摘要:本篇论文旨在探讨中国人讲英语的礼貌问题。尽管中国人学英语时已经掌握了很多语法知识,但是在实际交际中,在表达的礼貌方面还有很大欠缺。中国式英语被很多外国人认为很粗鲁。但是在国内,很多英语学习者和英语教师还没有认识到这个问题。在同外国人用英语交流时,礼貌问题也影响了中国人在外国的形象。本文在总结生活实例的基础上,对中英文转化过程中的礼貌问题做出了详细的解释。本论文对日常言语行为中的礼貌语用失误进行了描述和简单地分析,例如对招呼语,称赞语,告别语,拒绝语,道歉语,请求语等中出现的礼貌语用失误进行阐述。研究发现,中国人并不是没有礼貌,只是在句子的使用及表达方面未注意到礼貌的问题。无论是单词还是句式的选择,在英语的礼貌表达上都发挥着很大的作用。
总的来说,本文利用认知语言学的理论和观点来分析英语礼貌问题,为英语的学习与教学,以及跨文化交际等方面提供了参考和借鉴。
关键词:礼貌跨文化日常交际
Abstract: This paper concerns itself with the politeness failure when Chinese speak English. Though Chinese has learned English vocabularies and grammar for many years, the English we speak is not even polite enough for native speakers. According to many natives from English-speaking countries, Chinglish, which is regarded as English of Chinese, is rude and impolite sometimes. However, at home, many English learners and teachers have not realized this issue yet. The politeness failure has influenced the image of China while Chinese communicate with foreigners. Based on the examples from daily life, this paper explains details to the politeness failure during the transforming between Chinese and English. In terms of daily speech acts, such as greetings, compliment, farewell, refusal apology request and so on, pragmatic failures in practice are illustrated and simply discussed. By collecting typical cases from daily life, we find this research that Chinese fail to use sentences in a polite way in the result of unnoticing politeness instead of being rude on purpose. The selection of words and sentence structure make great difference in expression.
In a conclusion, to support the point of this paper, the linguistic cognitive theory is used to analyze the problems existing in Chinglish. This paper presents the discussion of causes and provides a reference for English learning and teaching, as well as
intercultural communication.
Key words: politeness, cross-culture, daily communication
Ⅰ.Introduction
In cross-cultural communication, pragmatic failure in politeness has become an essential problem. However, politeness is the key pragmatic principles in language use, especially in the intercultural communication between different groups. Due to some differences in language, culture, and some living environments, politeness in utterances differ dramatically from one community to another community sharing no universal language. In more and more exchanges,trade businesses and other interactive activities among different countries, different polite philosophy has brought various obstacles for inter-cultural communications. Because of those clear discrepancies from different groups,distinct understanding of communication context and other factors that a great number of pragmatic failures in politeness have become the prevailing phenomena in inter-cultural communication.
Pragmatic failures in polite utterances are unavoidable. Participants as native speakers and those as non-native speakers encounter all kinds of violation of polite principles.Failures in politeness are most reflected in the speech acts to display the intended meanings and to convey the expected ideas. Therefore, the main issue to be discussed in this thesis is narrowed to the specific pragmatic failures in daily life. Ⅱ.Literature Review
A.Politeness Study Abroad
The four conversational maxims proposed by Grice in logic and Conversation (1967) are formulated as quantity maxim, quality maxim, relation maxim and manner maxim. Grice advocates these conversational maxims and the Cooperative Principle (CP) to reveal the ways or the mechanisms by which people interpret implicature to accomplish their conversations. His theory has been seen as pragmatic principles in conversations for interpersonal communications.
But there is another type of implicature that receives no account in the pragmatic theory of the cooperative principle, which is implicature of politeness. As argued by Thomas (1995), politeness as an illocutionary phenomenon, is closely connected with
pragmatics.
Following Thomas, we have grouped the pragmatic approach to politeness under four headings: the conversational maxim view advocated by Leech (1980), the face-management view proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), the conversational-contract view put forward by Fraster (1990)and the pragmatic scales view presented by Spencer-Oatey(1992). Particularly, Leech …s six maxims which include the tact maxim, the generosity maxim, the approbation maxim, the modesty maxim, the agreement maxim and the sympathy maxim are regarded as the politeness principle.
According to Leech, communicators generally observe some rules of good behavior which he terms the Politeness Principle. The principle can explain why people are sometimes indirect in conveying what they mean. It is a necessary complement that may rescue the CP from serious trouble in theorizing.
B.Politeness Study in China
the most worth mentioning is Prof.Gu Yueguo (p237-257),who summarizes four essential elements of Chinese politeness:respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth and refinement. Later on, Gu (1992) elaborates these four essentials into five maxims of politeness in Chinese, They are Self-denigration Maxim; Address Term Maxim; Refinement Maxim; Agreement Maxim; Virtues-word deeds Maxim.
C.Studies of Pragmatic Failures Abroad
The notion of pragmatic failure has been initially defined by British linguist Thomas in her paper of cross—cultural pragmatic failure. Thomas defines it as “the inability to understand” what is meant by what is said (Thomas, 1983:p91-112). In other words, it means that the speaker?s utterance is interpreted or understood by a hearer as different from what the speaker intends to be interpreted. So often pragmatic failure occurs in interactions between native and non-native speakers, and it also can be found in cross-cultural communications between native speakers.
