英语歧义的语用研究英语论文(1)-学位论文.doc

资源描述

本科生毕业论文册学院 XXX学院专业英语翻译班级 XXXXX机器翻译班学生 XXX 指导教师 XXX XXXX大学本科毕业论文（设计）任务书编号：论文（设计）题目：英语歧义的语用研究学院： XXX学院专业：英语翻译班级： XXXX机器翻译班学生姓名： XXX 学号： XXXXX 指导教师： XXX 职称：副教授 1、论文（设计）研究目标及主要任务本论文的研究目标是从语用学的角度探讨英语歧义的形成原因及其在交际中的应用。其主要任务是通过分析英语歧义的形成原因指导其在交际中的运用。 2、论文（设计）的主要内容本论文分为三章，第一章从合作原则和会话准则的角度分析英语歧义的产生原因，第二章从言语行为理论的角度分析英语歧义的产生原因，最后一章讨论了英语歧义的应用。 3、论文（设计）的基础条件及研究路线本论文的基础条件是不同的语言学家对语用歧义的研究结果。研究路线是对英语歧义的产生原因从不同的因素角度进行详细的阐述，并将其分别应用在日常生活交际中。 4、主要参考文献 Hu, Zhuanglin.2006. Linguistics: A Course Book (3rd edition). Beijing: Peking University Press. J. L. Austin. How to Do Things with Words. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman Inc. 何兆熊，《新编语用学概要》. 上海:上海外语外语教育出版社, 2000. 邱述德，《英语歧义》. 北京:商务印书馆, 1998. 5、计划进度阶段起止日期 1 确定初步论文题目 3月16日前 2 与导师见面，确定大致范围，填开题报告和任务书，导师签字 3月16日-3月23日 3 提交论文提纲 3月23日-3月30日 4 交初稿和文献综述 3月30日-4月20日 5 交终稿和评议书 5月8号前指导教师：年月日教研室主任：年月日注：一式三份，学院（系）、指导教师、学生各一份 XXXX大学本科生毕业论文（设计）开题报告书 XXX 学院英语机器翻译专业 XXX 届学生姓名 XXX 论文（设计）题目英语歧义的语用研究指导教师 XXX 专业职称 XXX 所属教研室英语基础教研室研究方向语言学课题论证：从合作原则和会话准则，以及言语行为理论两方面论证英语语用歧义的形成原因及其在交际中的应用。方案设计：第一章从合作原则和会话准则的角度分析英语歧义的产生原因，第二章从言语行为理论的角度分析英语歧义的产生原因，第三章探讨英语歧义的应用。进度计划：3月16日前确定初步论文题目 3月23日前写开题报告、任务书 3月30日前提交论文提纲 4月20日前提交初稿和文献综述 5月8日前提交终稿和评议书指导教师意见：指导教师签名：年月日教研室意见：教研室主任签名：年月日 XXXX大学本科生毕业论文（设计）评议书姓名 XXX 学院 XXX学院专业机器翻译年级（班） XXX英语机器翻译班论文题目英语歧义的语用研究完成时间 2013/5/8 论文内容摘要歧义是语言使用中经常出现的现象，包括语音歧义，词汇歧义，语法歧义等。近年来，对歧义的研究不断深入，除了语言平面的静态研究，也开始了对歧义的动态研究，即在语用学范围内对歧义进行研究。语用歧义指说话人在特定语境或上下文中使用不确定的、模糊的或间接的话语向听话人同时表达数种言外行为或言外之力的现象。目前，此类研究仍需进一步深入，本文主要从语用学的角度运用合作原则、会话准则和言语行为理论对歧义现象加以分析，对语用歧义的产生原因进行了归纳。语用歧义通常会给交流带来不便，但如果使用得当，巧妙利用语用歧义，则可以在交际中发挥奇特的作用，例如表达言外之意，产生幽默效果，避免冲突等。本文将原理和大量例句相结合，从语用学的角度对歧义的产生原因及其应用进行了详细的分析。指导教师评语年月日指导教师职称初评成绩答辩小组姓名职称教研室组长成员答辩记录：记录人签字：年月日答辩小组意见：组长签字：年月日学院意见：评定成绩：签章年月日 XXXX大学本科生毕业论文（设计）文献综述 Literature Review The study of pragmatic ambiguity has a long history. Ambiguity is a phenomenon that often appears in language use. Ambiguity includes phonological ambiguity, lexical ambiguity, and grammatical ambiguity. In recent years, the research of ambiguity goes deeper and deeper, besides the static study in linguistic level, the dynamic study has also begun, and that is pragmatic study of ambiguity. Pragmatic ambiguity refers to the phenomenon that speakers use unsure, ambiguous or indirect utterance to express several illocutionary acts or illocutionary forces to hearers in a specific context or text. At present, this field needs further research. Pragmatic ambiguity arises when the statement is not specific, and the context does not provide enough information needed to clarify the statement (Walton 1996). Information is missing, and must be inferred. All languages depend on words and sentences in constructing meaning. However, one of the fundamental facts about words and sentences is that many of them in our languages have more than one meaning. Linguist Wilhelm von Humboldt said in 18th century that language is infinite use of finite means and it is a creative activity (Robin, 1987). So ambiguity may occur when an utterance can be understood in two or more distinct senses. Kess and Hoppe even say in Ambiguity in Psycholinguistics, “upon careful consideration, one cannot but be amazed at the ubiquity in language.” English, as a language has no exception to it. Since Ambiguity is not a new topic, a lot of researches have been made in this field. In the west, ambiguity can be traces back to the sophism of ancient Greek philosophy. However, previous researches are mainly concerned with phonological ambiguity, lexical ambiguity and grammatical ambiguity. But the word "pragmatics" was first put forward in 1930s by Charles Morris and the category of pragmatic ambiguity was not explored until the 1970s. So researches on pragmatic ambiguity are still insufficiently thorough, for example, its definition, characteristics, category, functions and understanding still need further study. Based upon the previous researches, I will further explore the forming factors of pragmatic ambiguity and talk about its applications. The notion of meaning is a very important idea in the field of semantics. G. Leech recognizes seven kinds of meaning in his book—semantics, which was first published in 1974. Leech (1981) put forwards three kinds of meanings according to Halliday’s systemic-functional perspective: conceptual meaning, associative meaning and thematic meaning. The associative meaning includes connotative meaning, social meaning, affective meaning, reflected meaning and collocative meaning. In the study of pragmatics, meaning and context are its two basic concepts. The meaning in pragmatics refers to the specific meaning in actual use in a particular context. Context is the environment in which speech communication takes place, which consists of a series of subjective and objective elements closely related to language communication. Elements of context include the utterance itself, the behavior environment and situation where speech act happens, common sense and the relationship between communication participants. The theory of conversational implicature was proposed by an Oxford philosopher Herbert Paul Grice. In real communication, the intention of the speaker is often not the literal meaning of what he says; the real intention implied in the words is called conversational impicature. Conversational implicature is a kind of implied meaning, which is deduced based on the conventional meaning of words as well as context, under the guidance of the Cooperative Principle and its maxims. From this perspective, implicature is comparable to illocutionary force in speech act theory because they are both related to the contextual side of meaning. The difference between these two theories is that they offer different mechanisms to explain the generation of contextual meaning. At the end of Grice’s “Logic and Convention”, he mentioned a variety of characteristics of implicature. (1) Calculability (2) Cancellability (3) Non-detachability (4) Non-conventionality. Grice also proposed the Cooperative Principle: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. To specify the Cooperative Principle further, Grice introduced four categories of maxims as follows: the maxim of quantity, the maxim of quality, the maxim of relation and the maxim of manner. Oxford philosopher John Langshaw Austin published his Speech Act theory in How to do Things with Words. According to Austen, there are three senses in which saying something may be understood as doing something. They are the locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act. The locutionary act is what linguists have been studying all along. The perlocutionary act involves many psychological and social factors, so it is difficult to study. So Speech Act theory is in fact a theory of the illocutionary act. Ambiguity sometimes causes misunderstandings, which are obstacles in communication. A lot of linguists think that ambiguity is negative, should be avoided. Contemporary American linguist H. P. Grice in his Cooperative Principle mentions avoiding ambiguity. But ambiguity is an internal phenomenon of language itself, and in the contexts or communicative situations, most of the ambiguity phenomenon will be eliminated automatically (Kooij, 1974:4). Therefore, if ambiguity is properly made use of, it not only won't produce misunderstandings, but also can achieve a certain rhetorical effects and pragmatic purposes. This thesis analyzes the phenomenon of ambiguity from the pragmatic perspective under the guidance of cooperative principle; conversational implicature and speech act theory and gives a generalization of different forming factors of pragmatic ambiguity. Pragmatic ambiguity often brings inconvenience to communication, but if it is properly used, it will have special effects, such as leading to special overtones, producing humor, avoiding conflicts and so on. Combining principles with a lot of examples, the thesis will give a detailed analysis of the forming factors and applications of ambiguity in terms of pragmatics. 