当前位置：文档之家 › Rhetorical Relations, Action a,nd Intentionality in Comersation

Rhetorical Relations, Action a,nd Intentionality in Comersation

  • 格式：pdf
  • 大小：291.49 KB
  • 文档页数：4

which includes both traditional sl)eech acts and several kinds of rhetorica.l arts. There are low level acts which link together utterances into turns a.nd content into units which axe acknowledge(i a,nd understood together, as well as a level of a~yumt:nlation acts which link together 1)roposition level and larger illocutionary acts. Argumentation acts include act types such a,s ans'wcriug a questiou, as well as most traditional rhetorical relations. Actions play a useflfl role as ,%concel)tual intermediary between bundles o[" <)l)serve(l features on the one hand, and stereotyl)ica,1 causes a.nd efl'ects. They are ;Llso the ])rol)(~r ()l)jects of intentions, and play a central role in planning, l)lan execution an(I l)lan recognition. PI;i.nning is the process of selecting a set of actions which, when 1)erforme(l under the prol)er conditions will lea,(l to a. desired state of affairs, or goal. Plan execution is the process of pertbrming the designated actions, monitoring t h e m for desired effect ~uld repairing or replanning in case of a, l)rol)lem. Plan recognitiou is the process of reasoning ahout an agent's menta,1 state (including intentions, beliet~, an(1 goals) based on observed actions in context. Intentions are c o m m i t m e n t s towards a course of action. [Bratnlan, 1990] discusses three roles t h a t intention plays in deliberative behavior: serving a,s a motivation for l)lanning, a "filter of admissil)ility" on plans and 51rther intentions, a,nd a controller of (:on(luct, motivating execution monitoring and tel)air and rel)lanning when necessa.ry. Rhetorical relations are thus actions in the worhl (listinguishe(l 1)y conditions on their occurrence and effects, which will generally l)e changes to the conversational state all(I the I)eliefs of the conversants. Relations can also be 1)lanned, intended, performed, and recognized. As with other actions, relations can be performed intentionally or incidentally. Of intentiona.l a.ctions, it is also possible to draw the distinction made in sl)eech a.ct theory between illocutionary acts, those in which part of the intended effect includes a.n awa.reness on the t)art of the hea, rer ()1"this intention, and pcrlocutiouary acts, in which it is only the efi~ct that ma.tters a.n(l not recognition of the intention [Austin, 1962]. For non-illocutionary acts, the intention of the speaker is not relevant - these actions can be produced as side-effects of the speaker's intention, so t h a t a determination of the intention is not necessary to determining whether the act was 1)eribrmed. For exa,ml)le, the evidence relation of [Mann and Thompson, 1987] m a y hohl ])etween two text spans even if the speaker di(l not inten(I such a relation, all t h a t is required is that tlm hea.rer's belief in the nucleus is increase(I though the understanding of the satellite. For an illocutionary act, on the other hand, the recognition of communicative intention is crucial to understanding. For exa.mple, the answer relation can only be recognized by a t t r i b u t i n g to the speaker the intention to answer the question.
T h e r e are a n u m b e r of different types of relationships between l)roxima.te segments of language, as well as a n u m b e r of terms used to dif|erentiate groups of these types. For the present l)Url)oses I make no distinction (as do, e.g. [Sidner; Moser a.nd Moore]) 1)etw(,en afflictive and other types of discourse coherence relations. Since my p r i m a r y interest is lit conversation ( r a t h e r than, say, single p r o d u c e r t e x t ) , I also include relations between utterances by (lilli:rent sl)eakers. A n o t h e r dimension along which a distinction couhl be made is what exactly i.s being related'/ Are relations between explicit spa.ns of language text or between elements of the expressed contents of texts or perhN)s mixes between these categories? Aga.in, I will not make any such distinctions here, and simply use the t e r m rhetorical relations to refer to any of these relations. As with o t h e r types of linguistic meaning, there are b o t h Semantic and Pragmatic views of rhetorical relations. Semantic views c o n c e n t r a t e on whether or not a relationship can be inferred fl'om features of the discourse and whal: other i n | b r m a t i o n can 1)e inferred when the relation hol(Is or does not. P r a g m a t i c views are more concerned with how a rela.ti(mshil) is established and what effects this relationship (or lack of relationshil) ) has on the c o n t e x t ) For the purposes of engaging in conversation and relating rhetorical relations to intelltiorts, I take the p r a g m a t i c viewpoint as more central, a l t h o u g h b o t h are iml)ortant. From the p r a g m a t i c viewpoint, rhetorica.] relations are the same general kind of thing as speech acts or actions in generM: al)stractions of agent-directed change in the worhl, in this case change in the conversational and metM state of the col.,versallts. T h e only difl'(qence between speech acts and rhetoricM relations is t h a t the l a t t e r a.re exl~lMtly concerned with the linka.g¢, of separate segments of language. ['I~'aum and Hinkehnan, 1992] presents a nmltistra.tal tlteory of Conversation Acts, *This material is ha.ted upon work supported in part by the NSF under research gr;tnt ltO. IRI-9(1[13841, by ONR under research grant no. N0{I014-9(I-J-1811, alld I)y DARPA/ONR under contract Nlllllll4-.q2-J-1512. l wouhl like to thank James Allen and Peter Heeman for helpfid discussions. 1This distinction iv also discussed by [Maylmry] a.s the distinction between rcl, tion.~ and act.i, although here I will use these terms more or less synollylnously. 132

