广东财经大学804英语写作与翻译2022年考研真题
2024-02-11
999+
650.87KB
4 页
侵权投诉
欢迎报考广东财经大学硕士研究生，祝你考试成功！（第 1 页 共 4 页）
1
广东财经大学硕士研究生入学考试试卷
考试年度：2022年 考试科目代码及名称：804-英语写作与翻译(自命题)
适用专业：050201 英语语言文学
［友情提醒：请在考点提供的专用答题纸上答题，答在本卷或草稿纸上无效！］
一、Writing （100分）
1、Summary Writing (1题，共40分)
Directions: Read the following passage, and write a summary of about 300 words for
it in your own words. Directly copying sentences from the passage will result in
deduction of grades. Write down your summary on the Answer Sheet.
The Idealized View of Communication in Pragmatics
Grice did in pragmatics what Chomsky did in linguistics but, of course from a different
perspective and with a different goal in mind. While Chomsky focused on the linguistic system,
Grice focused on language use. What is common in their approach is the idealization of a
knowledge system (Chomsky) and the systematization of a usage system (Grice). Grice developed
an idealized description of communication in order for us to better understand what actually
happens when human beings communicate. That was an important step forward in the field of
pragmatics. Science requires idealizations. For example, physicists or chemists often work with
ideal models of reality that abstract from the existence of friction. Basically this kind of
abstraction also happens when we analyse the semantics-pragmatics division. Carnap was quite
specific about the relationship of the two by saying: “If in an investigation explicit reference is
made to the speaker, or, to put it in more general terms, to the user of a language, then we assign it
to the field of pragmatics.... If we abstract from the user of the language and analyze only the
expressions and their designata, we are in the field of semantics”. Carnap’s approach clearly
handles semantics as an abstraction of pragmatics because it is said to abstract away from the
specific aspects of concrete discourse situations in which utterances are used. The theory of
meaning, both in philosophy and linguistics, is no different. Basically all work in the theory of
meaning presupposes an idealized model, which we can call the standard model. In that model
various idealizations have been made to focus attention on the most central aspects of linguistic
communication. So there is nothing wrong with idealization. But we should know that what
happens in real life is not the idealized version of communication. The question is: can we offer
something beyond just criticizing the ideal view? Can we offer an alternative approach or theory
that absorbs and can explain “messy” communication too?
Well, there have been attempts to that extent. In a paper from 2010 I argued that recent
research in pragmatics and related fields shows two dominant tendencies: an idealistic approach to
communication and context-centredness. According to views dominated by these tendencies (RT
and Neo-Griceans), communication is supposed to be a smooth process that is constituted by
recipient design and intention recognition. The speaker’s knowledge involves constructing a
model of the hearer’s knowledge relevant to the given situational context; conversely, the hearer’s
knowledge includes constructing a model of the speaker’s knowledge relevant to the given
欢迎报考广东财经大学硕士研究生，祝你考试成功！（第 2 页 共 4 页）
2
situational context. The focus in this line of research is on the “positive” features of
communication: cooperation, rapport, politeness. The emphasis on the decisive role of context,
socio-cultural factors and cooperation is overwhelming, while the role of the individual’s prior
experience, existing knowledge and egocentrism is almost completely ignored, although these two
sides are not mutually exclusive.
The idealistic view on communication and the over-emphasis placed on context-dependency
give a lopsided perspective on interactions by focusing mainly on the positive features of the
process. But, in fact, communication is more like a trial-and-error, try-and-try-again process that is
co-constructed by the participants. It appears to be a non-summative and emergent interactional
achievement. Consequently, due attention should be paid to the less positive aspects of
communication including breakdowns, misunderstandings, struggles and language-based
aggression – features which are not unique, but seem to be as common in communication as are
cooperation and politeness. Similar criticism of idealized communication has been formulated by
Beaver and Stanley and Stanley but from a different perspective. In their co-authored work Beaver
and Stanley isolated five idealizations (cooperativity, rationality, intentionality, alignment,
propositionality) that are made by the vast majority of work in the theory of meaning, and argued
that these idealizations are scientifically problematic and politically flawed. Stanley uses the
critique of the standard model to develop a new programme for the theory of meaning, one that
places at the centre of inquiry into linguistic communication precisely the features of
communication (such as impoliteness, misunderstandings) that the idealizations of the standard
model seem to almost deliberately occlude. Political discourse is the main focus of Beaver’s and
Stanley’s programme. What is common in Beaver and Stanley’s and Kecskes’ approach described
above is that they both emphasize that the idealized Gricean theory cannot explain the messy
reality of communication. However, while Beaver and Stanley make an attempt to change the
Gricean approach and develop a new theory of “messy communication”, SCA acknowledges the
need for the ideal theory that provides us with a basic understanding of the communicative
process. SCA uses the Gricean theory as a starting and reference point to describe and better
understand what actually happens in communicative encounters. It has been developing an
approach that does not want to be the counterpart of the ideal theory of communication. Rather it
offers a theoretical frame that considers ideal and messy not like a dichotomy but a continuum
with two hypothetical ends incorporating not only the Gricean theory but also the criticism of the
Gricean approach by cognitive psychologists such as Barr and Keysar, Giora, Gibbs and Colston
and Keysar. These scholars claimed that speakers and hearers commonly violate their mutual
knowledge when they produce and understand language. Their behaviour is called “egocentric”
because it is rooted in the speakers’ or hearers’ own knowledge instead of in mutual knowledge.
Other studies in cognitive psychology (e.g. Keysar and Bly; Giora; Keysar), have shown that
speakers and hearers are egocentric to a surprising degree, and that individual, egocentric
endeavours of interlocutors play a much more decisive role, especially in the initial stages of
production and comprehension than is envisioned by current pragmatic theories. This egocentric
behaviour is rooted in speakers’ and hearers’ reliance more on their own knowledge than on
mutual knowledge. People turn out to be poor estimators of what others know. Speakers usually
underestimate the ambiguity and overestimate the effectiveness of their utterances (Keysar and
Henly). Findings about the egocentric approach of interlocutors to communication have also been
confirmed by Giora’s Graded Salience Hypothesis and Kecskes’ dynamic model of meaning.
标签： #广东财经大学 #804英语写作与翻译 #考研真题
摘要：
展开>>
收起<<
欢迎报考广东财经大学硕士研究生，祝你考试成功！（第1页共4页）1广东财经大学硕士研究生入学考试试卷考试年度：2022年 考试科目代码及名称：804-英语写作与翻译(自命题)适用专业：050201英语语言文学［友情提醒：请在考点提供的专用答题纸上答题，答在本卷或草稿纸上无效！］一、Writing（100分）1、SummaryWriting(1题，共40分)Directions:Readthefollowingpassage,andwriteasummaryofabout300wordsforitinyourownwords.Directlycopyingsentencesfromthepass...
声明：研友网所有资料均为用户上传分享，仅供参考学习使用，版权归原作者所有。若侵犯到您的权益，请告知我们处理！任何个人或组织，在未征得本平台同意时，禁止复制、盗用、采集、发布本站内容到任何网站、书籍等各类媒体平台。
