No description available.

Selon Asher (2013), la cohérence discursive force l’inférence de (1c) dans les exemples (1a)-(1b), expliquant ainsi l’(in)acceptabilité des exemples. (1) a. ‘John a un nombre pair d’enfants. Il en a 4.’ b. ‘ ? ?John a un nombre pair d’enfants. Il en a 3.’ c. +> John a n enfants et pas plus Nous avons tenté de déterminer si les implicatures nécessaires au maintien de la cohérence discursive sont systématiquement inférées en nous appuyant sur les théories de la RST et de la SDRT. Des tests linguistiques et la vérification du respect des contraintes sémantiques associées aux relations de discours ont mis en évidence deux catégories d’exemples contenant le quantificateur certains : ceux de type- RenfNA, dont les implicatures ne sont pas nécessaires à la cohérence et ceux de typeRenfA dans lesquels elles le sont. Nos tests ayant révélé que le renforcement est nécessaire dans les exemples de typeRenfA, nous avons conclu que les implicatures ne sont pas systématiquement inférées. Nous avons tenté d’apporter une explication à ce phénomène en effectuant des analyses de la structure discursive de nos exemples et avons démontré que dans les exemples de typeRenfNA, les relations de discours visent le constituant π∃ (certains), tandis que dans ceux de typeRenfA, le constituant π¬∀ (mais pas tous) est visé. Nos travaux ont démontré que les implicatures scalaires ne sont pas systématiquement inférées rendant parfois leur renforcement obligatoire. Nous avons également proposé un modèle à granularité fine prenant en compte la structure discursive et la pragmatique afin d’expliquer ce phénomène. / According to Asher (2013), discourse coherence forces the inference of (2c) in examples (2a)-(2b), thus explaining the (in)acceptability of these examples. (2) a. ‘John has an even number of children. He has 4.’ b. ‘??John has an even number of children. He has 3.’ c. +> John has n children and not more We attempted to determine whether the implicatures that are necessary to maintain discourse coherence are systematically inferred by drawing on the theories of RST and SDRT. Through linguistic tests and checking the respect of semantic constraints associated with discourse relations, we identified two categories of examples containing the quantifier some: typeRenfNA examples, in which implicatures are not necessary for discourse coherence, and typeRenfA examples in which they are. As our tests revealed that reinforcement is necessary in typeRenfA examples, we concluded that implicatures are not systematically inferred. We then attempted to explain this phenomenon. We performed analyses of the discourse structure of our examples and showed that in typeRenfNA examples, the discourse relations target the π∃ (some) constituent, while in typeRenfA examples, the π¬∀ (but not all) constituent is targeted. Thus, our work has shown that scalar implicatures are not systematically inferred, making implicature reinforcement sometimes mandatory. We also proposed a fine-grained model taking discourse structure and pragmatics into account to explain this phenomenon.

The paper analyzes the translation of discourse markers from English into Lithuanian. Discourse markers are words or word combinations, who contribute little to the propositional meaning of an utterance but serve a variety of important conversational functions guiding interlocutors towards the intended interpretation of an utterance. The aim of the research is to prove the polyfunctional nature of discourse markers and the significance of rendering their meanings in translation from English into Lithuanian. The paper reviews the basic theoretical orientations within which discourse markers are analyzed and presents the list of defining and non-defining properties of discourse markers. Correct interpretation of discourse markers depend on the conversational function they serve in a particular situation rather than on lexical meaning of an item, therefore the functions of the discourse markers selected for the analysis (you know, I mean, well, okay, so, like, now) are reviewed as well. The empirical part is based on the analysis of the translation of discourse markers in two novels: John Irving’s 'A Widow for One Year' and Melvin Burgess’ 'Doing it'. / Darbe nagrinėjamas diskurso žymeklių vertimas iš anglų į lietuvių kalbą. Diskurso žymekliai - tai žodžiai ar žodžių junginiai, kurių leksinė reikšmė turi mažai įtakos sakinio prasmei, bet kurie atlieka daug svarbių funkcijų, padedančių pašnekovui teisingai interpretuoti pasakymą. Darbo tikslas – įrodyti diskurso žymeklių daugiafunkcinę prigimtį ir tų funkcijų perteikimo svarbą verčiant iš anglų į lietuvių kalbą. Darbe apžvelgiamos svarbiausios teorinės kryptys, kuriomis remiantis analizuojami diskurso žymekliai, ir pristatomi jų skiriamieji bei jiems būdingi bruožai. Kadangi teisinga diskurso žymeklių interpretacija priklauso ne nuo leksinės lingvistinio vieneto reikšmės, bet nuo jo atliekamos funkcijos, darbe taip pat aprašomos analizei pasirinktų žymeklių (you know, I mean, well, okay, so, like, now) funkcijos. Empirinė dalis pagrįsta diskurso žymeklių vertimu dvejuose romanuose: John Irving "A Widow for One Year" ir Melvin Burgess "Doing it".

