Pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context that are grammaticalized, or encoded in the structure of language.
Pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context that are basic to an account to language understanding.
Pragmatics is the study of deixis (at least in part), implicature, presupposition, speech acts and aspects of discourse structure.
Pragmatics is the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are performed.
Pragmatics is the study of language use and linguistic communication. [2]
And Leech (1983: x) thinks that pragmatics can be defined as the study of how utterances have meanings in situations. [3]
1. 2 Definition of Pragmatic Failure
It is notable that most of our misunderstandings of other people are not due to any inability to hear them or to parse their sentences or to understand their words. A far more important source of difficulty in communication is that we so often fail to understand a speaker’s intention (Miller, 1974). For the inability to understand “what is meant by what is said”, Thomas exploited the term “pragmatic failure” (Thomas, 1 983: 91). [4] “Pragmatic failure” is an area of intercultural communication breakdown. (Thomas, 1983: 91). [4] Pragmatic failures are the inappropriateness which arises in intercultural communication. In intercultural communication, the appropriateness of a communicator’s utterances is much more important than grammatical correctness. If a foreign learner of English makes grammatical errors, he may at most reveals himself to be a les proficient language user and native speakers would not mind. But if he makes pragmatic errors, he may appear to be impolite, unfriendly, and even aggressive. Probably misunderstanding and conflict would arise. What’s worse, in some cases, he would incur hatred.
Thomas has given the name pragmatic failure to “any inability to understand what is meant by what is said.” (Thomas, 1983: 92) [4] Since people within the same cultural background share most of their beliefs and knowledge required in a normal linguistic communication, there are few occasions in which pragmatic failures will occur. However, it is quite different in intercultural communication, in which the communicators do not share a common cultural background.
1. 3 The Relevance Theory
The principle of relevance was formally proclaimed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson in their book Relevance: Communication and Cognition in 1986. (D. Wilson: 1986) Their definition of relevance is:
A remark P is relevant to another remark Q if P and Q, together with background knowledge, yield new information not derivable from either P or Q, together with background knowledge, alone. (D. Wilson, 1986:177) [5]
The principle of relevance tries to establish a link between the semantic meaning of an utterance and its context to search for an optimally relevant connection for the clear and informative message conveyed by utterances. The hearer, from the sentence above, has to recognize it as ambiguous through his linguistic knowledge to know the relevant context of the utterance.
1. 4 The Speech Act Theory
In 1955, the British philosopher John L. Austin made a set of lectures, the title of which is “How to do things with words?” in Harvard University. Austin set about demolishing the view of language that would place truth conditions as a center to language understanding. According to Austin, language is not only just used to say things, or describe state of affairs, but rather actively to do things. Austin also isolates three basic senses in which in saying something one is doing something, and hence three kinds of acts that are simultaneously performed: locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act.
Locutionary act refers to the utterance of a sentence with determinative sense and reference. Illocutionary act refers to the making of a statement, offer, promise, etc., in uttering a sentence by virtue of the conventional force associated with it (or with its explicit performative paraphrase). Perlocutionary act indicates the bringing about of effects on the audience by means of uttering the sentence, which are special to the circumstance of the utterance. [6]
An American philosopher Searle developed Austin’s theory and published Speech Act theory in 1969, in which he first pointed out that speaking a language is a rule-governed form of behavior and that speech acts are the basic or minimal units of linguistic communication. Searle reiterates the differences between propositional content of an utterance and illocutionary act. A propositional content is composed of two aspects: the person or object being stated about and the statements of this person or on object. [7]
Searle further divided his indirect speech acts into conventional speech and unconventional one. Conventional speech acts often have syntactic reflexes associated with their surface sentence type and indirectness is quite apparent; Unconventional indirect speech acts, on the other hand, are quite complicated and harder for the hearer to understand.
转贴于 酷文网-论文下载中心 http://www.coolwen.net
共7页: 上一页 [1] 2 [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 下一页
网摘收藏:
当前位置:
载入中...
-> 在百度中搜索：
-> 在Google中搜索：