Pragmatic information

The first chapter is the definition of pragmatics.

Pragmatics studies discourse generation and discourse understanding in a specific context, so it is inseparable from the contextual factors of language use, such as speaker, listener, time, place or space, scene and so on. People often say; "Where to go, what to sing" and "Who to meet, what to say", that is, choosing different language forms according to different communication purposes and communication objects, are typical pragmatic ideas and concrete manifestations of people's communication ability.

Pragmatic research mainly includes Grice's cooperative principle. This cooperative principle puts forward the principle that both sides of the conversation should cooperate with each other when describing the meaning of the conversation, so that the dialogue can be carried out. The cooperation principles mainly include "quantity criterion", "quality criterion", "relationship criterion" and "mode criterion". After the advent of "New Grice's Theory of Conversational Implication", China scholars have made extensive research on this pragmatic inference mechanism, and put forward a theoretical framework of conversational implicature suitable for China's national conditions. For example, the concept of "face" should be fully considered when discussing the "politeness principle"; In the process of discussing "speech act", speech act is not a unilateral act of the speaker, but a similar act of both parties related to the listener. Therefore, if we study speech acts in a wide range of social activities, we can have new significance for the study of speech acts.

Carnap simplified the definition of pragmatics to natural language, but it still involves emotional meaning and language acquisition.

Study on the function of transmission and expression of harmonious language. Pakistan-hillel further developed Carnap.

The definition of emotional meaning, language acquisition and language transmission, expression and other functions.

In addition to pragmatics, he also emphasized that these are one of the possible contexts of symbols.

Trademark users, the influence of trademark users on recipients is limited to

Mark the mark range given by the user. In this sense, pragmatics does not

Concerned about the recipient's reaction to the use of a trademark by a trademark user-this problem

This topic belongs to the research scope of language function.

Pragmatics is a part of semiotics. According to the definition of C. Morris, pragmatics is based on.

The origin, use and function of symbols in behavior, pragmatics not only studies language,

It also includes static or single symbols such as trademarks, whistles, costumes and totems.

I think that the determination of pragmatic research objects should be placed within the scope of linguistic research and only

Linguistic research reveals its relationship with syntax and semantics, and reveals the common formation of the three.

Only the research object can really give a clear definition of pragmatics.

1. 1. 1 pragmatics history

At first, I tried to establish a "pragmatics" method to solve linguistic problems, which can be traced back to the collapse of Ross and Leikauf's early theories and hypotheses (especially Chomsky and his followers only respected syntax) in the late 1960s and early 1970s. A new theoretical model, pragmatics, was born among the pioneers of Chomsky School. According to Kuhn's definition (1964), "paradigm shift".

Of course, what we see today is the birth of pragmatics, that is, the dilemma faced by old thinking, and how the theoretical outline of new thinking is gradually taking shape. Such an observation can only be established under the viewpoint of keeping a certain historical distance. At that time, there were many linguistic phenomena that could not be explained by logical theory, which caused many theoretical self-contradictions. This phenomenon was not discovered by linguists, but by philosophers working in the gray middle area of philosophy in the field adjacent to linguistics. Some linguists who try to cross syntactic and semantic boundaries have noticed others.

For example, the relationship between natural language and theoretical language is very embarrassing, first syntax, then semantics. In 2.3 of this book, these issues will be discussed. Contradictions in linguistics are closely related to the belief that effective language description must be based on or at least based on the syntax of spreading scientific authority. The problem is that various factors outside the language that are excluded from the syntactic field actually play a very important role in the so-called "language rules". Therefore, the belief of "syntactic grammar" mentioned above has caused the above language problems, but it is unacceptable to solve the problems in other ways. Next, in section 2.5, we will explain in detail how to explain the assumptions (that is, preconditions) that affect our language understanding. So far, there is no applicable theoretical framework. Finally, in section 2.6, it is expounded in detail that the problems related to language users and context are the key to determine the meaning of spoken words at a specific time and place.

