作业帮英语高手请进,翻译一下
来源：学生作业帮 编辑：作业帮 分类：英语作业 时间：2024/05/24 06:18:02
英语高手请进,翻译一下
(4) A: Where’s your sister?
B: Out.
B only knows that his sister is not at home instead of knowing the exact location of her. So B adheres to the maxim of Quality (Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence) in order to be cooperative with the help of the meaning of out which might refer to the place wherever his sister is.
(5) He is about 170 centimeter high.
In such a case, the seemingly inadequate information given by the speaker violates the maxim of Quantity (Make your contribution as informative as is required), but because the speaker factually does not know the height, the use of about observes the maxim of Quality (Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence). In this way, the sentence is just informative for the purpose of communication, for it is unnecessary to know the precise height.
(6) A robin is a sort of bird.
The speaker maybe not know that a robin is a kind of bird, so he uses sort of to show his uncertainty. Thus, he abides by the maxim of Quality.
(7) Her salary is something between 2,000 and 3,000.
It seems that the speaker violates the maxim of Quantity, because he fails to provide enough information. But if the speaker factually does not know the exact amount of money she earns, which at the same time, abides by the maxim of Quality.
From the above examples, we can see that people value the maxim of Quality much more than the other maxims. Sometimes people adhere to the maxims and sometimes they violate them deliberately for certain purposes. In most cases, people adhere to one or more maxim but violate another at the same time. And the following examples show that the use of vague language violates the maxim of Cooperative Principle, thus conversational implicature arises.
As the above example (4), if A knows that B knows the exact location of his sister, B’s answer does not give A the right amount of information that A requires and thereby B violates the Maxim of Quantity deliberately. In this case, out seems to be a non-cooperative answer.
(8) A: Let’s get the kids something.
B: Okay, but I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M-S.
B’s utterance is obscure. Its conversational implicature is that B does not like the children to have any ice-cream. So he deliberately violates the Manner Maxim by spelling out the word ice-cream instead of uttering it as a word.
The Cooperative Principle can explain some phenomena why people use vague terms in conversations; however, the CP cannot explain all the situations in which vague terms are adopted. In the next section, another important communicative principle: Politeness Principle will be introduced as a compensation to account for those unexplained phenomena.
(4) A: Where’s your sister?
B: Out.
B only knows that his sister is not at home instead of knowing the exact location of her. So B adheres to the maxim of Quality (Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence) in order to be cooperative with the help of the meaning of out which might refer to the place wherever his sister is.
(5) He is about 170 centimeter high.
In such a case, the seemingly inadequate information given by the speaker violates the maxim of Quantity (Make your contribution as informative as is required), but because the speaker factually does not know the height, the use of about observes the maxim of Quality (Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence). In this way, the sentence is just informative for the purpose of communication, for it is unnecessary to know the precise height.
(6) A robin is a sort of bird.
The speaker maybe not know that a robin is a kind of bird, so he uses sort of to show his uncertainty. Thus, he abides by the maxim of Quality.
(7) Her salary is something between 2,000 and 3,000.
It seems that the speaker violates the maxim of Quantity, because he fails to provide enough information. But if the speaker factually does not know the exact amount of money she earns, which at the same time, abides by the maxim of Quality.
From the above examples, we can see that people value the maxim of Quality much more than the other maxims. Sometimes people adhere to the maxims and sometimes they violate them deliberately for certain purposes. In most cases, people adhere to one or more maxim but violate another at the same time. And the following examples show that the use of vague language violates the maxim of Cooperative Principle, thus conversational implicature arises.
As the above example (4), if A knows that B knows the exact location of his sister, B’s answer does not give A the right amount of information that A requires and thereby B violates the Maxim of Quantity deliberately. In this case, out seems to be a non-cooperative answer.
(8) A: Let’s get the kids something.
B: Okay, but I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M-S.
