论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】The method of theoretical analysis is adopted in the paper. To begin with， major theories of discourse coherence are reviewed. The second section discusses feasibility of analyzing discourse coherence from the perspective of conversational implicature， which is believed to be essential for an effective interpretation of discourse coherence. The last section serves as a conclusion. It summarizes conversational implicature’s great explanatory power to discourse coherence； points out the limitations of the present study.
【Key words】discourse； coherence； conversation analysis； conversational implicature
【摘要】全文采用理論分析的方法。首先回顾了语篇连贯的主要理论。第二部分分析了从会话含意角度解释语篇连贯的可行性，此理论被认为是有效解释语篇连贯的基础。最后一部分总结全文。概括了会话含意对语篇连贯的解释力，同时指出了目前研究的局限性。
【关键词】语篇 连贯 会话分析 会话含意
1. Basic Concepts of Discourse Coherence
1.1 Discourse
Any utterance， no matter how long it is， whether it is presented in spoken or written form， as long as it constitutes a complete unity， it can be called a discourse. The term ‘discourse’ has caused much confusion in the academic field. In some linguists’ views， discourse refers to language in use. Brown， Yule hold the same view. Others believe that discourse is dependent on context. Hu Zhuanglin consider that a discourse refers to any natural language which has complete meaning under certain contexts， but is not completely restricted by sentences.（Hu Zhuanglin， 1994）
Though many linguists have defined discourse from different angles， there still is not a unified definition about it. At present time， it is generally believed that discourse is a stretch of language， spoken or written of whatever length， taking on meaning in context for its users， perceived by them to be meaningful unified and purposeful.
As coherence is one of the most important research areas of discourse analysis and it is at the very core of analysis， it is necessary to give an account of coherence.
1.2 Coherence
Coherence is very important in discourse analysis. This is because a discourse is never complete without reference to coherence， no matter how self-contained it is. Coherence is a concept which in its complexity is still not fully understood and a matter of continuing debate up to present. It is always regarded as a hot topic because it is an important factor in determining discourse’s connectivity in meaning. Roughly speaking， coherence is the semantic relationship between propositions or communicative events in discourse. The notion of coherence is a controversial concept. There is a long history of studying coherence and there are many different interpretations on it. As early as in 1976， Halliday and Hasan stated that： “A passage of discourse which is coherent in these two regards： it is coherent with respect to the context of situation and therefore consistent in register； and it is coherent with respect to itself， and therefore cohesive. Neither of these two conditions is sufficient without the other， nor does the one by necessity entail the other.”（1976：23） Many scholars have devoted themselves to the study of coherence. The following viewpoints are two of the most influential studies of coherence. Van Dijk regards coherence as a semantic concept， while Widdowson considers it a pragmatic concept concerned with illocutionary development.
Conversational implicature refers to the implicit meaning of discourse. It is an important device for explaining discourse coherence and plays a significant function in discourse analysis. For this reason， it is necessary to discuss the factor of conversational implicature in the interpretation of discourse coherence.
2. Conversational Implicature and Discourse Coherence
Grice’s theory of conversational implicature has aroused far more attention in linguistics. This theory concerns not solely with conversations， but with all kinds of social interaction involving either spoken or written language. Conversational implicature is a major research area of pragmatics and it is also an important achievement of the theoretical research of pragmatics. Levinson point out that “conversational implicature is a typical example from pragmatics’ ability to interpret language phenomenon.” （Levinson， 1983：87） Therefore， conversational implicature can be used to interpret the phenomenon of discourse coherence. The contribution of Grice’s theory of conversational implicature to discourse analysis is a set of principles that constraints the addresser’s sequential choices in a discourse and allows the addressee to recognize the addresser’s intentions.