Pragmatic turn in linguistics can be described as a change from grammatical theory and syntactic thinking to language users' thinking. The concept of "language users" is particularly important in defining pragmatics. The following explains that the concept of "language users" can combine many observation experiences and events into effective communication elements.

1. 1.2 importance of language users

Most of the definitions of "pragmatics" can be said to be repeated explanations of Charles Morris's famous pragmatic definition: "the study of the relationship between symbols and interpreters". Today's linguists prefer modern terms with the concept of communication as the main axis, so they use "information content" instead of "symbol" and "language user" instead of "interpreter".

If, as mentioned above, pragmatics is a new field of thinking or research, then pragmatics is obliged to put forward a new definition of the research object. How to make a new definition?

divide

Linguistics in the past

pragmatics

like

The production process of language and the producers of language only pay attention to the products of results.

research objects

Old (human product language)

New (human language)

field

Chomsky

Katz (1977: 19) uses traditional grammar to construct narrative language.

"Language ability"

"The so-called grammar is all kinds of theories related to sentence construction. …

Pragmatics is used to describe the use of language.

"Language expression"

On the contrary, pragmatics is to explain the thoughts and processes of speakers and listeners. "

Dichotomy problem

(1) How to separate pragmatics from clause law and semantics, and then limit its research scope?

(2) What role does pragmatics play in the fields adjacent to linguistics, such as psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and ethnolinguistics? In addition, what are the relations between pragmatics and new fields such as quantitative linguistics, mathematical linguistics, conversational linguistics and applied linguistics?

The more we explore the definition of pragmatics and the scope of its research field, the more questions we have. However, regardless of the outcome of the exploration, the central issue of pragmatics is the language user. Therefore, we can say that the general feature of pragmatic research is "language user-centered".

However, the feature of "language user-centered" has not fully defined pragmatics.

Reason: Scholars have different opinions on the interpretation of the word "language use" and the meaning represented by language users. For example, the word "language use" can refer to everything that happens when users "use language". Or a narrower pragmatic explanation is that when discussing language, we can ask language users to make "clear hints".

(1) narrow sense

According to Levinson( 1983: 2-3), pragmatics must be "to give clear hints to the speaker, that is, to the language user". Therefore, levinson refused to adopt many predecessors' definitions, and his definition was "grammaticalization in various relations between language and context-that is, the relevant research of language constructivism"

This definition shows that only when language use has clear and inherent grammatical expressions, that is, language use that follows grammatical rules and is related to phonology, types and syntactic elements, can it be considered to be related to pragmatics. This is what levinson meant by grammaticalization. But Levinson can't tell us what is the relationship between users and grammar, what is the difference between language and context, and whether to use grammar (please refer to 3. 1 for details about contextualization).

(2) Pragmatic usage in a broad sense: it is believed that language use refers to everything that happens when users use language to "handle all kinds of affairs", that is, the world of pragmatics includes everything that may identify people as language users.

However, levinson (1983: 2) added that "this usage is still very popular in continental Europe". The premise of this definition is that language users are members of social groups, so no matter when and where members use language, they will be confined to the time space of the same organism to which they belong, and language users, as members of the same organism in society, will also follow various rules and norms in this time space of the same organism.

1.2 Pragmatics: Definition and Boundary

Definition of 1. 1.3

As mentioned in the previous section, defining the research object of pragmatics as a purely linguistic phenomenon, if such a definition can be defined as Zhou Yan advocated by levinson (1983: 1 1), is still unacceptable to scholars who advocate that pragmatics includes human language use. It will be a great sacrifice to ignore the existence of language users if the so-called "extra-linguistic" problem is excluded from the study of pragmatics. Real pragmatic research should consider the language users who exist in the social context. It is impossible to confine pragmatics to grammaticalization as levinson's grammaticalization view does.