B’s utterance is obscure. Its conversational implicature is that B does not like the children to have any ice-cream. So he deliberately violates the Manner Maxim by spelling out the word ice-cream instead of uttering it as a word.
The Cooperative Principle can explain some phenomena why people use vague terms in conversations; however, the CP cannot explain all the situations in which vague terms are adopted. In the next section, another important communicative principle: Politeness Principle will be introduced as a compensation to account for those unexplained phenomena.
(4) A:您的姐妹在哪里是?B:外面.B 只知道,他的姐妹在家不是而不是认识确切的地点她.如此B 遵守质量格言(不要说为哪些您缺乏充分证据) 为了是合作的在意思帮助下在哪些之外也许提到地方他的姐妹是.(5) 他是大约170 厘米高的.在这种情况下,表面上不充分的资讯由报告人提供违犯数量格言(像要求) 做您的贡献一样情报,但因为报告人事实上不知道高度,用途对大约观察质量格言(不要说为哪些您缺乏充分证据) .这样,句子是公正情报的为通信的目的,为了它是多余知道精确高度.
(6) 知更鸟是有点儿鸟.报告人可能不知道,知更鸟是一种鸟,因此他使用排序显示他的不确定性.因而,他遵守质量格言.(7) 她的薪金是某事在2,000 和3,000 之间.看起来报告人违犯数量格言,因为他不提供足够的资讯.但如果报告人事实上不知道她赢得,同时的确切的相当数量金钱,遵守质量格言.从上述例子,我们能看,人们更比其它格言重视质量格言.有时人们遵守格言并且他们故意地有时违犯他们为某些目的.在许多情况下,人们遵守一个或更多格言但同时违犯另.并且以下例子表示,对隐晦的语言的用途违犯合作原则格言,因而会话implicature 升起.作为上述例子(4),如果A 知道B 认识他的姐妹的确切的地点,B 的答复不给A A 要求的正确的资讯量并且B 故意地因此违犯数量格言.在这种情况下,似乎是一个不合作的答复.(8) A:我们得到孩子某事.B:好,但我否决冰淇淋.B 的话语是阴暗的.它的会话implicature 是,B 不喜欢孩子饮用任何冰淇淋.如此他故意地违犯方式格言由明白解说词冰淇淋而不是说出它作为词.合作原则可能解释一些现象为什麼人们使用隐晦的用语在交谈; 但是,CP 无法解释隐晦的期限被采取的所有情况.在下个部分,其它重要直言原则:礼貌原则将被介绍作为报偿占那些未经说明的现象.
(6) 知更鸟是有点儿鸟.报告人可能不知道,知更鸟是一种鸟,因此他使用排序显示他的不确定性.因而,他遵守质量格言.(7) 她的薪金是某事在2,000 和3,000 之间.看起来报告人违犯数量格言,因为他不提供足够的资讯.但如果报告人事实上不知道她赢得,同时的确切的相当数量金钱,遵守质量格言.从上述例子,我们能看,人们更比其它格言重视质量格言.有时人们遵守格言并且他们故意地有时违犯他们为某些目的.在许多情况下,人们遵守一个或更多格言但同时违犯另.并且以下例子表示,对隐晦的语言的用途违犯合作原则格言,因而会话implicature 升起.作为上述例子(4),如果A 知道B 认识他的姐妹的确切的地点,B 的答复不给A A 要求的正确的资讯量并且B 故意地因此违犯数量格言.在这种情况下,似乎是一个不合作的答复.(8) A:我们得到孩子某事.B:好,但我否决冰淇淋.B 的话语是阴暗的.它的会话implicature 是,B 不喜欢孩子饮用任何冰淇淋.如此他故意地违犯方式格言由明白解说词冰淇淋而不是说出它作为词.合作原则可能解释一些现象为什麼人们使用隐晦的用语在交谈; 但是,CP 无法解释隐晦的期限被采取的所有情况.在下个部分,其它重要直言原则:礼貌原则将被介绍作为报偿占那些未经说明的现象.