注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

Pragmatics 语用学

Research, Application & Developmt Trend

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

有时我喜欢安静,有时我喜欢热闹。 有时我喜欢加入人群,有时我喜欢远离他们,独自呆着。 冬天我渴望阳光,夏天我盼望下雪。 春去秋来,不变的是我的学术信仰、志向和兴趣。一直思考着:什么是语用?为什么要研究语用?怎样研究语用?研究语用需要具备哪些素质?谁在研究语用?语用研究的走势如何?存在哪些问题?等等。 我深信“宁静”方可“致远”的道理,努力走向这种境界。 求学、求真的路上,深深领悟到过程决定结果,过程大于结果,远远大于结果。

网易考拉推荐

anything new about pragmatics?  

2015-07-12 10:55:45|  分类: 语用概论general |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

Pragmatics is a branch of linguisticsconcerned with the use oflanguage in social contexts and the ways in which people produce and comprehendmeanings through language. (For alternative definitions, see Examples and Observations, below.)

The term pragmatics was coined in the 1930s by the philosopher C.W. Morris. Pragmatics was developed as a subfield of linguistics in the 1970s.

Examples and Observations:

  • "Pragmatists focus on what is not explicitly stated and on how we interpret utterances in situational contexts. They are concerned not so much with the sense of what is said as with itsforce, that is, with what is communicated by the manner and style of an utterance."
    (Geoffrey Finch, Linguistic Terms and Concepts. Palgrave Macmillan, 2000)

  • Pragmatics and Human Language Behavior
  • "What does pragmatics have to offer that cannot be found in good old-fashioned linguistics? What do pragmatic methods give us in the way of greater understanding of how the human mind works, how humans communicate, how they manipulate one another, and in general, how they use language?

    "The general answer is: pragmatics is needed if we want a fuller, deeper, and generally more reasonable account of human language behavior.

    "A more practical answer would be: outside of pragmatics, no understanding; sometimes, a pragmatic account is the only one that makes sense, as in the following example, borrowed from David Lodge's Paradise News:
    'I just met the old Irishman and his son, coming out of the toilet.'
    'I wouldn't have thought there was room for the two of them.'
    'No silly, I mean I was coming out of the toilet. They were waiting.' (1992:65)
    How do we know what the first speaker meant? Linguists usually say that the first sentence isambiguous, and they excel at producing such sentences as
    Flying planes can be dangerous
    or:
    The missionaries are ready to eat
    in order to show what is meant by 'ambiguous': a word, phrase, or sentence that can mean either one or the other of two (or even several) things.

    "For a pragmatician, this is, of course, glorious nonsense. In real life, that is, among real language users, there is no such thing as ambiguity--excepting certain, rather special occasions, on which one tries to deceive one's partner or 'keep a door open.'"
    (Jacob L. Mey, Pragmatics: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2001)



  •  
  • Alternative Definitions of Pragmatics
    "We have considered a number of rather different delimitations of the field [of pragmatics]. . . . The most promising are the definitions that equate pragmatics with 'meaning minus semantics,' or with a theory of language understanding that takes context into account, in order to complement the contribution that semantics makes to meaning. They are not, however, without their difficulties, as we have noted. To some extent, other conceptions of pragmatics may ultimately be consistent with these. For example, . . . the definition of pragmatics as concerned with encoded aspects of context may be less restrictive than it seems at first sight; for if in general (a) principles of language usage have as corollaries principles of interpretation, and (b) principles of language usage are likely in the long run to impinge on grammar (and some empirical support can be found for both propositions), then theories about pragmatic aspects of meaning will be closely related to theories about thegrammaticalization of aspects of context. So the multiplicity of alternative definitions may well seem greater than it really is."
    (Stephen C. Levinson, Pragmatics. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983)


    "It should be noted that, outside the USA, the term pragmatics is often used in a much broader sense, so as to include a great number of phenomena that American linguists would regard as belonging strictly to sociolinguistics: such as politeness, narrativity, and the signaling of power relations."
    (R.L. Trask, Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts, 2nd ed., ed. by Peter Stockwell. Routledge, 2007)

  • Pragmatics and Grammar
  • "Since the nature of grammar is held essentially to resolve into issues of the knowledge of so-called rules of composition (or competence) and, on the other hand, pragmatics is concerned with characterizing the behavior of language users (as performance), one of the main challenges in bringing the two disciplines together will be to investigate the possible links between typically human, rational knowledge and purposeful, for the larger part culturally acquired behavior. . . . [I]f meaning is what makes people jump (i.e., makes them pay closer attention in the form of an interpretation and, in certain situations, imitate), then it should come as no surprise that the key to relating grammar and pragmatics lies in discovering the very subtle and abstract meanings behind grammatical structures, which have more often than not been thought to be devoid of any kind of functionality other than formal. So, while in the not so distant past the encroachment of pragmatics upon grammar was limited to establishing domains where 'rules' did not appear to apply (lexically prompted 'exceptions' in syntax, context-dependent expressions in semantics), we have now reached a point where certain grammatical theories adopt a fully pragmatic perspective, usually referred to as 'usage based.' This means that they address the formative impact of actual instances of language use on the system as a whole, and that meaning intentions, as a result of them being intertwined with form in any one such instance, play a crucial role at every level of organization, from the morpheme, over idioms and formulae, to constructional templates. This is how meaning (purpose), use (behavior), and linguistic knowledge can be seen as interrelated . . .."
    (Frank Brisard, "Introduction: Meaning and Use in Grammar." Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics, ed. by Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola ?stman, and Jef Verschueren. John Benjamins, 2009)



  •  
  • Pragmatics and Semantics
    "[T]he boundary between what counts as semantics and what counts as pragmatics is still a matter of open debate among linguists . . ..

    'Both [pragmatics and semantics] deal with meaning, so there is an intuitive sense in which the two fields are closely related. There is also an intuitive sense in which the two are distinct: Most people feel they have an understanding of the 'literal' meaning of a word or sentence as opposed to what it might be used to convey in a certain context. Upon trying to disentangle these two types of meaning from each other, however, things get considerably more difficult."
    (Betty J. Birner, Introduction to Pragmatics. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012)
  评论这张
 
阅读(71)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017