In essence， conversational implicature is an important device of understanding coherent discourse. This is the theoretical foundation of analyzing the phenomenon of discourse coherence by using the theory of conversational implicature. Therefore， this section attempts to give a discussion of discourse coherence from the theory of conversational implicature and expects this theory can be of great benefit to the study of discourse coherence. 2.1 Implicature and its Origin
The notion of conversational implicature is one of the single most important ideas in pragmatics. The word ‘implicature’ is often used as shorthand for ‘conversational implicature’. It is derived from the verb ‘to imply’. Originally， ‘to imply’ means ‘to fold something into something else’； hence， that which is implied is “folded in”， and has to be ‘unfolded’ in order to be understood. A conversational implicature is， therefore， something which is implied in conversation， that is， something which is left implicit in actual language use.
The key ideas of conversational implicature were proposed by Grice in the Williams James lectures delivered at Harvard in 1967 and still partially published （Grice， 1975）. In that lecture， Grice proposed the notion of conversational implicature which is derived from a general principle of conversation plus four maxims （quantity， quality， manner and relation） which speakers will normally obey. The term ‘implicature’ is used to account for what a speaker can imply， suggest， or mean， as distinct from what the speaker literally says. The general principle is called cooperative principle.
Grice also points out that language user will not always obey cooperative principle and these maxims in communication， i.e.， participants will normally obey， but may on occasion flout or violate. Any violation of these maxims will result in conversational implicature； this is the theoretical foundation of implicature， which provides the starting point for discourse coherence. In the following section， conversational implicature’s application will be described in detail.
2.2 Conversational Implicature’s Interpretation to Discourse Coherence
It is made clear that conversational implicature can serve as pragmatic cohesive tie of coherence， which links up all the fragmented pieces of an utterance and reveals the underlying meaning structure of the discourse as a whole. Within the theory of conversational implicature， a discourse can still achieve coherence without formal semantic cohesive ties. Therefore， conversational implicature can make great contribution to the analysis of discourse coherence.
It is worth noting the fact that implicature has certain identifiable characteristics. Implicature is partially derived from the conventional or literal meaning of an utterance. It is produced in a specific context which is shared by the addresser and the addressee and depends on the addresser and the addressee’s recognition of the cooperative principle and its maxims. According to Green’s account （1996）， the coherence of a discourse depends on the addresser’s successful generation of implicature by observing cooperative principle on the one hand and the addressee’s successful inference of implicature on the assumption that the addresser is being cooperative on the other hand. Grice observes that conversational implicature is essentially connected with certain general features of discourse. He also emphasizes that the presence of a conversational implicature must be capable of being worked out. Therefore， conversational implicature is a kind of extra meaning， not inherent in the words used. When speech behavior appears inconsistent with the maxims， the addressee will assume that the addresser is then abiding by the cooperative principle and adopt a strategy of interpreting the addresser’s behavior as conforming to the maxims. Below are two examples to illustrate this point：
[1] A： The clock is slow.
B： There was a power cut this morning.
[2] A： Have you seen my stubby screwdriver？
B： Look in the red toolbox.
In example [1]， it can be assumed that the propositional content of B’s statement bears some relation to that of A’s： in particular， that B is， or might be， supplying an explanation for what A asserts to be the case. Of course， the assumption that B’s utterance is relevant to A’s in this way depends not only upon background knowledge about electric clocks， but also upon the further assumption that B shares this background knowledge and knows that the clock in question is， or might be， operated by electricity directly supplied from the mains. Thus， B’s utterance actually observes the maxim of relation and the coherence of this discourse is realized.