Social communication is conducted through language. However, language users not only exist in society, but also communicate and use language on the premise of sociality. All kinds of languages and strategies that users can use are within the scope of social norms. Pragmatic research on how people use language in communication is based on the study of social premises, trying to establish how these social premises affect people's language use or what impact they have. So the definition is this: "Pragmatics is the study of language used by people in communication under various social conditions". After completing this definition, the next task should be to find the characteristics of pragmatics by clarifying the relationship with similar research fields. The so-called "definition" is to set the ultimate goal and boundary (the etymology of "defining difine" is de+fine, which means Latin finis“end, destination "and fine is a complex ideographic boundary). Defining pragmatics is to define the relationship between similar disciplines in the field of linguistics.

Regrettably, all the definitions of pragmatics put forward so far, including the above definitions, can not draw a clear line between various fields of pragmatics, or can not be recognized by everyone. Most scholars, like the definition of criticism in my last section (levinson), are limited to Zhou Yan's definition of language orientation. On the other hand, scholars who try their best to adopt social context are vaguely divorced from the relationship between pragmatics and linguistics.

However, with the continuous development of pragmatics today, why draw a clear line? As long as pragmatics continues to develop, established boundaries still need to be re-established. Is it possible to get out of the predicament and set a practical and dynamic pragmatic definition?

Looking back at the past literature, the above viewpoint seems to be adopted to some extent. Geoffrey Leech, the most famous representative of this pragmatic eclecticism, put forward the concept of complementarity in an attempt to solve the above dilemma. In view of the relationship between pragmatics and semantics, the closest sub-field of linguistics, this paper puts forward the following views: semantics and pragmatics are complementary and are two different research fields. From a subjective point of view, such a concept is easily accepted. But it is difficult to objectively explain its legitimacy. Because the establishment of this view is based on accusing the problems or weaknesses of other views.

According to the relationship between semantics and pragmatics, Leech put forward three different directions: 1) Semantics includes pragmatics, 2) Pragmatics includes semantics, and 3) Semantics and pragmatics are independent research fields and complementary.

(1) "Semanticism": Cite Searle's handling of "speech act" as evidence. For example, when I make an agreement, I "make" an agreement because the verb "promise" exists according to semantics. Or is it because from a pragmatic point of view, this is a kind of "behavior" in itself? Undoubtedly, if we adopt the former method, it will be like forcibly combining "pragmatics" with "semantics" to form a lion's head and sheep's body halfling called "pragmatic practice".

(2) "Pragmatic theory": Compare Austin's method. He believes that the only real problem is the effect of words when speaking, and we can use it to "do" and "do things". Explain Austin's thought from Leech's point of view. In a word, "the most interesting part of language should be the pragmatic point of view."

(3) "Complementarity": First of all, why the study of Austin, which has been cultivated for a long time for most linguists, still belongs to an unknown field. The biggest reason is to maintain the inherent security field and have privileges, so when new ideas appear, they will naturally feel uneasy. A grammarian or semanticist who has established himself in his profession wants to continue his usual way of working. If someone teaches them the practice of linguistics, their integrity in the professional field will be in danger. Therefore, in order not to shake this boat called established order, linguists who like traditional methods tend to put pragmatics in a quiet corner outside the linguistic matrix. Pragmatics, which is arranged on the edge of linguistics, is different from other fields of linguistics and is recognized as a subsidized field. Do the research you want. Use this complementarity to solve the problem of boundary setting.

The third solution is still the most commonly used method to solve the boundary setting. For example, levinson discussed the relationship between semantics and pragmatics and put forward the following views. "We think that the essence of meaning seems to be a mixed and combined theory. Therefore, semantics and pragmatics, two relatively homogeneous units, can be combined into a systematic organization. (Levision 1983: 15)

1.2.2 Definition: constituent elements, viewpoints or functions.

1.2.2. 1 components and views?

