当前位置：文档之家 › IMPLICATURE 语用学

IMPLICATURE 语用学

  • 格式：ppt
  • 大小：1.23 MB
  • 文档页数：21

下载文档原格式

  / 21

合集下载

试从术语学看implicature的汉译

试从术语学看implicature的汉译

试从术语学看implicature的汉译目前有关conversational implicature的汉译较多，本文旨在探析不同学者选用相应汉译的原因，考证相关汉译的词源，并从术语学角度对相关汉译进行分析，最终确定“会话含意”是较为符合的汉译。

标签：格赖斯；汉译；会话含意；术语引言美国语言学家、哲学家格赖斯（Herbert Paul Grice）于1975年在论文《逻辑与会话》（《Logic and Conversation》）中提出“the theory of conversationa l implicature”。

根據格赖斯的论述，言语中超出说话人涉及之处，只有通过非语言特征以及交流与合作的一般原则才能推断出来。

这里的“超出说话人涉及之处”就是conversational implicature，而一般原则就是格赖斯提出的合作原则和准则。

（维基百科）格赖斯（1975）是这样表述conversational implicature的：“The conversational maxims，however，and the conversational implicatures connected with them，are specially connected（I hope）with the particular purposes that talk（and so，talk exchange）is adapted to serve and is primarily employed to serve.”（会话准则和会话含意密切相关，他们的特定目的在于为谈话服务。

