会话含义

会话含义的产生要有下列条件：会话含义的产生要有下列条件：说话者S的话语要有会话含义q，就必须：（1）假定S遵守合作原则；（2）为了使上述假定成立，就要推测出S认为q；（3）S了解，自己和听话者H都知道，H能推导出需要q来使“S遵守合作原则”这一假定成立。

而为了推导出会话含义q，听话者必须知晓：（1）S的话语的内容；（2）合作原则及其所属准则；（3）话语的上下文；（4）某些有关背景信息；（5）上述各条为S和H所共知Grice归纳出推导会话含义的下列步骤：归纳出推导会话含义的下列步骤：归纳出推导会话含义的下列步骤（1）他（S）说了话语P；（2）没有理由假定他不遵守合作原则；（3）他说了P，又确实在尽力合作（遵守合作原则），那么，他肯定认为q；（4）他肯定了解，我和他都懂得，要认为他遵守合作原则，就必须假定q；（5）他丝毫没有阻止我认为q；（6）那么，他就是要我认为q，故此，你的含义就是q。

4.5 Conversational ImplicatureUnlike conventional implicatures, conversational implicatures are produced by relating to the conversational context. To know what people mean, we have to interpret what they say. But interpretation is a tricky affair, and misunderstandings are always possible. As Leech remarks, ‘interpreting an utterance is u ltimately a matter of guesswork’. e.g. A: When is Tom’s birthday? B: It’s sometime in October. B’s implicature: the only thing he remembered about Tom’s birthday was the month in which it occurs, and that he honestly didn’t know whether it was at the begin ning, the middle or the end of that month.How does a conversational implicature come about? In analyzing an utterance, depending on strict semantic or logical criteria will not help. The ‘guesswork’ that Leech talks about will have to be of a somewhat qualified nature. The qualified guessing must depend on the context, that is, the circumstances of this particular question, the person involved in the situation, these persons’ background, etc. The more we know about this context, the more wellgrounded our ‘guesswork’ is going to be. e.g. A: I could eat the whole of that cake. B: Oh, thanks. A’s literal meaning: a statement of a fact. The context: an exchange between a guest and a host. A’s implicature: I compliment you on the cake, it is so delicious that I want to eat thewhole of it. e.g. A: Where is my box of chocolates? B: I was feeling hungry. I have got a train to catch. Where is your diet sheet? The children were in your room this morning. B’s semantic meanings: nonsense B’s intended meanings: He has eaten the chocolates as he was hungry. He took the chocolates as he got a train to catch. He hid the chocolates as he knew that A was on diet. (to lose weight, A should not eat them.) He suggested that the chocolates might be eaten by the children. Conclusion: The intended meanings of different speakers are not drawn from semantic or logical content of language, but are drawn from conversatinal implicature which tries to explain language use from functional, communicative and contextual aspects rather than from linguistic aspects which include phonology, syntax and semantics. Question: Why don’t people just say what they mean so as to avoid all ‘guesswork’ and ‘misunderstanding’? __ the way language users go about their communicative businesses Communication is not a matter of logic or truth, but of co-operative; not of what people say, but of what they can say under certain circumstances. According to Grice, the reason why people don’t say what they mean is that they try to be cooperative by observing certain rules in communication so as to make communication smooth and successful. 在言语交际中，一句话的全部意义，即有意图的信息交有意图的信息交流内容应作下列图式分解（Levinson,1983:131）：流内容非自然意义（=有意图的信息交流内容）字面意义含义规约含义非规约含义非会话含义会话含义一般性会话含义特殊性会话含义由这个图式可以清楚地看到，Grice 认定“非自然意义”是由字面意义含义两部分共同组成字面意义和含义字面意义含义的。

