论文部分内容阅读
摘 要：Some theories about conversational implicature and indirect speech acts will turn up in the paper. And based on the basic information of conversational implicature and indirect speech acts, several views on the conversational implicature and indirect speech acts will be put forward.
关键词：conversational implicature；indirect speech acts；relevance theory
中图分类号：H31 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1009-0118（2011）04-0239-01
1.Introduction
What people implied rather than spoke out directly was named as “implicature” or “conversational implicature” by Grice. And the indirect speech act theory was used to account for this multiplicity of possible meanings, which was defined as “cases in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another” by Searle.
2.Two viewpoints on conversational implicature and indirect speech acts
According to my understanding, indirect speech acts can be regarded as practice while conversational implicature is among theories. Practice needs supporting by theories, and the aim of studying theories is to direct our practice. The following part is about several views on the two concepts and their connection.
2.1Particularized conversational implicature and nonco
-nventional indirect speech acts should deserve more attention.
Conversational implicature has two types: one is generalized conversational implicature and the other is particularized conversational implicature. Generalized conversational implicature is always obeying the cooperative principle while particularized conversational implicature is realized by breaking the co-operative principle. When we find one conversation which does not conform to the co-operative principle, we have to think what the speaker’s real intention is. And because of all kinds of causes, the happening frequency of particularized conversational implicature is much higher than that of generalized conversational implicature. Above all, we should pay more attention to the particularized conversational implicature.
Based on my understanding,it is the realization of non-conventional indirect speech acts that generates the particularized conversational implicature. Therefore,many questions are worthwhile thinking over, such as “why does the speaker use non-conventional indirect speech acts instead of direct speech acts?”,“what theories can be used to explain the non-conventional indirect speech acts?”or “whether the non-conventional indirect speech acts will make the conversation unsmooth or not?” and so on.
2.2Some of indirect speech acts can be explained by relevance theory.
Generally speaking,the inference the addressee makes and takes himself to be intended to make is based not just on what the speaker says but also on some salient contextual information which are called mutual contextual beliefs in Relevance Theory.The success ofcommunication relies largely on whether the communication participants’cognitive environments can be manifest and mutually manifest to each other. Relevance theory defines “cognitive environment” of an individual as“a set of facts that are manifest to him”. But since the communicative partners do not share completely identical cognitive environment, then what makes them able to successfully convey and understand each other’s communicative intentions? In order to solve this problem, Sperber and Wilson raise the notion of “mutual manifestness”, which is used to refer to “the facts that are mutually manifest to both sides of communication” or“the communicators’ mutually manifest expressions on the common topic”. We call them “mutual” because the speaker and the addressee not only both have them, they believe they both have them and believe the other to believe they both have them. The contextual beliefs in both the speaker’ intentions and the addressees’ inferences must be mutual if the communication is to take place. Otherwise, it would not be clear to each that the other is taking this belief into account.
3.Conclusion
This paper is only about the relevant theories of conversational implicature and indirect speech acts and also contains several points of my own understanding about them. Both of the established theories and the views of my own in this paper are shallow,especially the views.Despite of this, it is hopeful that the paper can make a little contribution.
参考文献：
[1]Stephen C.Levinson.Pragmatics[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
[2]Austin,J.L.How to Do Things with Words[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2002.
[3]胡壮麟.语言学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
关键词：conversational implicature；indirect speech acts；relevance theory
中图分类号：H31 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1009-0118（2011）04-0239-01
1.Introduction
What people implied rather than spoke out directly was named as “implicature” or “conversational implicature” by Grice. And the indirect speech act theory was used to account for this multiplicity of possible meanings, which was defined as “cases in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another” by Searle.
2.Two viewpoints on conversational implicature and indirect speech acts
According to my understanding, indirect speech acts can be regarded as practice while conversational implicature is among theories. Practice needs supporting by theories, and the aim of studying theories is to direct our practice. The following part is about several views on the two concepts and their connection.
2.1Particularized conversational implicature and nonco
-nventional indirect speech acts should deserve more attention.
Conversational implicature has two types: one is generalized conversational implicature and the other is particularized conversational implicature. Generalized conversational implicature is always obeying the cooperative principle while particularized conversational implicature is realized by breaking the co-operative principle. When we find one conversation which does not conform to the co-operative principle, we have to think what the speaker’s real intention is. And because of all kinds of causes, the happening frequency of particularized conversational implicature is much higher than that of generalized conversational implicature. Above all, we should pay more attention to the particularized conversational implicature.
Based on my understanding,it is the realization of non-conventional indirect speech acts that generates the particularized conversational implicature. Therefore,many questions are worthwhile thinking over, such as “why does the speaker use non-conventional indirect speech acts instead of direct speech acts?”,“what theories can be used to explain the non-conventional indirect speech acts?”or “whether the non-conventional indirect speech acts will make the conversation unsmooth or not?” and so on.
2.2Some of indirect speech acts can be explained by relevance theory.
Generally speaking,the inference the addressee makes and takes himself to be intended to make is based not just on what the speaker says but also on some salient contextual information which are called mutual contextual beliefs in Relevance Theory.The success ofcommunication relies largely on whether the communication participants’cognitive environments can be manifest and mutually manifest to each other. Relevance theory defines “cognitive environment” of an individual as“a set of facts that are manifest to him”. But since the communicative partners do not share completely identical cognitive environment, then what makes them able to successfully convey and understand each other’s communicative intentions? In order to solve this problem, Sperber and Wilson raise the notion of “mutual manifestness”, which is used to refer to “the facts that are mutually manifest to both sides of communication” or“the communicators’ mutually manifest expressions on the common topic”. We call them “mutual” because the speaker and the addressee not only both have them, they believe they both have them and believe the other to believe they both have them. The contextual beliefs in both the speaker’ intentions and the addressees’ inferences must be mutual if the communication is to take place. Otherwise, it would not be clear to each that the other is taking this belief into account.
3.Conclusion
This paper is only about the relevant theories of conversational implicature and indirect speech acts and also contains several points of my own understanding about them. Both of the established theories and the views of my own in this paper are shallow,especially the views.Despite of this, it is hopeful that the paper can make a little contribution.
参考文献：
[1]Stephen C.Levinson.Pragmatics[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
[2]Austin,J.L.How to Do Things with Words[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2002.
[3]胡壮麟.语言学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.