《语用学新透视（英文）.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《语用学新透视（英文）.doc（20页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、New Perspectives of Pragmatics语用学新透视Shaozhong LiuCollege of Foreign Studies, Guangxi Normal UniversityAbstract: Redefines pragmatics, outlines the timeline of its development, scope of study, presents some big names in the discipline, discusses possible topics for course projects or degree papers, a
2、nd prescribes reading packages to help the readers capture the basics and status quo of the field.Keywords: new perspectives, pragmatics, status quo1. What is pragmatics? Pragmatics is a relatively late comer in linguistics. It enters the linguistic scene at the end of the 1970s. However, to many pe
3、ople, this is a rather new area. As a point of departure, this section gives a briefing of the new discipline and discusses some of the topics of general concerns. 1.1 A new branch of linguistics? Is pragmatics a new branch of linguistics? The answer is both “yes” and “no”.“Yes”, because to some peo
4、ple, the term pragmatics is a branch of linguistics, and like many other branches of linguistics, the term becomes increasingly popular through researchers explorations of linguistic facts. Thats why some linguistics books include it as a separate and growing discipline under the umbrella term lingu
5、istics.“No”, because to some other people, pragmatics involves social as well as individual norms in language production and comprehension. In other words, social, cultural and psychological factors play important roles in language use. Since pragmatics is related to multi-dimensions or plural disci
6、plines, it is better seen as an interdisciplinary study of language in use. “No”, also because some other linguists think otherwise. For Verschueren, for instance, pragmatics, as well as linguistics, is but a perspective into language use. To him, language use, seen either from the speaker or hearer
7、s point of view, is simply an adaptation. An adaptation to topics, interlocutors, situations, purposes, in one word, to contexts. Hence, pragmatics is a theory or perspective of linguistic adaptation.Hence if we take the above three views as three separate sets, then the second set is very much like
8、 an intersection of sets. In this way, it is both adequate and inadequate in saying that pragmatics is a branch or new branch of linguistics. 1.2 Study of meaning?Can we say that pragmatics is a study of meaning? Again, the answer can be “yes” and “no”, because it is not accurate to merely regard th
9、e new discipline as a study of meaning. The true thing about pragmatics is that it does look at meaning; however, this is only one part of the story. Semantics, which is defined as the branch of linguistics that studies meaning, cares for meaning, too. In this way, it seems rather confusing. What, t
10、hen, is the relationship, sameness or difference, between pragmatics and semantics? To make things easier, for the present sake, lets explain it this way: pragmatics caters for a special part or aspect of meaning that semantics overlooks or fails to handle. For detailed explanations about the differ
11、ence between the two concepts, please refer to the section below. 1.3 Semantics, grammar, pragmatics and syntax: Division of workSince pragmatics is a part of linguistics, then in what way or ways is it related to semantics, grammar, and syntax, three other branches of linguistics? We can say that t
12、hough the four are related in the sense that each deals with one aspect of linguistics and they together contribute to the overall picture of linguistics, yet they are different from one another. This is best seen from the division of work between the four. Grammar is a branch of linguistics that co
13、ncerns with the forms of language. To be exact, it is interested in finding out how words, phrases, clauses, sentences, etc are formed in line with specific rules. Accordingly, grammarians are rigid, particular about and sensitive in the forms of peoples language, and correctness is the very criteri
14、on in judging language use.Syntax is that branch of linguistics that also studies the forms of language. However, it specifically deals with the formal relationship between linguistic signs or, to be precise, it is interested in examining into how words, phrases, clauses, and sentences are related t
15、o one another.As another subbranch of linguistics, semantics studies the meanings of linguistic signs. However, it focuses on how linguistic signs are conventionally meant or related with the external world. In other words, it tries to spell out those natural, static or stable meanings of words and
16、sentences. The meanings of words in dictionaries, for instance, are semantic meanings or the outcomes of semantic explorations of words.Also a subbranch of linguistics, and a subbranch of linguistics that deals with how language users mean by different signs in different speech events or contexts, p
