【作者】 吴炳章；

【导师】 徐盛桓；

【作者基本信息】 河南大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 语言活动不仅传达信息,而且在传递信息的同时还调节人际关系,任何言说话语的行为都是传递信息和调节人际关系的复合行为。考察话语的意义必须结合微观的个体心灵的认知机制和宏观的社会文化系统。由于大脑和社会都是复杂系统,所以交际中的语言使用也具有根本复杂性。这样,基于还原主义的意义理论就不能充分解释话语意义的生成机制。目前的语用学理论,包括基于合作原则的经典格赖斯语用学、新格赖斯语用学,基于认知科学的关联理论,以及基于社会交往实践的言语行为理论,都没有将这一点纳入理论建构中。它们沿用笛卡尔的研究范式,从局部的视野分析、解释各种语用现象,因而不能解释具有根本复杂特征的语言使用以及与之相关的语用现象。交际者的言说行为除了其特有的集体性特征外,也具有其他行为的一般特征,他在遵守规约和挑战规约的夹缝中、在表达形式的最简化和传递信息的最大化的矛盾中,寻找一个使自己最大程度受益的安全地带。说明这一地带的拓扑结构,也就解释了交际者是如何使用语言的。因此,需要一个统一的、整合社会文化研究模式和认知研究模式的理论框架,对语用现象给予全景描写和解释。认知语用学通过将认知语言学提供的概念化工具应用在语用学领域,对有关的语用知识系统进行的认知研究。认知语言学强调使用的重要性,这一主张也具有语用学含义:(1)使用语言本质上是集体行为,也是策略行为;(2)与语言使用相关的知识是个体涉身认知活动的结果,这种认知活动既有个体认知基础,又有集体认知基础;(3)使用语言在生物学方面是个体行为,但在社会学方面却是集体行为,所以交际者的交际行为必然受到他所处的社会文化的制约;(4)认知活动是开放的、动态的过程,使用语言的过程也是开放的、动态的,意义是在这一过程中涌现出来的。交际的集体性特征为博弈论的应用提供了物质条件。兼顾博弈性特征的认知语用学理论框架中,交际者使用语言的行为具有活动类型(activity type)相关性特征。活动类型具有家族相似性,与之相关的知识是以心理模型的形式组织起来的。理解话语就是辨识出交际者言说话语所依托的活动类型。相关的认知活动是借助交际语境中的语境化提示(contextualization cues),进行信息更新,通过大脑的自组织产生最可能的活动类型。虽然这一过程具有偶然性,但是交际者对彼此的话语持有的善意态度,可以显著降低信息更新的复杂性;同时,他们的移情能力也使他们更有可能对彼此的行为做出预期。博弈性交际中的交际者是有限理性的“经济人”,道德的力量对他选择策略产生的影响,足以使其牺牲个人的部分利益以完成博弈。在交际者看来,交际博弈是生存博弈在社会环境中的延伸,精神生存和肉体生存同样重要,但是,语言共同体的道德伦理并没有替代交际者个体的“利我”意识,只是使之潜藏于个体的行动中。“利我”引起的优化意识贯穿于交际者的全部行为过程,使用语言也不例外。所以,在交际博弈中,个体也必然选择最大程度利我的策略。做出话语选择的依据是话语产生的效用,因此,说明偏好的结构是解释语言行为的关键,换言之,要想说明交际者选择某些话语而放弃其他话语,只需说明所选择的话语如何产生了最大效用。本文将话语的效用分解为真实性效用和适当性的效用,二者分别来自话语的命题性信息和功能性信息,前者可以通过话语生成和理解中的优化特征得到说明,而后者需要从交际的宏观视野,也即交际者之间的社会关系方面加以说明。最后,本研究提出以下基于效用的认知语用学理论框架:总则:交际者总是追求话语效用的最大化。次则1:交际者总是追求真实性,除非有理由不。次则2:交际者总是追求适当性,除非有理由不。约束条件:当前话语是交际者的最优行动。宽容条件:交际者具有移情能力。总则不是指导人们交际行为的原则,而是贯穿于交际活动的全过程,具有普适性。次则分别涉及话语命题性信息和功能性信息。二者分别对应语用学的认知研究模式(次则1)和社会文化研究模式(次则2),二者结合的纽带是贯穿语言使用的全过程、用博弈论刻画出来的优化思维和优化行动策略。在交际过程中,解释话语的缺省前提是推定交际者是理性的,即交际者选择的是效用最大化行动(约束条件),而交际者之所以能够了解彼此的效用偏好,是因为他们具有移情能力(宽容条件)。更多还原

