C MY K

2014 6 June 2014

37 3 Modern Foreign Languages Bimonthly Vol37 No3

Grice 1967





H030 A 1003-6105 2014 03-0293-10

1


2007
2007

2 Grice

Grice
1967 Grice
1 a p b
c q d
q e q f
q g q Grice 1989 31

3 Searle
Searle Grice

*
12 ZD119
2013 7

293
C MY K

2014 3

Searle 1979
1975 34

4
Grice Wilson Sperber
Grice 1
1 a-g
q 1 c 1 a-b 1 c
1 a-b 1
p
Grice meanNN
1 c 1 g Wilson
Sperber 1986 1991 378
Wilson Sperber Grice
4 a b
b 5
2 a He Is Jacques a good cook
b She He s French and all the French are good cooks
3 Jacques is a good cook 381
Grice Wilson
Sperber 1981 Grice

Wilson
Sperber 1981 1998 361
1986 Wilson Sperber
Wilson Sperber 1986 1991 381
Grice
P C
P C
Sperber Wilson
10

294
C MY K

Sperber Wilson 1986 1995 136

5
Horn 1988 130-1 Grice

Horn 1984 13

4 Q

R
5 R
1
Q
Horn Q p
p p
all some necessary
possible and or
Horn scale
R p
p Can you pass the salt

Levinson Horn R relation relevance
Grice
principle of informativeness
Horn
Q

1
R Horn 1988 132
Q

295
C MY K

2014 3

Levinson
iff if
6 b since and
7 b Levinson 1987 407
6 a If you mow the lawn I ll give you 5
b If and only if you mow the lawn I ll give you 5
7 a John turned on the key and the engine started
b John turned on the key and therefore the engine started

6

Grice
Searle

some not all



Wilson Sperber 2
4 b all the French are good cooks

Birds fly


Levinson
some all


2012 1 19


2010 6 13
296
C MY K

Harvey Weinstein

8
800 20

20
100

Richard Gelfond: But, Im not going to defend him here, you should not be confused,
not everyone in Hollywood does business in the same way as Harvey.
Gelfond
IMAX
Harvey
Weinstein







Horn 1972
scalar predicates
Levinson 1983 1987 Gazdar 1979
contrast set clausal implicature

Julia Hirschberg 1985 1991
Horn




partial ordering set poset

297
C MY K

2014 3

Hirschberg 1991 125 Levinson 2000 105

Saussure 1916 1980 168


man woman boy
stone 2
76



Jean-Franois
Bonnefon Aidan Feeney Galle Villejoubert 2009
9 b some all
Bonnefon Feeney Villejoubert 2009
250
9 a What impression did I make during dinner
b Some thought you drank too much
2005 2006 Bonnefon Villejoubert 2005 316 2006 748
10 11 probable possibly
not certain ly probable possibly


10 It is probable that your bad breath makes men uncomfortable
11 Your bad breath is possibly the reason people shun you







Gelfond

2
He is a man not a stone you can t treat him in this way

298
C MY K

7

John
Firth Bronislaw Malinowski context of
situation 1950
12 A
i
ii
B
C Firth 1950 1957 182
Dell Hymes 1974 8
S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G S setting scene
P participants E ends
A act sequence K key
I instrumentalities
N norms G genre
Firth Hymes


Hymes



Firth Hymes



Linguistic Context LC
Situational Context SC 3
299
C MY K

2014 3

1 SC1 2 SC2


9 1 S U
Utterance 2 H S Grice CP 3 H
LC U 4 H Contrast Set I
Informativeness 5 LC
SC1 U 6 4 7
SC2 U 8 4
9 1

H

4 6 8

H CS
3 I

H LC
2 U
1
H 5
S U S CP SC1

7
SC2

3
Malinowski Firth

300
C MY K

H CS I


2 b
Is Jacques a good cook
He s French and all the French are good cooks Jacques is a good cook

Jacques
2 b
Yes he is
6 7 6 a If you mow the lawn

7 a and


13 a He Will you have some coffee
b She Coffee would keep me awake
b No
b Yes
b
8 9 10 11 8

Gelfond
Harvey Weinstein Gelfond

9 10 11

Bonnefon J F G Villejoubert 2005 Communicating likelihood and managing face Can we
say it is probable when we know it to be certain A In B G Bara L Barsalou M
Buciarelli eds Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
C NJ Erlbaum 316-321
Bonnefon J F G Villejoubert 2006 Tactful or doubtful Expectations of politeness explain
the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases J Psychological Science 17
747-751
301
C MY K

