Chapter 8 Pragmatics 语用学 语言学教程 胡壮麟.ppt

1、Chapter 8 Language in Use,The Scope of Pragmatics Speech Act Theory Conversational Implicature,Speakers meaning (utterance or contextual meaning) the interpretation of a sentence depends on who the speaker is, who the hearer is, when and where it is used. In a word, it depends on the context. The di

2、scipline which concentrate on this kind of meaning is called Pragmatics.,Pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context that are grammaticalized, or encoded in the structure of a language. Pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of meaning not captured in a semantic the

3、ory. Pragmatics is the study of the ability of language users to pair sentences with the contexts in which they would be appropriate.,Pragmatics can be defined as the study of language in use. (Hu) Pragmatics can be defined as the study of how utterances have meanings in situations. (Leech),Context

4、and Meaning,What is contextual meaning? It is the meaning a linguistic item has in context, for example the meaning a word has within a particular sentence, or a sentence has in a particular paragraph. The question Do you know the meaning of war? for example, may have two different contextual meanin

5、gs: (1) it may mean Do you know the meaning of the word war ?, when said by a language teacher to a class of students. (2) it may mean War produces death, injury, and suffering, when said by an injured soldier to a politician who favors war.,The meaning of a very simple statement depends on who says

6、 it, who they are speaking to and where the two people are. Because the people are both in the situation, the meaning is clear to them it does not need to be said. E.g. The door is open. Please discuss the meaning of this sentence by listing the people and the situation involved in it.,(1) The room

7、is messy. Possible context: (a) A mild criticism of someone who should have cleaned the room. (b) In a language class where a student made a mistake, for he intended to say “tidy”. (c) The room was wanted for a meeting.,(2) I cant work under untidy circumstances. Possible contexts: (a) A request to

8、someone to tidy up the circumstances. (b) It was an excuse for not wanting to do something there. (c) It is the speakers habit.,(3) It would be good if she had a green skirt on. Possible context: (a) A mild way to express disagreement with someone who has complimented on a ladys appearance. (b) A re

9、gret that the customer had not taken the dress. (c) That she wore a red skirt was not in agreement with the custom on the occasion.,Semantics and Pragmatics,Semantics studies literal, structural or lexical meaning, while pragmatics studies non-literal, implicit, intended meaning, or speaker meaning.

10、 Semantics is context independent, decontextualized, while pragmatics is context dependent, contextualized. Semantics deals with what is said, while pragmatics deals with what is implicated or inferred.,8.1 Speech Act Theory,Consider these sentences: 1) I apologize for stepping on your toe. 2) I now

11、 pronounce you man and wife. 3) A: What a boring movie. B: You can say that again. 4) A: Marys cooking tonight. B: Better buy some stomach pills. Some utterances can do things. They are acts.,8.1.1 Performatives and constatives Austin (How to Do Things with Words, 1962) Consider these sentences: a)

12、I name this ship Elizabeth. b) I bequeath my watch to my brother. c) I now pronounce you man and wife. d) I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.,The utterance of these sentences is the doing of an action. They cannot be said to be true or false. So these sentences are called performatives. A cons

13、tative sentence is a description of what the speaker is doing at the time of speaking. It can be said to be true or false. For example, I pour some liquid into the tube. Implicit performatives Its cold here. Explicit performatives Please close the door.,Felicity conditions how to make sth. valid Aus

14、tin:Although performatives cannot be true or false, there are still conditions for them to meet to be appropriate or felicitous.,A. (i) There must be a relevant conventional procedure, and (ii) the relevant participants and circumstances must be appropriate. B. The procedure must be executed (i) cor

15、rectly and (ii) completely. C Very often, (i) the relevant people must have the requisite thoughts, feelings and intentions, and (ii) must follow it up with actions as specified.,Problems: 1. There are some cases in which one does not need a conventional procedure. For example, I give my word for it

16、 can also be used to perform the action of promising. 2. Some performative sentences presuppose the existence of something, which does not actually exist. (I bequeath my watch to my brother.),3. People must have requisite intentions, so they cannot say The cat is on the mat, but I dont believe it. A

17、ustin tried to separate performatives from constatives on grammatical and lexical criteria, but he finally found that it was almost impossible. (cf. p. 188),8.1.2 Speech Act Theory Austin later considered the problem again, i.e. in what sense to say something is to do something. In his opinion, ther

18、e are three senses in which saying something may be understood as doing something. Thus Speech Act Theory is introduced.,1. Locutionary Act 发话行为（以言指事） When we speak we move our vocal organs and produce a number of sounds, organized in a certain way and with a certain meaning. The act performed in th

19、is sense is called Locutionary Act (the act of saying, the literal meaning of the utterance). It is the act of making the sentence; it is a description (traditional grammar), for example, “Morning!” The locution is the actual form of words used by the speaker and their semantic meaning.,2. Illocutio

