会话含义与合作原则

1 会话含义与合作原则

美国语言哲学家格赖斯为了保证谈话顺利进行，谈话双方必须共同遵守一些准则，特别是在1967年提出的“合作原则”。当谈话一方不遵守合作原则而又不是为了说谎为目的即故意违反准则，于是就产生会话含义。会话含义就是一种超出语句本身意义范围的意义，即说话者的“言外之意”。一般来说，人们可以通过违反合作原则中的质、量、关系原则和利用方式准则来表达或推导出会话含义，来表达与字面意思不同的没有说出来的含义，回避志杰说出想表达的意思，含蓄的表达自己的真实意图。会话含义一般可以分为两类：一般含义和特殊含义。一般含义是指在遵守合作原则中的默想准则是带有的含义。特殊含义是指在有意违反合作原则中的某项原则，在特定的语境中推导出来的含义。会话含义的特征可以归纳为：可取消性、不可分离性、可推导性、非规约性和不确定性。

概要：

一、会话含义的由来

二、 合作原则的几项原则：

质的原则

量的原则

关系原则

礼貌原则

三、会话含义的产生方法：

违反质的原则：故意提供不足的信息，提供没有必要的信息

违反量的原则：说一些不符合事实的话；说一些荒唐的话

违反关系原则

利用礼貌原则：使用有歧义的词语：使用不必要的词语；打乱叙述顺序

四、会话含义的种类：

一般会话含义和特殊会话含义

五、会话含义的特点：

可取消性、不可分离性、可推导性、非规约性和不确定性

关键词：会话含义 合作原则 违反 谈话

2 Conversational Implicature and Cooperative Principle

American linguistics H.P.Grice once gave in 1967.In the speech, Grice said, the

two sides of the conversation must obey some basic rules, especially the “cooperative

principle”, to ensure that the conversation can go on propitiously. When one side of

the principle doesn’t want to lie, conversational implicature comes out.

Conversational implicature is a kind of meaning, which is beyond the sentence itself.

Generally speaking, people can violate the maxim of quality, quantity, and relation

and use the maxim of the manner to produce conversational implicature, which send

the unsaid meaning of the words. Generally speaking, conversational implicature can

be divided into two kinds: generalized implicature and particularized implicature.

Generalized implcature refers to an implicature, which obeys the cooperative principle

and also has the meaning. Particularized implicature refers to the implicature that

violates some of the cooperative principle and makes the meaning in some specially

context. The features of the conversational implicature: cancelability, no detachability,

calculability, non-conventionality and indeterminacy:

Key words:

Conversational implicature cooperative principle violate conversation

3 Conversational Implicature and Cooperative Principle

American linguistics H.P.Grice once gave speeches in 1967.In the speech. Grice

said, the two sides of the conversation must obey some basic rules, especially the

“cooperative principle”, to ensure that the conversation can go on propitiously. He

believed the two sides of the conversation should have a same wish: the two sides can

understand each other. So both of them obey some cooperative principles to achieve

the aim. However, Grice said, not all the people in the conversation obey the rules.

Once one side finds the other side not obey the cooperative principle, he will make

himself try his best to understand the unsaid meaning in the conversation. So the

conversational implicature comes out.

As the conversational implicature has a close relationship with the co operational

principle, we will introduce the cooperative principle first. In a conversation, the

participants must first of all be willing to cooperate；Otherwise, it would not be

possible for them to carry on the talk. This general principle is called the cooperative

principle.

There are four main maxims in the cooperative principle:

 The maxim of quality: make your contribution as informative as required(for the

current purpose of the exchange)；Do not make your contribution more

informative than is required.

 The maxim of quality: do not say what you believe to be false; do not say that for

which you back adequate evidence.

 The maxim of relation: the words have a relationship with other factors.

4  The maxim of manner: avoid obscurity of expression; avoid ambiguity; be brief

(avoid unnecessary prolixity); be orderly.

The conversational implicature is a meaning out of the sentence itself; it is the

speaker’s meaning under the literal. In the real life, people often violate some

principles to sent some dark meaning.

The meaning related with the cooperative principle may become by the

following ways:

First, to violate the maxim of quality

1. Offer the deficient information on purpose.

E.g.:

One farmer meets Sam and says:

“Hey, Sam, my horse’s got distemper. What did you give yours hen he had it?”

“Turpentine,” grunted Sam.

A week later they meet again and the first farmer shouts:

“Sam, I gave my horse turpentine like you said and it killed him.”

“So did mine.” nodded Sam.

第一位农妇的真正目的不仅是向Sam了解马病用了什么药，而且想了解治疗的结果，但通过对话它实际上只达到了一半的目标。Sam并没有满足第一位农妇想了解治疗结果的要求，它违反了“量”的准则，并没有完全提供交谈目的所需要的全部信息，结果第一位农夫因为没有察觉到这一点而受骗上当了。

2. The information is superfluous

E.g. :

甲：他在你们银行工作的怎么样?

乙：嗯，挺好！他不常跟同事吵架，跟顾客吵架也不多。

正常情况下，作为对甲的回答，“挺好”已基本够了，但乙又说了下面