言语行为理论seechacts4

单击此处编辑母版文本样式,第二级,第三级,第四级,第五级,*,*,单击此处编辑母版标题样式,Collapse of Antithesis & Indirect Speech Acts,1,Outline,Review Thesis and Antithesis,Semantic problems,Collapse of Antithesis,Syntactic problems,Indirect Speech Acts,2,Review Thesis and Antithesis,不可归纳论（,irreducibility thesis/ thesis）：,认为人们所说的话语不但表达了一定的命题内容，而且也实施了一定的言外行为，实施某一言外行为可能有多种方式，但不管以什么方式，必须通过一套恰当条件才能对它作出描述和解释。命题和言外行为是两个不可分离的语义层次。对言外行为的研究属于对行为的研究，无法归入到狭义的对真实条件的语义学的研究中。代表人物：,Searle,3,对立论（,antithesis）：,解释言外之力不需要一套特殊的理论；完全可以在一般的句法理论和真实条件语义学中得到解释。,代表人物：,Ross,(,“,行事分析”或“行事假设”,),4,Collapse of Antithesis,Antithesis is clearly an elegant theory, promising to reduce what seems to be an apparently irreducibly pragmatic aspect of meaning to relatively well-understood areas of linguistic theory.,However, it is now all but certain that Antithesis, at least in its full form, is untenable. For it runs into insurmountable difficulties on both the semantic and syntactic fronts.,5,Semantic problems(,一),首先，论点派指出对立论所谓的行事假设是不严格的，不足以作为把言语行为归入真实条件语义研究中去的一个根据。,根据对立论的行事假设，每一个句子，不论在其表层结构中是否包含一个明确的行事动词，在其深层结构中都有一个符合,I + (hereby) VP you (that) S,这一公式的句子作为它的最高一层的结构，那么，从真实条件语义学的角度来说，这个表层结构的句子和它的深层结构应该具有同样的真实值（即如果表层结构的句子是真实的，那么它的深层结构也应该是真实的；如果表层结构的句子是谬误的，那么它的深层结构也应该是谬误的），但实际上并非如此。,6,For example,(1).,The world is flat.,(2). I state the world is flat.,根据行事假设，（2）是（1）的深层结构，因此（1）和（2）应具有同样的真实值。但根据常识，人人都知道（1）是不真实的，但（2）却未必一定是不真实的，因为不能排除有人会说“,The world is flat”,这样的话的可能性，不论他是出于无知还是另有意图。,7,论点派的分析,论点派区分出同一话语的两个意义范畴：言外行为和命题。言外行为通过恰当条件来解释，命题才具有真实值，这样，我们便可以说，“,The world is flat”,这一话语的命题内容是谬误的，但说话人所实施的言语行为（即,state）,则无所谓真实或谬误，只要这一行为所要求的恰当条件得到满足，便可以说这一行为得到成功的实施。,Snow is green.,I state that snow is green,8,Semantic problems(,二),其次，论点派针对对立派常常引用的第二种现象即句子中一些看起来其修饰对象似乎不甚明确的副词或状语从句，对立派认为应该修饰深层结构中的行事动词，论点派就此提出反论据。,9,副 词,论点派指出，像,frankly,这样的副词的作用并不明确。在句子中存在和不存在明确的行事动词，,frankly,的作用并不见得一样。,3).,I tell you,frankly,youre a rascal.,(4).,Frankly, youre a rascal.,(5). John told Bill,frankly,that he was a rascal.,10,根据对立论的行事假设，句中的,frankly,都应该修饰行事动词,tell，,不管它在深层结构中是否出现。,但实际上，如果在（3）中的,frankly,还存在修饰,tell,的可能性（事实上还存在不修饰,tell,的可能性），那么在(4)中就很难说一定是修饰,tell,的。在语言交际中，,frankly,可能起一种警告作用，引起听话人的注意，说话人在警告听话人，他将要说一些不太中听的话。在（5）中,frankly,既不修饰,told,也不起警告作用，而是修饰约翰告诉比尔一些事情这一行为。,11,状 语 从 句,For example:,（5）Whats the time,because,Ive got to go out at 8 ?,（6）I ask you whats the time,because,Ive got to go out at 8 ?,（7）,Johns at Sues house,because,his car is outside.,（8）I state to you that Johns at Sues house,because,his car is outside.,（9）I believe that Johns at Sues house,because,his car is outside.,12,根据对立论，(7)中的,because,从句应该被理解为修饰一个潜在的行事动词如（8）中的,state。,论点派则认为把,because,从句看作是修饰一个潜在动词,believe,或,know,更为合理。,Because,从句并不见得是修饰,believe,这个动词本身，而是为说话人表示相信的事情提供了根据。说话人相信自己所说的话的真实性是“声言”这一言语行为的必要条件之一，因此这种状语从句的作用正说明了言语行为理论的可行性，却并不说明行事假设的可行性。