20、nary act 行事行为（以言行事） When we speak, we not only produce some units of language with certain meaning (locution), but also make our purpose in producing them, the way we intend them to be understood. This is the Illocutionary Act, which indicates the speakers intention. The utterances have some illocut

21、ionary forces (Austin). For example, “Morning” has the force of greeting.,“Force”, which is equivalent to speakers meaning, contextual meaning, or extra meaning, is considered different from “meaning” which means the constant, inherent side of meaning. The illocution (or illocutionary force) is what

22、 the speaker is doing by uttering those words: commanding, offering, promising, threatening, thanking, etc.,Classify each of the following utterances as interrogative, imperative or declarative. Then decide what the speaker is using the utterance to do. a) You can pass the milk. b) Why dont you pass

23、 the milk? c) Have you got the milk? d) I could see the milk. e) Get me the milk. f) Send the milk down here.,Despite the fact that e) and f) are imperatives, b) and c) are interrogatives and a) and d) are declaratives, all six utterances can be acts of requesting (milk in this case). Therefore, dif

24、ferent locutions can have the same illocutionary force.,The difference between locution and illocution can also be illustrated by the following example: Give me some cash. (Mikes utterance to Annie) Please explain it. LOCUTION: Mike uttered the words Give me some cash which can be semantically parap

25、hrased as: “Hand some money over to me”, with me referring to Mike.,ILLOCUTION: Mike performed the act of requesting Annie to give him some cash. We need to distinguish locution and illocution because different locutions can have the same illocutionary force. Similarly, the same locution can have di

26、fferent illocutionary forces depending on the context. For example, Its cold in here. The illocution could either be a request to close the window or an offer to close the window.,3. Perlocutionary act 取效行为（以言成事） It refers to the consequential effects of a locution upon the hearer. By telling somebo

27、dy something the speaker may change the opinion of the hearer on something, or mislead him, or surprise him, or induce his to do something, 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.,Take “Morning” again as a

28、n example. The speaker wants to keep friendly relations with the hearer by saying “Morning”, and this friendliness will have effects on the hearer. Cf. p. 189.,Another example to illustrate the distinction among the three acts: Its stuffy in here. 1) The Locutionary act is the saying of it with its

29、literal meaning There isnt enough fresh air in here. 2) The illocutionary act can be a request of the hearer to open the window. 3) The perlocutionary act can be the hearers opening the window or his refusal to do so. In fact, we might utter this sentence to make a statement, a request, an explanati

30、on, or for some other communicative purposes.,See another example given by Austin (1962:101-102): Shoot her! The locution is the act of saying “Shoot her” and meaning shoot by shoot and her by her. The illocution is the act of, variously, urging, advising, ordering the addressee to shoot her. But th

31、e perlocution is the act of persuading, forcing, or frightening the addressee into shooting her. (Or, it might have the perlocutionary effect of frightening her).,The literal meaning is taken care of by semantics and the effect of an utterance is subject to many factors, including social psychology,

32、 more than linguistics can cope with. So, what speech act theory is most concerned with is illocutionary acts. It attempts to account for the ways by which speakers can mean more than what they say.,It is also designed to show coherence in seemingly incoherent conversations. Consider: a. Husband: Th

33、ats the phone. b. Wife: Im in the bathroom. c. Husband: Okay.,In a) the husband is not describing something-it is a thing that needs no description to his wife. He is making a request of his wife to go and answer the phone. In b), the wife is not describing her action either- people do not usually n

34、eed to assert that they are in the bathroom. Its illocutionary acts are (i) a refusal to comply with the request and (ii) issuing a request to her husband to answer the phone instead. In c) the man accepts his wifes refusal and accepts her request, meaning All right, Ill answer it.“ This analysis sh

35、ows that this seemingly unconnected conversation is very coherent on a speech-act level (in b and c, each performs two speech acts), and that in saying things people are in fact doing things.,In linguistic communication people respond to an illocutionary act of an utterance, because it is the meanin

36、g intended by the speaker. If a teacher says, “I have run out of chalk” in the process of lecturing, the act of saying is locutionary, the act of demanding for chalk is illocutionary, and the effect the utterance brings about one of the students will go and get some chalk is perlocutionary.,In Engli

37、sh, illocutionary acts are given specific labels, such as “request, warning, promise, invitation, compliment, complaint, apology, offer, refusal, etc.” These specific labels name various speech functions. As functions may not correspond to forms, speech acts can be direct and indirect, for example:

38、Direct speech act: Close the door. Indirect speech act: Its cold in here.,Why do people often speak indirectly in social communication? 1. Different social variables: age, sex, social condition 2. Politeness: communicative strategy Indirect speech acts are related to appropriateness. Indirect speech

39、 acts are made for politeness, not vice versa. To make appropriate choices does not necessarily mean indirect speech acts.,Kinds of action i) representatives (陈述), those kinds of speech committed in various ways to the truth of a statement (state, suggest, boast, complain, claim, report, warn, etc).