）①“implicature”一词是格赖斯引入的术语，同时他提到了同源词“to implicate”和“implicatum”。

格赖斯阐述“implicature”是一个概括的术语。

（维基百科）从1980年《国外语言学》杂志开始介绍国外的语用学起，该理论的汉译术语使用频率和复现率大大提高。

语用学纲要 中的名词解释

语用学纲要 中的名词解释

语用学纲要中的名词解释语用学是研究语言使用的学科，它关注的是语言在特定语境中的意义和交际功能。

在语用学研究中，有一些重要的名词需要进行解释，以帮助我们更加深入地理解和掌握语用学的基本概念和理论。

下面将分别解释几个重要的名词。

1. 语用学（Pragmatics）语用学是一门关注语言如何在特定环境中被使用和解释的学科。

它研究的范畴包括言外之意、暗示意义以及与语境相关的信息。

语用学通过考察交流中的言语行为来解释人们如何使用语言来表达意思、建立关系和达到特定的交际目的。

2. 言外之意（Implicature）言外之意指的是在语言使用过程中，说话人不直接提及但读者或听者可以通过推理得出的意思。

这种言外之意依赖于语境和常识，通过揭示非字面表达的信息，使得交流更加丰富和灵活。

3. 语境（Context）语境是指语言使用的具体环境条件，包括时间、地点、社会背景、参与者之间的关系等等。

语境对于理解语言的意义和推断言外之意起着重要的作用。

语境可以分为两种：文字语境和情境语境。

文字语境指的是在一段文字中，通过前后文的信息获得的意义；情境语境则指的是通过交际环境获取的语言意义。

4. 合作原则（Cooperative Principle）合作原则是由美国哲学家格里斯（H.Paul Grice）提出的，它是语用学的基本假设之一。

合作原则要求交流参与者在交流中合作，尽力遵守语言交流的基本准则，包括言语配合、言语经济、言语修辞和明言原则。

遵循合作原则可以使交流更加顺利、有效和互惠。

5. 指代（Reference）指代是指使用语言中的词语来指称现实世界中的事物、概念或实体。

在语用学中，指代研究包括指代的语用功能、指代的形式选择以及指代的语境依赖性等等。

指代在交际中起着很重要的作用，识别和理解指代可以帮助我们构建语言信息的连贯性和完整性。

6. 指涉（Deixis）指涉与指代类似，但更加具体，它指的是在交际中通过语言指示和引用特定的人、事、物或地点。

语用学术语

语用学术语

语用学术语,Terms in Pragmatics•比喻metaphor•表达类expressives•表述句constatives•不可分离性non-detachability•不可取消性non-cancellability•不确定性indeterminacy•承诺类commissives•代码模式code model•等级含意scalar implicatures•地点指示space deixis•调节性规则regulative rules•动态语用学dynamic pragmatics•断言类assertives•对方修正other-repair•二元关系dyadic relation•发展语用学developmental pragmatics •反讽/反语irony•方式准则manner maxim•非规约性non-conventionality•讽刺sarcasm•符号sign•符号关系学syntactics•符号学semiotics•负面礼貌策略negative politeness strategy •负面面子negative face•负向转移negative transfer•概念意义conceptual meaning•功能语言学functional linguistics•共知common knowledge•构成性规则constitutive rules•关联/关联性relevance•关联理论relevance theory•关系准则relevant maxim•规定语法prescriptive grammar•规约含意conventional implicature•规约性conventionality•规则rule•含混ambivalence•含意implicature•合适条件felicity condition•后指用法cataphoric use •互补性complementarity•互动语用学interactive pragmatics •互明mutual manifestness•互知mutual knowledge•互指co-referential•话轮turn-taking•话语utterance•话语分析discourse analysis•话语意义utterance meaning•话语指示discourse deixis•缓叙meiosis•会话分析conversation analysis•会话含意conversational implicature •会话结构conversational structure•会话修正conversational repair•会话原则conversational principle•或然性probability•记号symbol•间接言语行为indirect speech act•交际目的communicative goal/purpose •交际能力communicative competence •交际意图communicative intention •交际用意communicative force•交际原则communicative principle •近指proximal terms•经济原则principle of economy•旧信息old information•句法学syntax•句子意义sentence meaning•可接收性acceptability•可取消性cancellability•可推导性calculability•可行性feasibility•客观环境physical situation•夸张hyperbole•跨文化语用学cross-cultural pragmatics •离格deviance•礼貌politeness•礼貌策略politeness strategy•礼貌原则politeness principle•连贯coherence•两可性ambiguity•量准则quantity maxim•临床语用学clinical pragmatics•笼统性generality•论言有所为How to do things with words •逻辑语义学logical semantics•蒙塔古语法Montague grammar•面子face•明示-推理过程ostensive-inferential process •明说explicature•命题行为propositional act•模糊限制语hedges•模糊性fuzziness•内嵌施为句embedded performatives•恰当性appropriateness•前提presupposition•前提触发语presupposition triggers•前指用法anaphoric use•人称指示person deixis•人类文化方法论ethnomethodology•认知效果cognitive effect•认知语用学cognitive pragmatics•认知语用学cognitive pragmatics•认知原则cognitive principle•弱陈meiosis•三元关系triadic relation•社会语用学societal pragmatics•社交语用学social pragmatics•社交-语用学socio-pragmatics•社交指示social deixis•施为动词performative verb•施为假设performative hypothesis•施为句performatives•施为用意illocutionary force•时间指示time deixis•实用主义pragmatism•顺应理论adaptation theory•说话人意义speaker meaning•随意言谈loose talk•特殊含意particularized conversational implicature•同义反复句tautology•投射规则projection rule•推理努力processing effort•威胁面子的行为face threatening acts•委婉语understatement•未知信息unknown information •衔接机制cohesive device•显性施为句explicit performatives•新格赖斯会话含意理论neo-Gricean theory of conversational implicature•新格赖斯语用学neo-Gricean pragmatics •新信息new information•信息意图informative intention•信息照应information bridging•形式语用学formal pragmatics•修辞学rhetoric•宣告类declarations•选择限制selectional restriction•言语交际verbal communication•言语情景speech situation•言语行为speech act•言语行为理论speech act theory•一般会话含意generalized conversational implicature•已知信息known information•以言成事perlocutionary act•以言行事illocutionary act•以言行事目的/施为目的illocutionary goal •以言指事locutionary act•意思sense•意图intention•意向性intentionality•隐含结论implicated conclusion•隐含前提implicated premise•隐性施为句implicit performatives•隐喻metaphor•语法性grammaticality•语际语interlanguage•语际语用学interlanguage pragmatics•语境暗含contextual implication•语境化contextualization•语境假设contextual assumptions•语境效果contextual effect•语境意义contextual meaning•语境因素contextual factor•语句sentence•语句意义sentence meaning•语言学转向linguistic turn•语言语境linguistic context•语言语用学linguistic pragmatics•语义前提semantic presupposition•语义学semantics•语用代码pragmatic code•语用含糊pragmatic vagueness•语用含意pragmatic force•语用类属pragmatic category•语用能力pragmatic competence•语用歧义pragmatic ambiguity•语用迁移pragmatic transfer•语用前提pragmatic presupposition•语用推理pragmatic inference•语用行为pragmatic act•语用学pragmatics•语用移情pragmatic empathy•语用语言学pragmalinguistics•语用原则pragmatic principle•寓意言谈metaphorical talk•元交际行为metacommunicative behaviour •元指用法meta-phoric use•原意或刻意言谈literal talk•原则principle•远指distal terms•约略性approximation•蕴涵entailment•哲学语用学philosophical pragmatics•正面礼貌positive politeness•正面面子positive face•正向转移positive transfer•指称reference•指令类directives•指示词语deictic expressions•指示语deixis, indexicals•质准则quality maxim•中介语/语际语interlanguage•主题topic•字面用意literal force•自我修正self-repair。