In example [2]， B would violate maxims of relation and quantity if he did not expect A to be able to interpret his reply as a cooperative response to the question； to infer that B believed the screwdriver was in the red toolbox and that the toolbox was accessible， and so on. In fact， by responding as B does， A can infer that B implicates that the screwdriver is in the toolbox and accessible to A so as to link the two sentences and create coherence. This instance suggests that conversational implicature is a remarkable conversational strategy in explaining discourse coherence. In interpreting a discourse， when the utterance appears inconsistent with the maxims， the addressee will assume that the addresser is still complying with the cooperative principle， then adopt the strategy to interpret the addresser’s utterance as conforming to the maxims and seek to construct a sequence of inferences which make it relevant or at least cooperative. In the process of generating conversational implicatures， discourses are interpreted as coherent ones by the addressee. In fact， conversational implicature is inferred from situational or world knowledge because its literal meaning does not conform to the need of coherent discourse. Conversational implicature uses implied meaning to substitute its literal meaning. Therefore， conversational implicature is a kind of connotation， a changed meaning in specific contexts. In essence， conversational implicature is an important device of realizing discourse coherence. The process of obtaining conversational implicature is essentially the process of realizing discourse coherence.
The theory of conversational implicature makes efforts to interpret discourses which seem incoherent superficially as coherent ones. As for this kind of superficially incoherent discourse， it is necessary to use inference to work out the links that are implicit， thus can make up ‘missing links’ among information. After having done this， coherence of discourse can be revealed.
Grice’s theory of conversational implicature has strong points in interpreting the problem of discourse coherence without the assistance of some surface formal cohesive devices. As a result of this contribution， this theory can interpret discourses which are short of semantic cohesive ties as coherent ones. Thus it can be seen that the theory of conversational implicature helps to make the research on discourse coherence step into a new stage.
3. Conclusion
All mentioned above has shown that conversational implicature has made great contributions to the analysis of discourse coherence. The notion of implicature promises to bridge the gap between what is literally said and what is conveyed by giving some account of how large portions of the material are effectively conveyed. The most obvious fact is that without the assistance of some superficial cohesive devices， a discourse still can achieve coherence.
However， as a coin has two sides， the theory of conversational implicature has its own weak points. First， Grice does not make a detailed analysis of the contents of four maxims and their relationship. Nor does he provide an inference device and give an exact definition of context. As Sperber and Wilson （1986） point out， although the idea of conversational implicature has had enormous appeal and has been used in an informal way to account for a wide range of pragmatic phenomena， little progress has been made in specifying the exact nature of the inference process by which conversational implicatures are worked out. This means that Grice’s own account of the derivation process is rather sketchy and leaves much space for improvement.
References：
[1]Brown，G.
【Key words】discourse； coherence； conversation analysis； conversational implicature
【摘要】全文采用理論分析的方法。首先回顾了语篇连贯的主要理论。第二部分分析了从会话含意角度解释语篇连贯的可行性，此理论被认为是有效解释语篇连贯的基础。最后一部分总结全文。概括了会话含意对语篇连贯的解释力，同时指出了目前研究的局限性。
【关键词】语篇 连贯 会话分析 会话含意
1. Basic Concepts of Discourse Coherence
1.1 Discourse
Any utterance， no matter how long it is， whether it is presented in spoken or written form， as long as it constitutes a complete unity， it can be called a discourse. The term ‘discourse’ has caused much confusion in the academic field. In some linguists’ views， discourse refers to language in use. Brown， Yule hold the same view. Others believe that discourse is dependent on context. Hu Zhuanglin consider that a discourse refers to any natural language which has complete meaning under certain contexts， but is not completely restricted by sentences.（Hu Zhuanglin， 1994）
Though many linguists have defined discourse from different angles， there still is not a unified definition about it. At present time， it is generally believed that discourse is a stretch of language， spoken or written of whatever length， taking on meaning in context for its users， perceived by them to be meaningful unified and purposeful.
As coherence is one of the most important research areas of discourse analysis and it is at the very core of analysis， it is necessary to give an account of coherence.
