英语论文1000字 第1篇
Discuss the Gricean account of the semantics and pragmatics of
conjunctive utterances
Introduction
Semantics studies the meaning and it is concerned with the literal meaning of words and sentences. Semantics focuses on the relationship between signifiers, such as words, phrases, symbols and signs, and what they stand for. While the transmission of meaning doesn’t only depend on the linguistic knowledge (. lexicon, grammar etc.) of the listener and speaker but also depend on the context of the utterance, the inferred intent of the speaker, knowledge about the status of those involved, and so on. (Shaozhong, Liu, 2009) Pragmatics is the study of the contributions of context to meaning, and it encompasses conversational implicature, speech act theory, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in sociology, philosophy, and linguistics. (Mey, Jacob L, 1993)
The semantics and pragmatics of conjunctive utterances
Generally many semantic theories (Russell 1905, Frege 1892, Davidson 1967, Kaplan 1977/89, Segal and Larson 1995) concern truth conditions (Carston, 1999). Grice’s (1967) influential concepts showed in addition to what a speaker says, that is both largely conventional and the content on the basis of which her utterance will be judged true or false, and a speaker may also convey implicatures which don’t affect the truth-value of what she says; so these conversational implicatures are calculated by assuming speakers are being cooperative and adhering to the certain expected standards of informativeness, truthfulness, relevance, and manner of expression (Grice, 1975). That suggests a natural way of drawing the semantics-pragmatics distinction that is semantics will correspond to the truth-conditional content of the
utterance, and the pragmatics to the conveyed meaning which falls outside the truth-conditional content.
So semantic content could be equated with Grice’s what is said, and it has two features. Firstly it is the truth-conditional content of the utterance, and secondly it is determined almost entirely by the encoded, conventional meaning of the linguistic expressions used. And as Grice acknowledged, the truth-conditional content isn’t completely free of contextual input, and in some brief comments on the utterance of “He is in the grip of a vice”, one says, “for a full identification of what the speaker has said, one will need to know (a) the time of utterance, (b) the identity of x, and (c) the meaning, on the particular occasion of utterance, of the phrase in the grip of a vice” (1975/89: 25). But he seemed not to see these processes of reference assignment and disambiguation as requiring appeal to the conversational maxims; instead, the concept seems to be that they are resolved more automatically, and the requisite values being something like objective features of the utterance’s context (Carston, 2002).
A particular division of labor between semantics and pragmatics of Grice (1967) has prevailed in the account of what is communicated by utterances of and-conjunctions. For instance:
a. It’s autumn in New Zealand it is spring in England and.
b. He handed her the scalpel and she made the incision.
c. We spent the day in town and I went to Harrods.
d. She fed him poisoned stew and he died.
e. I left the door open and the cat got in.
“And” is taken to be pretty well semantically empty and it’s taken to be the natural language equivalent of the truth-functional logical conjunction operator. The pragmatics focuses on variety of cause-consequence, temporal and other sorts of relationships understood to hold between the states of affairs which are described, some of that come through in the asymmetrical examples in (1b)-(1e). For example, we all understand the making of the scalpel and the interval of a few seconds to have intervened; and a quite different temporal relation is understood to hold between the states of affairs which are described in (1c), and the event of going to Harrods interpreted as contained within the period of time that is spent in town. The different sorts of consequence relationships are understood in (1d) and (1e): and the feeding of poisoned stew is the sufficient cause for death the leaving open of the door is just one of the range of factors contributing to the cat’s getting in.
These relationships are taken to be derived inferentially via the interaction of the decoded-semantic content with the general knowledge assumptions about the way things connect up and relate in the world, the interaction constrained by some general criterion and criteria of rational communicative behavior.
An interpretation has the two properties as following:
An utterance, on a given interpretation, is optimally relevant:
(a) it achieves enough effects to be worth the hearer’s attention;
(b) it puts the hearer to no gratuitous effort in achieving those effects.
(Wilson and Sperber, forthcoming) Once the listener has accessed an interpretation consistent with the expectation he looks no further but takes this to be the interpretation the speaker intended. The utterance, on a given interpretation is consistent with the presumption of optimal relevance if the speaker can rationally have expected it to be optimally relevant to the
listener on that interpretation. The implications of the definition are fully discussed elsewhere.
As with any utterance there is a range of possible interpretations of (1d) that are compatible with the linguistically encoded, semantic and content. Two of the logical possibilities for (1d) are as following:
a. She fed him poisoned stew and as a result he died shortly after.
b. She fed him poisoned stew and he died years later in a car crash.