40、 a. The earth is flat. b. It was a warm sunny day. c. Chomsky didnt write about music. In using a representative, the speaker makes words fit the world (of belief). Of course, the degree of commitment varies from statement to statement. The commitment is small in “I guess John has stolen the book bu

41、t very strong in “I solemnly swear that John has stolen the book.,ii) directives (命令), which are attempts by the speaker to get the addressee to do something. They express what the speaker wants. (order, command, request, beg, advise, warn, recommend, ask, etc) a. Gimme a cup of coffee. Make it blac

42、k. b. Could you lend me a pen, please? c. Dont touch that. In using a directive, the speaker attempts to make the world fit the words (via the hearer).,iii) commissives (承诺), which commit the speaker to some future course of action. They express what the speaker intends. (promise, vow, offer, undert

43、ake, contract, threaten, etc) a. Ill be back. b. Im going to get it right next time. c. We will not do that. In using a commissive, the speaker undertakes to make the world fit the words (via the speaker).,iv) expressives (表达),which express a psychological state (thank, congratulate, praise, blame,

44、forgive, pardon, etc.) a. Im really sorry! b. Congratulations! c. Oh, yes, great, mmm, ssahh! In using an expressive, the speaker makes words fit the world (of feeling).,v) declaratives (宣布), which effect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs and which tend to rely on elaborate ext

45、ra-linguistic institutions (resign, dismiss, christen, name, open, sentence, bid, declare, etc) a. Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife. b. Referee: Youre out! c. Jury Foreman: We find the defendant guilty. In using a declaration, the speaker changes the world via words.,8.2 Conversational I

46、mplicature,Speakers and listeners are generally cooperating with each other in daily conversation. 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 tryin

47、g to mislead them.,However, in real communication, the intention of the speaker is often not the literal meaning of what he or she says. The real intention implied in the words is called conversational implicature.,American philosopher Herbert Paul Grice (“Logic and Conversation”, 1975): People do n

48、ot usually say things directly but tend to imply them. For example: 1) A: Hows John getting on? B: Oh quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasnt been to prison yet. 2) A: You are very beautiful without glasses. B: Then I must be ugly with glasses.,Then how do people manage to convey

49、implicature, which is not explicitly expressed? 8.2.1 The Cooperative Principle (CP) “Make your 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.”,A. Maxim of Quantity i) Make your contribution as in

50、formative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). ii) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.,B. Maxim of Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true, specifically: i) do not say what you believe to be false; ii) do not say that for which you la

51、ck adequate evidence.,C. Maxim of Relation Be relevant. D. Maxim of Manner Be perspicuous, and specifically: i) avoid obscurity of expression. ii) avoid ambiguity. iii) be brief (avoid prolixity). iv) be orderly.,To put it very simply, the CP means that we should say what is true in a clear and rele

52、vant manner. We assume that people are normally going to provide an appropriate amount of information, and that they are telling the truth, being relevant, and trying to be as clear as they can. Speakers rarely mention these principles simply because they are assumed tacitly in verbal interactions.,

53、The CP is not used as rules for people to follow when they speak. The truth is that it is meant to describe what actually happens in conversation. (Cf. p. 192) Grices basic idea is that in communication, speakers aim to follow the CP and its maxims, and that hearers interpret utterances with these m

54、axims in mind.,According to Grice, utterance interpretation is not a matter of decoding messages, but rather involves (i) taking the meaning of the sentences together with contextual information, (ii) using inference rules, and (iii) working out what the speaker means on the basis of the assumption

55、that the utterance conforms to the maxims.,The main advantage of this approach from Grices point of view is that it provides a pragmatic explanation for a wide range of phenomena, especially for conversational implicatures-a kind of extra meaning that is not literally contained in the utterance.,Acc

56、ording to Grice, conversational implicatures can arise from either strictly and directly observing or deliberately and openly flouting the maxims, that is, speakers can produce implicatures in two ways: observance and non-observance of the maxims.,The least interesting case is when speakers directly

57、 observe the maxims so as to generate conversational implicatures. Husband: Where are the car keys? Wife: Theyre on the table in the hall.,The wife has answered clearly (Manner) and truthfully (Quality), has given just the right amount of information (Quantity) and has directly addressed her husband

58、s goal in asking the question (Relation). She has said precisely what she meant, no more and no less, and has generated her conversational implicature. In this case, there is, in essence, no distinction to be made between what is said and what is implicated.,Other examples to show “what is said” is

59、“what is implicated”: 1) Some people believe in God. (Not everyone believes in God.) 2) My jobs OK. (Im not very happy in my work.),3) John has two PhDs. (I believe he has, and have adequate evidence that he has.) 4) Smoking is hazardous to ones health. (I believe it is.) 5) When will he be coming? (I dont know, I want to know, and I think the addresses know.),However, in actual communication, it is often the case that the speaker cannot and do not observe the CP and its maxims. But the listener will assume that the speaker is observing the principles “