D.Studies of Inter-cultural Pragmatic Failure in China
Chinese famous scholar Mr. He Ziran ( 2002) argues that the umbrella notion of pragmatic failure can refer to any failure that speakers have not accomplished the
expected effect in language communications. He remarks that it is not the wrong grammatical structure that leads to inadequate expression of meaning and sense.
Chen Xinren (2004) has also explored pragmatic failures from the aspect of pragmatic competence.He holds that the skills of using language can be seen as pragmatic competence. Language grammar stipulates the correct form and structure of language, and semantic codes regulates that the form must take some meaning or sense.
Ⅲ. The pragmatic failure of politeness in daily life
A.Greeting failure
We are obviously more familiar with some expressions, such as, “hello”, “hi”“I am so sorry”. However, “Good bye” and “See you” is not always equal to the other. Especially when you are a waiter/waitress and the hearer is your customer. The customer can say “See you”when he/she is going to leave. This sentence means he/she likes to be here, and he/she may come here next time. But as a waiter/waitress, using “See you”seems too aggressive; actually, it will make customers feel uncomfortable. The best way, also the simplest way is just say “Bye”.
Similarly, “You are welcome” cannot be used to answer every “Thank you”. It sounds too much formal. You can say “Cheers”or “No worry”. If the hearer likes saying “Thank you”, sometimes you can ignore his/her “thanks”and continue your speech. If you are the customer, there is no necessity to say “You are welcome” to the seller. The better way is just say “Thank you” back.
According to last two examples, we can clearly see that some expressions in English are not as that familiar to us as what we think of. When we are at school or some other training institutions, we are taught their meanings, but those are the semantic meanings, as for pragmatic meaning, we can only get them from foreigner?s laughter or contempt. Obviously, that is the reason that most foreigners think Chinese rude and impolite.
B.Invitation failure
When you get a good friend who is an America or British, someday, he says”Would you like to have dinner with me in my house?” Unfortunately, you do not have
time to go there. Some people may say “No, thanks. I have another appointment.”Then, congratulations, you probably will not be invited next time. Or even worse, you just lose a friend. How to say “No” politely is a complex skill no matter in China or abroad. In this condition, “Thanks”cannot make up the hurt you have made. In a polite way, you should say” That is a good idea. I would like to join in, but I have another appointment today.” In this way, you show that you are sorry about not going and give a respect to his/her invitation.
C.Request failure
In a restaurant, you want to have a hamburger. You tell the waiter” I want a hamburger”. You are so lucky if he does not treat you like rubbish. It is not a polite way to give a request. Through this way, nothing can even be called “a request”. You should say “Could I have a hamburger, please?”, or “Can I have a hamburger, please?”.
D.Euphemism failure
When British say “I only have a few minor comments”, they mean “Please re-write completely”. But what others understand is “He has found a few typos”. This is a very common phenomenon in daily life. Sometimes, when a British says “Could we consider some other options?”, It means “I do not like your idea” But what others understand is “They have not yet decided.” These two examples show that we cannot get what the British mean completely. Then we should remember more examples.
“That is not bad”means “That is good”. “That is very brave”means “That is very stupid” or “You are insane”. “Quite good” means” a bit disappointment”. “Very interesting” means “That is clearly nonsenses”.
According to these examples, we can see that if we do not know anything about pragmatics, it is very difficult to get what they actually mean. In this condition, pragmatic failure in politeness is inevitable.
Ⅳ. Reason analysis on pragmatic failure in politeness
A.Model Verbs(Model Auxil-iaries)
The cultured westerners would use model verbs more frequently to show their politeness to others. Therefore, model verbs like “can, could, may, might, and would”
will function well in conversations. It sounds more polite to express suggestion, request, willing and so on. For example, “Pass me the salt” is less polite than “Could you please pass me the salt?” apparently.
B.Subjunctive mood
By using words like”would rather, would sooner, would as soon”and “had”which is also called as subjunctive mood. It will cause hearer to feel that you are considering a better result or way to avoid the bad ones. It will also show that you are deducing the probable problems and trying to find a way to solve it.
C.Please
When “please” goes after the sentence, it sounds better than when it goes before the sentence. Because the sentence sounds like an order when you use “please” as the beginning of a sentence. For example, “Could you please reply to me by Monday? Thank you.” is much more polite than “Please reply to me by Monday. Thank you.”D.Passive voice
Sometimes, declarative sentences may be stiff and impolite. This is time to use passive voice or negative sentences or interrogative sentences to show you politeness. In this way, it avoids our subjective opinions and gives the hearer a positive mood. For instance, “Every piece of luggage has to be examined through.” is better than “We will examine every piece of luggage”.
E.Past tense
Similarly, when you use past tense to make a request, it sounds more comfortable and acceptable. For example,”I thought you were needing me, Mr. Smith.”
Ⅴ. Conclusion
Following the definition of pragmatic failures in inter-cultural communication given by Thomas in the 1970s, pragmatic failures in inter-cultural communication has been the hot topic discussed by many scholars more than ever both at home and abroad and many scholars have explored the pragmatic failures from various points of view, such as sociolinguistics, psychology, second language acquisition and so on. This paper mainly investigates the pragmatic failures in politeness, more specifically
in a variety of polite speech acts.