Though these are both possible and consistent, the first sentence is absolutely more likely to be recovered by the listener, and to have been intended by the speaker, than the second sentence. That’s because everyone knows that poison can cause the death and that one who knowingly feeds someone poison is most likely doing that with the intention of killing the person. And the relevance-theoretic pragmatic account captures the intuitions without seting up any special principles telling listeners to interpret in accordance with their standard stereotypic assumptions.
Conclusion
The current state of the debate relating the interface between semantics and pragmatics is the upshot of the revolutionary period in the research of meaning known as radical pragmatics and aided by the views of ordinary language philosophers. The two relatively separate disciplines, the formal research of sentence meaning and the relatively informal research of the properties of speech acts became more and more intertwined as a result of the adoption of the semantic underdetermination and the admittance of the pragmatic inference about the speaker’s intentions, as well as other contextbound informations, into the semantic content. That facilitated the shift of the centre of attention from the sentence to the utterance. But the direction of change hasn’t been steady throughout the past three decades. Attempts keep semantics and pragmatics apart either through denying that semantics has to provide the propositions and hence truth-conditional content, or through keeping the objectives of the semantics and pragmatics apart and stressing the theoretical utility of the sentence’s truth conditions, just like minimalists of the syncretic flavour do. And the dominant orientations are however various forms of contextualism. The state of affairs is undoubtedly aided by the overall desideratum to stay faithful to the speakers’ intuitions about meaning and to the view that the aim of the semantic theory is to cater for these intuitions. Whether contextualism will retain its power, succumb to the minimalism, or evolve into the radical form of occasion-meaning of the meaning eliminativism remains to be seen.
References
Carston, R. 1999. The semantic-pragmatics distinction: A view from relevance theory. In The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View (CRiSPI 1), ed. K. Turner, 85-125. Oxford: Elsevier.
Davidson, D. 1967. Truth and meaning. Synthese 17: 304-323. von Fintel, K. and Gillies, A. 2011. Might made right. In Epistemic Modality, eds. A. Egan and B. Weatherson, 108-130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frege, G. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25-50.
Grice, H. P. 1975/_. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41-58. New York: Academic Press; reprinted in Grice, H. P. _, 22-40.
Grice, H. P. _. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kaplan, D. 1977/89. Demonstratives. In Themes from Kaplan, eds. J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein, 481-563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larson, R. and Segal, G. 1995. Knowledge of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mey, Jacob L. (1993) Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell (2nd ed. 2001). Shaozhong, Liu. (2009) “What is pragmatics?”
英语论文1000字 第2篇
Abstract (in English)…………………………………………………………………..1 Abstract (in Chinese) ………………………………………………………………….1
Ⅰ Introduction………………………………………………………………………...1
With Erroneous Zones………………………………………………1
Erroneous Zone 1……………………………………………………………2
Erroneous Zone 2……………………………………………………………2
Erroneous Zone 3……………………………………………………………2
Erroneous Zone 4……………………………………………………………3 ⅡCountermeasures………………………………………………………………….3
Unsuitable Operation ……………………………………………………………4
Over stimulation In Courseware…………………………………………………4
Vague Content with Automatical Transformation…………………………………5
Neglect Of Teachers’ Function……………………………………………………5
ⅢConclusion…………………………………………………………………………..6
Prospect in English Teaching……………………………………………………...6
Personal Opinions of Further Research……………………………………………6
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………….7
Discussion on the Application of Multi-media
In English Teaching
(字体：Times New
Abstract: With the rapid development of computer and popularization of the network, the present teaching pattern that still uses traditional teaching method “one chalk, one blackboard” seems to be unable to meet the requirements in the present society any longer, and English teaching is no exception. The introduction of the multi-media teaching method to the English class has been one of the tendencies to the development of English teaching. But the misuse of the modern tools will surely result in the bad effect to English teaching. So English teachers should take an active part in the research of how to use the multi-media teaching method in English teaching and try to avoid its misuses.
Key words: multi-media; English teaching; overcome
(英文摘要和关键词都是两边对齐;5号字;行距：单倍; 字体：Times New Roman;
“Abstract” 和 “Key words” 两个词或词组要加粗)
(关键词之间用分号隔开;词与词之间相隔一个英文字符)
(空一行)
摘要：随着电脑和网络的迅速发展，那种“一盒粉笔，一块黑板”的传统教学模式的应用已远远不能满足现代社会对教学的需要。英语教学也不例外。怎样将多媒体运用于英语教学已成为教育趋势，但是一旦错误使用多媒体英语教学，将导致教学障碍从而给英语教学带来负面效果。英语教学者应当积极从事研究与克服多媒体英语教学的弊端。(300字以内) 关键词：多媒体;英语教学;克服
(英文摘要和关键词都是两边对齐;5号字;行距：单倍; 字体：楷体;“摘要”和“关键
词”两个词或词组要加粗)
(关键词之间用分号隔开) Roman;小3号字;居中;加粗)
(空一行)
І Introduction (一级标题4号字;字体：Times New Roman;加粗) (以下正文均为：小4号字;字体：Times New Roman;行距：倍)
The application of multi-media in English teaching has broken the traditional
teaching pattern “one chalk, one blackboard”. It processes the words, images, voice and animation and other information by the computer and forms an all-around teaching system. It is not only a good medicine to the Chinese student with their mute English but also benefit to the improvement of students’ language ability and students’ subjective initiative shall be fully developed. It can improve teaching efficiency and teaching quality effectively.
