语用学语用学是在语境中考察话语意义的学科。
语用学与语义学都是研究语言的意义。
根本区别在于是否在语境中考察意义，pragmatics=meaning-semantics。
语境是指说话人和听话人共同的知识部分，包括对所用语言的了解以及对交流时的具体场合在内的周围世界的认识。
1．言语行为理论1）施为句和表述句对事实进行描述，有真假之分的句子称为表述句；在说出的同时，也是在实施某种行为，没有真假的句子，称为施为句。
2）行事行为理论说话可以在三种意义上被看成做事。
第一种为发话行为，移动发音器官，发出一定意义的声音的行为；第二种是刑事行为，在发话行为的同时，表明说话的目的和希望所说的话怎样被人理解，即言外之意；第三种为取效行为，话语对听话人产生的实际效果。
语言学家历来关注发话行为，即发音、组词、造句等，取消行为则涉及许多现在无法弄清的心理和社会因素，行事行为称为真正关注的目标，言语行为理论实际就是刑事行为理论。
2．会话含义理论由H.P.Grice提出。
主要探究人们怎样传达没有明确说出来的含义。
1）合作原则人们在谈话中会有意无意地遵循这样的合作原则：“使你所说的话，在其所发生的阶段，符合你所参与的交谈的公认目标或方向”，具体体现为四条原则：数量准则、质量准则、关系准则、方式准则。
2）准则的违背除谎言外，其他违背准则的情况实际是在更深的层次上遵守准则。
会话含义只有依赖合作原则才能推导出来。
主要考点：言语行为的定义，种类，以及实例分析。
合作原则及其四条准则的内容，实例分析合作原则和会话含义。
话语意义与句子意义的区别1.What is PragmaticsThe study of the use of language in communication, particularly the relationship between sentences and the context and situations in which they are used. Pragmatics includes the study ofa: How the interpretation and use of UTTERANCEs depends on knowledge of the real world.人们对话语的理解和运用与对现实世界的认识有什么关系b: How speakers use and understand SPEECH ACTs说话者如何使用和理解言语行为c: How the structure of sentences is influenced by the relationship between the speaker and the hearer.句子的结构如何受说话者和听话者之间关系的影响2.Semantics and pragmaticsSemantics and pragmatics are both linguistic studies of meaning. What essentially distinguishes semantics and pragmatics is whether in the study of meaning the context of use is considered. If it is not considered, the study is restricted to the area of traditional semantics; if it is considered, the study is carried out in the area of pragmatics. Semantics studies sentences as units of the abstract linguistic system while pragmatics studies utterances as instances of the linguistic system. The former stops at the sentence level; the latter looks at bigger chunks of conversation. Theformer regards sentences as stable products; the latter treats utterances as dynamic processes. The former analyses sentences in isolation; the latter analyses utterances in close connection with their contexts of situation.3. How does utterance meaning differ from sentence meaning?A sentence is a grammatical concept, and the meaning of a sentence is often studied as the abstract, intrinsic property of the sentence itself. But if we think of a sentence as what people actually utter in the course of communication, it becomes an utterance, and it should be considered in the situation in which it is actually uttered or used. Therefore, while the meaning of a sentence is abstract, and decontextualized, and that of an utterance is concrete, and context-dependent. The meaning of an utterance is based on sentence meaning;it is the realization of the abstract meaning of a sentence in a real situation of communication, or simply in a context. Take the sentence “my bag is heavy” as an example. The sentence meaning of it is “my bag is heavy(not light)”The utterance meaning of the sentence varies with the context in which it is uttered . It could be uttered by a speaker as a straightforward statement, telling the hearer that his bag is heavy. It could also be intended by the speaker as an indirect, polite request, asking the hearer to help him carry the bag. Another possibility is that the speaker is declining someone’s request for help. All these are possible interpretation of the same utterance “my bag is heavy”. How it is to be understood depends on the context in which it is uttered and the purpose for which the speaker utters it.4. Why is Utterance meaning context-dependent?The notion of context is generally considered as constituted by the knowledge shared by the speaker and the hearer. V arious components of shared knowledge have been identified, e.g., knowledge of the language they use, knowledge of what has been said before, knowledge of the world in general, knowledge about the specific situation in which linguistic communication is taking place, and knowledge about each other.Context determines the speaker’s use of language and also the hearer’s interpretation of what is said to him or her. Without such knowledge, linguistic communication would not be possible, and without considering such knowledge, linguistic communication cannot be satisfactorilly accounted for in a pragmatic sense.5. Micropragmatics1) Reference:p1442)Inference: It refers to the listener’s use of additional knowledge to make senseof what is not explicit in an utterance.3)deixis(p144)4)Anaphora(p145)Macropragmatics6.Austin made the primary distinction between two types of utterances: constative and performative.1)Constatives: utterances which roughly serves to state a fact, report thatsomething is the case, or describe what something is, eg:I go to the park every Sunday.I teach English.2) Performatives: utterances which are used to perform acts, do not describe or report anything at all; the uttering of the sentence is the doing of an action; they cannot be said to be true or false.eg:I do.