解读听力理解中的会话含意（英文）.doc

Interpretations of Conversational Implicature in Listening Comprehension解读听力理解中的会话含意Abstract: China today is demanding her college graduates with full competence of English. The ability to understand what is being said to is one of the main requirements for college students. So in College English listening comprehension classroom, it is vital important to develop the students competence to understand the meaning of what is being said when exposed to a short conversation, and then can they take a further actionto make a choice, filling the blanks, or answer the questions. A lot of times the conversation is straightforward and direct so you can judge what is being said through the literal meaning, that is, the original meaning of the words. However there are cases that it seems the conversation is not quite to the norm and indirect so you cannot make the right judgment if you only take it for granted from its literal meaning. So for the listeners in listening comprehension classroom, it is most important that they should be aware the two speakers in a conversation is observing one common principlethe Cooperative Principle (CP), which generates the meaning of the whole conversation: sometimes obvious and direct; sometimes implied and expressed in a round-about way. The latter is what we called the conversational implicature, and it is the focus to student listeners in inferring the real meaning from a conversation.This paper first examines Grices Cooperative Principle and the evoking of conversational implicatures, then goes into the probe of conversational implicature interpretations in College English listening comprehension classroom: the model of interpretation, the model of formal instruction and the possibilities to enhance the students listening comprehension competence. The author tries to illustrate that at present classroom instruction of College English, it is necessary for the teacher to focus on the culture teaching and the well-chosen pedagogies for a better outcome in the listening comprehension class, which will enhance the development of students overall English competence. Key words: the Cooperative Principle interpretations of conversational implicature listening comprehensionTABLE OF CONTENTI. Introduction. 1II. Cooperative Principle and the conversational implicature. 21. Cooperative Principle . 22. Sentence-meaning and speaker-meaning63. Conversation implicature. 9III. Listening comprehension.1. A definition of listening comprehension. .2. Parsing-understanding the syntactic structure of sentences 3. Comprehension. .3.1 Prior knowledge. .3.3 Construction-integration model of comprehension 4. Factors affecting second language listening  comprehensionIV. Developing the competence of implicature interpretation in listening comprehension classroom. .1. The classification of conversation that involves conversational implicature in listening comprehension. .2. What type do the students find easy or difficult to interpret the implicature?3. Culture and the interpretation of implicature . V. Developing the competence of implicature interpretation through the instruction in classroom. 1. The processes of L2 listening and listening comprehension. 2. The pedagogic approach to the development of the competence of the implicature acquirement in second language listening comprehension. 2.1 What constitutes the development of L2 listening comprehension? 2.2 A consensus approach to the development of L2 listening comprehension. 2.3. Input for L2 listening comprehension 3. What should be considered when selecting listening techniques and activities in interpretation of conversational implicatures? VI. Classroom procedures.1. Pre-listeningthe preparation stage of the teaching of listening in interpretation of conversational implicatures.2. While-listeningthe key stage of the teaching of listening3. Post-listeningan indispensable part of the teaching of listening4. Teachers position in the teaching of listening in interpretation of conversational implicatures. VII. Conclusion.References. 16Appendix. 20I. Introduction China today is demanding her college graduates with full competence of English. The ability to understand what is being said to is one of the main requirements for college students, which is vividly demonstrated in CET-4 & CET-6 listening comprehension part. So in College English listening comprehension classroom, it is vital important to develop the students competence to understand the meaning of what is being said when exposed to a short conversation, and then can they take a further actionto make a choice, filling the blanks, or answer the questions. A lot of times the conversation is straightforward and direct so you can judge what is being said through the literal meaning, that is, the original meaning of the words. However there are cases that it seems the conversation is not quite to the norm and indirect so you cannot make the right judgment if you only take it for granted from its literal meaning. The following two examples will illustrate the points:(1) A: Can you tell me what time is it now?B: Its nine.(2) A: Can you tell me the time?B: Well, the milkman has come. In conversation (1) B gives the direct and relevant answer to As question, and the listener is easy to infer the meaning: they are talking about time, and now its nine oclock. In the case of conversation (2), the two speakers are also talking about time, but B doesnt give the direct answer to As question instead by suggesting another topic. It seems quite irrelevant in the surface structure level as far as the question-answer content is concerned. If we believe that the two people in the conversation are rational and that their conversation is meaningful, we would hold the supposition that the answer must be relevant to the question and we will probe further to interpret more than the literal meaning of the sentence by applying the other way round. Suppose the milkman usually comes at nine oclock in the morning, the sentence “the milkman has come “ means most probably that the time for now is already nine oclock in the morning. So for the listeners in listening comprehension classroom, it is most important that they should be aware the two speakers in a conversation is observing one common principlethe Cooperative Principle (CP), which generates the meaning of the whole conversation: sometimes obvious and direct; sometimes implied and expressed in a round-about way. The latter is what we called the conversational implicature, and it is the focus to student listeners in inferring the real meaning from a conversation. II. Cooperative Principle and the conversational implicature1. Cooperative Principle In 1975, the philosopher of language H.P.Grice (1975) published a seminal article entitled "The Co-operative Principle" that created quite a stir on the linguistic scene and generated a large number of linguistic publications that built on Grice's postulates. The basic assumption is that any discourse, whether written or spoken, is a joint effort. Both the speaker and the addressee have to follow certain