1.2 Coherence
Coherence is very important in discourse analysis. This is because a discourse is never complete without reference to coherence， no matter how self-contained it is. Coherence is a concept which in its complexity is still not fully understood and a matter of continuing debate up to present. It is always regarded as a hot topic because it is an important factor in determining discourse’s connectivity in meaning. Roughly speaking， coherence is the semantic relationship between propositions or communicative events in discourse. The notion of coherence is a controversial concept. There is a long history of studying coherence and there are many different interpretations on it. As early as in 1976， Halliday and Hasan stated that： “A passage of discourse which is coherent in these two regards： it is coherent with respect to the context of situation and therefore consistent in register； and it is coherent with respect to itself， and therefore cohesive. Neither of these two conditions is sufficient without the other， nor does the one by necessity entail the other.”（1976：23） Many scholars have devoted themselves to the study of coherence. The following viewpoints are two of the most influential studies of coherence. Van Dijk regards coherence as a semantic concept， while Widdowson considers it a pragmatic concept concerned with illocutionary development.
Conversational implicature refers to the implicit meaning of discourse. It is an important device for explaining discourse coherence and plays a significant function in discourse analysis. For this reason， it is necessary to discuss the factor of conversational implicature in the interpretation of discourse coherence.
2. Conversational Implicature and Discourse Coherence
Grice’s theory of conversational implicature has aroused far more attention in linguistics. This theory concerns not solely with conversations， but with all kinds of social interaction involving either spoken or written language. Conversational implicature is a major research area of pragmatics and it is also an important achievement of the theoretical research of pragmatics. Levinson point out that “conversational implicature is a typical example from pragmatics’ ability to interpret language phenomenon.” （Levinson， 1983：87） Therefore， conversational implicature can be used to interpret the phenomenon of discourse coherence. The contribution of Grice’s theory of conversational implicature to discourse analysis is a set of principles that constraints the addresser’s sequential choices in a discourse and allows the addressee to recognize the addresser’s intentions.
In essence， conversational implicature is an important device of understanding coherent discourse. This is the theoretical foundation of analyzing the phenomenon of discourse coherence by using the theory of conversational implicature. Therefore， this section attempts to give a discussion of discourse coherence from the theory of conversational implicature and expects this theory can be of great benefit to the study of discourse coherence. 2.1 Implicature and its Origin
The notion of conversational implicature is one of the single most important ideas in pragmatics. The word ‘implicature’ is often used as shorthand for ‘conversational implicature’. It is derived from the verb ‘to imply’. Originally， ‘to imply’ means ‘to fold something into something else’； hence， that which is implied is “folded in”， and has to be ‘unfolded’ in order to be understood. A conversational implicature is， therefore， something which is implied in conversation， that is， something which is left implicit in actual language use.
The key ideas of conversational implicature were proposed by Grice in the Williams James lectures delivered at Harvard in 1967 and still partially published （Grice， 1975）. In that lecture， Grice proposed the notion of conversational implicature which is derived from a general principle of conversation plus four maxims （quantity， quality， manner and relation） which speakers will normally obey. The term ‘implicature’ is used to account for what a speaker can imply， suggest， or mean， as distinct from what the speaker literally says. The general principle is called cooperative principle.
Grice also points out that language user will not always obey cooperative principle and these maxims in communication， i.e.， participants will normally obey， but may on occasion flout or violate. Any violation of these maxims will result in conversational implicature； this is the theoretical foundation of implicature， which provides the starting point for discourse coherence. In the following section， conversational implicature’s application will be described in detail.
2.2 Conversational Implicature’s Interpretation to Discourse Coherence
It is made clear that conversational implicature can serve as pragmatic cohesive tie of coherence， which links up all the fragmented pieces of an utterance and reveals the underlying meaning structure of the discourse as a whole. Within the theory of conversational implicature， a discourse can still achieve coherence without formal semantic cohesive ties. Therefore， conversational implicature can make great contribution to the analysis of discourse coherence.