2014 3

Bonnefon J F A Feeney G Villejoubert 2009 When some is actually all Scalar inferences
in face-threatening contexts J Cognition 112 249-258
Firth J R 1950 Personality and language in society J Sociological Review 42 37-52
Reprinted in J R Firth 1957 Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951 C London Oxford University
Press 177-189
Gazdar G 1979 Pragmatics Implicature Presupposition and Logical Form M New York
Academic Press
Grice H P 1989 Studies in the Way of Words M Cambridge Mass Harvard University Press
Hirschberg J 1991 A Theory of Scalar Implicature M New York Garland
Horn L 1972 On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English D PhD dissertation
UCLA
Horn L 1984 Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference Q-based and R-based implicature
A In D Schiffrin ed Meaning Form and Use in Context Linguistic Applications C
Washington D C Georgetown University Press 11-42
Horn L 1988 Pragmatic theory A In F J Newmeyer ed Linguistics The Cambridge Survey
C Cambridge Cambridge University Pres 113-145
Hymes D 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics An Ethnographic Approach M Philadelphia
University of Pennsylvania Press
Levinson S 1983 Pragmatics M Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Levinson S 1987 Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora A partial pragmatic reduction of
Binding and Control phenomena J Journal of Linguistics 23 379-434
Levinson S 2000 Presumptive Meanings The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature
M Cambridge Mass MIT Press
Searle J 1975 Indirect speech acts A In P Cole J L Morgan eds Syntax and Semantics
3 Speech Acts C New York Academic Press 59-82 Reprinted in J Searle ed 1979
Expression and Meaning Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts C Cambridge Cambridge
University Press 30-57
Sperber D D Wilson 1986 1995 Relevance Communication and Cognition M Oxford
Blackwell
Wilson D D Sperber 1981 On Grice s theory of conversation A In P Werth ed
Conversation and Discourse C London Croon Helm 155-178 Reprinted in A Kasher
ed 1998 Pragmatics Critical Concepts C London Routlege 347-368
Wilson D D Sperber 1986 Inference and implicature A In C Travis ed Meaning and
Interpretation C Oxford Blackwell 43-75 Reprinted in S Davis ed 1991 Pragmatics
A Reader C Oxford Oxford University Press 377-393
1916 1980 M
2007 M
2007 J 3 2-9

2013-08-13 2013-11-02 2014-05-30

100871
jgwgqpkueducn
302
C MY K

2014 6 June 2014

37 3 Modern Foreign Languages Bimonthly Vol37 No3

Abstracts of Articles in This Issue

A personal view on pragmatic inference, p.293. JIANG Wangqi (Peking Univeristy)
There have been many different models of pragmatic inference proposed ever since Grice s lectures
at Harvard in 1967, and pragmaticists have been arguing about them heatedly. In my opinion, however,
there is a common defect of these models, even though they differ in their details, namely, they attach
too much importance to informativeness at the expense of emotion, resulting in the failure to account for
the authentic use of language. Taking into consideration the crucial role of context in pragmatic infer-
ence, this paper proposes a new way to analyze context, of which emotional elements constitute a neces-
sary part, in order to remedy the defect in earlier models of pragmatic inference.
Key words: pragmatic inference; informativeness; context; emotion

On the contributions of appraisal theory to Systemic Functional Linguistics, p.303. FANG Hongmei
(Soochow University)
Appraisal theory is one of the greatest new developments of Systemic Functional Linguistics. But it
is generally believed that its contributions lie only in its elaborate studies on the evaluative lexis, consti-
tuting only a minor amendment to the traditional interpersonal model. This paper argues that this is not
so by offering a detailed account of appraisal theory s main contributions to Systemic Functional Lin
guistics. Appraisal theory advances interpersonal studies from the traditional perspective of clause gram-
mar to the perspective of discourse semantics, thus focusing on interpersonal meanings in discourses
rather than interpersonal grammar in clauses. The interpersonal model has been shifted from exchange-
oriented to stance-oriented. Accordingly, tenor, one of the three parameters of register, has been further
categorized into two parameters, namely power and solidarity.
Key words: appraisal theory; Systemic Functional Linguistics; contributions

ECP Principle, PRO Theorem and the distinctive distribution of whether / if, p.312. WANG Chen
(Beijing Jiaotong University), LIU Wei (Beijing Jiaotong University)
Based on ECP and PRO Theorem, this paper provides a principled analysis on the differences
between the distribution of whether and if in yes-no question clauses: clauses led by if seem to be subject
to more restrictions. It proposes two important hypotheses: there is a null operator (whether) in the ques-
tion clause introduced by if and this null operator is subject to ECP. This null operator (whether) is ar-
gued to be mainly responsible for differences in the distribution of whether and if. Moreover, the fact
that if can not be followed by an infinitive clause can be accounted for on the basis of PRO theorem.
Key words: distribution of whether if; ECP; PRO theorem

A syntactic analysis of Chinese A-not-A questions under the Minimalist Program, p.322. ZHANG
Xiaorong (Anhui Normal University / Guangdong University of Foreign Studies), XIAO Qimin (Guang-
dong University of Foreign Studies)
Chinese A-not-A questions display syntactic behavior resembling wh-questions, with the A-not-A
operator occupying the head position of QuP. The repeated part is formed by copying overt lexical form
and attaching it to the two nodes before and after the negative particle, forming the basic VO-not-VO
type. The Copy process observes Attract Closest Principle. The other A-not-A types are the result of lin-
earization. Feature-checking is implemented through Agree, rather than overt movement, and syntactical
ly no barriers, like quantifiers, can appear between the A-not-A operator and Comp. Both shi-not-shi
type A-not-A questions and ke-type questions can be analyzed within the same model.
Key words: A-not-A questions; Question Phrase; copy; Attract Closest; linearization

Gapless relatives in Chinese: A cognitive grammar perspective, p.331. ZHANG Yi (Nanjing Universi-
ty)
The generation of gapless relatives in Chinese is based on the correspondence and composition be-
tween the relative clause and the head on the conceptual level. The general cognitive abilities specified
in Cognitive Grammar provide effective explanations and restrictions for the conceptual composition.
437