《Conversational Implicature会话含义.ppt》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Conversational Implicature会话含义.ppt（23页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、Conversational Implicature,The Cooperative Principle Neo-Gricean pragmatics Mao Yan,The Cooperative Principle,In the process of understanding a conversation, it needs the interlocutors common sense, shared knowledge, and inferential capability. Besides, cooperation is a key principle in communicatio
2、n.,Definition,In 1967, American philosopher Grice put forward the Cooperative Principle: “Make your conversational 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” (Hu, 2001, p. 282-283). And in ord
3、er to further explain the Cooperative Principle, Grice divided it into four categories of maxims: the maximum of quantity, quality, manner and relation.,The Cooperative Principle,The maxim of quantity: 1. Make your contribution as informative as required (for the current purpose of the exchange); 2.
4、 Do not make your contribution more informative than required. The maxim of quality: 1. Do not say what you believe to be false; 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.,The Cooperative Principle,The maxim of manner: Be perspicuous, and specifically; 1. Avoid obscurity; 2. Avoid ambi
5、guity; 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity); 4. Be orderly. The maxim of relation: Make your contribution relevant.,The Generation of CI,VIOLATION OF THE 4 MAXIMS CI The four kinds of violation: 1. The speaker is unwilling to cooperate. e.g. “I dont wanna talk.” 2. Sometimes the speaker lies al
6、though s/he knows its not true (the hearer does not know). 3. The speaker confronts a kind of conflict (usually between 2Q), so s/he has to violate one principle in order to obey the other: (He Zhaoxiong, p.157) A: Where does X live? B: Somewhere in the suburbs of the city. (S/he really doest know.)
7、,The Generation of CI,The above three violation of CP cannot really evotes CI, while the next one can- 4. The speaker overtly runs against any of the four maximums, meanwhile s/he wants the hearer know that s/he violates a principle (“Flouting”): (He, p.158) A: Wheres Bill? B: Theres a yellow VW out
8、side Sues house.,The Generation of CI,The violation of CP and Meathor Grice put out that the rhetorical use of irony, metaphor, hyperbole and meiosis are all as the result of violating the quality maxim. e.g. : 1. Youve done a nice job (depend on context, intonation). 2. He is a fox. 3. Havent seen
9、you for ages.,Metaphor draws the most attention and interest among the figures of speech from scholars, since: 1. Its long history; 2. Grice: Metaphor can be treated as a special CI (from pramatics to explain metaphor), which is critisized as over simplify the issue and can only provide partial crit
10、erior for the illustration of metaphor; 3. Its complexity: the cooperation of semantics, pramatics, and psychology (the psychological basis of metaphor is to establish the assosiation of similarities of two things). e.g. : (Hu, p.165) a. We were on the same boat. b. Freud lived here.,The limitation
11、of Grice s CP,Firstly, Sperber the efficient of interation involes two factors: the quantity of delivered message, and the processed quantity of the received message. In a word: 一句话的关联性越大，要求作出的推理越少，交际的效率变越高，反之。,Secondly, CP only explains the relationship between denotation meaning and connotation me
12、aning of an utterance, but not explain why people often violate the CP to express and exchange thoughts indirectly. And Leech (1983) put forward the Politeness Principle (PP) to make up for this deficiency (the violation of CP is to obey PP). e.g. : (Hu, p.167) Parent: Someones eaten the icing off t
13、he cake. Child: It wasnt ME.,Finally, Grices theory of communication implicature puts emphasis on the study of special CI, which doesnt include general CI, thus, limiting the explanation strengths of CP. Variants: Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1995, 2004) seeks to reduce the maxims to just on
14、e, though with internal oppositions. Horn (1984, 1989, 1996) reduces the maxims to directly opposing principles governing speaker effort and hearer enrichment. Levinson (2000) reduces the maxims to three (further illustration in next part).,Although there are limitations and criticism on Grices CP,
15、it brought great repercussions once it was put forward, and until today it is still a useful pragmatic principle.,Neo-Gricean pragmatics,Levinson (1987:400) 说自己的努力， 只不过是“对古典格莱斯一般会话含义理论运用的具体解释”，并说自己提出的原则是对Grice的各项准则作了“有点新古典意味”的阐释；他称自己总结出来的语用推理模式为“新格莱斯语用机制”（1991:108）。自此以后，人们开始把Grice的合作原则的四准则称为古典格莱斯会话理
16、论，而把对Grice会话含义理论所做的种种修正的理论统称为新格莱斯会话含义理论。 -Hu, p.168,Levinsons three principles of CI,Quantity Principle Information Principle Manner Principle RULE: QMI QUESTION：The generation of CI on earth violates CP or not?,Quantity Principle,Speakers Maxim 说话人准则: Dont make your statement weak than the informat
17、ion you have know unless your statement collides with the information principle. Recipients corollary 听话人推论: To believe that the speakers statement is as strong as s/he has known.,Scalar Quantity Implicature 等级数量含义：说强含弱，说弱否定强 If, , e: word; : word meaning from strong to weak then, A(e2)A(e1), A(e3)A
18、(e2), A: sentence and, e3e2, e2e1, : deny. e.g. 1. All boys went to the party. 2. Some of the boys went to the party. 3. A: Do you love me? B: I like you very much. .,Clausal Quantity Implicatures 小句数量含义：说弱不听强 e.g.: believe SQI,Information Principle,Speakers Maxim 说话人准则: Maxim of Minimization 极小量准则:
19、 “speak as little as possible”, and only provide the least language information for achieving interational goal (pay attention to quantity principle). Semantic minimization 语义极小量：the meaning of a sentence is general and not concrete. Expression minimization 词语极小量: the length and complexity of senten
20、ce sound, e.g. he sequence.),Manner Principle,Speakers Maxim: Without reason, dont use long, obscure or marked expressions . Recipients corollary: If the speaker use long or marked expressions, s/he expresses different meaning as s/he uttered, especially, when the speaker is trying to avoid common a
21、ssosiations. e.g.: (Hu, p.178) a. John could solve the problem. (Solved) b. John had the ability to solve the problem. (Not solved),Conclusion,Similarities: the later is the evolution of the former (principles, sbjects); Differences: different emphasis Grice: special CI through the violation of CP;
22、with the help of context. Levinson: not only special CI (context needed), but also common CI (through QP & IP, no context interence). In a word, the latter is more comprehensive and with comparatively stronger explanation strengths.,Bibliography,He Zhaoxiong, 2000, A New Introduction to Pragmatics: Shang Hai Foreigh Language Press, 2001: 2rd. He Ziran, 1988, A Survey of Pragmatics: Hu Nan Education Press, 1991: 2rd. Levinson, 2001, Pragmatics: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Cambridge University Press, 2014: 10th.,THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION,