歧义的语用研究
|
摘要
传统上人们将歧义看成是一种语言误用，然而歧义远非如此一无是处，相反，它可以发挥积极作用，帮助人们实现一定的交际目的。本文首先指出歧义不同于模糊，并分析了两种语言现象之间的关系。作者继而对歧义的分类提出了自己的看法，建议从语言层面、说话人意图和听话人反应三个角度来对歧义进行划分。歧义可以出现在语言层面上，即语音、词汇和语法歧义，同时歧义也可以出现在非语言层面上，即语境歧义。由于说话人的意图不同，可以产生两种歧义——蓄意歧义和无意歧义，蓄意歧义就是一种语用歧义，即语言使用者有意采用歧义以达到某种语言效果或实现某种交际目的。根据听话人的反应，本文又提出了潜伏歧义和激活歧义两个概念。对歧义进行如此划分突破了传统的语义研究，本文着重从语用学角度对歧义进行研究，分析在语言这种社会活动中，歧义的产生和理解和社会活动主体——说话人和听话人之间的关系。在对歧义的性质进行剖析的基础上，本文又重点分析了语用歧义的功能，得出的结论是，歧义可以帮助人们实现保护自我，避免冲突，遵守礼貌原则，维护双方面子，实现交际目的，完成交际任务等功能。
Ambiguity has traditionally been regarded as a kind of language misuse, which, however, is a quite limited view of ambiguity. Ambiguity is not good-for-nothing. Instead, it can play an active role in helping people to achieve positive communication effects.
In this thesis, the author first makes it clear that ambiguity is different from vagueness and then discusses the relationship between the two terms. Next the author suggests classifying ambiguity from three perspectives: linguistic level, speaker intention and hearer reaction. Ambiguity can appear on linguistic level. Thus phonological ambiguity, lexical ambiguity, and grammatical ambiguity appear. It can also arise on nonlinguistic level and context ambiguity appears. According to speaker intention, ambiguity can be divided into intentional and unintentional ambiguity. Intentional ambiguity is pragmatic ambiguity, i.e., the speaker turns to ambiguity on purpose to achieve a special effect or realize a certain purpose in communication. Then the author argues that there are two kinds of ambiguity: latent ambiguity and activated ambiguity, analyzed from hearer reaction. Such kind of classification highlights the fact that the creation and understanding of ambiguity are closely related with the two parties, speaker and hearer, involved in the communication. In the next part, the thesis focuses on analyzing the pragmatic functions of ambiguity, which can be summarized as follows: self protecting, conflict avoiding, politeness achieving, face keeping, purpose realizing, and task fulfilling, etc.
Ambiguity has traditionally been regarded as a kind of language misuse, which, however, is a quite limited view of ambiguity. Ambiguity is not good-for-nothing. Instead, it can play an active role in helping people to achieve positive communication effects.
In this thesis, the author first makes it clear that ambiguity is different from vagueness and then discusses the relationship between the two terms. Next the author suggests classifying ambiguity from three perspectives: linguistic level, speaker intention and hearer reaction. Ambiguity can appear on linguistic level. Thus phonological ambiguity, lexical ambiguity, and grammatical ambiguity appear. It can also arise on nonlinguistic level and context ambiguity appears. According to speaker intention, ambiguity can be divided into intentional and unintentional ambiguity. Intentional ambiguity is pragmatic ambiguity, i.e., the speaker turns to ambiguity on purpose to achieve a special effect or realize a certain purpose in communication. Then the author argues that there are two kinds of ambiguity: latent ambiguity and activated ambiguity, analyzed from hearer reaction. Such kind of classification highlights the fact that the creation and understanding of ambiguity are closely related with the two parties, speaker and hearer, involved in the communication. In the next part, the thesis focuses on analyzing the pragmatic functions of ambiguity, which can be summarized as follows: self protecting, conflict avoiding, politeness achieving, face keeping, purpose realizing, and task fulfilling, etc.
引文
Austin, J. 1962/2002. How to Do Things with words. London: Oxford University Press/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cann, R. 1993. Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Channell, J. 2000. Vague Language. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Cruse, D. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deemster, K. 1996. 'Towards a Logic of Ambiguous Expressions', cited in Deemster, K and Peters, S(editors) Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Standford: CSLI Publications.
Dunbar, G. 2001. "Towards a cognitive analysis of polysemy, ambiguity, and vagueness" cited in Cognitive Linguistics Research. 12-1(2001) pp..1-14. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbawn Associates, Inc.
Fromkin,V & Rodman, R. 1983. An Introduction to Language (3rd ed). NY: CBS College Publishing.
Grice, H. 1975. "Logic and conversation", cited in Cole, P & Morgan, J (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, 3. pp..41-58. New York: Academic Press.
Hirst, G. 1987. Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kempson, R. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakeoff, G. 1972. 'Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of vague concepts', in Linguistic Society Papers. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lyons, J. 1981. Language, Meaning and Context. London: Fortana.