,13,Syntactic Problems,In addition to semantic incoherencies and inadequacies , the PH required by Antithesis is assailed by syntactic problem.,The following is a sample of the problems.,14,First, as Austin himself noted,there are many cases where explicit performatives do not refer to the speaker, ( as we all known,显性施为句的特点之一就是主语是说话人）,for example:,The company hereby undertakes to replace any can of DoggoMeat that fails to please,with no question asked.,It is herewith disclosed that the value of the estate left by Marcus T.Bloomingdale was 4,785,758 dollars.,and other example where the addressee is not the target,(1)Johnny is to come in now.,(2) Passengers are requested to cross the railway line by the footbridge.,(3) Pedestrians are warned to keep off the grass.,15,Second, many sentences seem to involve more than one illocutionary force.,For example,(4) has a non-restrictive relative clause that is clearly assertoric in force despite being embedded within a question:,(4)Does john, who could never learn elementary calculus, really intend to do a PhD in mathematics?,If every sentence has only one performative clause, it would seem to be necessary to derive (4) from an amalgamation,合并,of two distinct derivations.,Similar difficulties arise even with tag-questions like:,(5)Wittgenstein was an Oxford philosopher, wasnt he?,Bob is really mischievous, isnt he?,where the tag carries a question force that modifies the assertoric force of the declarative clause.,16,And even we have one unitary syntactic clause in surface structure, in order to capture the intuitive illocutionary force we may have to hypothesize a conjunction of two underlying performative clauses.,Thus (6) has been analysed as having an underlying structure similar to (7),(6)Why dont you become an astronaut?,(7) I ask you why you dont become an astronaut and I suggest that you do.,But we also can paraphrase it like this:,(8) I ask you why you dont become an astronaut, and if you can think of no good reasons why not, I suggest that you do.,Yet clearly (8) is not syntactically related to (6).,17,Third,perhaps the most important syntactic objections to the PH (performative hypothesis: explicit performatives directly express their illocutionary forces) are the following.,Firstly, it would require otherwise a typical and unmotivated rule of performative deletion in the majority of cases to deal with cases like(4)-(7).,Secondly, the anaphoric phenomena seem to be pragmatically conditioned rather than syntactic conditioned. For example,Solar energy was invented by God and herself,18,Even the facts about the adverbs that seem to modify implicit performatives, do not in fact support the PH .,For performative adverbs unfortunately turn up in syntactic locations that are not easily reconciled with the claim that they