The studies of causes of pragmatic failures in inter-language communication can also be applied to those occurring in the politeness and such traditional causes are generalized into four categories as culture and language differences, language transfer in second language acquisition, teaching induced causes and violation of pragmatic rules in language use. But few scholars turn their attention to causes studies in a cognitive approach. That is a reason why this paper is engaged in the exploration of the causes leading to politeness failures in a cognitive perspective.
The major causes of politeness failures discussed in this paper are concluded as politeness transfer, different culture-based cognitive environment and an improper choice of context. The study of the causes for politeness failures is on the basis of the common politeness failure phenomena in different speech acts. From a cognitive perspective, prototype and category theory as well as cognitive approach on relevance theory are applied to explain the causes for politeness failures in inter-cultural communication between Chinese and English native speakers.
Though, this paper is facilitated with some new perspectives on the analysis of certain causes for politeness failures, there are still some other important causes to generate pragmatic failures, like individual factors, society and others. The focus here is only on three causes, which may be one limitation of this paper. Besides, due to some limitations, no empirical survey is conducted to illustrate the failure phenomenon, and some of those pragmatic failures are collected directly from the books of other scholars, but still they bear pragmatic significance and are scientific enough to be used as evidence in this paper.
References
Brown. P & Levinson. S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Leech, G.N. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Limited, 1983. Levinson, S.C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Thomas, J. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Yule, G. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985
陈新仁. 当代语用学. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 2004.
何自然. 语用学概论. 长沙: 湖南教育出版社, 2002
何伟, 彭漪, 于晖. 当代语言学. 北京: 高等教育出版社,2007
顾曰国. “Politeness phenomenon in modern Chinese.”Journal of Pragmatics 141- 990(1993): 237-257.
何兆熊.Study of Politeness in Chinese and Eng1ish Cultures. 北京: 北京外国语大学出版社,1995
语用学:语用学(pragmatics)是对人类有目的的行为所作的研究(广义),对有目的的语言活动的研究(狭义)。源起符号学(semiotics)。 符号学:符号学是系统地研究语言符号和非语言符号的学科。有三个分支——符号关系学、语义学、语用学。符号关系学(syntactics)研究符号之间的形式关系。语义学(semantics)研究符号与符号所代表的事物之间的关系。语用学(pragmatics)研究符号与符号解释者之间的关系。 语用学与语义学的联系和区别:语用学和语义学都是符号学的分支。语义学主要指狭义的语义学,即逻辑语义学,它研究句子和词语本身的意义,研究命题的真值条件。语用学研究言语使用上的意义,研究传递语言信息的适宜条件。语义学揭示的意义是二元关系的句子意义,解决“What does X mean?”的问题。语用学揭示的是三元关系的说话人意义,解决“What did you mean by X?”的问题。 语境(context):最狭义的语境是指语言的上下文。语境还必须包括语言外的因素。语境因素包括语言知识、语言外知识;语言知识包括对所使用的语言的掌握、对语言交际上文的了解;语言外知识包括背景知识、情景知识、相互知识,背景知识包括百科全书式的知识(常识)、特定文化的社会规范、特定文化的会话规则,情景知识包括交际的时间、地点、交际的主题、交际的正是程度、交际参与者的相互关系。语境是一个动态的、发展的概念。交际本身就是一个动态的过程,在交际过程中,语境也随之而变。有些语境因素相对来说比较稳定,例如背景知识、交际的时间、地点等,但有些因素却会变化,特别重要的是相互知识这一因素,它在交际过程中不断扩大,原来不为双方所共有的知识完全可能在交际过程中变为相互知识,成为进一步交际的基础。交际过程也是语境的构建过程。 意义(sense)和所指(reference):意义主要指词语的字面意义,词典中每个词语的意义就是这种字面意义。所指论(referential theory)——词的意义就是某个词所代表、所指示、所表示的世界上的实体,即所指对象(referent)。词即是事物的名称,比如“dog”这个词代表了属于这一类的实体。(柏拉图)最极端的“所指论”观点认为,词的意义就是它所指的事物,所指就是意义。上述看法显然是片面的。因果的、历史的所指理论——专有名
第一章作为语言学一个分支的语义学 语义学的建立以法国学者米歇尔·布勒阿尔1897年7月出版《语义学探索》为标记。 该书1900年翻译为英文“语义学:意义科学的研究(Semantics:Studies in the Science of Meaning)”。 这本专著材料丰富,生动有趣,重点在词义的历史发展方面,兼顾词汇意义和语法意义。 全书共三编:1,讲词义变化的定律,介绍变异、扩散、类推等概念;2,讲如何确定词义,介绍释义、比喻、多义、命名等;3,讲词类、词序、组合规则等,涉及语法意义。 除了语言学的语义学,还有逻辑学的语义学,哲学的语义学,还有心理学家对语义的研究。 a,逻辑学的语义学是对逻辑形式系统中符号解释的研究,又称“纯语义学”,对象并非自然语言的语义。 b,哲学的语义学围绕语义的本质展开涉及世界观的讨论。“语义学”或“语义哲学”又是本世纪前半叶盛行于西方的至今仍有影响的一个哲学流派的名称。 c,心理学家研究语义,主要是想了解人们在信息的发出和接收中的心理过程。 d,语言学的语义学把语义作为语言(乃至言语)的一个组成部分、一个方面进行研究,研究它的性质,内部结构及其变异和发展,语义间的关系等等。 布勒阿尔的书给语义的发展以重要地位,声称研究语义的变化构成了语义学。同时它把语义限制在“词语”的意义上,主要是词义上。这两个特点一直贯穿在他以后半个多世纪的若干代表性著作里。 继布勒阿尔之后,一部有世界影响的语义学专著是两位英国学者奥格登和理查兹合写,1923年出版的《意义的意义》(The Meaning of Meaning)。这两位学者还曾共同创制了后来遭到各种非议的“基本英语”(Basic English).