合集下载

英语词汇学系列讲座（英9

英语词汇学系列讲座（英9

Chapter 9 English Idioms 1. Characteristics of idioms 1） Semantic unity Each idiom is a semantic unity. The semantic unity can be reflected by the fact that the meaning of an idiom is very often not the total sum of the meanings of the constituent words. The semantic unity can also be shown in the illogical relations between the literal meanings of the constituent words and the meaning of the idiom. 2） Structural stability Structural stability means that the structure of an idiom usually remains unchangeable. In other words, the constituent components of an idiom can not, generally speaking, be replaced. 2. Classification of idioms 1） Idioms norminal in nature: They function as nouns in a sentence. 2） Idioms adjectival in nature They function as adjectives in a sentence. 3）Idioms verbal in nature They function as verbs in a sentence. 4）Idioms adverbial in nature They function as adverbials in a sentence. 5）Sentence idioms Such idioms are usually in complete sentential form. They are usually proverbs or sayings. e of idioms 1） Stylistic features Different idioms show different stylistic meanings. Some are casual, others formal, still others neural in style. The same idiom may show stylistic differences when denoting different meanings. 2）Rhetorical features （1）Phonetic manipulation a. alliteration such as "chop and change" b. rhyme such as "toil and moil" （2）Lexical manipulation a. reiteration, which means the duplication of synonyms such as "chop and change" b. repetition, which means the repetition of the same word, such as "by and by" c. juxtaposition, which means the combination of two antonyms such as "day and night" （3） Figures of speech a. simile: as proud as a peacock b. metaphor: white elephant c. metonymy: velvet glove d. synecdoche: earn one's bread e. personification: Failure is the mother of success 4. Variations of idioms 1）addition: "in good condition" from "in condition" 2） deletion: "the last straw" from "It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back." 3） position-shifting: "The Johnsons keep up with sb" from "keep up with the Johnsons" 4） replacement: "wash one's clean linen in public" from "wash one's dirty linen in public" Idioms are terse, vivid and expressive.。

上外英语专业综合教程(第二版)3_Unit12资料

上外英语专业综合教程(第二版)3_Unit12资料


Detailed Reading
“Take Over, Bos’n!” Oscar Schisgall
1 Hour after hour I kept the gun pointed at the other nine men. From the lifeboat’s stern, where I’d sat most of the twenty days of our drifting, I could keep them all covered. If I had to shoot at such close quarters, I wouldn’t miss. They realized that. Nobody jumped at me. But in the way they all glared I could see how they’d come to hate my guts. 2 Especially Barrett, who’d been bos’n’s mate; Barrett said in his harsh, cracked voice, “You’re a fool, Snyder. Yyou can’t hold out forever! You’re half asleep now!”
e.g. ①There wasn’t much in it after twenty days. Maybe a pint. (Paragraph 4) — used to make the information contained in the previous sentence more concrete ②Jeff Barrett was the nearest one. A constant threat. (Paragraph 9) — a sort of appositive
《英语修辞学》第二章

《英语修辞学》第二章

• Development: The development of English ethics can be traced back to any Greece and Rome, where philosophers and orators are such as Aristotle and Cicero established the fundamental principles of ethics Over time, these principles were adapted and adapted by English writers and speakers, resulting in the evolution of a distinct English style of rhetoric that emphasizes clarity, logic, and wit
to the entire cream
Personality and anthropology
要点一
Personalization
Personalization is a rhetorical device where abstract ideas or inanimate objects are given human qualities or attributes For example, "the waves dance in the moonlight" personalizes the waves by giving them the ability to dance
Importance
Rhetoric plays a critical role in communication, allowing individuals to express their ideas clearly and persistently It is essential in various fields such as politics, law, education, and business, where the ability to influence and supervise others is key to success
rhetorical analysis essay范文

rhetorical analysis essay范文

rhetorical analysis essay范文研究文体的文章是一种常见的学术写作形式，许多学生在学习英语写作时需要掌握这种技能。

其中一种类型是修辞分析论文（rhetorical analysis essay），它旨在分析作者使用的修辞手段以及这些手段如何影响读者的观点和态度。

在撰写修辞分析论文时，需要采用以下步骤：1. 阅读文章并理解主要观点和论点。

2. 分析作者使用的修辞手段，例如比喻、对比、重复、讽刺等。

需要注意这些手段在何处出现以及它们的效果。

3. 确定读者的目标和情感反应，例如是否被作者的观点所说服，或者是否产生了不同的情感反应。

4. 在论文中讨论上述步骤，并提供支持作者观点的证据和例子。

以下是一篇修辞分析论文的范文：范文：In the article “Why We Should All Be Eating Insects”, the author argues that eating insects can be a solution to global food insecurity. The author uses a variety of rhetorical devices to support this argument and appeal to the readers’emotions.The author begins by using an anecdote about a friend who ate a cricket taco, which immediately catches the reader’s attention. This anecdote is followed by statistics thatdemonstrate the unsustainability of current food production methods. By combining a personal story with facts, the author establishes credibility and engages the reader emotionally. The author emphasizes the benefits of eating insects, such as their high protein content and low environmental impact. These benefits are reinforced with imagery, such as the comparison of a cricket farm to a chicken farm. By using vivid imagery, the author creates a mental picture that supports the argument.Furthermore, the author uses repetition to emphasize the urgency of the issue, stating that “we need to act now.” This repetition is effective in creating a sense of urgency in the reader, encouraging them to take action.Although the author’s argument may seem unconventional, the use of rhetorical devices helps to persuade the reader. The combination of personal anecdotes, statistics, imagery, and repetition creates a persuasive argument that appeals to the reader’s emotions and encourages them to consider the benefits of eating insects.总结：以上范文简要说明了如何撰写修辞分析论文。