英语论文网

concentrate on his work, so he responds briefly. A is quite frustrated by the failed negotiation and needs someone to comfort him. The single word “No” makes him think that if B is not busy, how B could be so cold.) No.5. A: “Sorry, I thought you did, then, good night.”---9:49 pm (Conversation has to be ended up unpleasantly) No.6. B: “Good night.”---9:50 pm (B is still unaware of A’s intention. He can do nothing but end conversation.) The two participants of this short conversation violate the four maxims violations of maxims. No.1 violates M of quantity. He says too little. He should state his purpose clearly. No.2 violates M of quality. He says something that is false, but he has to. No.3 Here A’s contribution in its literal meaning, fails to answer B’s question, and thus seems to violate at least the maxims of quantity and relevance. We might therefore expect A’s utterance to be interpreted as a non-co-operative response. Yet it is clear that despite this apparent failure of co-operation, we try to interpret A’s utterance as cooperative at some deeper level. We can assure that there could be some possible connection between No.2 and No.3. However, since it is a SM conversation, A and B could not see each other. B is actually in a hurry and he wants to go to the topic directly, but A wants a euphemistic way. Here SM is not powerful enough to connect the states of mind of the two persons. No.4 also violates M of quantity. B is supposed to be considerate. No.5 violates M of manner. Two sentences seem not orderly. However, in our daily conversation, the implicatures of words are easily deduced. So why does the violation of co-operative principle in SM fail to enable people to work out the exact implicatures? There must be some other factors contributing to the understanding of words. We shall further discuss this point in the third section. Although the two participants of this short conversation do not violate maxims deliberately and purposefully, their words are misconstrued. And the misconstructions of SM can be sorted into three. Firstly, the purpose of SM language is not definite, i.e., the functions of SM language are not clear. Linguists talk about the functions of language in an abstract sense, that is, not in terms of using language to chat, to think, to buy and sell, to read and write, to greet people, etc. To communicate our ideas is the usual answer to the question “why do we use language?” Indeed, this must surely be the most widely recognized function of language. Whenever we tell people about our circumstances or ourselves or ask for information about other selves, we are using language in order to exchange fact sand opinions. The use of language is often called “ideational or referential”. But it would be problematic to think of it as the only way we use language. Linguists summarize these practical functions of language like following: informative, interpersonal, performative, emotive, phatic, recreational and metalingual (Hu 2001: 10). Halliday proposes a theory of metafunctions of language that is language has IDEATIONAL, INTERPERSONAL, and Textual functions. Ideational function constructs a model of experience and constructs logical relations, interpersonal function enacts social relationships and textual function creates relevance to context (Halliday 1985: VIII). Among them, the first two functions are often mixed up in SM language. For most people, the informative function is predominantly the ma