( as uttered in the course of a marriage ceremony.)I name this ship Queen Elizabeth.I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.I give and bequeath my watch to my brother.I promise to finish it in time.I apologize.I declare the meeting open.3)Characteristics of PerformativesA. They are performed in saying something;B. they cannot be performed unless language is used;C. they have connected with them performative verbs, the occurrence of which as a main verb in a present tense, indicative, active, a first person sentence makes explicit what act a speaker intends to be performing in utteringthe sentence.4) How to distinguish performatives and constatives1. Conditions: true or false (constative)2. grammatical criterion: (performative)first person singular sub.simple present tenseindicative moodactive voice7. The distinction between constatives & performatives cannot be maintained.All sentences can be used to do things.Saying something can be understood as doing something.8. The theory of the Illocutionary ActIn How to do things with words, Austin holds that there are three senses in which saying something can be understood as doing something.Locutionary Act 发话行为Illocutionary Act行事行为Perlocutionary Act取效行为Locutionary Act(发话行为/言中行为）: (1)the utterance of a sentence with specific sense and reference;An illocutionary act: an act performed in saying something. To say sth is to do sth.(the act of expressing the s peaker’s intention)A perlocutionary act: the act performed by or resulting from saying something;it is the consequence of, or the change brought about by the utterance (the effect of those words on hearer.It is the consequence of or the change brought about by the utterance.)9.Searles’ five categories of illocutionary act1.representatives 陈述类those kinds of speech acts that state what the speakerbelieves to be the case or not.（state, describe,swear, report etc.)Eg:The earth is flat.Chomsky didn’t write about music.It was a warm sunny day.2.declaratives:宣告类those kinds of speech acts that change the world via theirutterance(name, declare, nominate, point)You’re firedPriest:I now pronounce you husband and wife.Referee裁判员:You’re out.Jury Foreman陪审团团长:We find the defendant guilty.3.directives指令类speech acts by which the speaker tries to get the hearer to dosomething.（ask, order, request, command, advise)Give me a cup of coffee.Could you lend me a pen?Don’t do that.•I order you to leave the room.•I beg you to give me some advice.• missives 承诺类:speech acts that speakers use to commit themselves to some future action,(promise, bet)•I’ll be back.•We will not do that.•Warning is also a commissive, as “If you do that again I’ll beat you to death”, because it also commits the speaker to doing something.• 5.expressives 表达类speech act s that express the speaker’s psychological state about sth,( what the speaker feels.)•(thank, congratulate, apologize, welcome, deplore对…深感遗憾)•Congratulations.•I’m sorry.•I apologize for stepping on your toe.10. Direct speech act:speech act where a direct relationship exists between the structure and communicative function of an utterance.•Eg:using an interrogative form(Can you…?) to ask a question(Can you swim?)11.Indirect speech act:speech act where an indirect relationship exists between the structure and communicative function of an utterance.•Eg:using an interrogative form(Can you…?) not to ask a question(Can you help me with this?)12. The cooperative principle , proposed by Herbert Paul Grice ,is about that the participants must first of all be willing to cooperate; otherwise, it would not be possible to carry on the talk. This principle has the four following maxims (p15413.Conversational implicature: An additional unstated meaning that has to be assumed in order to maintain the cooperative principle.14. Relationship between the cooperative principle and conversational implicature:In daily conversations people do not usually say things directly but tend to imply them. The word “implicature” is used to refer the extra m eaning that is not explicitly expressed in the utterance.1)in making conversation, the participants must of all be willing tocooperate;otherwise, it would not be possible for them to carry on the talk. This general principle is called the cooperative principle.