《语言学教程》第8章语用学.ppt

第 8 章 语用学（1）（Language in Use/Pragmatics）,8.0 语用学入门 自设8.1 Speech Act Theory 言语行为理论,8.0 语用学入门,Definitions of Pragmatics Pragmatics is the study of meaning in context.It deals with particular utterances in particular situations and is especially concerned with the various ways the social contexts of language performance can influence interpretation.In other words,pragmatics is concerned with the ways language is used to communicate rather than the way language is internally structured.（本教材的P18）,“微观语言学(microlinguistics)”与“语言”,Pragmatics is generally defined as the study of how speakers of a language use sentences to effect successful communication.As the process of communication is essentially a process of conveying and understanding meaning in a certain context,pragmatics can also be regarded as a kind of meaning study.Pragmatics is a comparatively a new branch of study in the area of linguistics;its development and establishment in the 1960s and 1970s resulted from the expansion of the study of linguistics,especially that of semantics.新编简明英语语言学教程P84,Pragmatics vs Semantics The publication of Saussures work Course in General Linguistics in the early 20th century marked the beginning of modern linguistics and at the same time laid down the key note for modern linguistics,i.e.language should be studied as a self-contained,intrinsic system;any serious study of language cannot afford to investigate the use of language and extra-linguistic factors were not to be considered.普通语言学教程的尾句：The only true object of study in linguistics is the language,considered in itself and for its own sake.,From then on,this has been the dominant tradition of linguistic study.This is the spirit in which traditional phonology studied the sounds of language,traditional syntax studied the structure of sentences,traditional semantics studied meaning.The meaning of language was considered as something intrinsic and inherent,i.e.,a property attached to language itself.Therefore,meaning of words,meaning of sentences were all studied in isolation from language use.,But gradually linguists found that it would be impossible to give an adequate description of meaning if the context of language use was left unconsidered.But once the notion of context was taken into consideration,semantics spilled over into pragmatics.What essentially distinguishes semantics and pragmatics is whether in the study of meaning the context of language use is considered.If it is not considered,the study is confined to the area of traditional semantics;if it is considered,the study is being carried out in the area of pragmatics.,“句子”与“语句”某年某月某日某时，张三说“天在下雨”；这是语句(utterance)。某年某月某日某时，李四也说“天在下雨”；这也是语句(utterance)。张三、李四各自的语句所表现出的共有的、得到普遍承认的东西是句子（sentence）。语句是句子在具体语境中的体现或运用。,Context 语境 The notion of context is essential to the pragmatic study of language.It is generally considered as constituted by the knowledge shared by the speaker and the hearer.Various components of shared knowledge have been identified,e.g.knowledge of the language they use,knowledge of what has been said before,knowledge about the world in general,knowledge about the specific situation in which linguistic communication is taking place,and knowledge about,each other.Context determines the speakers use of language and also the hearers interpretation of what is said to him.Without such knowledge,linguistic communication would not be possible,and without considering such knowledge,linguistic communication cannot be satisfactorily accounted for in a pragmatic sense.,Sentence meaning and utterance meaning句子意义与语句意义 A sentence is a grammatical concept,and the meaning of a sentence is often the abstract,intrinsic property of the sentence itself in terms of predication.But if we think of a sentence as what people actually say in the course of communication,it becomes an utterance,and it should be considered in the situation in which it is actually uttered or used.So it is possible to tell if“The dog is barking”is a sentence or an utterance.It can be either.It all depends on how we look at it and how we are going to analyze it.,If we take it as a grammatical unit and consider it as a selfcontained unit in isolation from context,then we are treating it as a sentence.If we take it as something a speaker utters in a certain situation with a certain purpose,then we are treating it as an utterance.Therefore,while the meaning of a sentence is abstract,and decontextualized,that of an utterance is concrete,and context-dependent.The meaning of an utterance is based on sentence meaning;it is the realization of the abstract meaning of a sentence in a real situation of communication,or simply in a context.,8.1 Speech Act Theory言语行为理论,言语行为理论的提出者,约翰奥斯汀（John Austin）（1911 1960）,约翰奥斯汀：英国哲学家，日常语言学派领袖，对英美哲学界和语言学界有巨大影响。他提出的“施事语句”的概念和言语行为理论是对哲学和语言学具有永久价值的原创性贡献。有国外的研究者评论“在二战以后的英国哲学界，他是唯一能和维特根斯坦的影响力相抗衡的英国哲学家；剑桥和牛津是当时世界哲学的中心”。,How to Do Things with Words By John Austin 1911 1960,背景信息,William James（18421910）,言语行为理论的学术背景,20世纪30年代盛行的逻辑实证主义哲学认为，凡不能被证明真伪的陈述都是伪陈述。受该学说影响，当时的人普遍认为，语言的功能就是陈述事实，其陈述受“真或假”这一标准的检验。例如，“她是第一个登上月球的妇女”、“在月亮的那边，有座3000米高的山”之类的陈述，在当时的逻辑实证主义者看来，都是没有意义的，因为它们均无法检验、无法证实。莱昂斯(Lyons)指出:“当时的观点认为，唯一对哲学有价值的语言功能是用来作出真假陈述的功能。”,理论的发展历程,奥斯汀的言语行为理论在如何以言行事一书中有完整的表述。他先是提出“施事语句”和“述谓语句”区分说，但是，由于“施事语句”概念本身的漏洞以及兴趣的扩展，他感到很难坚持“施事语句”和“述谓语句”之间的严格区分，转而提出一个更为一般的理论（即言语行为三分说）来处理言语行为问题。奥斯汀先后提出的这两个理论，既有联系又有重要的差异。,Performatives and Constatives 施事语句与述谓语句,1.performatives：施事(语)句The uttering of these sentences is,or is a part of,the doing of an action.2.performative verb：施事动词,1:1 起初，上帝创造天地。1:2 地还没有定形、混混沌沌，黑暗在深渊上面；上帝的灵覆煦在水面上。1:3 上帝说要有光；就有了光。1:4 上帝看光很好，上帝就把光暗分开了。1:5 上帝称光为昼，称暗为夜。有晚上有早晨是一日。1:6 上帝说众水之间要有穹苍，将水和水分开。1:7 上帝造了穹苍，将穹苍以下的水和穹苍以上的水分开就这样成了。,2012年5月8日，普京宣誓就任俄罗斯联邦总统,中美战略经济对话,3.constatives：述谓(语)句The type of utterances that are used to describe things are called constatives.4.constative verb：述谓动词,5.