modify the highest (performative) clause.,Note, for example, the following possible locations for,frankly,:,(9)Its because, frankly, I dont trust the Conservatives that I voted for Labour,(10)I voted for Labour because, frankly, I dont trust the Conservatives.,19,There seems to be no independently required syntactic apparatus that can be held responsible for lowering these adverbs from their hypothetical location in the performative clause into the embedded clauses in which they in fact appear.,In the case of (10), one might try to rescue the hypothesis by claiming that there are in fact two performative clauses and,frankly,modifies the second, as in (11),(11)I tell you that I voted for Labour because I tell you frankly. I dont the Conservatives.,But that of course gets the semantics of the because-clause wrong: (11) asserts that Im telling you something else, which is not the meaning of (10) at all.,20,Finally,as we shall see when we come to talk of indirect speech acts, the syntactic mechanisms that are required to handle those phenomena are powerful enough to entirely replicate the effects of the PH without actually having performative clauses.,21,上面所引述的，只是这场关于言语行为理论的归属问题的争论中有关语义方面两派的主要论据，仁者见仁，智者见智，只是论点派把话语意义分成两个层次，用语用理论去解释言语行为似乎更容易被接受，对立派的解释有些牵强附会,。,22,Indirect Speech Acts,间接言语行为的理论基础,间接言语行为的应用,对间接言语行为的三种解释,言语行为的种类,语言的间接性与话语分析,和间接语言有关的几个问题,23,间接言语行为的理论基础,间接言语行为（,Indirect Speech Acts）,指的是说话者在话里表达一定意思的同时，又表达了另外的含义，也就是我们通常所说的“言外之意”和“隐含之意”。,间接言语行为属于语用学领域，是语用学研究的一个重要方面。在人们的日常交际过程中，经常会有一些场合是不适合直抒己见的，这是就需要间接言语行为，要求说话者巧妙的间接表达自己的意思，是听话人能正确理解说话人的言外之意。,24,间接言语行为这一概念是由塞尔在1975年首次提出的，它的主要理论基础是奥斯汀的言语行为理论。,奥斯汀认为语言的用途不应该仅仅是通知或表述事情，语言经常被用来“做事情”，语言交流的基本单位不是语句而是通过这一语句引起的言语行为。,根据奥斯汀的分类，当我们说一句话时，我们做出了三种言语行为：言中行为（,locutionary act）,言外行为（,illocutionary act）,和言后行为（,perlocutionary act）。,例如：,It is stuffy here,这句话的言中行为是说屋子很闷，不通风。显而易见，说话人的言外行为是让听话的人去开门或开窗，而言后行为是听话者去开窗或拒绝去开窗。,从这个例子我们可以看出,言中行为就是字面意思，而言外行为才是说话人真正的交际意图与目的所在。因此在这三种行为中，无论是奥斯汀还是塞尔，最能引起他们兴趣的当然是言外行为，也就是我们所说的间接言语行为。,25,间接言语行为的应用,1 表示礼貌,格赖斯指出，在交际中双方都应该遵守合作原则（,cooperative principle），,即在交际中为了使交际更加顺利，双方都应尽量真实可靠地表达己见和提供信息。但在有些特殊场合下，人却又以违反这一原则，让我们看一下下面的例子：,（一群朋友在谈论,Susan,和,Max，,他们是一对即将移居国外的夫妇）,Ann: I will miss Suan and Max very much, wont you ,Steve?,Steve: Well, I will miss Max.，,从表面上看,Steve,违反了合作原则，他只回答了,Ann,问题的一部分，事实上他把他的意思表达地很清楚了。从他的话中,Ann,和其他人就可得到这样的信息,Steve,不喜欢,Susan，,但为了礼貌，,Steve,没有直接说明。这是十分符合我们说话习惯的。通常情况下人们不会直接表达自己对某人的厌恶或不喜欢。由此可见在交际中人们不仅遵守合作原则还要遵守礼貌原则。,26,2 提出请求,在我们向别人提出请求时，简单直接的祈使句有时会使我们语气听起来过于生硬，别人不易接受。而通过间接言语行为发出的请求则会使语气变得很委婉。一般情况我们通过以下两种方式间接的提出请求：,（1）化祈使为疑问,化祈使为疑问就是将祈使句变成疑问句。比如在要别人听电话时，“,Answer the phone”,这样的句子会让人感到被命令。如果将祈使句变成问句，“,Could you answer the phone?”,这样的句式会让人感觉很舒服。表面上是询问，间接的表示了请求。,27,（2）使用预示语列结构中的请求前语列,在交际中人们倾向于预示语列结构中的请求前语列来间接的提出请求发出邀请。在以言行事之前，发话人先用某些话语进行探测，看有无可能向对方实施某一言语行为。