It is worth noting the fact that implicature has certain identifiable characteristics. Implicature is partially derived from the conventional or literal meaning of an utterance. It is produced in a specific context which is shared by the addresser and the addressee and depends on the addresser and the addressee’s recognition of the cooperative principle and its maxims. According to Green’s account （1996）， the coherence of a discourse depends on the addresser’s successful generation of implicature by observing cooperative principle on the one hand and the addressee’s successful inference of implicature on the assumption that the addresser is being cooperative on the other hand. Grice observes that conversational implicature is essentially connected with certain general features of discourse. He also emphasizes that the presence of a conversational implicature must be capable of being worked out. Therefore， conversational implicature is a kind of extra meaning， not inherent in the words used. When speech behavior appears inconsistent with the maxims， the addressee will assume that the addresser is then abiding by the cooperative principle and adopt a strategy of interpreting the addresser’s behavior as conforming to the maxims. Below are two examples to illustrate this point：
[1] A： The clock is slow.
B： There was a power cut this morning.
[2] A： Have you seen my stubby screwdriver？
B： Look in the red toolbox.
In example [1]， it can be assumed that the propositional content of B’s statement bears some relation to that of A’s： in particular， that B is， or might be， supplying an explanation for what A asserts to be the case. Of course， the assumption that B’s utterance is relevant to A’s in this way depends not only upon background knowledge about electric clocks， but also upon the further assumption that B shares this background knowledge and knows that the clock in question is， or might be， operated by electricity directly supplied from the mains. Thus， B’s utterance actually observes the maxim of relation and the coherence of this discourse is realized.
In example [2]， B would violate maxims of relation and quantity if he did not expect A to be able to interpret his reply as a cooperative response to the question； to infer that B believed the screwdriver was in the red toolbox and that the toolbox was accessible， and so on. In fact， by responding as B does， A can infer that B implicates that the screwdriver is in the toolbox and accessible to A so as to link the two sentences and create coherence. This instance suggests that conversational implicature is a remarkable conversational strategy in explaining discourse coherence. In interpreting a discourse， when the utterance appears inconsistent with the maxims， the addressee will assume that the addresser is still complying with the cooperative principle， then adopt the strategy to interpret the addresser’s utterance as conforming to the maxims and seek to construct a sequence of inferences which make it relevant or at least cooperative. In the process of generating conversational implicatures， discourses are interpreted as coherent ones by the addressee. In fact， conversational implicature is inferred from situational or world knowledge because its literal meaning does not conform to the need of coherent discourse. Conversational implicature uses implied meaning to substitute its literal meaning. Therefore， conversational implicature is a kind of connotation， a changed meaning in specific contexts. In essence， conversational implicature is an important device of realizing discourse coherence. The process of obtaining conversational implicature is essentially the process of realizing discourse coherence.
The theory of conversational implicature makes efforts to interpret discourses which seem incoherent superficially as coherent ones. As for this kind of superficially incoherent discourse， it is necessary to use inference to work out the links that are implicit， thus can make up ‘missing links’ among information. After having done this， coherence of discourse can be revealed.
Grice’s theory of conversational implicature has strong points in interpreting the problem of discourse coherence without the assistance of some surface formal cohesive devices. As a result of this contribution， this theory can interpret discourses which are short of semantic cohesive ties as coherent ones. Thus it can be seen that the theory of conversational implicature helps to make the research on discourse coherence step into a new stage.
3. Conclusion
All mentioned above has shown that conversational implicature has made great contributions to the analysis of discourse coherence. The notion of implicature promises to bridge the gap between what is literally said and what is conveyed by giving some account of how large portions of the material are effectively conveyed. The most obvious fact is that without the assistance of some superficial cohesive devices， a discourse still can achieve coherence.
However， as a coin has two sides， the theory of conversational implicature has its own weak points. First， Grice does not make a detailed analysis of the contents of four maxims and their relationship. Nor does he provide an inference device and give an exact definition of context. As Sperber and Wilson （1986） point out， although the idea of conversational implicature has had enormous appeal and has been used in an informal way to account for a wide range of pragmatic phenomena， little progress has been made in specifying the exact nature of the inference process by which conversational implicatures are worked out. This means that Grice’s own account of the derivation process is rather sketchy and leaves much space for improvement.
References：
[1]Brown，G.