判断施事语句的条件：felicity conditions 妥适条件ABC,6.理论缺陷7.Austin 尝试从词汇语法角度区分施事句与述谓句8.失败9.结论,8.1.2 施事行为理论,对“说话行为”本身的三分,言内行为（Locutionary act）是指说出词、短语和分句的行为本身，是通过句法、词汇和音位来表达字面意义的行为。言外行为（Illocutionary act）是指表达说话者的意图的行为，它是在说某些话时所实施的行为。言后行为（Perlocutionary act）是指通过某些话所实施的行为，或讲某些话所导致的行为，它是语句所产生的后果或引起的变化，它是通过讲某些话所完成的行为。,根据言语行为理论，我们说话的同时也是在实施某种行为。该理论认为，说话者说话时可能同时实施三种行为：说话行为（locutionary act）施事行为（illocutionary act）取效行为（perlocutionary act）例如，A对B说：“请把那把小刀递给我”。此时，A 所做出的言语行为并不仅限于说话行为本身，即不仅仅传达字面意思，而是在说话的同时，也做出了一个表示请求的施事行为，而B在领会了A的意思后，把小刀递给A，这就完成了取效行为。,In the speech act theory proposed by John Austin in How to Do Things with Words(1962),an utterance involves not only the simple locutionary act(说话行为)of producing a grammatical sentence,but also an illocutionary force(言外之意)of effectiveness either as an affirmation or as a promise,a threat,a warning,a command,etc.The most explicit illocutionary acts(施事行为)are the performatives,which accomplish the very deed to which they refer,when uttered by authorized speakers in certain conditions:I arrest you in the name of the law;I promise to defend and uphold the constitution.,A perlocutionary act is part of a complete speech act,as viewed at the level of its psychological consequences,such as persuading,enlightening,or otherwise getting someone to do or realize something.It is contrasted with locutionary and illocutionary acts(which are other levels of description,rather than different types of speech acts).Unlike the notion of locutionary act,which describes the linguistic function of an utterance,a perlocutionary effect is in some sense external to the performance.It may be thought of,in a sense,as the effect of the illocutionary act via the locutionary act.Therefore,when examining perlocutionary acts,the effect on the hearer or reader is emphasized.,8.1 的结论,索绪尔把“语言”界定为一个封闭的、自给自足的独立结构。乔姆斯基认为，“语言能力”是理想的语言使用者所掌握的关于母语规则的潜在知识。奥斯汀研究语言的使用，把语言的使用（即“言语”）视为一种行为。奥斯汀的历史贡献在于开拓了从行为的角度研究语言使用的学术范式，是语用学的基础理论；这也是如何以言行事一书的精髓所在。,第 8 章 语用学（Language in Use/Pragmatics）,8.2 Theory of Conversational Implicature会话含义理论,请问：语用学的研究对象是什么？答：语用学研究语境中的意义，即人使用语言交际时所传达的意义，以及对这种意义的理解。请问：为什么要研究语用学？答：研究语用学除具有抽象的理论意义外，它还具有现实意义。研究语言和语言使用，标志着人类更关注自身，希冀以语言为手段研究人和社会；表明人类在更大程度上相对独立于自然；就中国而言，也表明在从相对独立分散的农业社会走向统一的现代工业社会后，中国人对自己所在的大社会在概念上进行的整合、梳理和反思，以及对自己即将面临的社会进行的预测。,本课的中心任务和知识点,1.格赖斯会话含义理论的研究对象是什么？2.合作原则的基本内涵和价值是什么？3.会话含义是怎么样产生的？4.会话含义是依据什么来推导的？,本节名为“会话含义理论”，但实际上讲述的只是其中的一部分，即格赖斯古典会话含义理论。格赖斯古典会话含义理论是整个会话含义理论的开端，后来还有Kasher(1976)的理性原则;Leech(1983)的礼貌原则;Horn(1984)的Q-原则和R-原则;Sperber Levinson(1987)的Q-原则、I-原则和M-原则。它们共同组成了会话含义理论的大框架。