(写cp定义)2）while conversation participants nearly observe the cp, they do not always observe these maxims.These maxims can be violated for various reasons, but only when they are flouted, does conversational implicature occur.15. The politeness principle is a series of maxims, which Geoff Leech has proposed asa way of explaining how politeness operates in conversational exchanges.Each maxim is acompnied by a sub-maxim, which is of less importance.These support the idea that negative politeness (avoidance of discord) is more important than positive politeness(seeking concord).(p158)实例分析1 .A:I think he was married and had a lioness at home.•The speaker has violated the first Quality maxim,which says “do not say what you believe to be false”. In the literal sense, no human being would marry a lioness, and therefore, at this level, it is a false statement. However, the deliberate violation of the maxim will lead us to interpret it as a metaphor, meaning that his wife had a bad temper.2. A: What do you intend to do?B: I have a terrible headache.B has flouted the maxim of Relation,sinc e he did not answer A’s questiondirectly. However, assuming that B was co-operative, A was likely to derive the implicature that since B had a terrible headache, he would probably just lie in bed and do nothing.3. A: Can you tell me the secret?B: But John is there.In the conversation, the maxim of relation has been flouted. A will assume that if B is cooperative his reply must be relevant in a different sense: I will not talk about my secret now because I do not want to let John know.4. A:Let’s go to t he movies.B: I’ll bring the Kleenex.The answer of B seems irrelevant to A’s utterance. By doing so, A will likely derive the implicature that B has accepted his suggestion, and is going to get prepared.5. A: Would you drive a Mercedes?B: I wouldn’t dri ve ANY expensive car.By violating the maxim of relation, B intends to implicate that Mercedes is an expensive car, and he would not drive a Mercedes.6.A:Where’ve you been?B: Out.A violation of the first Quantity maxim was recognized, which says “make y ourcontribution as informative as is required for the current purpose of the exchange” . B was supposed to provide the specific information of the place he had been to; however, he didn’t. By such a violation, B probably implied that “I do not want to tel l you where I have been”.7. A: I know you are a famous sociologist. Could you define the term “culture”please?B: Well, culture is culture. That’s it.B violates the first Quantity maxim which requires one’s utterance to beinformative enough and also th e Maxim of manner which requires one’s utterance to be perspicious. BY such violation, B probably wanted to imply that he would not tell the exat definition of “culture” so that A could think about it by himself. 8. H: Let’s dine out with the kids this wee kend.W: Ok, but not M-c-D-o-n-a-l-d-s.> This is said when it is known to both husband and wife that the latter has no difficulty in pronouncing the word “Mcdonalds”. Thus the wife has flouted the maxim of manner. Her utterance has the implicature that I don’t want the kids t know we are talking about bringing them to Mcdonalds.9. A: Where is X?B: He’s gone to the library. He said so when he left.In this dialogue, the second maxim of Quantity is violated, which requires one’s utterance not to be over informative. The first part of B’s answer is enough for A’s question, but by adding the second part, the speaker may implicate that he is not sure whether X has really gone to the library.10. A: When is Susan’s farewell party?B: Sometime next month.This is said when it is known to both A and B that B knows exactly when Susan is going to give her farewell party. Thus B is withholding some of the information required at this stage of conversation and is thus flouting the maxim of quantity.The implicature t hat results is “I do not wish to tell you when the party is going to be held.”。
