间接言语行为理论

,单击此处编辑母版标题样式,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,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,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,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,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,单击此处编辑母版文本样式,第二级,第三级,第四级,第五级,*,Introduction,Austins Speech Act Theory,Searles Indirect Speech Act Theory,-,Classification of Indirect Speech Acts,Its Relations with Other Pragmatic Theories,Introduction,The theory of indirect speech acts was put forward by the American philosopher of language John Searle. It originated from Austins theory, but made some revisions. One of Searles contributions lies in his understanding of the importance of speech acts. He regards a speech act as a basic unit in social communication, yet not a word or a sentence. This means that his theory pays much attention to the functions rather than the forms of languages.,Austins Speech Act Theory,It all begins with Austins) distinction between two kinds of sentences: performatives(施为句) and constatives（叙事句）. Austin argues that the uttering of a performative sentence is actually doing an action.,I nominate John to be President,“I sentence you to ten years,imprisionment,I promise to pay you back.,In these typical, rather explicit cases of performative sentences, the action that the sentence describes (nominating,sentencing, promising) is performed by the utterance of the sentence itself.,Later, when Austin tries to separate performatives from constatives, he realizes the difficulty in distinguishing them from apart. In fact, all sentences can be used to perform speech acts. In order to explain in what sense to say something is to do something, Austin classifies three kinds of speech acts:,1),locutionary act,（言内行为）, the movement of vocal organs to produce a stretch of meaningful sounds,2),illocutionary act,（言外行为） - the making of a statement, offer, promise, etc. to fulfill the purpose of speaking,.,(3),perlocutionary act,（言后行为） the effects left on the audiences.,The second speech act, i.e. illocutionary act, is the focus of Austins research, because the illocution of an utterance is the speakers communicative intention or the function it is intended to perform. In this sense, Austins speech act theory is actually a theory of illocutionary acts. His previous research focus performatives then in fact belongs to a special group of illocutionary acts which are expressed explicitly.,Searles Indirect Speech Act Theory,Searle continues his teachers research on illocutionary acts, and finds that actually all the speech acts can be seen as illocutionary acts. He makes some revisions to Austins felicity conditions and use new terms to classify felicity conditions into three:,preparatory conditions, propositional content conditions,and,sincerity conditions,.,1),Preparatory conditions, conditions that identify the particular circumstances and participants appropriate to performing a given illocutionary act.,2),Propositional content conditions, conditions that define the content f the utterance.,3),Sincerity conditions, conditions that involve the speakers necessary belief, emotion and intention.,According to these principles, we can analyze the felicity conditions of a particular speech act. Take the speech act request as an example to show how A request B to do C.,1)Preparatory conditions A has not done C; A believes that B can do C; B will not do C if he is not asked to.,a.只有当听话人希望说话人去实施该行为，而且说话人也相信听话人希望他去实施该行为时，才能说出某一命题,b.,只有当说话人和听话人都明白，在正常情况下说话人不会趋势是某一行为时，才能说出某一命题,2) Propositional content conditions A States the act C that B will perform.,命题内容规则：命题只能出现在话语（或比话语更大的语境）中，他讲述了说话人将实施的某一行为。,3) Sincerity conditions A really wants B to do C.,只有当说话人希望实施某一行为时，才能说出某一命题。这一规则来自于真诚条件。,In the study of felicity conditions, Searle finds some utterances which deliberately fail to fulfill the conditions for the speech act. However, these utterances tend to conduct another speech act whose felicity conditions have been satisfied. This means that with the same utterance the speaker meaning is different from the literal meaning, and that is the reason why the utterance performs a speech act which is different from the one usually related to the literal meaning.,Based on the above understanding, Searle defines an,indirect speech act,as,an illocutionary act which is performed indirectly by way of performing another.,塞尔认为间接言语现象实质上是“通过实施另一种言语行为来间接地实施某一种言语行为”。换言之，说话人想要通过句子的“字面用意”来表达间接的“言外之力”。