如：,A: Hi, do you have uh size flashlight batteries?,B: Yes, sir.,A: I will have four please.,B:( turn to get them),发话人使用请求前语列语的目的是想了解一下可否向对方提出请求。,A,首先,B,询问是否有,C,号电池，得到肯定答复后，,A,才用陈述句提出要4节电池的要求。,28,3 含蓄的表达拒绝,当我们不赞同别人的行为时，或当别人向我们提出请求我们不能应允时，我们常需要向别人表示拒绝。在表示拒绝是要特别注意严于方式和语气的选择。因为拒绝非常令别人难堪，甚至会伤害人际关系。因此我们要尽可能的间接的表达拒绝。例如：,Wife: Answer the phone please.,Husband: I am watching TV,Wife: I am washing my hair.,在这个简单对话中，间接言语行为被发挥得淋漓尽致。妻子让丈夫去接电话，丈夫说再看电视，间接的表示拒绝;妻子又说自己在洗头，有很间接巧妙的拒绝了丈夫的请求。言外之意是自己不能去，还得丈夫去接电话。三句话中两个隐含之意，使得对话十分巧妙生动，既不伤害感情，又达到了语言交际目的。,29,对间接言语行为的三种解释,Literal Force Theory (LFH),字面语势假设,Idiom theory,成语论/习语论,Inference theory,推理论,30,Literal Force Theory (LFH),字面语势假设,the view that,illocutionary,force is built into sentence form.,LFH will amount to subscribing to the following:,(i) Explicit performatives have the force named by the performative verb in the matrix clause.,(ii) Otherwise, the three major sentence-types in English, namely the imperative, interrogative and declarative, have the forces traditionally associated with them, namely ordering(or requiring), questioning and stating respectively(with, of course, the exception of explicit performatives which happen to be in declarative format).,31,Antithesis theorists have to subscribe to LFH by virtue of their commitment to the PH (performative hypothesis), by that hypothesis explicit performatives directly express their illocutionary forces, and the three basic sentence-types will be reflexes of underlying performative verbs of ordering, questioning and stating.,Thesis theorists are also committed to LFH in so far as they think that they are engaged in a semantical exercise characterizing the meaning of the various IFIDs (illocutionary force indirectly devices), which clearly include explicit performatives and the main sentence-types,.,32,The problem of LFH,The basic problem that then arises is that most usages are indirect.,The LFH theorist has to devise some way of deriving their request force from sentence forms that, according to rule (ii) above, are prototypically assertions and questions rather than requests (since they are not, with one exception, in imperative form).,33,The diversity of actual usage thus constitutes a substantial challenge to LFH, the theory that there is a simple form: force correlation.,On the face of it, what people do with sentence seems quite unrestricted by the surface form (i.e. sentence-type) of the sentences uttered. However, before we ask how Thesis and Antithesis theorists might respond to this challenge, we should first consider another but related problem that is posed by ISAs.,This problem is that ISAs often have syntactic (or at least distributional) reflexes associated not only with their surface sentence-type (and thus, on LFH, with their literal force), but also with their indirect or effective illocutionary force.,34,Idiom theory,成语论/习语论,习语论者认为间接地用于行使某些功能的话语可以被看作是用于行使这些功能的习惯用法或语言形式，这些话语只能被视为整体，而不能对它们的结构进行分析。