语言学与语文教学 12中本3 李淑荧 2012014317摘要:语文教学需要语言学理论的支撑,这样才能更好地传播语文知识。本文探究语言学与语文教学的关系,以及从汉语语言学中的语音,词汇,语法这三面研究如何应用语言学来指导语文教学。 关键词:语言学语文教学语音词汇语法 有人认为识字和写字是语文教学的主要目的,但是这种看法并不完全正确。诚然,识字和写字也是语文教学的一个重要方面,但是语文教学中有比识字和写字更高层次的方面。语文教学旨在培养学生的读、写、说能力,而培养学生的读、写、说能力需要语言学理论来指导学生的学习。 一、语音 语音学是语文教学中不可缺少的重要内容。语音教学可以帮助学生提高口语的能力,提高言语素养,并提高他们的自信心。因此语文教师要在语文教学中充分发挥语音教学的作用。语文教学中并不需要给学生太多的的语音理论,却需要用这些语音理论来指导学生的读说实践,因此语文教师要了解并掌握语音理论,并且现在要想当语文教师的老师都必须达到普通话测试水平的二级甲以上。 语文教师如何在语文教学中运用语音理论来指导学生的学习?我觉得语文教师应从两方面着手。 首先,要教学生正确读准字词,培养他们普通话的正确读音。我认为,语文教师教他们从语音中的元音与韵母,声调,以及音节等重要方面学习普通话。学好普通话,教师可以从语音学的角度让学生简单了解辅音,声母,元音,音节,韵母、声调等的概念,让他们了理解声母与元音的发音原理和舌位图,以及让他们了解自己方言中声母、韵母和普通话声母、韵母的差异。比如:辅音n/l,n和l舌尖中、浊音,不同的是n是鼻音,l是边音。有些方言中这两个辅音全部相混,有些方言部分相混。但是如果教师在教学生学习这些辅音
“语用学”课程教学大纲 教研室主任:唐建萍执笔人:唐建萍 一、课程基本信息 开课单位:外国语学院 课程名称:语用学 课程编号:043103 英文名称:Pragmatics 课程类型:专业方向限选课 总学时:18 理论学时:18实验学时: 学分:1 开设专业:英语 先修课程:语言学导论 二、课程任务目标 (一)课程任务 语用学是英语专业语言学方向的一门专业限选课。本课程主要通过语用学中两个重要的概念,即“言语行为”和“语境”使学生掌握其相互作用和构成在话语交际中的核心作用,通过对语用学中指示、预设、言语行为理论、会话合作原则、话语逻辑等若干论题的研究,使学生可以从说话者和听话者的角度,知晓语言行为是受各种社会规约制约的行为,并可以运用社会规约结合语用知识去解释某些语言现象。让语言研究变成“语言—使用者—语境”这样一个三位一体的立体研究,对语言的认识从必然性跨越到自由性,从静态到动态,从单向分析向整体扩展,凝结出跨文化交际行为适合性的精髓。 (二)课程目标 在学完本课程之后,学生能够: 1. 区分语用学与语义学和其它相关学科在研究意义上的差别; 2. 在了解英语语言的基本特征以后,从语言使用的各种情况解释语言使用的意义、规 则和条件,从而以更高、更广的视角了解语言的特征; 3. 了解近二、三十年来语用学的发展、目前最新的研究动态及趋势,增强外语教学与
学习中的语用观念。 三、教学内容和要求 第一章引论 使学生了解语用学的起源和发展,并初步了解语用学中的几个基本概念及语用学同其它交叉学科的关系与学习意义 第一节语用学的起源及发展 第二节语用学的定义 第二章指示现象 使学生从语用角度了解指示词语的功能,脱离结构主义对指示词语的狭义理解,把话语和周围的世界联系起来。 第一节指示语的定义、分类和特点 第二节人称指示 第三节时间指示和空间指示 第四节语篇指示和社交指示 第三章语用预设 使学生了解预设、前提的定义及前提的反射问题。培养学生对话语命题进行逻辑切分的能力和逻辑推理能力 第一节前提的定义 第二节前提的种类 第三节前提的映射问题 第四节前提与蕴涵的关系 第四章会话含义(I):合作原则 要求学生掌握会话合作原则,并能应用到话语交际中,在话语轮回中动态的判断信息量,信息的真实性、相关性及谈话方式,发现话语的隐含意义 第一节合作原则的四项准则 第二节违反合作原则产生的语用效果 第三节隐含意义的定义及分类
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 1
浅议语用学与外语教学 1.语用学相关定义 语用学是语言学各分支中一个以语言意义为研究对象的新兴学科领域,是专门研究语言的理解和使用的学问,它研究在特定情景中的特定话语,研究如何通过语境来理解和使用语言。语用学因其本身的目的性和价值性而不同于语法研究,它是关于人类语言本身的研究。在语言的使用中,说话人往往并不是单纯地要表达语言成分和符号单位的静态意义,听话人通常要通过一系列心理推断,去理解说话人的实际意图。要做到真正理解和恰当使用一门语言,仅仅懂得构成这门语言的发音、词汇和语法是远远不够的。 近年来,越来越多的英语教师已认识到语言与语用学的密切关系,英语教学如果只停留在语音、词汇、语法等语言知识层面上,学生即使掌握了标准的语言、丰富的词汇、正确的语法,也不能很好地理解语言,更不能进行成功而有效的交际。因此,为了准确地理解和使用语言,学习者应在交际中运用语用策略消除歧义,提高跨文化交际的能力。 虽然迄今为止,语言学界对语用学的定义和范畴尚没有统一的见解,但却有一种共识,即“语境是语用学的核心概念之一”。是一门专门研究语境在交际过程中的作用的新学科。人们的正常语言交流总离不开特定的语境,“这里的语境包括交际的场合(时间、地点等),交际的性质(话题),交际的参与者(相互间的关系、对客观世界的认识和信念、过去的经验、当时的情绪等)以及上下文。语境直接影响着人们对话语的理解和使用”(金定元,1992:171)。换言之,要判断某些具体的言语行为是否得体须依据其使用的语境,离开了语境就使判断本身失真或失去意义。 语用学的另一核心概念就是意义。何兆熊先生(1987)在他的语用学概要一书中指出:“在众多的语用学定义中,有两个概念是十分基本的,一个是意义,另一个是语境。”从发展的观点看,语用学的崛起是语义研究的发展和延伸的结果,因此可以说语用学是一种对意义的研究。但语用学所研究的意义不同于形式语义学所研究的意义,它所研究的是语言在一定的语境中使用时体现出来的具体意义。由此可知,语境对意义的作用在语用学研究中十分重要。