17、ragmatics is concerned about those dynamic or contextual or non-conventional meanings of words and sentences articulated by language users. Thus, instead of looking at how language users observe linguistic rules, and correctly say things, which are the total contents of grammar, pragmatics aims at f
18、inding out those principles that govern peoples speech and how these principles help guarantee them in using language in a proper or appropriate way. And deviant from syntax, which only cares for the sign-to-sign relations, pragmatics always involves three sides or includes a three-side relation, th
19、e sign (word), the thing the sign refers to (meaning), and the person who is to interpret the sign. As for the difference between semantics and pragmatics, a working way to set the two apart is to say that “pragmatics studies meaning minus semantics” (Gazdar, 1979; Leech, 1983). In other words, prag
20、matics caters for all those meanings that are overlooked by established ways of semantic studies.A very good example to illustrate the discrepancies between the four terms is “This is a book.” Grammarians would say that “this” is a demonstrative pronoun, “is” being derived from “be”, a singular form
21、 to match the subject “this”, “a” an indefinite article to appear in front of a noun for the first time, and “book” a singular noun form. Any violation of these rules would be considered as making errors. Syntacticians would describe “this” as the subject in the sentence, “is” the linking verb to br
22、ing out “a book” which together makes the predicate of the sentence. And in syntax, this sentence might also be taken as bearing both a pronominal phrase “this”, and a verbal phrase “is a book” in which there contains a noun phrase “a book”. Semanticists might consider this sentence as meaning: As f
23、ar as we can see, the speaker is referring us by “this” to something near or within the view for “a book” which is not a desk, or a dictionary, or a magazine, etc. In other words, it is just a book as we see or read every day. However, when “This is a book” comes to the hands of pragmaticians, it is
24、 immediately associated with the “who when where and what is meant for by the speaker” issue. To put it another way, uttered by different speakers at different times to different persons, the sentence might mean something entirely irrelevant to the meaning as is literally understood by semanticists.
25、 For instance, the sentence might mean: “This is a book. It is even obvious to a child, you idiot!” (hence a blame), or “This is a book” (an alerter) if spoken to a blind man, or “This is a wonderful gift” (an ejaculation) as is articulated at ones birthday party, etc. 1.4 What on earth is pragmatic
26、s? There are more than a dozen of definitions about pragmatics, because this field of linguistics has been so charming and appealing to so many people that each one of them seems to claim an interest in it and define it from his own perspective.Here are some very often cited definitions in literatur
27、e. We will try to share with you how each definition strikes us, and eventually we will provide our own definition.(1) Pragmatics studies the factors that govern our choice of language in social interaction and the effects of our choice on others. (Crystal, 1987:120)This definition emphasizes the ab
28、solute roles that context and language users (speaker and hear) play. The former is instrumental in framing language users choices of linguistic means for optimal communication outcomes, while the later are solely responsible for the awareness of context or speech environment in which they are to pe
29、rform certain functions via language or fulfill specific objectives by utilizing available linguistic means within their capability. (2) Pragmatics can be usefully defined as the study of how utterances have meanings in situations. (Leech, 1983:X)In a way, through this definition, Leech is clearing
30、up the differences between semantics, syntax, and pragmatics. What he is trying to say here is like this: Sentences are for syntax, while utterances for pragmatics; sentence meanings free from situations are for semantics, while utterance meanings bound with situations are for pragmatics.(3) Pragmat
31、ics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said. (Yule, 1996:3)For George Yule, pragmatics belongs to that part of linguistics that tries to probe into those meanings over-loaded or beyond what is literally conveyed in concrete speech events and situations. In other words, it is often th
32、e case that language users are inclined to mean something more by his speech, and as to what is exactly meant by this oversaid or communicated message, it is the job of pragmatics to figure out. Apparently, Yule is directing us to the conversational analysis of meanings, a tradition of meaning study