本科生毕业论文册题目英语歧义的语用分析学院 XXX学院专业英语机器翻译专业班级 XXX机器翻译班学生 XXX 指导教师 XXX 完成日期 XXX 年 5 月 8 日 Pragmatic Analysis of Ambiguity in English BY XXXX Prof. Fu Xiaoli, Tutor A Thesis Submitted to Department of English Language and Literature in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of B.A. in English At XXXX University May 8th,XXX Abstract Ambiguity is a phenomenon that often appears in language use. Ambiguity includes phonological ambiguity, lexical ambiguity, grammatical ambiguity and so on. In recent years, the research of ambiguity goes deeper and deeper, besides the static study in linguistic level, the dynamic study has also begun, and that is pragmatic study of ambiguity. Pragmatic ambiguity refers to the phenomenon that speakers use unsure, ambiguous or indirect utterance to express several illocutionary acts or illocutionary forces to hearers in a specific context or text. At present, this field needs further research. This thesis analyzes the phenomenon of ambiguity from the pragmatic perspective under the guidance of cooperative principle, conversational implicature and speech act theory and gives a generalization of different forming factors of pragmatic ambiguity. Pragmatic ambiguity often brings inconvenience to communication, but if it is properly used, it will have special effects, such as leading to special overtones, producing humor, avoiding conflicts and so on. Combining principles with a lot of examples, the thesis will give a detailed analysis of the forming factors and applications of ambiguity in terms of pragmatics. Key words pragmatic ambiguity forming factors applications iii 摘要歧义是语言使用中经常出现的现象，包括语音歧义，词汇歧义，语法歧义等。近年来，对歧义的研究不断深入，除了语言平面的静态研究，也开始了对歧义的动态研究，即在语用学范围内对歧义进行研究。语用歧义指说话人在特定语境或上下文中使用不确定的、模糊的或间接的话语向听话人同时表达数种言外行为或言外之力的现象。目前，此类研究仍需进一步深入，本文主要从语用学的角度运用合作原则、会话准则和言语行为理论对歧义现象加以分析，对语用歧义的产生原因进行了归纳。语用歧义通常会给交流带来不便，但如果使用得当，巧妙利用语用歧义，则可以在交际中发挥奇特的作用，例如表达言外之意，产生幽默效果，避免冲突等。本文将原理和大量例句相结合，从语用学的角度对歧义的产生原因及其应用进行了详细的分析。关键词语用歧义产生原因应用 iv Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Literature Review 4 Chapter 3 Cooperative Principle and Grice’s Conversation Maxims 7 3.1 Essential concepts 7 3.1.1 Meaning 7 3.1.2 Context 8 3.2 Theoretical contribution 9 3.2.1 The Conversational Implicature 9 3.2.2 Cooperative Principle and Grice’s Conversation Maxims 10 3.3 Implicature ambiguity 10 Chapter 4 Speech Act Theory 13 4.1 Introduction 13 4.2 Speech Act Theory 13 4.3 Speech act ambiguity 14 4.4 Summary 16 Chapter 5 Applications of Pragmatic Ambiguity 17 5.1 Introduction 17 5.2 To lead to special overtones 17 5.3 To avoid conflicts 17 5.4 To produce humor 18 v 5.5 Summary 20 Chapter 6 Conclusion 21 References 22 31 Chapter 1 Introduction Ambiguity may occur when an utterance can be understood in two or more distinct senses. Ambiguity is an intrinsic phenomenon in English language. There are several types of ambiguity, such as phonological ambiguity, lexical ambiguity and grammatical ambiguity. In recent years, the research of ambiguity goes deeper and deeper, besides the static study in linguistic level, the dynamic study has also begun, and that is pragmatic study of ambiguity. And the focus of this paper is to present the pragmatic analysis of ambiguity with the concepts of meaning and context, as well as the theories of the Conversational Implicature, the Cooperative Principle, Grice’s Conversation Maxims and Speech Act Theory. Ambiguity often appears in our conversation, in the speech or even in the writing. Pragmatic ambiguity refers to the phenomenon that speakers use unsure, ambiguous or indirect utterance to express several illocutionary acts or illocutionary forces to hearers in a specific context or text. Pragmatic ambiguity arises when the statement is not specific, and the context does not provide enough information needed to clarify the statement (Walton 1996). Information is missing, and must be inferred. An example of pragmatic ambiguity is the story of King Croesus and the Oracle of Delphi (adapted from Copi and Cohen 1990): “King Croesus consulted the Oracle of Delphi before warring with Cyrus of Persia. The Oracle replied that, if Croesus went to war with Cyrus, he would destroy a mighty kingdom. Delighted, Croesus attacked Persia, and Croesus’ army and kingdom were crushed. Croesus complained bitterly to the Oracle’s priests, who replied that the Oracle had been entirely right. By going to war with Persia, Croesus had destroyed a mighty kingdom – his own.” The information necessary to clearly understand the message is omitted. Due to the nee

展开阅读全文