Lyons, J. 1995. Linguistics Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. 1983. Principle of Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Limited.
Neilich, B. & Clarke, D. 2001. " Ambiguity we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy" in Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) pp.. 1-20.
Palmer, F. 1981. Semantics (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patridge, E. 1947. Usage and Abusage. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Poesio, M. 1996. 'Semantic Ambiguity and Perceived Ambiguity', cited in Deemster, K & Peters, S (editors) Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Standford: CSLI Publications.
Raskin, V. 1985. Semantic Mechanism of Humour. Dordrecht & Boston: D. Reidel.
Saeed, J. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Su, S. 1994. Lexical Ambiguity in Poetry. London: Longman.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Ullmann, S. 1962. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Weinreich, U. 1966. 'Explorations in semantic theory', in Sebeok, T. A. (ed.) Current Trends in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
程工，1998，“从对歧义句的分析看20世纪的句法学”，《解放军外国语学报》第5期。
何兆熊，1999，《新编语用学概要》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
何自然，1988，《语用学概论》，长沙：湖南教育出版社。
何自然，1997，《语用学与英语学习》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
黄弈，2001，“‘答非所问’话幽默”，《英语学习》第4期。
廖定中，2000，“略谈歧义，模糊与多义”，《天津外国语学报》第4期。
吕淑湘，1992，“歧义类例”，《语境研究论文集》，西慎光正(编)，北京：北京语言学院出版社．PP．．308-322．
林汝昌，李曼珏，1993，《语义学入门》，武汉：华中理工大学出版社。
邱述德，1998，《英语歧义》，北京：商务印书馆。
师静，1999，“英语幽默中的‘答非所问’”，《解放军外国语学报》，第5期。
王佐良，丁往道，1987，《英语文体学引论》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
伍谦光，1988／1994，《语义学入门》，湖南：湖南教育出版社。
武铁平，1999，《模糊语言学》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
俞东明，1997，“语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究”，《外国语》第6期。
张乔，1997，《模糊语言学论集》，大连：大连出版社。
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cann, R. 1993. Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Channell, J. 2000. Vague Language. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Cruse, D. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deemster, K. 1996. 'Towards a Logic of Ambiguous Expressions', cited in Deemster, K and Peters, S(editors) Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Standford: CSLI Publications.
Dunbar, G. 2001. "Towards a cognitive analysis of polysemy, ambiguity, and vagueness" cited in Cognitive Linguistics Research. 12-1(2001) pp..1-14. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbawn Associates, Inc.
Fromkin,V & Rodman, R. 1983. An Introduction to Language (3rd ed). NY: CBS College Publishing.
Grice, H. 1975. "Logic and conversation", cited in Cole, P & Morgan, J (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, 3. pp..41-58. New York: Academic Press.
Hirst, G. 1987. Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kempson, R. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakeoff, G. 1972. 'Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of vague concepts', in Linguistic Society Papers. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lyons, J. 1981. Language, Meaning and Context. London: Fortana.
Lyons, J. 1995. Linguistics Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. 1983. Principle of Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Limited.
Neilich, B. & Clarke, D. 2001. " Ambiguity we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy" in Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) pp.. 1-20.
Palmer, F. 1981. Semantics (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patridge, E. 1947. Usage and Abusage. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Poesio, M. 1996. 'Semantic Ambiguity and Perceived Ambiguity', cited in Deemster, K & Peters, S (editors) Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Standford: CSLI Publications.
Raskin, V. 1985. Semantic Mechanism of Humour. Dordrecht & Boston: D. Reidel.
Saeed, J. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Su, S. 1994. Lexical Ambiguity in Poetry. London: Longman.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Ullmann, S. 1962. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Weinreich, U. 1966. 'Explorations in semantic theory', in Sebeok, T. A. (ed.) Current Trends in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
程工，1998，“从对歧义句的分析看20世纪的句法学”，《解放军外国语学报》第5期。
何兆熊，1999，《新编语用学概要》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
何自然，1988，《语用学概论》，长沙：湖南教育出版社。
何自然，1997，《语用学与英语学习》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
黄弈，2001，“‘答非所问’话幽默”，《英语学习》第4期。
廖定中，2000，“略谈歧义，模糊与多义”，《天津外国语学报》第4期。
吕淑湘，1992，“歧义类例”，《语境研究论文集》，西慎光正(编)，北京：北京语言学院出版社．PP．．308-322．
林汝昌，李曼珏，1993，《语义学入门》，武汉：华中理工大学出版社。
邱述德，1998，《英语歧义》，北京：商务印书馆。
师静，1999，“英语幽默中的‘答非所问’”，《解放军外国语学报》，第5期。
王佐良，丁往道，1987，《英语文体学引论》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
伍谦光，1988／1994，《语义学入门》，湖南：湖南教育出版社。
武铁平，1999，《模糊语言学》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
俞东明，1997，“语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究”，《外国语》第6期。
张乔，1997，《模糊语言学论集》，大连：大连出版社。