The problem discussed in the last section is basically how to cut a pie in the field of linguistics, and the cut fragments (that is, the constituent elements) should be placed in that position in the whole. The framework of this discussion is based on "the language view of constitutive essentialism". Chomsky has been widely accepted since his early publication. According to his followers, even though they are slightly different, they basically follow the principle that the most important departments of language grammar are phonemes, syntax and semantics. These departments correspond to different human abilities, such as brain injury, and can be divided into different fields. If the aphasia caused by the damage of the agent department is related to syntactic ability, then the damage of Wernicke area is related to semantic ability.

The essence of the language view that constitutes essentialism is based on the view that human mind is "combination", which is exactly the same as that of psychologists such as relevance theory, cognitive science or artificial intelligence, that is, human ability is independent and coordinated. In contrast, the view that human language activities are regarded as "viewpoints" is the "linguistic view of viewpoints".

◎ What is a "linguistic view of views"?

Berland and Meyer (1977: 5): "Pragmatics is not to draw a clear line with other fields, but to look at language from another angle and endow it with characteristics. Pragmatics pays attention to all elements of society.

For example, Labauve (1966): From the perspective of pragmatics, it is meaningless to regard "Du Xin Black English" as the same as other English dialects, and it cannot reflect "social rules".

Verschueren( 1999:7): Pragmatics is defined as "from the general, cognitive, social and cultural perspectives, language use is a language-related behavioral phenomenon. Pragmatics is not a new part of language theory, but it provides different viewpoints.

Viewpoint linguistics: the compound field of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and adjacent linguistics emphasizes all-round pragmatics. Sociology and other variables (income, residence, education level, etc.). ) and psychology (IQ, personality, etc. ) is also included in the pragmatics of people in the language society.

◎ The language view of constitutionalism: using independent methods in their limited fields and taking clearly defined objects as the research objects. For example, phonology and phonology are always discussing phonology, and the syntactic objects of sentences are left to syntactic scholars to deal with.

(? Stman 1988: 28): "Constitutionalism" and "viewpoint" should coexist and expand the level of our cognitive science. "If the analysis unit of semantics is meaning, that is, words, sentences, stanzas or passages or prosody, …… then the analysis unit of pragmatics is the function of language."

1.2.2.2 function

Karl buhler (1934: 29):

Language function triangle 1)Ausdruck (expression or manifestation), 2)Appell (appeal), 3)Darstellung (expression and statement).

◎ Jakobson (1960: 350): six functions of language, the above three functions plus 4) code language analysis, 5) channel communication and 6) poetic quality poetry.

The basic premise of the above model is that language users play an indispensable role in the process of language communication.

From the functional point of view, we can integrate different issues of structural essentialism and viewpoints to realize * * *.

◎ Investigating the function of language use is basically to study the interactive language. There are two ways:

1) the method of conversation analysis: observe the event as accurately as possible, the participants in the event, what they want to say, describe the expression of their speech, or when the participants choose to speak (or be silent) in the conversation.

2) Pragmatic (practical) methods to express the language of social communication: In order to carry out mutual behavior smoothly, we must make clear the basic conditions such as social equality, prejudice or class emotion, education and culture. Without these social backgrounds, it is impossible to have a smooth conversation, such as levinson's (1983:44) "mutual observation behavior, action based on each other's behavior, chain and continuous production of interdependent behaviors composed of two or more actors".

◎ According to Goffman( 1976:266-267), the constraints acting on these occasions can be divided into system (grammar) constraints and ritual constraints (function). The former refers to the various elements that two or more participants need to systematically combine and cooperate with each other in various behaviors. The latter is not absolutely necessary in the continuous progress of mutual behavior, but we can see the social dimension of maintaining typical mutual behavior.

1.2 Pragmatic Practical Value

1.3. 1 Theory and Practice of Pragmatics

The practical characteristics of the theme and function of pragmatics are based on the unsolved problems in language research in the past few years, and new methods are put forward. In recent years, most of the problems encountered in the exercise of language functions are demonstrated from "external" to pragmatics. For example, look at the order of conversation and speech from the methodology of national feelings (see chapter 6 for details); Debate problems developed by philosophy (2.3); The computer software and design industries deal with the interaction between people and computers. As well as general anthropology ethnography, mental health care or psychology, formal language inside and outside social organizations, rhetoric, media research, pedagogy and other issues of prompt pragmatics. Other problems in traditional linguistics, such as generative grammar, such as the ambiguity of discourse, the indication of the third person pronoun and the "voice" in the story text, are all research topics.