,Can you pass me the book?,Would you please pass me the book? Would you mind passing me the book?,I request you to pass me the book.,Please pass me the book.,35,习语论者认为这些形式的句子都可以被看作是用于请求别人做某事的习语，也就是说,Can you+V?/Would you please+V? /Would you mind+Ving?,在英语文化中都被约定俗成地看作是,I request you+V,的意义，就像习语,kick the bucket,具有,die,的意义一样。习语论者试图通过习惯用法在某些语言形式与它们间接地实施的功能之间建立起联系，以次来解释语言的间接用法。,36,习语论存在的漏洞和破绽,1.在真实的言语交际中，人们对一些间接的语言用法的反应并不是单一的，有的答话人的反应是针对话语的字面意义的，有时他的反应是针对话语的所谓习语意义的。例如：,A: Can you get a ticket for me?,B: Sure, I can. Which show do you want?,很显然，在,B,的回答中，他先对,A,的话作了字,的反应：,Sure, I can.,然后他才把着同一句话作,A,对他提出的请求来理解，他显然接受了这,请求，因此，他才问,Which show do you want?,37,（1）,A: Can you play the piano?,B: Sure. I started to learn when I was a kid.,（2） A: Do you remember Old Peter? He kicked the bucket.,B: Really? He was a nice guy.,(* Really? Did he hurt his leg?),显然（1）中,B,没有把,A,的话看作请求来理解。因此，可以看到把,Can you+V?,这种句子形式看作是一种习用的请求形式并不恰当，因为它明显有别于（2）中,kick the bucket,这种名副其实的习语。对,kick the bucket,只存在一种理解和一种可能的反应，不会对它有字面上的理解。,38,2.形式和功能之间的关系的问题。习语论者试图把一定的句子形式看作是表达某种意义的惯用形式，那就必定要在形式和意义之间建立起某种关联。例如：,Can you+V?/Would you please+V?/Would you mind+Ving?/May I ask you+V?,在很多场合，人们确实使用这些形式提出要求，在相当程度上我们可以说这些形式具有请求的意义 。,39,Did you forget the door?,I think its a bit drafty here.,How about a bit less breeze?,Okey, Johnny, what an I going to say next?,在一定语境中都可以具有请求听话人关门的功能，不能因为,Did you forget the door?,在一定情况下可以表示请求而概括出“,Did you forget+,动作的对象？”都可以用于表示请求这样的公式。,实际上，说话人用这些句子间接的表示一个请求，又能被听话人正确的理解为一个间接的请求，并不依靠对形式与意义之间的某种特定的关联，而是依靠对语境因素的考虑。,40,3.,Whenever theres a grammatical reflex of indirct force, idiom theorists must claim an idiom.(Unfortunately this list seems to be of indefinite length),41,Inference theory 推理论,推理论者认为不应把间接使用的话语看作是习语，而应该假设听话人经过一系列的推理步骤才从句子的字面意义推导出说话人的真正意图。不同的人对推理论作了不同的解释，但他们的理论具有某些共同点：,42,1.间接的使用的话语具有独立的字面意义，这种意义是交际参与者都能理解的。,2.用于施行间接言语行为的话语必然具有促使听话人去进行推理的因素，也就是说这句话的字面意义使听话人感到它在特定的语境中是不合适的，因而需要经过推理来对它进行必要的修补，以获得合适的意义。,3.从字面意义和语境推导出有关的间接意义必须有一定的原则和推理规则可循。,43,The first such inference theory was that proposed by Gordon and Lakoff.,In that theory, property (1) was met by assuming the PH, while the trigger in (2) was provided whenever the literal force of an utterance was blocked by the context. For property (3), some specific inference rules were offered, convensational postulates, modelled on Carnaps meaning postulates(which state analytic equivalences not captures elsewhere in a semantical system, but with additional reference to contextual factors). Finally, to handle property (4), Gorden and Lakoff suggested the use of context-sensitive transderivational constraints. Transderivational constraints were rules already proposed within the theory of generative semantics that allowed onederivation to be governed by reference to another, and could thus be used to block, for example, certain structural ambiguities.,44,Another version of inference theory is suggested by Searle.,1.Searle,从言语行为理论出发，认为交际双方都必须具有言语行为理论知识，这样他们才可能辨认一句话语的字面意义，即字面上实施了什么行为，也就是他说的次要言语行为。