論英語幽默中的語用學

古佳夕

【摘要】英語幽默的產生不僅有其語言內在規律,而且很大程度上與特定語境和語用原則密切相關。語用原則是其重要因素。本文分別從四個方面分析了英語幽默中的語用原則:指示、會話含義、合作原則、言語行為。

【關鍵詞】英語幽默指示會話含義合作原則言語行為

【中圖分類號】H313 【文獻標識碼】A 【文章編號】2095-3089（2012）03-0068-02

1. Deixis

Deixis is a technical form for one of the most basic things we do with utterances. It means “pointing” via language. The most obvious way in which the relationship between language and context is reflected in the structures of languages themselves, is through the adoption of deixis. If a deixis is used improperly or the context is unclear, reference will become unclear too. Thus contradiction and misunderstanding may arise, and then change into humour. For example:

In my work as a medical assistant for a pediatrician, I used to undress the children and weigh them before they were examined. One day a 5?鄄year?鄄old boy came in with his mother. He had a death grip on her hand, but with her encouragement, I was able to coax his hand to mine and lead him into the examine room. “Now let?蒺s take off our clothes,” I said, “and see how much we weigh.” The child promptly dropped his hand and stopped in his tracks. “You go ahead,” he said, “I don?蒺t want to.”

The assistant used first person “let?蒺s”, including speaker and hearer, to make intimate and equal relation so that the child won?蒺t be afraid of. But the child didn?蒺t understand the deixis and he thought they are weighed together. In fact, it is the child who heeded being weighed. “Let?蒺s” can be considered as a kind of persuasion.

2.Conversational Implicature

The notion of conversational implicature is one of the most important ideas in pragmatics. The term conversational implicature was produced by the English language philosopher H.P.Grice in a series of lectures at Harvard University in 1967, referring to an indirect or implicit meaning of an utterance derived from the context that is not presented from its conventional use. For example：①Steve: What happened to your garden? ②Jane: A dog got into the garden.③Mat: What some fudge brownies? ④Chris: There must be 20000 calories there.

In the first dialogue, from indefinite “a” we can infer that this dog didn?蒺t belong to Jane. This implicature that can be drawn with very little inside knowledge of speaker and hearer is defined as generalized conversational implicature. However, in dialogue 4, both of them must have the common knowledge that the food that contains high calories is easy to make people fat and Chris is on a diet. From the dialogue we can know that Chris?蒺s answer meaned “No” rather than “Yes”. If both of them knew that Chris wanted to gain weight, then her answer meaned “No”. This kind of implicature inferred is defined as particularized conversational implicature.

3.The Cooperative Principles

Oxford philosopher Herbert Paul Grice, he noticed that in daily conversations people do not usually say things directly but tend to imply them. The principle is known as Cooperative Principle (Cp for short), which can be embodied in the following four maxim.

The Maxim of Quantity:①Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).②Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. The Maxim of Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true.③Do not say what you believe to be false.④Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

The Maxim of Relation: Be relevant. The Maxim of Manner: Be perspicuous.

①Avoid obscurity of expression.

②Avoid ambiguity.

③Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

④Be orderly.(Grice 1975)

Only the speaker and hearer follow the cooperative maxim can the conversation be proceeded smoothly. If one of them does not follow one of the maxims, the intercourse will be affected, but just the violation produces humour. The following examples illustrate the violation of the four maxims.

The Violation of the Maxim of Quantity.

The effect of the maxim is to add to most utterances a pragmatic inference to the effect that the statement presented is the strongest, or most informative, that can be made in the situation.

One farmer meets Sam and says:

“Hey, Sam, my horse?蒺s got distemper. What did you give yours when he had it?”

“Turpentine,” grunted Sam.

A week later they meet again and the first farmer shouts:“Sam, I gave my horse turpentine like you said and it killed him.”

“So did mine,” nodded Sam.

The real purpose of the farmer was to know not only what medicine Sam gave to his horse for treatment, but also the effect of the treatment. In fact, he only knew what the medicine was. Sam violated the maxim of quantity for he didn?蒺t provide all the information that the famer needed. He just told what the horse ate and didn?蒺t tell the effect. So the farmer didn?蒺t realize Sam violated the maxim, and he was fooled.

4.Speech act

It was originated with the British philosopher John Austin in the late 50 s of the 20th century. It is a philosophical explanation of the nature of linguistic communication. It aims to answer the question “What do we do when using language?”The philosopher J. L. Austin (191-1960) claims that many utterances are equivalent to actions. When someone says: “I name this ship” or “I now pronounce you man and wife”, the utterance creates a new social or psychological reality.

5.Conclusion

Humour is an indispensable part in our lives. This thesis analyzes the relation between humour and pragmatic principle from the pragmatics perspective, in the hopes of enhancing readers?蒺 appreciation and creativity for humour.

Bibliography

1.何自然 語用學與英語學習[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1997.

2.胡壯麟 Linguistics. A Course Book [M].北京:北京大學出版社, 2001.

3.黃瑾睿 英語幽默中的語用學分析[J].懷化學院學報，2007，（5）

4.申小龍.2003 《語言學綱要》[M]，上海：復旦大學出版社

5.馬洵,馬琳.The Finest Collection of English Humour [M].天津:天津大學出版社, 2002.

6.董黎編譯 英語幽默集萃 外語教育與研究出版社, 1992.

7.呂光旦 英語幽默的語用分析[J].外國語,1988,(1).

8.王福禎.2000，《英語幽默笑話集》[M]，北京：世界圖書出版公司.

9.Jean Stilwell Peccei. Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.

10.Stephen C. Levinson. Pragmatics [M]. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1983.