33、 initiated in the 1950s.(4) Pragmatics is a perspective of linguistic adaptation. (Verschueren, 1987)To the General Secretary of IPrA (International Pragmatics Association), pragmatics is nothing more than an epistemological perspective or theoretical framework, such as linguistics, of human cogniti
34、on. What is more, people are seen as adapting themselves by way of or in terms of language or linguistic means towards things. (5) There is a distinction between a hearers knowledge of her language and her knowledge of the world. In this section, I shall argue that it is this distinction that underl
35、ies the distinction between semantics and pragmatics. (Blakemore, 1992:39)To Diane Blakemore, both semantics and pragmatics are related with language and to each other. However, each deals with one aspect of language. While the former is restricted to the language proper itself, the latter is pertai
36、ning to the world knowledge associated with language.(6) 语用学是语言学的一个崭新的领域，它研究在特定情景中的特定话语，研究如何通过语境来理解和使用语言。语用学是理解语言、使用语言的学问；语用学是讲究语言合适、得体的学问。 （何自然，1997：18）(7)语用学研究在不同语境中话语意义的恰当地表达和准确地理解，寻找并确立使话语意义得以恰当地表达和理解的基本原则和准则。 （索振羽，2000：14）Both (6) and (7) meticulously choose those few key words that capture the
37、 important aspects of pragmatics. “特定情景”, “特定话语” in (6), and “不同语境” in (7) emphasize the contextual element or nature of pragmatics. Besides, “理解和使用语言”, “恰当地表达和准确地理解”, “原则和准则”, etc. are all terms patent to pragmatics.There are many other definitions of the word. One may not fail to see that research
38、ers all start from their own perspectives in defining the word, and in this way, no one seems to agree totally with the others definition.To us, pragmatics should be defined by taking into consideration a few dimensions in order to illustrate both the features and functions of the word. Hence our de
39、finition:As a word, pragmatics is synonymous with “being practical”, and as a term, it is epistemologically synonymous with pragmatism; and as a subfield of linguistics developed in the late 1970s, pragmatics studies how people comprehend and produce a communicative act or speech act in a concrete s
40、peech situation which is usually a conversation. In this way what is really meant by saying that pragmatics is a new branch of learning that studies language use is that pragmatics came into being as a separate branch of learning in 1977; by branch we mean a perspective, and by language use, we mean
41、 the production and comprehension of language. (Liu, 2000:382)Careful readers might notice that we have tried to maintain a neutral position in this definition and would like to recommend this definition to our students.1.5 Pragmatics and job opportunitiesWhy do we bother to know pragmatics? Practic
42、al minds might be asking about the uses of learning pragmatics. We must say that there are many ways to answer this question. One way is to relate it to job opportunities.As far as our knowledge goes, people who are trained with pragmatics are finding more positions related to teaching, research, ed
43、iting, advertising, forensics, trade, negotiation, corpus analysis, computer programming, among other things. Indeed, it is related to any work with a touch of language. 2. Timeline of pragmaticsAs a word, pragmatics appeared 2000 years ago. Back there, it was spelt as pragmaticus in Greek) and prag
44、maticos in Latin.As a term, it was initially employed by Charles William Morris. In 1938, this American professor of philosophy published an article entitled The Foundations of the Theory of Signs. This is often referred to as the modern use of the word pragmatics.There have been several boosters to
45、 elevate pragmatics towards an independent discipline. These includes, among other things, John Austins William James Lectures at Harvard University in 1955. In 1962, his lectures sheets were collected and reprinted as a pamphlet entitled How to Do Things with Words. John Searle, professor of philos
46、ophy at the University of California at Berkeley, continued Austins discussion and published Speech Acts (1969) and Indirect Speech Acts (1975). Henry Paul Grice who gave a serial of speeches at the William James Lectures at Harvard University in 1967 about “Logic and Conversation” (which appeared i
47、n 1975) was also one of the pioneers that help boost the development of pragmatics. Pragmatics was established as an independent discipline with the publishing of the Journal of Pragmatics co-edited by Hartmut Haberland and Jacob L. Mey in 1977.Afterward reinforcers or events that helped to strengthen pragmatics as a branch of linguistics include: Stephen Levinsons Pragmatics (1983); Geoffrey Leechs Principles of Pragmatics (1983); the publishing of the International Pragmatics Associations