语文教师需补一课:语用学 ——尝试用语用学解读新课标 特级教师熊生贵 《九年义务教育语文课程标准》2011年版和实验版比较,有一个重大变化,那就是对语文课程目标和语文课程性质进行了重新定位,这个定位中非常鲜明地突出了“语言文字运用”,强调语文课程的首要而核心的目标是“致力于培养学生的语言文字运用能力”,从未有过地明确语文课程的性质是“一门学习语言文字运用的综合性、实践性课程”。整个修订版课标,提到“语言文字运用”或“运用语言文字”或“运用语文”或“语文运用”一共13处,如此突出与强调“语用”,在我国有史以来的语文教学大纲或课程标准中,是第一次。这十分明确地提示我们,语文课程的理解与实施,有一个重要的理论背景:语用学。而对于语用学,广大语文教师是比较陌生的。我们当初从事语文教学,拥有的语文学科知识背景,主要就是“语文基础知识”(还有文学知识等),包括语言学基础,最多深入到有点语义学基础,而今需要语用学理论来解析课标和指导课程实施,不言而喻,我们需要补一课,学习一点语用学知识。有了语用学理论背景支持,可以更深刻的理解与学会语言文字表达。对于语文教师而言,会对语言文字运用现象,知其然更知其所以然,并在指导学生理解别人的表达和运用语言文字表达上,将会较大地提高指导水平。 什么是语用学呢?这首先是一个难以准确定义的概念。从“百度搜索”上得到的解释,倒不失为一种简单化的概念了解:“语用学是语言学各分支中一个以语言意义为研究对象的新兴学科领域,在众多的语用学定义中,有两个概念是十分基本的,一个是意义,另一个是语境,是专门研究语言的理解和使用的学问,它研究在特定情景中的特定话语,研究如何通过语境来理解和使用语言。” 提到语用学,必然会涉及到语义学,因为语义学与语用学是语言学的两大分支。两者都要研究语言文字的意义,但侧重点与方向相异:语义学主要研究语言片段(话语、语词)的编码意义即字面意义、抽象意义,而语用学的重点是研究语境化意义,即“用意”,是语言片段在特定语境条件下的交际意义。这一简单梳理,就让我们不难领会,其实,我们过去在语文及语文教学方面是有较厚实的“语义学基础知识”的。而我们主要缺乏的,是语言文字在实际运用中,在语境化呈现中,它有怎样的规律,我们该用哪些理论去指导我们,从而也让我们可以更好地指导学生学习语文和运用语文。补习语用学理论知识基础,其价值意义正是基于此。 学习掌握了语用学知识,首先可以让我们运用语用学知识,深刻理解新课标的一些论断(结语或语词),这种理解是领会它的语用学背景,让我们自觉运用语用学的理论指导我们的语文教学实施。这样可以使我们的学科视界更开阔,教学行动更理性而科学,真正兑现新课标的愿景:让学生学习好语言文字运用,提高语言文字运用能力。 下面笔者尝试用语用学的一些知识,理解语文新课标中的一些诊断,以期同大家一些深入解读新课标,从而实施语文教学。 ●课标说“语文是一门学习语言文字运用的综合性、实践性课程”,语言文字运用很自然就会对应到语文的“实践性”,但为什么要强调它的“综合性”呢? 2011年版语文课标,最大贡献之一是明确指明了语文课程的两性:综合性与实践性,而且两性的定语是“学习语言文字运用”。“学习语言文字运用”对应“实践性”,几乎是同义对
Chapter 5 Semantics Ⅰ. Decide whether each of the following statements is True or False: 1. Dialectal(方言的)synonyms(同义关系)can often be found in different regional dialects such as British English and American English but cannot be found within the variety itself, for example, within British English or American English. F 2. Sense is concerned with the relationship between the linguistic element and the non-linguistic world of experience, while the reference deals with the inherent meaning of the linguistic form. F 3. Linguistic forms having the same sense may have different references in different situations. T 4. In semantics, meaning of language is considered as the intrinsic and inherent relation to the physical world of experience. F 5. Contextualism is based on the presumption that one can derive meaning from or reduce meaning to observable contexts. T 6. Behaviourists attempted to define the meaning of a language form as the situation in which the speaker utters it and the response it calls forth in the hearer. T 7. The meaning of a sentence is the sum total of the meanings of all its components. F 8. Most languages have sets of lexical items similar in meaning but ranked differently according to their degree of formality. T 9. “It is hot.” is a no-place predication because it contains no argument. T 10. In grammatical analysis, the sentence is taken to be the basic unit, but in semantic analysis of a sentence, the basic unit is predication, which is the abstraction of the meaning of a sentence. T Ⅱ. Fill in each of the following blanks with one word which begins with the letter given: 11. Semantics can be defined as the study of meaning. 