语用学 5 Conversational_implicature

语用学 5 Conversational_implicature

The logical representation of conjunction: p & q This logical expression stands for: if p is true and q is true, then p & q is true. If either p or q is not true (i.e. false), then the conjunction of p and q is necessarily false. E.g. The duck ran up to Mary (p) and licked her (q). Reasonable?? But this is not always true in real life as in the above example. Whenever p & q is true, it logically follows that q & p is true: The duck licked Mary (q) and ran up to her (p).
批注本地保存成功开通会员云端永久保存去开通
Conversational implicature
Divergence in meaning: Formal devices VS. natural L Formalist VS. informalist Construct an ideal L Inadequte attention to the nature and importance of the conditions governing conversation Implicature
Explanations why

Unit 3 Gricean Pragmatics Implicature格莱斯语用学会话含义

Unit 3 Gricean Pragmatics Implicature格莱斯语用学会话含义

Implication
Definition:
Implication belongs to the
logical semantics, it discusses the relationship between two
1
propositional logics.
Example:
p: The president was assassinated.
semantics
Logical implication （逻辑蕴含）
meaning
Pragmatics
Conversational implicature （会话含义）
Implicature & Implication
The word ‘implicature’, like its cognate(同源词) ‘implication’, is derived from the verb ‘to imply’. Etymologically speaking（从词源学 角度讲）, ‘to imply’ means ‘to fold something into something else’. What is implied, or ‘folded in’ has to be ‘unfolded’ in order to be understood.
Example sentences: natural meaning
1
The number of concentric rings（年轮） means that the tree lived so many years.
2
2 Those black c来自ouds mean rain.
4

IMPLICATURE 语用学 ppt课件

IMPLICATURE 语用学 ppt课件
Shared knowledge : Someone might overhear Jane’s answer.
d) Mat : Want some fudge brownies? Chris : There must be 20000 calories there. (No.)
Shared knowledge : Food with a high number of calories makes people put on
weight and Chris is trying to lose weight.
IMPLICATURE 语用学
The difference between generalized and particularized
Generalized implicatures can be drawn with very little ‘inside’ knowledge.
Scalar implicatures are a special type of generalized implicature where the inference is made by reference to a scale of values, one of which has been chosen by the speaker. The speaker’s choice implicates ‘not the higher values’.
IMPLICATURE 语用学
Summary
Generalized implicatures can be drawn with very little ‘inside’ knowledge. If you heard a tape recording of the conversation but knew noting about the participants or the physical characteristics of the context, you could still draw those implicatures. They are closely connected to the degree of informativeness that we normally expect a speaker’s utterance to provide.