该理论现在还在进一步的发展中,学者背景资料,Herbert Paul Grice,was born in 1913 in England and died in 1988 in Berkeley U.S.Grice graduated from Oxford in 1935.After a year teaching in a public school,he returned to Oxford where,with a nearly five year interruption for service in the Royal Navy,he taught in various positions until 1967 when he moved to the University of California-Berkeley.He taught there past his official 1979 retirement until his death in 1988.He was philosophically active until his death holding discussions at his home,giving lectures and editing a collection of his work that was posthumously published as Studies in the Way of Words.,He is best known for his innovative work in philosophy of language,but also made important contributions to metaphysics,ethics and to the study of Aristotle and Kant.His work has also been influential outside of philosophy of language and artificial intelligence.Although relatively little work was published during his life,he had a very wide influence via lectures and unpublished manuscripts.,The best known of these were the William James Lectures which he gave at Harvard in early 1967 and which circulated widely in unauthorized manuscript form until they were published as part of Studies in the Way of Words.He also played cricket,chess and piano,each at a very high level of accomplishment.,理论发展的基本脉络或框架,1.noticed that in daily conversations people do not usually say things directly but tend to imply them.2.Grices theory of conversational implicature is meant to explore the question how people manage to convey and understand implicature 会话含义 in conversations,which is not explicitly expressed.3.He argued that P.177之第二段,Grice发现,人们言语交际时的会话存在某种规律性。“会话不是由一系列不相关的语句构成；至少在一定程度上属于双方的合作行为;会话双方至少在一定程度上认识到存在一个或一组共同目标或方向,而且这个目标或方向是确定的。”在这个大前提下,合作具有规约性、规定性和强制性,因为它是会话双方的共同出发点和达到最终目标所不可缺少的最基本因素。,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.中文译文：使你所说的话，在其所发生的阶段，符合你所参与的交谈的公认目标或方向。注解：只有在遵守合作原则的前提下，才可能有对具体准则的违背，才会有会话含义产生的可能,讲解与说明,合作原则是格赖斯古典会话含义理论的一部分，而该理论是研究人际会话时如何产生和理解会话含义的，所以合作原则的适用范围是有含义的会话。在绝少产生或不能产生会话含义的语用领域讨论合作原则是不合适的。注：不可以夸大合作原则的适用范围，合作原则不是“老实交代”，不是“乖乖听话”，也不是“勉强自己，配合他人”。不可以将这里的“合作”理解为现实世界中的合作、配合、听话、顺从。,合作原则的四条准则,数量准则1.所说的话应该满足当前交际所需的信息量。2.所说的话不应超出当前交际所需的信息量。质量准则：要尽可能说真话。1.不要说自知是虚假的话。2.不要说缺乏足够证据的话。关联准则说的话要与主题有关联。方式准则避免表达晦涩;避免歧义;简炼(避免罗嗦);要有条理。,讲 解,会话准则是“听话人对说话人的语句所做的理想化假设，是听话人进行语用推理的起点”，其作用是“帮助听话人找出会话含义”。必须指出，Grice 的理论试图解释的是听话者如何从听到的话(what is said)中悟出其隐含的含义(what was meant)。,Grice 关注的是最一般情况下,人们进行言语交际时的行为规约。虽然在会话中,双方确实有“不合作”的行为,例如，说话时违背事实(违反质量准则)、隐瞒有关信息(违反数量准则)、使用晦涩词语(违反方式准则)、故意误导听话人,等等。但是，他们之间只要有一个共同目标使会话能够进行下去，那么这种“不合作”就仅仅是表面上的。而一旦缺少合作这一基本前提,就不是Grice 所说的最一般的情况。真正的不合作不可能产生有含义的会话,只会导致交际失败。产生交流障碍和导致交际失败的例子虽不少见,但它们没有会话含义可言,也不是Grice 在构建合作原则理论时所考虑的那种情况。,必要说明（P178第二段的前四句）1.合作原则本身并不是规定性的，不是广义上必须遵守的。2.合作原则的本义是描写会话的过程，即人们言语交际时，总是有意或无意地受到合作原则的引导。3.这里所描述的是理想世界中的人际会话。,Grice提出的会话准则,只是他提出的合作原则的特殊体现。语用学界有不少人把Grice 的合作原则等同于会话准则,其实这是一种误解,因为他们混淆了这两部分的性质。合作原则是普遍的抽象原则,准则及其次准则是实现该原则程度的具体内容。无论遵循或违反什么准则,仅仅是体现合作原则的不同表现形式而已。人们在遵循合作原则的前提下，可以违反任何一个准则(以产生言外之意)而不会影响成功交流,因为准则之间有不一致性:说话人遵循某一个准则的同时,势必与别的某个或某些准则相冲突。,这说明,要进行成功的言语交流，讲话人对合作原则是没有选择的,而对准则是有选择的。如果会话不能按照双方期待的方式进行下去,听话人只有依照默认存在的合作原则才能推测出表面话语之外的深层含义即会话含义。,合作原则本身的问题,(1)Grice虽然暗示了合作原则与具体准则之间的不同,但是他并没有明确区分合作原则与具体准则,仅仅把合作原则作为一个整体来讨论会话含义。