12. The conceptualist view holds that there is no direct link between a linguistic form and what it refers to. 13. Reference means what a linguistic form refers to in the real, physical world; it deals with the relationship between the linguistic element and the non-linguistic world of experience. 14. Words that are close in meaning are called synonyms. 15. When two words are identical in sound, but different in spelling and meaning, they are called homophones(同音/形异义词). 16. Relational opposites are pairs of words that exhibit the reversal of a relationship between the two items. 17. Componential(指数)analysis is based upon the belief that the meaning of a word can be divided into meaning components. 18. Whether a sentence is semantically meaningful is governed by rules called selectional restrictions, which are constraints on what lexical items can go with what others. 19. An argument is a logical participant in a predication, largely identical with the nominal element(s) in a sentence. 20. According to the naming theory of meaning, the words in a lan-guage are taken to be labels of the objects they stand for. Ⅲ. There are four choices following each statement. Mark the choice that can best complete
Chapter 6 pragmatics 语用学 知识点: 1.*Definition: pragmatics; context 2.*sentence meaning vs utterance meaning 3.*Austin’s model of speech act theory 4.Searle’s classification of speech acts 5.*Grice’s Cooperative Principle 考核目标: 识记:*Definition: pragmatics; context 领会:Searle’s classification of speech acts 综合应用:sentence meaning vs utterance meaning;Austin’s model of speech act theory;Grice’s Cooperative Principle 一、定义 1. Pragmatics语用学: Pragmatics: the study of how speakers of a language use sentences to effect successful communication. Pragmatic can also be regarded as a kind of meaning study.语用学研究的是语言使用者是如何使用句子成功进行交际的。语用学也可以看作是一中意义研究。(它不是孤立地去研究语义,而是把语义置于使用语境中去研究的一门学科。) 2. Context 语境:The notion of context is essential to the pragmatic study of language, it’s generally considered as constituted by the knowledge shared by the speaker and the hearer. 语境这个概念对语言的语用研究来说是必不可少的。一般认为他是由言者和听者的共享知识所构成的。 二、知识点 6.1.2 pragmatics vs. semantics语用学与语义学 二十世纪初,Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics 一书的出版标志着现代语言学研究的开始,同时也为现代语言学奠定了基础调,即语言应该作为一个独立的,内在的系统来加以研究。 语用学和语义学既有相关性又有相异性。两者都是对意义的研究。传统语义学把语义看成是抽象的,内在的,是语言本身的特性,不受语境的影响。因此传统语义学只研究语义的内在特征,不把语义研究置于语境中来考察。语用学研究的是交际过程中语言意义的表达和理解。语用学家认为不把意义放在语境中来考虑就不可能对语义进行充分的描述,因此在研究语义时是否考虑语境便成了传统语义学和语用学的根本区别所在。 Semantics 和Pragmatics的区分 Pragmatics studies how meaning is conveyed in the process of communication. The basic difference between them is that pragmatics considers meaning in context, traditional semantics studies meaning in isolation from the context of use.