,2.,Searle,认为可以通过,Grice,的会话合作原则（,co-operation principle）,来确定话语的不合适性，从而确定进行推理的必要性。,3.,Searle,认为可以借助推导出会话含义（,conversational implicature）,的原则来达到这一目的。例如：,A：Lets go to the movies tonight.,B：I have to study for an exam.,根据意义，特别是,Lets,这个句首形式的运用，可以确定,A,的话语是一个建议，对建议的反应或是接受或是拒绝，但从字面上看,B,的回答似乎两者都不是，,B,所说的看上去好像是一个和他本人有关的声音，不过我们可以本能的意识到,B,的话是对,A,所提建议的拒绝。,45,从一个字面上的声音到一个实际的拒绝，,Searle,假设了,A,所经历的十个推理步骤：,第一步：我（指,A,下同）向,B,提出了一个建议，他的反应是说了些关于要准备考试这样的话.(第一步是对话语字面意义的理解),第二步：我推测,B,是愿意在会话中和我合作的，因此他所说的一定与话题有关。（这是根据会话合作原则得出的结论）,第三步：与建议有关的反应不外乎接受、拒绝、反建议或进一步讨论等。（以言语行为理论为依据）,第四步：单他所说的话字面上不属于上面所说的任何一种反应，因此不是一个切题的反应。（从第一、第三两个步骤得出的推理）,第五步：因此，他所要说的恐怕不仅仅是他字面上所说的话。假定他的话与话题有关，那么他的首要言外之的一定不同于他的字面上的言外之的。（从第二、第四两步得出的推理这一步是关键的，,A,意识到了进行推理对原话的字面意义进行修补的必要性）,46,第六步：我知道准备考试要占用相对一个晚上来说比较多的时间，我也知道去看电影也要占用相对一个晚上来说比较多的时间。（根据常识）,第七步：因此，他恐怕不可能在同一个晚上既看电影又准备考试。（从第六步推理而来）,第八步：接受建议所必须满足的准备条件是具备履行命题内容中所明确的行为的能力。（根据言语行为理论）,第九步：因此，我认为他所说的话应该表明他不能接受我的建议。（从第一、七、八步得出的推理）,第十步：因此，他的首要言外之的是拒绝建议。（从第五、九步得出的推理）,推理论的优点：首先区分了话语的字面意义和话语的言外意义这两个层次，然后假设了一系列的推理步骤从一个层次推导到另一个层次。这样，推理论摆脱了最为棘手的形式和功能的关联问题。不论一句话语是以什么样的句子形式出现，依赖一系列语境因素、语用知识和听话人的推理能力，我们总能够合情合理地推导出它在特定的语境中所具有的言外之意。,47,言语行为的种类,Searle,的间接言语行为基于以下假设：,1.显性施为句或明显的以言行事可通过施为动词获知说话人的语用用意；,2.许多语句实际上都是隐性施为句，其中陈述句表达“陈述”，疑问句表达“询问”，祈使句表达“命令”等言语行为；,3.语句本身表达的这些言语行为称作“字面用意”，它与间接的“言外之力”（语用用意）相对，后者是在“字面用意”的基础上做出的推断；,4.间接言语行为可以分为规约性间接言语行为和非规约性间接言语行为。,48,间接言语行为理论要解决的问题是，说话人如何通过“字面用意”来表达间接的“言外之力”，即语用用意，或者说听话人如何从说话人的“字面用意”中推断出其间接的“言外之力”，即语用用意。,为此，,Searle,认为理解或传达间接言语行为有四条依据：,1.言语行为理论，特别是“示言外之力”论，即了解人们如何以言行事；,2.语用含意理论，特别是了解“会话含意”理论中有关合作原则的各准则的恪守和违反可能带来的语用含意；,3.说话人的知识和听话人所理解的语境信息；,4.听话人的知识及推理能力,49,规约性间接言语行为,所谓规约性间接言语行为，指对“字面用意”作一般性推理而得出的间接言语行为。所谓对字面用意作一般推断，实际上就是根据话语的句法形式，按习惯可立即推断出间接的“言外之力”（语用用意）。规约性间接言语行为的应用，主要处于对听话人的礼貌。例如：,Could you be a little more quiet?,Id rather you didnt do it any more.,Would you mind not making so much noise? I would appreciate it if you could turn off the light.,50,这些话语的字面用意分别是询问和陈述，但人们按习惯可以根据这些话语的形式，立即推断出各句间接的言外之力都是“请求”，因为这些语句大体上都可以在动词前或句末插入一个礼貌标记语,please。,例如，,Could you please be a little more quiet?/Id rather you didnt do it any more, please.,要注意的是，当以上话语加上,please,之后，尽管它们的形式没有改变，但它们已不再是表达间接言语行为的语句了，而是通过,please,明确表达了“请求”，相当于一个祈使句式。,51,表达间接言语行为的话语，人们习惯上是不会根据字面用意进行理解的，但是在一定语境里，这类话语可能只表达字面用意，而不作为间接言语行为。例如，在游泳池旁问一句,Can you swim?,很可能是一个间接言语行为，表达请求或邀请；但如果该话语是在家里提出来的，显然它只可能表达字面用意了，即询问对方是否会游泳。,A: Can you close the window?,B: No, sorry, I cant. Ive turned in.,A,显然是请求,B,关窗户，但,B,却因为自己已经上床睡觉，而不得不按,A,的字面用意进行回答，说他“没有能力”做此事。