are called as Performatives（施为句）. They can not be true or false. E.g. : 一上校对士兵说“我命令你们开火！” 这位上校在以言行事，即：发布命令。,Ss explain the performative

13、s what actions are performed,I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth. (an explicit performative) I promise to finish it in time. (an explicit performative) Thank you. (an implicit performative) I state that Im alone responsible. (an implicit performative) (naming a ship; making a promise; expressing gr

14、atitude; making a statement),performatives,I promise to be there. I admit I was foolish. I warn you, this gun is loaded. I apologize.,Ill be there. I was foolish. This gun is loaded. Im sorry.,11.2.2 theory of locutionary Act, Illocutionary Act, perlocutionary Act,As the distinction between performa

15、tives and constatives are not maintained, for all sentences can be used to do things. E.g. Thank you! A performative, but it can be done without any action, just express ones gratitude (a constative). I state that Im alone responsible for it. A typical describing verb (constative) is used here for a

16、ction (performative). So Austin gave up his first theory, but proposed a new one. To him, a sentence in uttering or doing an action has three senses(三分法): locutionary Act, Illocutionary Act, perlocutionary Act,three senses or types of act,1) the saying of something which is meaningful and can be und

17、erstood. (locutionary Act 言内行为); 2) using a sentence to perform a function, such as greeting, warning, etc. (Illocutionary Act 言外之意); 3) the result or effects that are produced by means of saying something (perlocutionary Act言后行为): the hearer may have response to your utterance.,Ss explain the three

18、 meanings of the sentence,Good morning! Bonjour! locutionary Act: Illocutionary Act: perlocutionary Act:,Understanding of the two words whom the saying is addressed to. (normally) a Greeting, an act of friendliness Effect: friendly response of “Good morning”; no response (if they two persons are in

19、bad terms，热脸贴冷屁股),Ss explain the three meanings of the sentence,Shoot the snake! locutionary Act: Illocutionary Act: perlocutionary Act:,Understanding the three words and what the snake refers to. May be intended as an order or a piece of advice. The real act of shooting at the snake.,More ex.,Jane:

20、 Youve interrupted me again! Steve: I was rude. locutionary Act: Steve uttered the words, meaning: I was ill-mannered, I refer to Steve. Illocutionary Act: Steve performed the act of apologizing to Jane for having interrupted her. perlocutionary Act: Jane accepted Steves apology.,More ex.,Give three

21、 possible perlocutions for the locution: I love coffee. 1) 2) 3),Thinking: are they describing verbs or performative verbs?,I think I was wrong. I know I was wrong. I amuse you. I flatter you. He admits he was silly. I warned you to stop. (verb in past tense) (challenged by Jean Stilwell Peccei, Pra

22、gmatics P45. Austin suggested to test the performatives by using the five classes of verbs, see textbook P446-450.),11.2.4 Searls revision: Felicity conditions; Illocutionary Act:,Felicity conditions(真值条件): What might make each of these promise infelicitous? Ti prometto di pulire la cucina. (= I pro

23、mise you that Ill clean up the kitchen) (the hearer cant understand what the speaker wants to say. The propositional content condition is not met.) I promise that Ill punch you in the nose. (usually a promise should be beneficial to the hearer. Preparatory condition is not met),Sincerity condition i

24、s not met,I promise that I started the dishwasher. (a promise should be about a future act) I promise that youll make a wonderful dessert. (a promise should be an act performed by the speaker.) I promise that Ill jump over that skyscraper if I pass my exam. (the promise is not real unless the speake

25、r is a superman),Searl proposed that the speech act could be grouped into general categories based not on performative verbs but on the relationship between the words and the world and on who is responsible for making that relationship work. He proposed five classes basic categories: Assertives断言类,

26、directives指示类, commissives承诺类, expressives表达类, declarations宣告类. (see textbook 453-455),Assertives 断言类,It equals to the Austins constatives. The class is symbolized as: B (P),哲学符号,从词语到世界的适切方向（先有事实，再用词语去描述它）,心理状态是相信（belief）,命题（proposition）,Using true or false to test the sentence.,e.g. Beijing is in C

27、hina.,Directives 指示类,This class is symbolized as: ! W,指令,适切方向是从世界到词语，即先有词语，再用行动去实现它。,表示want (wish, or desire)，真诚的希望,e.g. Open the door!,declarations宣告类,The key point of this class is to change the state or condition of the object referred. （行事要点是改变现状，如：成功的任命你为主席；成功地宣布大会开幕） Its symbol is: D ,declarat

28、ion,词语与世界一致， 适切方向是双向的。,零符号表示这一类不表达心理状态。,I declare you to be wife and husband. I declare the open of the conference.,11.3. Conversational implicature:,The second major theory in pragmatics; Proposed by Herbert Paul Grice in his “Logic and Conversation” (1967). The idea is that in daily conversation p

29、eople do not say things directly but tend to imply them.,Conversational implicature,A: Do you like my new hat? B: Its pink! (intended meaning? like or not like the hat?) A: Coffee? B: It would keep me awake all night. (intended meaning? Have or not have some coffee?),11.3. 1 cooperative principle: o

30、bservation and violation,To draw the appropriate implicature can require a considerable amount of shared knowledge between the speaker and the hearer. Paul Grice proposed that all speakers, regardless of their cultural background, adhere to a basic principle governing conversation which he termed Th

31、e cooperative principle.,Four basic maxims (P457-458),Quantity: to be informative Quality: to be truthful Relevance: to be relevant Clarity: to be clear, not obscure, or ambiguous or difficult to understand,11.3.2 Clash between observation and flouting (or violation),Suppose you were considering X f