曾幾何時，廣告在流行文化中已跳脫直接而露骨的銷售意圖，不論是電視廣告的表現形式，抑或報章雜誌的平面廣告，都歷經相當之變革。除了多姿多彩的圖像，更操弄了豐富的語言策略，甚且如詩一般的語言，融入文學新意，產生前所未有的廣告文學性。針對這樣的趨勢變遷，本文旨在透過以社會語用及批判性取徑（a sociopragmatic and critical approach）為主的言談分析（discourse analysis），為廣告文化在作者（／說者）和讀者（／聽者）間的溝通所扮演的角色提供一質性研究。嘗試從語言使用（language use）的層面來觀察：如何喚起群體意識？哪些是常用的語言策略？使用這些語言策略／修辭手段能給讀者帶來什麼樣的效應？這些語言使用伴隨著什麼樣的社會意義？分析架構植基於「攸關性理論」（Relevance Theory, Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995)，從讀者花費處理訊息的精力（processing efforts）審視其所能獲致的效果（contextual effects）。在另一方面，如同Sperber & Wilson（1995: 279）對於往後研究的期許，本研究更在語用分析中加入了社會文化認知和情境的考量，此正亦批判語言學家們的主要關切（Fairclough, 1995）。 分析語料取材自誠品書店所發表的系列廣告文案，係著眼於下列幾個明顯的現象：（一）文中採取豐富嶄新的語言策略，包括了隱喻、姓名／名稱的平行、重複與敘事，這些修辭手段常更能喚起讀者的注意和興趣，產生詩歌性（poetic effects）等認知效果，並表現各樣的語用／溝通功能。（二）大量西方文明裡的名字／名稱巧妙而生動地運用在這些廣告裡，涵蓋人名（藝術家／作家／詩人／名人）、地名、文學藝術名作和知名品牌。（三）對於作者而言，他們可以蘊含更多的情感、態度、情緒和感覺於其中，產生溝通裡的的弱式效果（weaker effects of communication, Wilson & Sperber, 1992），也能規避一些較為嚴肅的社會責任；而就讀者來說，這些語言策略得以預留更寬闊的詮釋空間，更吸引讀者。（四）除了使用這些語言策略來表現文學性，作者並藉由與讀者間的認知環境，利用流行話題與生活經驗，傳達了知識建構、同儕情誼、精英主義、女性意識、人文關懷、都會城市中產階級的生活型態，展現流行文化中的多元文化交融以及外語的強勢霸權地位，反映了傳統的／已改變的／變遷中的文化價值觀，邀請讀者認可這些顯著的意識型態與跨文化價值觀，進而形塑文化多元的認同和社會認知，呼應言談與社會／文化間的雙向關係（dialectical relationship, Fairclough, 1995）。誠品書店一再發表的系列文宣，雖然無法同電視廣告般在日常生活中與讀者（／聽者）的密集式接觸，然卻能在充裕的版面裡，在微觀層次上運用更多的語言策略，也能在宏觀的社會文化認知層次上，透過對流行文化形式與功能的檢視，有助提升其企業形象以臻一文化地標，對於諸如：刻板印象、權力象徵（symbolic power）、社會趨勢與變遷、文化標記（cultural iconicity）與認同、性別角色等討論，提供反思的空間。並對相關議題如「什麼構成了、什麼排除自、以及什麼包含於流行文化之中？」、「是否存在著流行文化記憶？」提供有用的觀察。 / This study aims to propose a pragmatic study along with a critical analysis of the print advertisements of Eslite Bookstore in Taiwan. It explores the audience’s comprehension and interpretation regarding emotions, poetic effects, and storytelling in media communication under relevance–theoretic account (Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995; Noveck & Sperber, 2006) by looking into contemporary Chinese print ads released by Eslite. Since poetic effects and storytelling in long texts suitably illustrate the reasoning and pragmatic inference towards emotions via larger units of text processing and inferred implicit meanings, the current study centres on the audience’s inferential processes and pragmatic interpretations over longer texts against institutional discourse, advertising. The audience searches for optimal relevance in the interpretation process, during which a wide array of weak implicatures, based on her greater share of responsibility, could be inferred and derived from the non-literal speech together with the context, depending on the different degrees of involvement and shared cognitive environment. The sociocultural aspect of language use, on the other hand, is further explored to see the inseparable relationship between language and social function. The rhetorical strategies of syntactic parallelism and repetition of name, metaphor, and storytelling are artfully crafted through literary styles within the ads to attract the audience’s attention, to initiate cognitive poetic effects and advertising literariness, and to perform diverse pragmatic/communicative functions. They convey too the dominant ideologies, viz. intellectualism, elitism, social critique of taste, friends’ rapport, feminine awakening, humanistic concern, and the current lifestyles of petit bourgeoisie in urban contexts. The chosen data vastly adopt elegant wordings and stylistic patterns from names of person (artist/writer/poet/celebrity), place, literature, fashion and brand names to deliver aesthetic value. Placing little emphasis on target commodity, they invite and encourage an imaginative audience to actively and cognitively consume the texts and stories, and spell out a variety of weak implicatures involving feelings, attitudes, emotions and impressions along the textual lines. They invisibly persuade her to recognise the significant inter–/cultural values. Positioning the audience as social elite, shaping and branding the corporate image as a cultural polysemy and landmark of cultural empowerment, they also initiate an emergent text genre with communicative innovation in cultural industry and academic disciplines. People in all languages often mean more than they say. Grammar on its own is typically insufficient for determining the full meaning of an utterance, the assumption that the discourse is coherent or ‘makes sense’ has a vital role to play in meaning construction as well. Just as syntactic surface structures display complexity of underlying structures, we can appreciate much the implicit meanings constructed, conveyed and enriched by storytelling and the poetic force of lexical items and syntactic–semantic–pragmatic interplay in media discourse, as shown in the study. This functional linguistic study reveals that the selling motive could well be melted and/or hidden through those communication strategies due to their implicitness, indirectness and vagueness, and clarifies the simplistic dichotomy between Eastern vs. Western cultures. The dialogic relations between form and function in advertising language reflect the social cohesion/interaction and cognitive dynamics of communicator and audience, thus maintaining the dialectical relationship between social structures and social practice (Fairclough, 1995).