1.3.2 Practice and goal of pragmatics

1.3.2. 1 Why do we need pragmatics?

How do people use language and how do they use pragmatics to deepen their understanding of these problems?

Ambiguity: Linguistic View and Pragmatics

1. Ambiguous sentences usually only exist in actual speeches (Paradise News), not artificial ambiguous sentences quoted by Chomsky. Deliberately making jokes with ambiguous sentences and other occasions is.

2. Deciding a meaning in an ambiguous sentence depends on the "context". Context is all the elements that play a certain role in the production and understanding of speech.

◎ Classic static context: Like the physical world, the first condition in a certain state can completely determine the next situation. (Counterexample: P, 38) That is, the present moment and what has been established at present. Pure language description has no dynamics.

◎ Dynamic context: the "environment" in which people constantly interact with each other in language use.

1.3.2.2 the goal of pragmatics

Linguists advocate immanence, and the obligation to explain methods and purposes is self-evident. From a historical point of view, linguistics is a relatively young discipline, which is independent from adjacent sciences, cutting and establishing its own field. However, for a mature science, ensuring its immanence is not a sign of maturity.

Reason: 1) The inherent language research method is easy to cause fragmentation in all aspects of language. 2) As a result of the extreme specialization of practical linguistics, there is no dialogue beyond the general vocabulary. 3) the problem of language description

Saving endangered languages is not only a process that linguists collect, catalog and describe them in order to save languages. Saving "language users" should be an important process. From the perspective of pragmatics, in addition to on-the-spot collection and description, it is more important to fight against linguistic genocide.

2. 1 Pragmatics is the trash can of language theory.

Pragmatics is often called the trash can of linguistics. Although the trash can used to hold unnecessary things has a negative sense of language, in the early stage of pragmatic development, this expression has gained a certain use and status among pragmatic scholars.

The concept of trash can comes from (Yehoshua bar-hillel1915-75) which calls semantics "syntactic trash can". The background is that in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the thought of linguistics was a science, with all formal reasoning and abstract symbols like ethics or mathematics. The ideal idea of linguistics is to regard language as "alegebra". The concept first put forward by Hjelmslev of Copenhagen School of European Constructivism in 1943 is widely quoted.

But just as ideas can't explain all kinds of current situations in real life.

In the mid-1950s, Chomsky's theory of "generative-transformational grammar" advocated that sentences do not need "meaning" but are only described by syntax. If you don't assign values to variables, the sentence itself is meaningless, so it is easy to design a test algebra program to prove it. Chomsky's early syntax was a complete separation of semantic grammatical components.

The idea of Cai Qing slept furiously. -Syntactic, leaving the question of meaning to semantics (Chomsky 1957).

The theoretical clause law of linguistics extends to semantics: Chomsky puts forward the garbage disposal method, and the word combination in the sentence must conform to the syntactic feature structure of the choice feature.

Semantics focuses on abstract science, and under what conditions and conditions is a sentence "true" or "false". However, no matter whether the whole sentence is true or false, a part of the sentence is still true, that is, "premise presupposition" cannot be explained by classical semantics. Therefore, another trash can is necessary.

The fat man regretted that he had to pay Bessie alimony.

Fat man doesn't regret that he has to pay Bessie alimony. –error

"Premise": No matter who the fat man is, the premise is to pay alimony.

Unlike language philosophers, pragmatic scholars are not interested in the truth value or truth value of abstract sentences, that is, the value of axiomatization. The point is why people say and what they say. If you can't determine the motivation of the other person's language use, you can't understand the truth of the speech. (For example, 1.3.2. 1 Dialogue with a confused linguist).