驳Blakemore的程序意义理论

话语标记常被看作是具有丰富意义和宽广、开放的范畴.然而,Blakemore等学者主张区分概念意义和程序意义,并宣称话语标记只是那些具有程序意义的表达.这一观点不仅缩小了话语标记的意义,也限制了话语标记的范畴.Blakemore的程序意义在理论上呼应了Grice的规约隐含,在方法上与意义研究中的极简化方法一致,这导致程序意义的研究在理论和方法上都存在缺陷.事实上,程序意义只是一些话语标记的部分意义,不能用它来排斥和取代其他意义,更不能用它来作为评判话语标记范畴的标准.

An Argument Against Blakemore's View on Procedural Meaning

Discourse markers are generally considered to encode rich meanings and have a broad and open category.However,Blakemore advocates distinguishing conceptual meaning from procedural meaning,and claims that only those expressions with procedural meaning can be regarded as discourse markers.Blakemore’s idea not only tightens the meanings of discourse markers but also delimits their category.In fact,Blakemore’s procedural meaning echoes Grice’s conventional implicature,and it is the result of her pursuit of core meaning of discourse markers by a minimalist approach.Consequently,Blakemore’s study on procedural meaning has vital drawbacks in terms of theoretical background as well as methodology.Hence,the paper concludes that procedural meaning is only partial meaning of some discourse markers and that it can neither replace their other meanings nor become a criteria for their memberships.