【Abstract】 Language in communication serves to transmit information and regulate interpersonal relationship. Producing an utterance on any occasion is an act that integrates these two roles. To make sense of an utterance, it is necessary to combine the cognitive mechanism at the micro level and the social-cultural system at the macro level. Since brain and society are complex systems, using language is also a complex process. So the reductionism-based meaning theories cannot present any mechanism of meaning generation in communication. The present pragmatic theories, including Cooperative Principle-based classic pragmatics, neo-Gricean pragmatics, and the cognitive science-based Relevance Theory on the one hand, and the social communication protocol-based theories like Speech Act theory, Politeness- and face-based theories on the other, fail to capture this point in their respective theory construction. These theories adopt the Cartesian paradigm, approaching the pragmatic phenomena from a local perspective. Consequently, they cannot explain the use of language and the relevant phenomena that are fundamentally complex in nature. Saying is a collaborative act; it also shares some features with other ordinary human behaviors. In communication, people have to balance themselves in the safety zone defined by observing the linguistic convention and challenging the linguistic convention, while reconciling the contradiction between the minimization of formal composition and maximization of information. The zone, a topological structure, is communicators’strategy space. It is assumed it is necessary to have a uniform theoretical framework, integrating the two research modes (cognition-based mode and the culture-based mode), to provide for an overall description and explanation of pragmatic phenomena.Cognitive pragmatics applies the tools provided by cognitive linguistics to pragmatics, and investigates the mechanism underlying language use from a cognitive perspective. Since cognitive linguistics is a usage-based interdiscipline, it has three-fold implication in pragmatic research: (i) Using language is a collective activity and thus involves strategy selection. (ii) The knowledge of using language is accumulated through embodied interaction with the world. (iii) Using language is an individual activity in terms of biology, but it is primarily a social activity in terms of sociology. So all the linguistic acts are exposed to cultural protocols of the language community to which the communicator belongs. (iv) Cognitive activity is open and dynamic, so is using language. The interpretation of an utterance in communication context should take into account the emergent nature of meaning generation.In a game-theoretical cognitive pragmatic framework, using language demonstrates features of activity-type relatedness. Activity types are families of resemblance, and interpreting an utterance is to identify the activity type on the basis of which the utterance is produced. When communicators exploit the contextualization cues to update their beliefs, an activity type will emerge from the self-organizing process in the brain. The activity types are contingent, but normally they are predictable because in order to significantly reduce complexity in updating beliefs, communicators tend to‘hold true’what is said. Additionally, they may expect the activity type involved in virtue of their empathetic capacity.Communicators in communicative games are‘economy man’with bounded rationality, whose choice of linguistic act is modified by moral force to the extent that they sacrifice part of their own interest to complete communication game. Communication game is the extension of survival game in cultural society where spiritual survival is no less important than physical survival; however, the ethical code of conduct does not expel egoism but only to suppress it in the unconsciousness. The egoism-motivated optimization governs the overall process of their interaction with the outside world, using language is not exception. To optimize an act is to produce most possible or actual benefit by taking the act. Since communicators prefer the act that produces the most benefit, the key to explaining a linguistic act is to find out the structure of one’s preferences, viz., to understand the reason that communicator selects one utterance instead of another is to show how the utterance selected produces the best utility. The theory is formulated by dividing the utility of a linguistic act into that of truthfulness, which derives from the propositional content, and that of appropriateness, which derives from the regulatory content. Given this formulation, the communicator’s preference over language acts can be accounted for by analyzing the sources of their compound utility. On the ground of the above account, a cognitive pragmatic theoretical framework combined with game theory is proposed as follows:The general principle: Communicators attempt to maximize their utility in communication gamesMaxim 1: Communicators pursue truthfulness unless reasonably indicatedMaxim 2: Communicators pursue appropriateness unless reasonably indicatedConstraint condition: The utterance made is the optimal act producing maximal utilityCharity condition: Communicators are capable of empathetic thinkingThe general principle is not meant to guide communicators’act, rather it underlies the entire process of communication. It is universal. The two maxims relate to the propositional information and the functional information of an utterance. Obviously, they respectively correspond to the cognitive mode (maxim 1) and the social-cultural mode of pragmatic research (maxim 2). These two modes are bound by the optimal thought and optimal act that underlies each and every act of using language and is characterized by the game theory. The default presumption in interpreting an utterance is to take a‘hold-true’attitude to what is said, i.e., the linguistic act produced is assumed to be the strategy that produces the best utility (constraint condition). The communicators’preference over the strategies is available to each other due to the fact that they are capable of empathetic thinking (charity condition).更多还原