pragmatic, syntactic, and semantic rules in order to communicate effectively. They have to co-operate. Grice's Co-operative Principle consists of several maxims that appear very simple, straightforward, and common-sensical at first sight. Grice (1975) observed that conversations, like other human interactions, are governed by a cooperative principle, telling that you should "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". This implies, i.e., that you need not and should not supply information which you can assume that your audience already has - just as suggested by the principles of necessity and sufficiency. From his cooperative principle, Grice derived a set of maxims concerning what should be said in a conversation and how it should be said. WHAT SHOULD BE SAID N1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).N2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.Q1. Do not say what you believe to be false.Q2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.R1. Be relevant HOW IT SHOULD BE SAID M1. Avoid obscurity of expression.M2. Avoid ambiguity.M3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).M4. Be orderly. Abbreviations: N quantity, Q quality, R relation, M manner.Lets examine the maxims carefully.Quality: "Be Informative"This maxim means that the speaker/writer has to include all the information that the addressee requires to understand. If the speaker leaves out a crucial piece of information, the addressee will not understand what the speaker is trying to say. But it is not necessary for the speaker/writer to provide the information that is not necessary or required.Quantity: "Be Brief"The meaning of this maxim is that the speaker/writer should avoid including unnecessary, redundant information in his contribution. If the speaker rambles on without saying anything new or informative, the addressee will lose interest in the discourse very quickly and stop paying attention. The two maxims "Be Informative" and "Be Brief" are in a natural state of tension with each other. Maximum informativeness automatically includes a certain amount of repetition and redundance. Maximum brevity entails leaving out information that some addressees may find important while others would consider it superfluous. Erring on the side of informativeness means that every addressee will be able to understand the message, but many of the more intelligent or more knowledgeable ones will get bored with it, because the discourse does not move fast enough. Boredom almost always leads to inattentiveness. Erring on the side of brevity, on the other hand, comes with the price that some addressees will not understand the content of the communication. Not understanding the discourse makes the addressee feel left out. It leads to frustration, and frustration often leads to inattentiveness as well. Every discourse is a balancing act between the two extremes. The speaker has to ask himself: "How much information do I have to include so that my addressee understands what I am trying to say? How little information can I get away with, without losing my addressee?" The tension between the two opposite demands can be subsumed under linguistic economy. It exists on many different levels, syntactic, phonetic, pragmatic, and semantic. It is one of the driving forces behind linguistic change. Consciously or unconsciously, it is also a driving force behind our personal evolution as riders. We all strive to become more effective with our seat and aids - and effectiveness is nothing other than finding the perfect balance between informativeness and brevity, as well as lightness, in our aids. The rider always has to ask himself questions like: "How little leg can I get away with, before the horse loses impulsion? How light can my rein contact be, before the cycle of energy is interrupted and the horse falls apart? How small can my aid be for the next movement or transition?" "Be Relevant"Relevance is an extremely important principle in linguistics, and entire books have been written just on the role of relevance in language. In the context of H.P.Grice's Co-operative principle, the demand for relevance simply means that the speaker/writer should only include information in his communication that is relevant to the discourse topic. On our Classical dressage discussion list we had numerous examples in the past where people posted things that were not relevant in the narrower sense of the word to the training of a dressage horse in the classical tradition. It is interesting to observe that the perceptions of what is relevant and what is irrelevant diverges among people. This shows that relevance is a matter of degree, not something absolute. In linguistics that is quite typical. Hardly anything is set in stone, almost everything is a matter of degree or statistical frequency. The same thing applies to riding as well. Based on the circumstances of the individual situation, the specific application of the general principles can vary significantly. "Be Truthful"The applicability of truthfulness to riding may not be immediately obvious. In linguistic terms the maxim of truthfulness refers to the importance of only making statements we believe to be true. The reason is that if we get caught making false statements we lose our credibility, which is one of the most important social assets a person can have. Obviously, in real life this maxim is often violated in order to deceive the addressee. In less serious contexts, it can be violated in an obvious manner when the speaker tells a joke or teases the addressee. Manner: "Be Polite" Truthfulness and politeness are of philosophical and moral rather than grammatical significance in linguistics. The demand for politeness simply means that we should treat other people as we would like to be treated - verbally and otherwise. In an equestrian context, we could substitute "Be Polite" with "Be Kind". As riders we should always strive to achieve our goals with as much kindness and consideration for the horse as possible - without pampering the horse on the other hand. In situations that warrant a reprimand, we should always maintain the attitude towards the horse that: "I'm your friend, but you can't be rude to me." Everything we do should be guided by genuine affection for the individual horse we are riding, not just by the idea of loving the species equus. Continuing this train of thought, kindness also implies that we will not exploit a horse to gain personal fame or fortune, that we will not ask anything of the horse that he is unable to fulfill without incurring physical or psychological damage. In other words, the well-being of the horse has to outweigh any other consideration.2. Sentence-meaning and speaker-meaningIn general terms, Grice can be grouped with Austin, Searle, and the later Wittgenstein as “theorists of communication-intention” (Miller 1998:223, Strawson 1971:172). The belief of this group is that intention/speaker-meaning is the central concept in communication, and that sentence-meaning can be explained (at least in part) in terms of it. This is in contrast to the truth-conditional th