并非,B,不明,A,的间接言外之意，而是不能满足对方的请求罢了。,52,Searle,把表示规约性间接请求或指令的语句分成了以下六类：,1.与说话人做某事的能力有关的语句。,Can you reach the salt? Could you be a little more quiet?,Are you able to reach the book on the top shelf?,2.,与说话人希望听话人做某事的愿望有关的语句。,I would like you to go now. I want you to do this for me.,I would/should appreciate it if you would/could do it for me?,3.,与听话人做某事有关的语句。,Officers will henceforth wear ties at dinner.,Will you quit making that awful racket?,Wont you stop making that noise soon?,53,4.与听话人做某事的愿望或意愿有关的语句。,Do you want to hand me that hammer over there on the table?,Would you be willing to write a letter of recommendation for me?,Would it be convenient for you to come on Wednesday?,5.,与做某事的原因有关的语句。,You ought to be more polite to your mother.,Must you continue hammering that way?,Ought you to eat quite so much spaghetti?,还包括很多不具有一般形式的语句，但只要在一定语境条件下它们可以是间接言语行为，比如以下间接性请求：,Youre standing on my foot.,I cant see the movie screen while you have that hat on.,6.,将以上结构放入另一种结构，或者将明示的以言行事指令动词放入上 述另一种结构。,Would you mind awfully if I asked you if you could write me a letter of recommendation?,Might I ask you to take off your hat?,以上只是一个大致的分类，在一定条件下某些结构可以相互组合，形成间接性请求或指令言语行为。,54,Searle,对间接指令的分类主要参考的是实施言外行为的恰当条件（准备条件、诚意条件、命题内容条件、根本条件）。其实对实施间接指令的各种方式，我们也可以从“指令”这一行为所涉及的几个因素出发去考虑：说话人（发出指令者）、听话人（指令对象）和说话人想要听话人去做的动作。据次，在餐桌上请别人递一下盐瓶，可以有以下各种间接的形式。,以说话人为出发点：,a),陈述愿望,I would like you to pass me the salt.,b),询问愿望 *,Would I like you to pass me the salt?,听话人为出发点：,1,a),陈述能力,You can pass me the salt.,1b),询问能力,Can you pass me the salt?,2a),陈述意愿,You want to pass me the salt.,2b),询问意愿,Would you mind passing me the salt?,3a),陈述将来的动作,You will pass me the salt.,3b),询问将来的动作,Will you pass me the salt?,以动作为出发点：,a),陈述理由,The soup is not salty enough.,b),询问理由,Wouldnt it be a good idea if we add some salt to the soup?,55,在以听话人为出发点发出间接指令时，疑问形式要比陈述形式显得有礼貌。为什么呢？,因为间接指令有双重功能性（,bifunctionality）。,所谓双重功能性就是指同一句话语在交际中同时具有两种功能。面对双重功能性的话语，听话人如何正确领会说话人的意图是个大问题。由于听未能领会说的意图而导致误解，甚至使交际中断的情况，在本族语使用者中也时有发生。,1.晚上10点女主人对一位住在城郊的客人说,Hostess: You look tired, Susan. Stan can give you,a ride back.,Guest: Oh, no. Im fine.,2. A: Are you out of coffee?,B: No. Pass me your cup.,3. Son: I need a ten-speed bicycle.,Mother: Im sure you do.,4. A: Are you going to share your candy with me?,B: Oh, I dont know.,56,非规约性间接言语行为,所谓非规约性间接言语行为，主要依靠说话双方共知的语言信息和所处的语境来推断，必须依靠推理才能获得。如果说话人表达的间接用意与听话人的理解不一致，那很可能是话语中双方共知语言信息的不足，或语境含糊引起的。有时，说话双方的社会地位、身份等方面的差异，或说话人出自礼貌，言不由衷，也会产生类似上述说话人的用意和听话人的理解不一致的情况，从而迫使说话人重复所说的话语或者改用较清楚的话语，把要表达的言外之意明确地表达出来。,57,Tommy,到姑母家做客：,Aunt: Wont you have another piece of cake, Tommy?,Tommy: No, I thank you.,Aunt: You seem to be suffering from loss of appetite.,Tommy: That aint loss of appetite. What Im,suffering from is politeness.,Tommy,第一句话所表达的“拒绝”是言不由衷的，他的间接用意实际上是愿意接受“提供”，但碍于礼貌，只好假话真说。而姑母的第二句话使,Tommy,着急了，因为这句话的用意显然是要停止给他