格莱斯会话隐涵理论的哲学背景与发展脉络

The Philosophical Background of Grice's Theory of Conversational Implicature and Its Course of Development

中国学界对格莱斯会话隐涵理论的了解始于1975年格莱斯的"逻辑与会话"正式发表之后。相关研究大都专注于这篇文章及后来的新格莱斯主义语用学,对格莱斯前期的相关学术思想未见介绍,一般学者对这一理论的来龙去脉不是很清楚。本文介绍会话隐涵理论产生的哲学背景,追溯其发展脉络,发现这一理论的基本要素或雏形在格莱斯1967年之前的著述中就已经显露端倪。哈佛大学威廉·詹姆斯讲坛的主办方邀请当时仅发表了5篇论文的格莱斯登上这一讲坛,是因为他们看到了格莱斯的理论对哲学和语言学发展的重要意义。

Before Grice, several distinguished philosophers had noticed the difference between what a speaker said and what he implied. No one, however, had managed to provide a complete and self-contained theory or analytical framework for the study of implied meanings of the speaker. As early as in 1948, Grice laid the theoretical groundwork for the study of speaker meaning by establishing the differences not only between natural meaning and non-natural or conventional meaning, but also between sentence or literal meaning and speaker meaning, which is the non-literal meaning implied in the sentence. He also worked out a pragmatic rule by analysing the relationship between making ＂a greater claim＂ and ＂a lesser claim＂, which might be considered the precursor of the ＂Category of Quantity＂ among the four categories of conversational maxims he proposed in 1967. In 1961 he developed a prototype of his theory of ＂implication＂, the examples he used being essentially the same as in his William James Lecture, the ＂greater claim＂ and ＂lesser claim＂ previously explored having now been replaced by ＂strong statement＂ and ＂weak statement＂, and, crucially, the defining features of various implications described in terms of ＂detachability＂ and ＂eancellability＂, two essential terms in his William James Lectures, having already taken shape. Without a complete set of eye-catching terms and lacking a proper theoretical framework, however, Grice＇s new theory failed to catch the attention of most of his peers in the philosophical circle, but it must have been spotted by some observant and well-established Harvard philosophers. For his William James Lectures, Grice coined a new and more precise term ＂implieature＂ to replace the old term ＂implication＂, and distinguished betweenconventional implicature and non-conventional implicature, devoting particular attention to a subcategory of the latter, which he termed ＂conversational implicature＂. He described three essential characteristics of conversation, which in effect served to define what conversation is. But, instead of admitting that he was defining conversation, he insisted that he was formulating a general principle which all participants of a conversation were expected to observe. In conjunction with this ＂Cooperative Principle＂, Grice also invoked the four Kantian categories of Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner for the classification of the maxims which he believed were necessary for an adequate analysis and correct interpretation of conversational implicature. As his principle and maxims were expressed in the form of imperative sentences, the effect was to make them sound like some sort of general injunction to correct social behaviour. This led to endless sharp criticisms of the principle by philosophers and linguists Mike. In 1987, Grice acknowledged that his ＂Cooperative Principle＂ had run into trouble. To respond to the challenges to and criticisms of the principle, he tried to clarify his stance by declaring that the purpose of his proposing the principle was only to determine whether a conversation was rational, rather than to tell people what utterances in a conversation were good or bad. He then used the term ＂concerted＂ to explain what he meant by ＂cooperative＂ and limited ＂the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange＂ to ＂achieving exchange of information or the institution of decisions＂. Despite his self-defence or self-clarification, misinterpretation and criticism of his theory went on. From the point of view of philosophy, Grice＇s academic innovation and contribution was enormous. He was the first to apply logical reasoning to the analysis and interpretation of non-literal meaning of conversation, hence expanding the horizon for logic. However, Griee＇s theory contains two major flaws or defects. First, he presented ＂cooperation＂ as a principle instead of a defining feature of conversation. Second, he never adequately explained the rationale behind the four maxims, which led to various additions or deletions made by later scholars. If Griee himself had given a more convincing exposition of those four categories and their inter-relationships, his academic contribution would have been even greater, but then the studies of pragrnaties might not have been so prosperous.