语用学方向必读之物 1. Austin, J. L. 196 2. How to Do Things with Words[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2. Brown, G. & G. Yule. 198 3. Discourse Analysis[M]. Cambridge: CUP. 3. Grice, H. P. 1975[1991]. Logic and conversation[A]. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds).Syntax and Semantics,V ol. 3: Speech Acts[C]. NY: Academic Press:43-58. reprinted in S. Davis (ed). Pragmatics: a Reader[C]. NY & Oxford: OUP:305-315. 4. Halliday, M. A. K. 1994/2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold; 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社. 5. Leech, G. 1974/1981. Semantics: the Study of Meaning[M]. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin. 6. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. London: Longman. 7. Leech, G. 2005. Politeness: is there an east-west divide?[J]. 外国语(6):3-31. 8. Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics[M]. Cambridge: CUP. 9. Lyons, J. 1977[2000]. Semantics[M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社& CUP. 10. Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics: an Introduction[M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 11. Peccei, J. S. 2000. Pragmatics[M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社& Routledge. 12. Saeed, J. L. 1997. Semantics[M]. Oxford: Blackwell. 13. Searle, J. 1969[2001]. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[M]. Cambridge: CUP; 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社& CUP. 14. Searle, J. 1979[1981]. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts[M]. Cambridge: CUP. 15. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. J. 1986/1995/2001 Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社& Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 16. Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics[M]. London and NY: Longman. 17. Ungerer, F. & J. Schmid. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社. 18. Verschueren. J. 2000. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社& Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd. 19. Wilson, D. 2000. Relevance and understanding[A]. In G. Brown et al. (eds). Language andUnderstanding[C]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社:35-58. 20. Yule, G. 2000. Pragmatics[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社. 21. 何兆熊. 2003. 语用学文献选读[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社. 22. 何兆熊等. 2000. 新编语用学概要[M] . 上海: 上海外语教育出版社. 23. 何自然. 1988. 语用学概论[M]. 长沙: 湖南教育出版社. 24. 何自然. 1997. 语用学与英语学习[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社. 25. 何自然. 2003. 语用学讲稿[M]. 南京: 南京师范大学出版社.
言语的基本原则——得体 高二年级语文学科《语言的运用》第一单元教学案 编制:夏智明审核:高二语文组 主备人:夏智明使用班级:高二十一班教学时间:2013-5-22 学习目标: 1、理解言语行为的“得体”原则,增强语言运用的规范意识; 2、分析语言实例,培养观察语言现象的习惯,提高语言运用能力。 教学重点:理解言语行为的“得体”原则,增强语言运用的规范意识; 教学难点:分析语言实例,培养观察语言现象的习惯,提高语言运用能力。 自主学习: 1、小故事:话说朱元璋做了皇帝。有一天,他以前的一位苦难朋友从乡下赶到京城去找他,其中一个人对他说:“我主万岁!当年微臣随驾扫荡芦州府,打破罐州城,汤元帅在逃,拿住豆将军,红孩儿当关,多亏菜将军。”他这话说得很委婉,朱元璋听了心里很高兴。回想起来,也隐约记起了他的说话里像是包含了一些从前的事情,所以,立刻就封他为大官。 另外一个苦朋友得知了这个消息,他心想:“同是那时候一块儿玩的人,他去了既然有官做,我去当然也不会倒霉的吧?”他也就去了。 一见朱元璋的面,他就直通通的说:“我主万岁!还记得吗?从前,我们两个都替人家看牛,有一天,我们在芦花荡里,把偷来的豆子放在瓦罐里煮着。还没等煮熟,大家就抢着吃,罐子都被打破了,撒下一地的豆子,汤都泼在泥地里。你只顾从地下满把地抓豆子吃,不小心把红草叶子也一嘴吃进嘴里了,叶子梗在喉咙口,苦得你哭笑不得。还是我出的主意,叫你用青菜叶子放在手上一并吞下去,这样红草的叶子才一起下肚了……”他说这些话,朱元璋嫌他太不会顾全体面,等不得说完就连声大叫:“推出去斩了!推出去斩了!” 2、什么是表达得体 语言表达得体,主要是指使语言体现语境和语体的要求。所谓“语境”包括说话的对象(称谓、语气),场合(时间、地点、氛围),目的(说什么、怎么说)以及说话人自己的身份;所谓“语体”主要指是口语(谈话、演讲、辩论、广播稿)还是书面语(政论语体、科技语体、文艺语体、应用语体)。前者要求通俗易懂、多用短句、不用文言词。后者须根据所使用的文体而定,例如应用语体包括启事、通知、申请(假条通俗易懂、简洁平实),广告(形象生动、多用修辞),广播稿(通俗化、口语化)等。 3、“说话应该得体”,请同学们想一想自己听到过的特别得体或者不得体的话。_____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________。