Erroneous Zones in the Use of Multi-Media
(二级标题小4号;字体：Times New Roman;加粗)
Multi-media teaching is a brand news teaching model and poses a new challenge to teachers. If it is used improperly or used with erroneous zones in rational knowledge, it can bring much bad effect to the teaching.
The use of the multi-media as the leading teaching methods (与二级标题相同;加粗)
There are many outstanding strong points in multi-media teaching comparing with the traditional teaching. But it is not valid everywhere. It has both advantages and disadvantages. Some teachers cannot see the advantages and disadvantages of the multi-media in their teaching and cannot exploit to the fully the multi-media’s favorable conditions and avoid unfavorable ones. They cannot use the multi-media and ignore the function of teacher. The multi-media teaching programs of theirs are only the accumulation of letters, images, and the contents of books, just like a refurbished version of the book. There is no innovation in their class. They just show the multi-media teaching program in their English class and teacher just like a projectionist. Teacher become the slave of the multi-media and cannot be as the leading teaching main subject.
The change of the “Teacher Teaching” into “Machine Teaching” and the ignorance of the main teaching status of students
The multi-media teaching encourages students to combine speaking and practice and to strengthen the memory. But some teachers consider that advanced teaching methods must bring the advanced teaching ideas. Some teachers use the
英语论文1000字 第3篇
如果说当下选择出一门世界语，走遍世界都皆可交流的话，那当然是英语莫属了，英语的交流涵盖了世界组成因素的方方面面，经济、文化、政治、艺术等交流方式，而在国际贸易中的经济往来，需要接触不同国籍、不同民族的人们、不同生活礼仪习惯的人等，相互交织在一起，使用商务英语可可大大加深合作深度和广度，提升他们之间的交流黏度，使用商务英语此工具成为全球一体化后的国际贸易交流中不可或缺的重要手段，因此如何在当下的国际贸易中拔得头筹，赢得先机就必须了解其应用规律和应用方法，更好的融入国际贸易中，加深其了解，了解商务运行的规律和卓越的商务英语能力都得兼得，如何应用的巧妙，让国际贸易更加顺畅，才是本文要研究的主旨。
一、新时期下的商务英语
商务英语作为一门语言，频繁出入于国际贸易场合，而作为商务英语就决定了服务范围限定于商务范围的服务性商务工具，是在国际商贸交流中产生的商务交流亦或是经济交流发生时多采用的辅助性的语言工具，精准的表达双方含义和意思，明确商务往来的范围和合作项目的意图的整齐划一的功能性语言。不同于广泛英语含义的是，在产生国际贸易交的时候多会产生贸易商务专有名词和专有意义，而作为商务英语的掌握者还必须了解国际贸易中的具体细则和专业特殊性以及基础商贸知识等。
