2004 5 ( ) M ay 2004

36 3 For eign L anguage T eaching and Research ( bimonthly) Vol. 36 No. 3

: , ,

,
,

,
, , ,

:

[ ] H030 [ ] A [ ] 1000- 0429( 2004) 03_0163- 8

,
1.
,

, , Yus( 1999)
, , a)
, b)
, , ,
( delib- ,
erat e misint erpretat ion, DM I) , : ,
( 1) (

) :
: , ? ( 2) ( AB
: ! )
( ) : , , A: ?
1 2
? B: ?
A: , ?
( 56) B: , ,

, / 0 A
, / B , B
0/ 0, A
, B ,
# 163 #
 2004 3

,
2. 3
, ( 2000) /
0, / 0/ 0
, ,

, ,
T zanne ( 2000: 223) / 0
,
, intent ional misunderst anding,
,
/ 0
,
, / 0 ( en-
2. / 0 ( save f ace) /
hance face)
0( at t ack ot herps face)
,
, / 0/

0
2. 1
( 1985) ( 1987) / , ,
0 ,

, ,
: 1)
,
, ? 2) ,
/ 0/ 0 3 ? 3)
, ,
,
?
( 1989)
, / 0 3.
, /

,

0 ( 1989: 110) ,

/ 0
, ,
2. 2
/ 0
, / 0 ,
/ 0
/ 0, , ,
( 1993)
: , ,

, , ; ,
( / 0/



1993: 230)
0

,

3. 1 ( )
# 164 #


L evinson ( 1987: 401)

3. 2 ( )
, / 0

( M ax im of M inimizat ion) ,
,

( Enrichment Rule) ,

,
:

,
/ 0 3. 2. 1 ( ut terance cont ent)
, ,
,
:

( 3) ( T wo friends are chat t ing in t he pub. ) 3. 2. 1. 1

A: My w ife doesnpt appreciat e me. Does
yours?
B: I wouldnpt know . Ipve never heard her ,
ment ion your name. ,

A / 0 , Does :

yours B B ( 5) , ,
Does yours , ,
Does your w ife appreciate you, , : /
Does your w if e appreciate me A ,
, B , 0, ,

/ , 0, , ,
, : , , : /
( 4) ( 56, ?0 : /
, , , ,
,
) ,
4
1 : ( ) 0:
,
? / ?0
1: 196 , : /
2: ? ( ) 0,

2: ( 56)
5346) / 0 : /
1 , ( w hy) 0/ ( how ) 0
, 196: / 0,
/ 196 0, / 0/ 0,
/ 196 0 ,
196 , ,
,
# 165 #
 2004 3

3. 2. 1. 2 ,
, B
, A ,
, B / 0,
: A :

( 6) ( , ( 8) ( A B
,
) , ,
)
1: ? A1:
1: ? B1: ( / 0
)
2: ,
/ 0 A2: , , !
2: , B2:
3: , A2
3: , , B
4:
, A B
4: , , , ,,,
, ,
, ,, B A ,
!
/ 0/ 0 3. 2. 3 ( implicat ure)
,

, , ,

,
3. 2. 2 ( illocut ionary f orce) ( Sper-
, ber & Wilson 1986/ 1995)
,
,

:
, ( 9) ( Af ter dat ing for some months, t he g irl
, w ants the boy to make a proposal for
, marriage. But the boy does not want t o
marry at present . )

GIRL: Darling , I want to dance like t his

forever.
( 7) A: , BOY: Donpt you ever w ant to improve?

,
B:
,
, A : ,
/ 0 A , / 0/
# 166 #


/ 0
0 ,
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
, :
4.
( 11) (
4. 1

)
,
: , ?

: ) ) ) ?
, ,
? ?
, ( 1989: 167)
( 56)
, ,
/ 0 / 0
, / 0/ 0, /
0
/ 0 ,

4. 1. 1
, 4. 1. 3
, ,
, , , : ,
,
( 10) ( A B A
, ,
, :
:
B
B ( 13) ( ,
A , ) )
B: , ! : , ,
A: , ,
, ?
( 56) : ,
?
, / 0
/ ( betray) 0/ ( sell for money) 0 / 0
B / 0 / 0, A /
0, , B / 0,

4. 1. 2 4. 1. 4
,
,
, ,
, ,
# 167 #
 2004 3

: ?0/ ,
0 ,

( 14) ( , ,
, , / ,
, -, .
0
: )
( 56)
: ?
:
: ? , / ?0
: , , / 0
: ? , / ,
: , 0,
/ 0
/ 0, ,
/ 0/ 0 , ,
/ 0,
/ ( ) , :
, 0
( 16) (
, ,

)
/ 0/ 0
:
, / 0 / 0
:
,
, / 0
/ 0 ;

, ,

, ( Edmonson ,
, / 0
1981)
,

4. 2 5.
,

, ( Verschueren 1999)
, ,
,

, ,

( 15) , 5. 1
/ , ,
?0, :
, / ,
# 168 #


( 17) ( A asks his f riend B about t he reason for

5. 4
his visit t o Chicago. )
,
A: What broug ht you from F inley to
:
Chicago?
B: A plane. ( 20) / Is social equalit y permit ted here? Boy, 0
shout ed the lady t o a man show ing peo-
A B/ w hat brought you to Chicago
ple to t heir seat s, / t his is social equal-
i
( ) 0, /
ty. 0 / No, madam, t his is Beat hovenps
0B ,
music. 0
,
( W. E. B. Du Bois. / On being crazy0)
5. 2