因此，要全面地、深入地研究交际中话语的意义，就必须既研究话语的字面意义又研究话语的含义，而含义中又以会话含义最为重要。

语用学是在言语交际的总框架中研究话语意义的恰当表达和准确理解的。

正因为如此，“合作原则”和“会话含义”就成为重要的研究课题。

4.8 Flouting (违反)Grice’s Co-operative Principle Grice is aware that people do not always follow these maxims in language communication. He observes that sometimes people are overtly(公然地) and blatantly(露骨地)not following some maxims in order to exploit ‘implicature’ (as this is always the meaning that people intend to convey under certain circumstances) for communicative purposes. He calls this process as the flouting of co-operative principle.4.8.1 Flouting the Maxim of Quality a) Flouting the first sub-maxim of quality (do not say what you believe to be false) by saying things that are not true to the fact. The purpose is to force the addressee to make pragmatic implicature. Many figures of speech like irony, metaphor, hyperbole, rhetorical questions, etc. belong to this kind of flouting as shown in the following examples: A: What if the USSR blocks the Gulf and all the oil? B: Oh come now, Britain rules the seas! (irony) The fact: Britain has lost her controlling position over the seas since World War I. B’s implicature: since Britain no longer controls the seas, there is nothing that Britain can do. e.g. Queen Victoria was made of iron. (metaphor) The obvious false statement: no human beings are made of iron. The implicature: Queen Victoria has some of the incidental (伴随的)characteristics that are similar with iron like hardness, non-flexibility (坚固)or durability（耐久性）. e.g. I was frightened to death. (hyperbole) The fact: the speaker is actually still alive and is standing on his/her feet. The implicature: I was extremely frightened at that time and you just cannot imagine how frightened I was. e.g. Was Mussolini going to be moderate? (rhetorical question) The fact: Mussolini was definitely not going to be moderate. b) Flouting the second sub-maxim of quality (do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence) by making irresponsible and insincere remarks as in the following example: e.g. A: Teheren’s in Turkey, isn’t it, teacher? B: And London ‘s in America, I suppose. B’s utterance is irresponsible and insincere. He deliberately violates the second sub-maxim of quality. By doing so, he wants to force A to reach an implicature: you are absolutely wrong and you are talking nonsense.4.8.2 Flouting the Maxim of Quantity a) Flouting the first sub-maxim of quantity (make your contribution as informative as is required for the purposes of exchange) by providing non-informative information as in, e.g. Dear Sir, Mr. Robinson’s command of English is excellent, and his attendance at tutorials has been regular. Yours, etc. Gener ally speaking, a recommendation letter should cover the referee’s comments on the applicant’s professional ability, creative ability and some of his personal characters. But this letter is non-informative to all these aspects. So the professor has obviously violated the first sub-maxim of quantity. The employer who got this letter would understand the implied meaning (implicature) in it. That is, the applicant was not suitable for such a job. b) Flouting the second sub-maxim of quantity (do not make your contribution more informative than is required) by either providing less or more information than needed as in the following humour, Aunt: How did Jimmy do his history examination? Mother: Oh, not at all well. They asked him things that happened before the poor boy was born. The mother violated the second sub-maxim of quantity by adding something more to her adequate remark. The mother’s implicature: failure in the examination is not the child’s fault. Tautologies (重复、赘述) (needless repetition) e.g. 1) War is war. 2) Either John will come or he won’t. 3) If he does it, he does it. Pragmatic implicature: 1) Terrible things alwayshappen in war, that is its nature and it is no good lamenting(悲哀) over that particular disaster. 2) Calm down, there is no point in worrying about whether he is going to come or not because there there is nothing we can do about it. 3) It is no concern of us.4.8.3 Flouting the Maxim of Relevance It is harder to provide examples of flouting the maxim of relevance because it is not easy to give responses that must appear irrelevant. Let’s see an example provided by Grice. At a genteel (上流社会的) teaparty, A says. A: Mrs. X is an old bag. There is a moment of appalled (可怕的)silence and then B says, B: The weather has been quite delightful this summer, hasn’t it? B’s remark implies that A’s remark should not be perhaps more specifically, that A has committed a social gaffe(出丑、失态). In appropriate circumstances, B’s utterance might imply: Hey, watch out, her nephew is standing right behind you! More example: Johnny: Hey, Sally, let’s play marbles. Mother: How is your homework getting along, Joh nny? This irrelevant remark must suggest something. Here Johnny’s mother is saying to him that he couldn’t play unless he has finished his homework.4.8.4 Flouting the Maxim of Manne r a) Flouting the first sub-maxim of manner (avoid obscurity) by giving obscure information as in the following exchange: Father: Let’s give the kids something. Mother: Okay, but I veto C-H-O-C-O-L-A-T-E. Mother’s implicature: she agrees with the father, but she doesn’t want their kids to eat chocolate. She is afraid that her kids might ask for some chocolate by hearing the word. She uses spelling and a Latin word ‘veto’ in order to make the utterance obscure for the small kids to understand. b) Flouting the second sub-maxim of manner (avoid ambiguity) by giving ambiguous(模糊的) information as in the followingconversation between a receptionist (服务员) and an associate(副) editor: A: Name and title. B: John Smith, Associate Editor and Professor. By using ambiguous structure, B intends to prevent A from knowing his true social status because ‘Associate Editor and Professor’ could mean both ‘’ associate editor and Associate Professor as well as ‘Associate Editor and Professor’. c) Flouting the third sub-maximof manner (be brief) by being wordy (唠叨的) as in a newspaper comment: e.g. Miss X produced a series of sounds that corresponded (符合)closely to the score （乐谱）of ‘Home, Sweet Home’. X 小姐发出了跟《家，甜蜜的家》的乐谱基本相当的一串声音。