期刊文献+

用意的范畴化新探 被引量:1

Categorizing Force and Its Theoretical Significance: Part VI of Studies on Pragmatic Theories
下载PDF
导出
摘要 学术界以往对用意的分类有诸多不足,以至于不能充分解释实际的交际现象。从命题的视角,把用意分为命题性用意和非命题性用意,二者的区分在于是否关注和能够确定示意手段中的命题内容。这两种用意根据语境所起作用又分别可以分为字面用意和语境用意。用意这一分类的最大理论意义在于能够解决Searle间接言语行为定义中存在的致命缺陷。 There are holes in the traditional theories of classifying illocutionary force so that they are not capable of justifying some cases of human communication. From the perspective of proposition, force is divided into propositional and non-propositional force. Whether propositional content is emphasized or certain is the criterion to distinguish propositional force from non-propositional force. The two kinds of force, according to the role of context in their interpretation, can be both divided into literal and contextual force. The real theoretical significance of the study lies in the fact that new light can be shed on the demerits of Searle's definition of indirect speech act.
作者 李怀奎
出处 《广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》 北大核心 2014年第1期94-98,共5页 Journal of Guangxi Normal University(Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition)
关键词 用意 范畴化 理论意义 force categorizing theoretical significance
  • 相关文献

参考文献18

  • 1Austin,J. How to Do Things with Words[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2002:153-163.
  • 2Thomas, J. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics[M]. London :Longman, 1995 : 93-94.
  • 3李怀奎.命题·用意·间接言语行为——语用学理论系列研究之四[J].广州广播电视大学学报,2013,13(5):68-73. 被引量:2
  • 4陈新仁.语用学研究的社会心理维度[J].中国外语,2009,6(5):46-52. 被引量:31
  • 5姜望琪.Pragmatics:Theories&Applications[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2000:246.
  • 6Gazdar, G. Speech act assignments [M]//A. K Joshi, B. L. Weber I. A. Sag. Elements of Dis course Understanding. Cambridge: CUP, 1981:64 83.
  • 7Searle, J. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy ofLanguage[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
  • 8Thornburg, L. . K. U. Panther. Speech act me'tonymies [M]//W. Liebert, G. Redeker L. Waugh. Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Lin- guistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997: 205- 219.
  • 9Panther, K. U. L. Thornburg. A cognitive ap- proach to inferencing conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 1998,30(6) : 755-769.
  • 10Gordon, D. & G. Lakoff. Conversational Postulates [M]//P. Cole J. L. Morgan. Syntax and Seman- tics 3.. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1975..83-106.

二级参考文献68

共引文献53

同被引文献3

引证文献1

二级引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部