因此，合作原则与具体准则之间的模糊界限，导致不少学者认为具体准则就是合作原则。这样就看不到合作原则与具体准则之间既相互联系又相互对立的特性,也就无法看到它们的性质和作用。,(2)Grice没有阐述各自的具体性质,即合作原则的规定性和具体准则的描述性。因此，不少人才会认为Grice 的理论不存在约束性,而且在解释会话过程和产生会话含义的根源上存在着重大缺陷。(3)Grice 研究的是标准类型的会话行为，不仅揭示了人们有时会主动遵循的准则,更揭示了人们不得不遵循的某种原则即合作原则,但他在解释时忽略了原则和准则的不同性质,而且在提出准则时使用的全是祈使句式。这难免会使人产生误解，并提出有根有据的反对意见,如“在现实生活中人们并不总是这样说话的”,等等。,引 申按照Grice 的构想,可以通过具体的会话准则揭示出会话双方实现合作这一总原则的方式,描述具体的会话过程，并解释其中的会话含义。语言的使用,是使用语言的人从深层结构到表层结构的转换(Chomsky,1965)或从语言潜势到词汇语法体现(Halliday,1978)的过程。使用什么样的表层结构/词汇语法手段来表达深层结构/语义潜势,或用什么样的词汇语法结构来实现交际功能,完全是使用者从大量的语言资源中做出选择的结果。,遵循或违反准则以及遵循什么准则而牺牲什么准则,都是出于说话人的不同选择,是由他/她的语言能力、交际能力、具体语境以及一系列社会文化语境决定的。无论违反会话准则与否，以及遵循什么准则而牺牲什么准则，都只是体现合作原则的方式。也就是说，违反准则并不意味着不恪守交际过程中普遍的合作原则。,注：Grice 的合作原则和会话准则不同于法律和道德范畴的准则,它对人的具体会话行为本身不具有明确的强制性。法律具有强制性,如果违反，就会受到惩罚。虽然社会准则和规约不同于法律,违反社会准则的人不会受到惩罚,但是如果有人违反这些准则和规约,他就会受到其他社会成员的规劝、训诫、奚落和嘲笑,甚至被疏远等。从一定意义上讲,这种规劝、训诫、奚落、嘲笑和疏远,对违反社会规约的人也是惩罚,只不过与违法所受到的惩罚在程度上有所不同而已。,Grice 会话含义理论中的合作原则是深入揭示人类言语交际的本质的科学方法论,而不是强制约束人们交际行为的社会准则。Grice 研究的是一般意义上的语言使用即言语行为这种社会事实(social fact)。,8.2.2 对上述准则的违反,特别说明P178的最下一段尽管使用了“原则”和“准则”这样的术语，但不意味所有人必须每时每刻都会遵守这条原则及其准则。格赖斯认为，会话含义只能依据合作原则来推导。格赖斯认为，谎言并不产生严格意义上的会话含义；他所研究的是那些公然地，明显地违反会话准则的言语行为。,格赖斯把故意违反“合作原则”实则是违反其具体准则而产生的言外之意称为“会话含义”conversational implicature。会话含义理论解释的是听话人如何透过说话人话语的表面含义来理解其言外之意；换言之，会话含义理论解释了人们日常言语交际时会话含义产生和理解的基本规律。,阶段总结,格赖斯古典会话含义理论的意义在于合作原则及其准则的普遍性和概括性。原则具有隐含性、强制性和规定性,是有效交际所必不可少的。而准则具有选择性和描述性,不具备同等程度的强制性和规定性。前者是抽象的,后者是具体的。如果说话者之间有特定的交际目的而且他们之间有默认的合作存在,那么他们会话时违反某个准则的目的,总是为了突出遵循另一个准则。,8.2.3 会话含义的特征,1.CALCULABILITY 可推导性J.Sadock在讨论会话含义的“可推导性”特性时，强调会话含义是听话人根据常规意义和语境推导出来的。2.CANCELLABILITY 可废除性/可撤销性3.NON-DETACHABILITY 不可分离性4.NON-CONVENTIONALITY 非规约性,总 结,Conversational implicature may be summarized as a type of implied meaning,which is deduced on the basis of the conventional meaning of words used together with the context,under the guidance of the CP and its maxims.In this sense,implicature is comparable to illocutionary force in speech act theory in that they are both concerned with the contextual meaning,or 言外之意 in Chinese.And these two theories differ only in mechanisms they offer for explaining the generation of contextual meaning.,再度引申,20世纪的西方社会科学和自然科学研究大都致力于明晰化(explicitness),因为明晰化是形式化和客观化的科学研究的重要条件。西方科学家历来重视在场(presence)与不在场(absence)之间的关系,这种关系也是理想化的虚拟世界与现实世界的关系。,在理想化的虚拟世界里，科学家在特定条件下假设的因素是不变的常量；而在与之相对的现实世界中,各种因素都是不稳定的变量。任何科学如果以无数的变量为研究对象,那么世界上有多少个变量,就会有多少个规律和定理。很显然，这样的规律和定理不能体现科学研究应有的普遍性、概括性、系统性和经济性原则。因此，任何科学研究都不能忽视现实世界与虚拟世界之间的关系。,正是根据从现实世界中的具体事实出发来研究虚拟世界中的一般规律即通过在场研究不在场这个哲学方法论,Saussure 区分了抽象、稳定、统一的语言(langue)与具体、多变、异质的言语(parole)；他通过研究言语来研究语言。这个哲学方法也是布拉格学派Trubetzkoy 区分音素和音位，并建立音位理论的基础;也是Chomsky区分语言运用(performance)和语言能力(competence)的方法论基础，Chomsky通过语言运用来研究语言能力。,虽然Grice 的理论中没有提出类似的区分,也没有明确指出自己提出的理论只是适用于理想世界的哲学和社会学方法论,但是不言而喻,他把现实世界中千变万化的具体事实纳入一个抽象的、相对稳定的理想世界后,提出了一整套具有高度概括性的指导性理论框架。,虽然Grice 的理论有不够完善的地方，但是他的理论框架对研究人际之间的言语交流的本质有很大的指导意义。Grice 未能揭示出人际之间言语交流的原则到底是什么,但是他提出的合作原则是有普遍意义的、在深层次上起作用的东西。,到此结束谢谢,