分析:_______________________________________________________________________________。课堂探究: 一、案例分析课本第6页“学习还是审议?” 二、视野延伸:周总理的语言艺术 1、一个西方记者说:“请问,中国人民银行有多少资金?”周恩来委婉地说:“中国国民银行的货币资金嘛?有18元8角8分。”当他看到众人不解的样子,又说明说:“中国人民银行发行的面额为10元、5元、2元、l元、5角、2角、l角、5分、2分、1分的10种主辅国民币,合计为18元8角8分……” 2、在一次除外访问中,周恩来总理向外宾介绍邓颖超同志“这是我的爱人”,大家还知道哪些跟“爱人”同意的词,你认为周总理使用的这个词语好不好,为什么? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________。 二、高考链接 1、以下是小张在收到郑先生著作后回信的正文,其中有使用不得体的词语,请找出四处并修改。(2012山东) 您寄奉的大作已收到。过目后深感对我的论文写作有些许帮助,定当惠存。感激之情,无以言表,他日光临贵府当面致谢。 修改:________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________。 2、20.下面是一位年轻导游为台湾省某中学生旅行团所作的解说词,表述有不妥之处。请推敲一下,提出3点修改意见。(2006江苏) ①先生们,女士们:欢迎大家第一次来中山陵游览!②今天我为大家导游,感到很荣幸。③中山陵是孙中山先生长眠之处,④也是海峡两岸同胞心中的圣地。⑤苍松翠柏环抱着它,⑥霞光丽日辉映着它,⑦青山绿水依傍着它。⑧去年连战先生曾来这里拜谒,⑨表达了对中山先生的缅怀敬仰之情。⑩现在,让我们怀着崇敬的心情,登上台阶,故地重游,⑾瞻仰中山先生的陵寝,⑿重温先生的教诲吧! 修改:(1) (2) (3) 三、探究身边的语言 唐国强主演的电视剧《东方》以追求真实完美而引人入胜,但有几句台词值得商榷:a蒋介石说:“想不到苏联这么快就承认新中国”,改为“_____________________________”才比较符合蒋介石的身份和此时的心情。b又如阎锡山对蒋说:“早在1931年中共就在江西建立苏维埃国家了”(大意),若改为“_____________________________”就与其身份相符了。C剧中毛泽东主席常称“我们的蒋委员长……”你怎么看。 小结:________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 达标拓展: 1、下面语言不得体的地一项是()
英语语言学练习----语用学 一、Decide whether each of the following statements is true or false. 1.The contextual view is often considered as the initial effort to study meaning in a pragmatic sense. ( ) 2.Pragmatics is related to and also different from semantics. ( ) 3.The notion of context is not important to the pragmatic study of language. ( ) 4.All utterances take the form of sentences. ( ) 5.Speech act theory was proposed by the British philosopher John Austin in the late 1950s. ( ) 6.Grice made a distinction between what he called “constatives” and “performatives”. () 7.A locutionary act is the act of conveying literal meaning by means of syntax, lexicon, and phonology. ( ) 8.In their study of language communication, linguists are only interested in how a speaker expresses his intention and pay no attention to how his intention is recognized by the hearer. ( ) 9.Directives are attempts by the speaker to get the hearer to do something. ( ) 10.The Cooperative principle was proposed by John Searle. ( ) 11.There are four maxims under the Cooperative principle. ( ) 12.The violations of the maxims make our language indirect. ( ) 13.All the utterances take the form of sentences. ( ) 14.Austin thought that stating was also a kind of act, and that we can perform with language. ( )
1.语用学研究 H030/32/1 馆藏复本:6 可借复本:4 中国语用学研究会 高等教育出版社 2008- 中文图书2.语用学视角下的广告语言研究 F713.80/193 馆藏复本:3 可借复本:2 杨永和, 周冬华, 鲁娅辉著 西北工业大学出版社 2010 西文图书3.Pragmatics = 语用学 / H030/H874 馆藏复本:3 可借复本:1 Huang, Yan, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press : 2009. 中文图书4.顾曰国语言学海外自选集:语用学与话语分析研究 H319.3/145 馆藏复本:3 可借复本:2 顾曰国著 外语教学与研究出版社 2010 中文图书5.新编语用学概论 H030/33 馆藏复本:3 可借复本:1 何自然, 冉永平编著 北京大学出版社 2009 中文图书6.语用学大是非和语用翻译学之路 H059/165 馆藏复本:3 可借复本:2 侯国金著 四川大学出版社 2008 中文图书7.语用学的多维研究 H03/43 馆藏复本:3 可借复本:2 曾文雄编著 浙江大学出版社 2009 西文图书8.Pragmatics : a multidisciplinary perspective / H030/C971(C)
馆藏复本:3 可借复本:2 Cummings, Louise. Peking University Press, 2007. 中文图书9.英语习语研究:语用学视角 H313.3/138 馆藏复本:3 可借复本:2 彭庆华著 社会科学文献出版社 2007 中文图书10.语用学翻译研究 H059/124 馆藏复本:3 可借复本:2 曾文雄著 武汉大学出版社 2007 中文图书11.语用学纵横 H030/20 馆藏复本:3 可借复本:2 冉永平, 张新红编著 高等教育出版社 2007 中文图书12.语用学:现象与分析 H030/18 馆藏复本:3 可借复本:2 冉永平编著 北京大学出版社 2006 中文图书13.语用学 H03/38 馆藏复本:3 可借复本:1 严辰松, 高航编 上海外语教育出版社 2005 西文图书14.Pragmatics : theories and applications = 语用学 : 理论及应用 / H030/J61 馆藏复本:1 可借复本:0 Jiang, Wangqi 北京大学出版社, 2000. 西文图书15.Pragmatics = 语用学 / H030/Y95 馆藏复本:11 可借复本:10 Yule, George, 上海外语教育出版社, 2000.