,In summary, people often express ideas in an indirect way which leads to two illocutionary acts in the indirect utterance.,The speech act related to the speaker meaning is called,primary illocutionary act, while,the act linked to the literal meaning is called,secondary illocutionary act,.,(1) Speaker X:,“,We should leave for the show or else well be late.”,(2) Speaker Y: I am not ready yet.“,Here the primary illocutionary act is Ys rejection of Xs suggestion, and the secondary illocutionary act is Ys statement that she is not ready to leave.,By dividing the illocutionary act into two subparts, Searle is able to explain that we can understand two meanings from the same utterance all the while knowing which is the correct meaning to respond to.,例如：My dear，the beef here is too expensive,在这句话中，如果说话人只是抱怨这个地方出售的牛肉价格高而别无他意时，他的语言就是直接的；如果他的意图是想通过陈述而建议听话人换个地方再买的话，就实施了两个言外行为：一个是陈述，一个是建议。塞尔把说话人使用语言时所采用的两种言外行为称为首要言外行为和次要言外行为。首要言外行为体现的是说话人的真正意图，次要言外行为则是话语的字面意思。在例句中建议(首要言外行为)通过陈述(次要言外行为)来实现，说明语句的表层结构和深层结构、语句的字面意思和说话人的用意之间存在着不一致和不对应的现象，从而揭示出语言的形式和功能之间存在的多元关系。,Classification of Indirect Speech Acts,Searle classified indirect speech acts into two categories: conventional and unconventional.,Conventional indirect speech acts,(,规约性间接言语行为）,refer to those utterances with familiar and fixed expressions. People take these indirect speech acts for granted and even fail to detect the illocutionary force in the literal meaning of utterances.,Unconventional indirect speech acts,（非规约性间接言语行为）,are much more difficult to detect, so the hearer need to analyze the context, share some common knowledge with the speaker and have some basic reasoning abilities to figure out the indirect speech act.,塞尔认为，间接言语行为可以分为规约性(convention)间接言语行为和非规约性(non,-,convention)间接言语行为。,前者指,按照习惯对句子的字面意思作出一般性推断的间接言语行为,。,这类行为已经形成一种人们普遍接受的习惯用法或语言形式，听话人很容易理解到语言的言外之意。规约性间接言语行为的应用主要是出于交际的礼貌原则，说话人为了表示对听话人的礼貌、客气或是尊重，或为了缓和语气而使用。在实际生活中，最常见的是请求策略，而这种策略与礼貌标记语成正相关关系，人们按语言使用习惯可以很快得出正确的推理。,例如：Id rather you wont be late any more,字面上是陈述，但它与,请求,这个言外之力相联系。,非规约性间接言语行为则情况复杂且具有不确定性，要依靠交际双方共知的语言信息、所处的语境以及会话原则来推断说话人的言外之意。也就是说，听话人在识别这一现象时往往通过语外因素进行推理,。,例如：以下是妻子和丈夫之间发生的一段对话。,A：What a terrible today! (今天天气可真糟糕!),B：Yes，it is(是啊。),A：Sam，Im not in the mood to cook(山姆，我没心情做饭。),B：Whats the matter?(怎么了?),A:Nothing specialJust feel a little bit tired(没什么，就是觉得有点累。),B:Do you want to go out to eat?I know a great Greek place,(你想出去吃吗?我知道一个吃希腊菜的好地方。),A：Im really tired(我实在是累了。),B：Ok，Why dont we order out for a pizza?,(好吧。那我们为什么不点比萨外卖呢?),A：Great! (好极了!),在这段对话中，妻子既不愿意做饭也不愿意出去吃，于是转弯抹角地表达自己的想法；而作为听话人的丈夫则依靠语境和双方共同生活的经历和背景理解了妻子的真正意图。根据言语行为理论，只有理解了使用者使用语言的意图时，才能理解语句的意义。这引导人们运用实践唯物主义的语言观，从多元化的视角去思考间接言语行为的真正含义。,With his doctrine of indirect speech acts Searle attempts to explain how it is possible that a speaker can say something and mean it, but additionally mean something else. This would be impossible, or at least it would be an improbable case, if in such a case the hearer had no chance of figuring out what the speaker means (over and above what she says and means).,Searles solution is that the hearer can figure out what the indirect speech act is meant to be, and he gives several hints as to how this might happen.,For the previous example a condensed process might look like this:,Step 1: A proposal is made by X, and Y responded by means of an illocutionary act(2).,Step 2: X assumes that Y is cooperating in the conversation, being sincere, and that she has made a statement that is relevant.,Step 3: The literal meaning of (2) is not relevant to the conversation.,Step 4: Since X assumes that Y is cooperating; there must be another meaning to (2).,Step 5: Based on mutually shared background information, X knows that they cannot leave until Y is ready. Therefore, Y has rejected Xs proposition.,Step 6: X knows that Y has said something in something other than the literal meaning, and the primary illocutionary act must have been the rejection of Xs proposal.,Its Relations with Other Pragmatic Theories,People usually express their ideas indirectly for the purpose of politeness, since indirect utterances seem to be more gentle and more polite. Therefore, the use of indirect speech acts obeys the,politeness principles,（,面子原则）,. Face is a persons public self -image, and showing politeness means the awareness of another persons face.,Leechs politeness principles explain why sometimes people deliberately violate the cooperative principles to express indirectly,.,Indirect speech act theory is also closely related to,Grices cooperative principles,. In the conversations, people may deliberately violate the cooperative principles so as to fulfill the implicature in the conversation. The similar situation occurs when indirect speech acts may violate the felicity conditions of the original act so as to fulfill the conditions of primary illocutionary act,.,