(完整版)语用学-5--Conversational-implicature

implicature吗？
1. What is an implicature? E.g. A: I have a fourteen year old son. B: Well, that's all right. A: I also have a dog. B: Oh, I'm sorry.
Conversational implicature
Divergence in meaning: Formal devices VS. natural L Formalist VS. informalist Construct an ideal L Inadequte attention to the nature and
E.g. The duck ran up to Mary (p) and licked her (qBut this is not always true in real life as in the above example. Whenever p & q is true, it logically follows that q & p is true:
The logical representation of conjunction: p & q
This logical expression stands for: if p is true and q is true, then p & q is true. If either p or q is not true (i.e. false), then the conjunction of p and q is necessarily false.
B means more than what he or she says, but A can understand it or interpret it well in the context. How does this happen? How does the hearer get from what is said to what is meant, from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning.

语用学cooperation-and-implicature


Virginia: Try the roast pork. Mary: It’s pink!
Maggie: We went to see The Omen last night but it wasn’t very scary. James: It would keep me awake all night.
Woman: He doesn’t. But that’s not my dog.
The philosopher Paul Grice proposed that all speakers, regardless of their cultural background, adhere to a basic principle governing conversation which he termed The Cooperative Principle. That is we assume that in a conversation the participants will cooperate with each other when making their contributions
Phil: Are you going to Steve’s barbecue? Terry: Well, Steve’s got those dogs now.
Annie: Was the dessert any good? Mike: Annie, cherry pie is cherry pie.
批注本地保存成功开通会员云端永久保存去开通
In much of the previous discussion, we have assumed that speakers and listeners involved in conversation are generally cooperating each other.

implicature


格赖斯的意义理论发端于1957年的Meaning一文,丰 满成形于1967年在哈佛大学作的系列讲座, 1989年出版的 Studies in the Way of Words一书是这一思想的总结, 其基本 内容可以概括为以下几点。 1. 自然意义和非自然意义 格赖斯分析语言的意义从明辨自然意义(Natural meaning)和非自然意义(non natural meaning)开始。两者的 区别可用下例说明。 ①The number of concentric rings means that the tree lived so many years. ②Those three rings on the bell(of the bus)meant that the bus is full.
Assume that sentence (a) in each pair is synthetically true. Then look at sentence (b) and decide if you can assume that it is automatically true given the truth of (a). 1. (a) Annie is thin. (b) Annie is not fat. 2. (a) Annie baked a cake. (b) Annie baked something.
Similarly, given that you can easily answer “false” to (e) and (f). The meaning of mother and boy and tiger and reptile make such sentences necessarily false, or C O N T R A D I C T I O N S .

IMPLICATURE 语用学 ppt课件

→Dave did not fix the leak.
(c) Carmen: I hear you’ve invite Mat and Chris. Dave : I didn’t invite Mat.
(Did Dave invite Chris?)
→Dave invited Chris.
ppt课件
as ground is wet and slippeprpyt课a件fter the rain.
5
There is a gap between what is literally said and what is implied. So in this case, implicature helps to explain how some seemingly unrelated sentences come to mean the same. With the help of context , the use of implicature makes our language use more colorful. We may express the same meaning in different ways to suit appropriate context.(何自然)
Scale of quantity: some most all Scale of frequency: sometimes often always Scale of coldness: cool cold freezing
ppt课件
8
We normally assume that, where speakers have a scale of values at their disposal, they will chose the one that is truthful and optimally informative. So we normally draw the implicature ‘not any of the higher values on the scale’.
  1. 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
  2. 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
  3. 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