32、or a job that needed good writing skills. You have written to his English teacher asking her to assess his performance in this area. You received the following reply: “X has regularly and punctually attended all my classes. All his assignments were handed in on time and very neatly presented. I grea

33、tly enjoyed having X in my class.” Q: does the teacher observe or flout the cooperation principle? Give reasons.,Clash,Answer: The speaker deliberately failed to observe (flout) the maxim of “to be informative”. And what she said is also not relevant and lack of clarity. But if I draw the inference

34、that X hasnt got very good writing skills, she just implied that the students writing skills are not very good, then the speaker is observing co-operative principle.,Clash,“Boys are boys.” observe or flout the cooperation principle? At superficial level, the speaker is flouting the CP by failing to

35、be informative. But at deeper level, the speaker implies that boys are naughty in nature (give the answer), he is observing the CP.,Metaphor is typically a clash between observation and flouting,Mrs. Sacher is an iron woman. Flouting CP: literally, it is a false statement, for a person cannot be an

36、iron, unless she is a robot. Observing CP: we know that a metaphor is used, meaning Mrs. Sacher has a strong character like iron.,Summary,Conversational implicature is a type of implied meaning, deduced on the basis of conventional meaning of words together with context, under the guidance of the CP

37、 and its maxims.,11.3.3 characteristics of implicature,Grice mentioned briefly some characteristics of conversational implicature as the following: Calculability (可推导性): the hearer can work out or infer the implied meaning from the context (including conventional meaning of words and referred identi

38、ty; the CP and its maxims; the fact),Cancellability (可取消性):,John has three cows. (but if we add some words:) John has three cows, if not more. John has at least three cows.,Imply: John has only three cows. Then, 2 cancels the implicature: “John has only three cows.” 2 means 3.,Non-detachability(不可分离

39、性),Conversational implicature is attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to the linguistic form, so, using a synonym can keep the implicature. If sb. Said ironically: John is a genius / a mental prodigy / an exceptionally clever human being / a big brain. They all imply: John is an idi

40、ot.,Non-conventionality (非规约性),Conversational implicature is different from the conventional meaning of words. Cf. entailment (蕴含关系): the 2nd sentence entails the first: if the 1st sentence is true, then the 2nd is true. if the 1st sentence is not true, then the 2nd is not true. I saw a boy. I saw a

41、 child. Entailment is determined, can not be decided by context. But Conversational implicature is an implied meaning, its meaning is deduced on the basis of context. (e.g. knowledge about coffee),11.4 Post-Gricean Development,The Gricean theory (Conversational implicature, CP and its maxims) played

42、 a great role in explaining the use of language, but there is also clash and redundancy among them. So linguists of post-Gricean have worked out a new theory called: relevance theory.,Relevance theory关联理论,Relevance theory was formally proposed by Dan Sperber (from Paris University) and Deirdre Wilso

43、n (London University) in their book Relevance: Communication and Cognition in 1986. The idea was started in 1975, when Deirdre Wilson published Presuppositions and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics and Dan Sperber published Rudiments de rhetorique cognitive. The first reference to the theory was made

44、by Wilson in her book co-authored with Neil Smith Modern Linguistics: the Results of Chomskys Revolution of 1979. They emphasized the crucial role played by judgements of relevance in the interpretation of utterances.,E.g. A: Wheres my chocolates? B1: Where are the snows of yesteryear? B2: The child

45、ren were in your room this morning. B3:Ive got a train to catch. B1s reply suggests that As chocolates were gone. “However, it will not convey this suggestion unless it is construed as a relevant response to A. if it is construed as irrelevant for example as the start of a poetry reading, a genuine

46、inquiry in its own right, or a rhetorical response to a quite different question then no such suggestion will arise” (Smith and Wilson 1979:175). If Bs response is 2, it will suggest that the children may have eaten his chocolates, or may know where they are. If Bs response is 3, it will suggest tha

47、t catching train is more important than anything else or the speaker does not want to answer the question.,因此，一句话的关联性可以有三种情况：有关联，表面无关联而实际有关联，确实无关联。 第一种情况有两种，直接关联和间接关联，他们(Smith and Wilson )讨论的是后者。间接关联又分为两种：说话人有意有关联，如B1，B2，和有意无关联，如B3。但是，如果B3的话是针对A的问题说的，那么，它属于“表面无关联而实际有关联”。然而，他们认为，有些话由于种种原因，确实无关联，如； B1

48、、2、3都有可能。 实际上，他们认为，正常情况下，每一句话都跟前后的话语有关联，即使是表面上看无关联。,A: Wheres my chocolates? B1: Where are the snows of yesteryear? B2: The children were in your room this morning. B3: Ive got a train to catch.,R: P+Q+Background knowledge informationP+B.K or Q+B.K,他们把关联性定义为：“如果一句话P和另一句话Q，加上背景知识，能产生它们单独加上背景知识时所不能产生的

49、新信息，那么P和Q就有关联”(see textbook, P467)(see 姜望琪当代语用学2003：111) In 1981, Wilson and Sperber published an article entitled “On Grices Theory of Conversation”. They propose for the first time that all Gricean maxims, including the CP, should be reduced to a single principle of relevance, which is defined as

50、“The speaker has done his best to be maximally relevant”. They compare one by one the maxims with their theory.,e.g. maxims of quality & relevance theory comparison,“I am ill.” when a patient say so to a doctor, he does not have adequate evidence. According to the Maxim of quality, he has violate the principle of quality.,But in the relevance theory, if the speaker is sincere, his utterance