英语论文网

effectively. Under the framework of dynamic context, context is not statically seen as the pool of shared knowledge relating to an utterance, but seen as a continuously developing process, which reflects the dynamic relations between communicators and environment. On one hand, the communicators should be restricted by context, that is, an utterance is meaningful only if it can adjust to a certain context. On the other hand, the communicators can intentionally manipulate the contextual components to form a context that is beneficial to their linguistic communication. In other words, the communicators are not only controlled by context, they also control text. 3.3.2. Cognitive context In the perspective of relevance theory, context is a psychological concept: “A context is a psychological construct, a subset of the hearer’s assumptions about the world.” [19] So in relevance theory, context does not refer to some part of external environment of the communicators, be it preceding or following an utterance, situational circumstances, cultural factors, natural and social environment, etc; it rather refers to part of their “assumptions about the world” or cognitive environment, as it is called. So the cognitive context discusses context in the perspective of relevance theory and under the framework of cognition. The notion of ‘cognitive context’ takes into account the various external factors but places the emphasis on the information they provided and its mental availability for the interpretation process. [20] According to Sperber and Wilson, “the cognitive context of a person comprises a potentially huge amount of very varied information. It includes information that can be perceived in the physical environment, information that can be retrieved from memory----in itself a vast store of information, including information deriving from preceding utterances plus any cultural or any other knowledge stored there ----and furthermore information that can be inferred from those two sources.” [21] Since any of this information could serve as the potential context, the most important question for a successful communication is: how the hearers or translators manage to select the actual, speaker-intended assumptions from among all the assumptions they could use form their environment? Look at the following examples: (5). A: Do you like rugby? B: I am a New Zealander. In this example, A asks a simple question that just need the hearer give an answer of “yes” or “no”. But B gives a confusing and irrelevant answer so that A cannot understand immediately. So A needs some efforts to guess or reason the actual meaning of B. After a series of assumptions and retrieves in the memory, A may get information: Rugby is a very popular game in New Zealand; almost every New Zealander likes this game. Up until then, A probably knows the actual meaning of B: “Of course I like rugby.” (6) A: Would you like some coffee? B: Coffee would keep me awake. In this case, A wants to offer B a coffee, so A asks the question hoping to get a definite answer. However, B does not give A an obvious answer, but gives an irrelevant answer to A’s question. Of course, A would feel puzzled: “what is the meaning of B? Does he want coffee or not?” At this time, A should guess and reason the actual meaning of B according to some contextual components, such as time, place, situation, character and mood of B, the relations of A and B, etc. If B is very tired and wanting to sleep well a