A: Shall we hold the football match tomorrow?
B: It is raining.
Semantic and literal meaning: his answer unrelated to the question. Intended meaning: the football match will be canceled as ground is wet and slippery after the rain.
(c) Carmen: I hear you’ve invite Mat and Chris. Dave : I didn’t invite Mat. (Did Dave invite Chris?) →Dave invited Chris.
The notion of implicature provides some explicit account of how it is possible to mean more than what is actually “said” , or more than what is literally expressed.
a) Tom : Are you going to Mark‟s party tonight? Annie : My parents are in town. (No.) Shared knowledge : Annie‟s relation with her parents b) Tom : Where‟s the salad dressing? Gabriel : We‟ve run out of olive oil. (There isn‟t any salad dressing.) Shared knowledge : Oliver oil is a possible ingredient in salad dressing and they only use salad dressing made from olive oil.
Implicature is a technical term in the pragmatics subfield of linguistics, coined by H.P.Grice, which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly implied by the utterance.
(a)Carmen: Did you get the milk and the eggs? Dave: I got the milk. (Did Dave buy the eggs?) →Dave did not buy the eggs.
(b)Carmen: Did you manage to fix that leak? Dave : I tried to. (Did Dave fix the leak?) →Dave did not fix the leak.
There is a gap between what is literally said and what is implied. So in this case, implicature helps to explain how some seemingly unrelated sentences come to mean the same. With the help of context , the use of implicature makes our language use more colorful. We may express the same meaning in different ways to suit appropriate context.(何自然)
c) Steve : What‟s with your mother? Jane : Let‟s go into the garden. (I can‟t talk about it here.) Shared knowledge : Someone might overhear Jane‟s answer. d) Mat : Want some fudge brownies? Chris : There must be 20000 calories there. (No.) Shared knowledge : Food with a high number of calories makes people put on weight and Chris is trying to lose weight.
Inferences which require this kind of shared knowledge between the speaker and the hearer are sometimes called particularized conversational implicatures.
Scale of quantity: some most all Scale of frequency: sometimes often always Scale of coldness: cool cold freezing
We normally assume that, where speakers have a scale of values at their disposal, they will chose the one that is truthful and optimally informative. So we normally draw the implicature „not any of the higher values on the scale‟. Generalized conversational implicature: The implicatures that they are so strong that they do not seem to require any extra knowledge to extract the meaning.
There is a test that is sometimes uesd to distinguish presuppositions from implicatures.
• Cancellation test
Here are four dialogues where Annie has 'cancell' either a presupposition contained in her utterence(the cancellation come after the 'dash'). Do you notice a difference between presuppositions and implicatures when they are cancelled? (a) Cancelling an existential presupposition: MIke: What happened? Annie: Steve's dog wrecked the garden -- and in fact, Steve doesn't have a dog. (b) Cancelling a 'lexical' presupposition: MIke: What's up ? Annie: I'v stopped smoking -- although I'v never smoked.
Generalized implicatures can be drawn with very little „inside‟ knowledge. If you heard a tape recording of the conversation but knew noting about the participants or the physical characteristics of the context, you could still draw those implicatures. They are closely connected to the degree of informativeness that we normally expect a speaker‟s utterance to provide. Scalar implicatures are a special type of generalized implicature where the inference is made by reference to a scale of values, one of which has been chosen by the speaker. The speaker‟s choice implicates „not the higher values‟.
IMPLICATURE
Group: 王莉 王妍琨 廖晶 刘靓利
1.Definition of implicature 2.Generalized implicature 3.Particularized implicature
4.How to distinguish implicature and presupposition
Generalized implicatures can be drawn with very little „inside‟ knowledge. Particularized implicatures require not only general knowledge but also knowledge which is particular or „local‟ to the speaker and the hearer, and often to the physical context of the utterance as well.