从Grice会话含义理论视角试析《傲慢与偏见》人物性格

运用Grice会话含义理论,以《傲慢与偏见》中班纳特夫妇的对话对于合作原则的遵循与违反为切入点进行分析,可以对两人截然不同的性格特征有更为全面和准确的理解,从而为语用学理论在文学文本分析中的运用提供一个实例的参照。     

言语交际中的真实性准则

出于对人际交往中真假信息的关注,讨论如何从语言学的角度定义“说谎”和“谎言”,继而考察格莱斯合作原则理论中构成质量准则的“真实性”这一概念,并通过借鉴语言哲学中对“事件”、“事实”和“真实”等相关概念的分析,指出在社会语境下的人际交往过程中不存在所谓的绝对真实,有的只是语言使用者相信的“真实”。     

格赖斯合作原则在讨价还价用语中的体现

本文运用著名语言学家格赖斯（Grice）的合作原则对日常买卖中的讨价还价所用的语言进行分析。     

语用前提与会话含义的理解途径及二者的共通性

语用前提和会话含义是两种不同的语言现象 ,但作为语言的附加意义 ,二者具有许多共通性特征。从其理解途径入手 ,探讨了其中涉及的语用推理模式和认知语境 ,并对语用前提和会话含义的隐含性、动态性和可取消性进行了比较研究     

谈格赖斯合作原则的有意违反及会话隐含

根据格赖斯会话合作原则，文章在探讨日常交际中的有意违反和特殊会话含义的产生及对会话理解做出正确推断所具备的基本条件的基础上，提出在日常交际中听话者应越过对方话语的字面意义，去努力领会说话人话语的隐含意义，即会话隐合，不断提高语用能力。     

Game theory,cheap talk and post‐truth politics: David Lewis vs. John Searle on reasons for truth‐telling

I offer two potential diagnoses of the behavioral norms governing post‐truth politics by comparing the view of language, communication, and truth‐telling put forward by David Lewis (extended by game theorists), and John Searle. My first goal is to specify the different ways in which Lewis, and game theorists more generally, in contrast to Searle (in the company of Paul Grice and Jürgen Habermas), go about explaining the normativity of truthfulness within a linguistic community. The main difference is that for Lewis and game theorists, “truthful” signaling follows from an alignment of interests, and deception follows from mixed motives leading to the calculation that sending false information is better for oneself. Following in the Enlightenment tradition, Searle argues that practical reasoning, which involves mastery of at least one language, requires that actors intend to communicate. This intention includes constraining the content of statements to uphold veracity conditions. After distinguishing between these two accounts, I will articulate the implications for explaining, and even informing actions, constitutive of post‐truth politics. I argue that the strategic view of communication is sufficient neither to model everyday conversation nor to reflect a public sphere useful for democratic government. Both the pedagogy of strategic communication as cheap talk, and its concordance with new digital information technologies, challenge norms of truthfulness that underlie modern institutions essential to an effective public sphere.