/
,
?0
,

,
( 18) A: ? , / t his is
B: , ! ? social equality0
? / , 0
A B ,
/ 0/ 5. 5
, 0 , B ,
A , , ,
,
5. 3
( 21) ( , ,
, , )
, , : ,
, ?
( 19) : / : ,
0 ,
?0/
0 /
/ ?0/ ( 561997/ 2)
- . ? ! 0 , / 0 / , 0
/ 0, ,
( 56) ,
/ 0, / 0 / 0
/ 0, / , 0,
/ 0, / 0/ 0
6.
/ 0 ,
, ,
,


# 169 #
 2004 3

, ,

Edmonson, W. 1981. Sp oken Discour se: A Model f or

,
A nalysis [ M ] . N ew Yor k: L ong man G roup L imit-
,
ed.
L ev inson, S. 1987. P ragmatics and the grammar of

, anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction of binding

, and control phenomena [ J] . Jour nal of Linguistics
/ 0/ 0 23: 379- 431.
, , Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/ 1995. Relevance:
, Com munication and cognition [ M ] . Ox ford:

, , , Blackwell.
T homas, J. 1995. M eaning in I nter action: A n I ntr o-
:
duction to Pragmatics [ M ] . L ondon: Longman.
( 22) , T zanne, A . 2000. T alking at Cr oss-p urp oses: T he Dy-
, namics of M iscom munication [ M ] . Amsterdam:
, : / Jo hn Benjamins Publishing Company.
?0, V erschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pr agmatics

: / ?0 [ M ] . L ondon: Edward A rno ld.

Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. 1993. L inguistic form and
,
relevance [ J] . L ingua 90: 1-25.
: /
Yus, F. 1999. M isunderstandings and ex plicit/ implicit
: -?. 0
communication [ J] . Pr agmatics 9: 487- 517.
, 1983,/ 0 [ J] , 5 6
, 6

, / , 1987, [ J] ,5 6 1
, 1989, 5 ) ) )
0
6 [ M ] :

, 1993, 5 6 [ M ] :
,

, 1985, [ J] , 5
6 5
1.
, 2000,5 6
2. [ D] ,
3. , ,
: 2003 ) 12 ) 17;
, , 2004) 3 ) 2
4. , 1 : 510420
, 2 ,

# 170 #
 2004 5 ( ) M ay 2004
36 3 Foreign Language T eaching and Research ( bimonthly) Vol. 36 No. 3

Abstracts of major papers in this issue

Pragmatic analysis of deliberate misinterpretation, by H e Zir an & S hen Zhiqi , p. 163

Deliberate misinter pretation is a special prag matic strateg y. In v erbal interact ions, t he second speaker may deliber ate-
ly choose the interpretation diverg ing from the first speakerps intended meaning so as to achieve certain communicative ef-
fects. On t he basis of the distinct ion between deliberate misinterpretat ion and misunderstanding, the paper analyses the
t riggers o f deliberate misinter pretation, its functioning mechanism and functionality .

A metacognitive framework for L2 writing: A factor analysis approach, by W u H ongy un & L iu Runqing , p. 187
T his study is based on responses to a questionnaire by 1422 college students from 61 universities in 6 cities across Ch-
i
na. T he factor analysis of data show s up 8 facto rs hierarchically laid out. M etaco gnition for L2 writing consists of 2 major
components: strategy and assessment. Strat eg y mainly governs the w riterps wr iting and revising efforts while assessment
commands the assessing of w riting problems and tasks.

The logical problem of language acquisition and linguistic universals: Evidence from acquisition of parasitic gaps, by
Y ang Caimei, X iao Y unnan & Dai M anchun, p. 196
T his paper reports a ser ies of investigations o n t he acquisition of English parasit ic gaps by a group of Eng lish native
subjects, and two groups of Chinese college student subjects and the acquisition of Chinese parasitic gaps by Chinese native
subjects. T he r esults show that both t he English nativ es and Chinese natives havenpt successfully acquir ed the par asitic gap
in their L 1s, lending no suppo rt to Parkerps ( 1999) log ical problem in parasit ic g ap acquisitio n. T he data also show that
t he English natives and the tw o g roups o f Chinese students demonstr ate surprising similarities in their intuitions about the
licensing of English parasitic gaps. T his seems to justify the claim that people have an innate g rammar or in this case,
some default knowledg e of par asitic gaps, though there is no universally accepted account thereof.

Influences of L1 literacy on L2 writing: A study of chinese tertiary EFL learners, by W ang Lif ei & Wen Qiuf ang , p.
205
T his paper focused on the effects of L 1 literacy capabilities on L 2 wr iting ability o f Chinese EFL learners. T he study
yielded two important findings. F irst, t he whole- group analysis show ed t hat Chinese vocabulary and Chinese wr iting were
found to have dir ect as well as indirect effects on English wr iting, while Chinese discourse, indirect effects. T hese t hree
L 1 literacy variables could account for about 71. 8% of the v ar iance of L 2 writing . Seco nd, t he betw een- group analysis in-
dicated L 2 liter acy level constrained t he relationship between L 1 liter acy variables and L 2 wr iting ability . For the hig h- a-
bility learners, Chinese w riting showed direct effects o n English w riting, w hile Chinese vocabulary displayed indirect ef-
fects. T hese tw o L1 literacy variables tog ether could account for 62. 3% of the v ar iance of L 2 w riting of the high- ability
g roup. F or the low- abilit y lear ners, Chinese discourse had a direct effect on English writ ing w hile Chinese vocabulary
show ed indirect effects. Altogether, these tw o L1 literacy v ar iables could predict 21. 6% o f the var iance of L 2 wr iting of
t he low-ability group.