但在当下，专业程度日益加深的现在，职业细分化逐步严重，导致国际贸易中的交流和联系日益繁复和复杂，仅仅依靠过去单一的传统的商务英语已经远远不能适应当下日益复杂和联系加深的时代。交流比以往任何一个时期都更加频繁和加深的国际贸易中不断充实和加深每一名商务英语的学习者的英语程度迫在眉睫。由于现如今的国际关系复杂，由国际贸易中而产生的多方面的交流存在很大差距，尤其是制度、政治、文化、经济等习惯方式不尽相同，从而导致在国际贸易中互相虽然运用商务英语，但在交流过程中、合同签署以及商业谈判中仍然会出现以思想的偏差乃至于误解。因为各国各民族各地区在理解商务英语的词汇以及含义的时候会出现侧重点不同的情况，进而导致认知不同，理解程度也不同。在当下社会中商务英语的多元化较之先前已经有很大的不同。
二、国际贸易中影响商务英语应用的因素
正如上文所说，由于世界的贸易复杂性远超以前，因此即使双方都使用商务英语交流时还依然会出现偏差，那么影响国际间贸易交流的商务英语因素大致有以下三点：
1.精通商务英语更要首先精通国际贸易
许多商务英语的精通者仅仅是书本上的了解英语，或者说英语交流也仅限于日常的英语交流，造成了商务英语不商务的情况，许多人仅仅是了解到了商务英语的商务交流的皮毛而没有长时间的和贸易打交道的实战经验而容易忘却。而商务英语是商务在前英语在后，首先得熟悉国际贸易的基本知识、正常交流方式、合作往来的专业性词汇和专业性术语，要能洞察商界的动向和基础的贸易往来的国家间的经济动向等才能算是一个合格的商务英语交流。若商务英语精通者之间的交流不熟悉商务运作的业务的话，即使在进行交流时也不能清楚相关概念的重要性，是一场空对空，没有实质性的交流。若要能熟稔商务运作就可以依照不同的情况中，做出最合适的判断。
2.精通商务英语交流的方式
语言和音乐一样都是一种流动的艺术，仅仅是直白的商务英语的展现方式和机器人无异，应该注重商务英语交流者自身的术语表达、语气、音高、调性等因素都符合应有的商务交流礼仪，更要为对方的母语着想，采取适当的侧重点和必要词汇术语，这样有利于双方的贸易发展和合作伙伴形成的加深。
3.精通商务英语的交流技巧
进行得体的商务英语交流固然重要，若不注重交流技巧的使用，就发挥不出英语作为一门语言的艺术性和活泛性，怎么在商务贸易中灵活自如的进行商务交流关乎到深入交流的程度。而掌握适当的交流技巧需要商务英语者进行广泛的综合实践经验和多次的商务英语交流实践，积累广泛的经验，懂得临时发挥的语言艺术，即时应答都和交流者的经验积累以及知识储备息息相关，然后由交流者创新性的进行双方有利的交流和疏导，选择商务英语在进行交流时的谋篇布局和措辞搭配等都展现着交流者的语言技巧能力，从而展现商务英语交流者的人格魅力，让商务贸易可以如期保量的完成。
三、在国际贸易具体方面中商务英语的应用
1.商务英语在贸易谈判中的应用
在商务英语所要涉入的国际进出口贸易中，由于本着“时间就是金钱”的概念，港口和海关每天需要和许多国家物品和商贸进行交易，难免产生商贸摩擦和制定合同，而出现歧义时还需要进行商务谈判来解决商务纠纷，但是港口海关每天吞吐量巨大，需要在短时间内高效的完成贸易谈判，为双方节省时间和金钱。所以在短时间的商贸交流中要尽可能的将商务英语的用词准确性和术语的规范性重视起来，高效的解决贸易谈判，为双方节省不必要的开支和麻烦。
2.商务英语在商务广告中的应用
而商务英语在广告中的应用就不需要向进出口贸易谈判时那么精确而又高效快捷，相反的则需要利用语言的暧昧性和模糊性来进行广告英语的产品推广，要广泛地利用英语作为一门语言的优美性，用华丽和引人入胜的丰富辞藻去吸引产品所要吸引的受众范围。用语言的优美性吸引观众达到第一步之后，紧接着就需要利用广告英语中的鼓动性，鼓动消费者心甘情愿的为产品进行消费。所以商务英语在广告中的应用多大胆和标新立异，利用商务英语语言的魔力，赋予商品和产品以新的活力，并为其注入灵魂，符合受众心理。
3.商务英语在商务邮电中的应用
在新时代下的商务英语交流一般多在电子邮件往来和电话交流这两项进行，纸质邮件的在当下的作用基本不予以考虑。在邮电的运用中商务英语多充当文书的作用，是一种最为正式而又显得有距离的商务英语交流方式，是一种综合解决事务的的方式，诸如;商务项目定期联系、合同回执、商务贸易纠纷仲裁、商品定价和产品概况等等的综合性详细说明的商业贸易往来都需要用到邮电手段来进行双方的交流。在进行国际贸易交流时的多采用正规的语言和正式口吻去进行商务交流。在商务英语的邮电交流中必须明确对方的国家和地区，敏感的问题给予绕过，为对方着想，文字里要以对方的所接受的方式对对方进行有礼貌的交流，双方平等互信，用商务英语展现对对方的重视和友好相处。在此基础上应该要简明扼要的阐述清楚自己企业和对方企业的业务，不浪费任何一句话，也不要说任何一句废话，以免产生不必要的曲解，而在数据和规模的信息上，一定要精确无误，建立起战略互信关心，深度交流，也关乎自己企业的信誉和诚信问题。
四、小结
在现代国际贸易日益发达的年代，商务英语作为国际贸易必不可少的交流工具已经越来越被人们所青睐。因此在将来全方位和多行业的国际贸易结合的时候不应该无所适从，更应该把培养商务英语及其应用方式的内容贯彻于每一位国际贸易员工的头脑中，成为强有力的企业间的竞争筹码，从而获得胜利。
猜你喜欢：
