托福聽力lecture并列型分析

　　之前我們介紹了lecture的并列型結(jié)構(gòu)，一般是圍繞某一個主題并列平行展開去講解。這類結(jié)構(gòu)沒有之前我們見到的直線型結(jié)構(gòu)那么好區(qū)分，因為他沒有明顯的表示時間地點人物的信號詞，但是這種結(jié)構(gòu)類型是我們TPO和考試中出現(xiàn)的比較多的結(jié)構(gòu)類型。我們這次分析一篇按并列結(jié)構(gòu)分層的一篇文章

　　今天我們以TPO20-L1為例，給大家講解一下。

　　Ok, the conventions or assumptions that govern conversation, these may vary from one culture to another , but basically, for people to communicate, there is a ... they have to follow certain rules. 文章開始就表明了我們今天談?wù)摰闹黝}：說話時要遵守的規(guī)則

　　Like if I am talking with you and I start saying things that are not true, if you can’t tell when I am lying and when I am telling the truth, well, we are not going to have a very satisfactory conversation, are we? Why? Because it violates one of the Gricean Maxims, that’s a set of rules or maxims a philosopher name H.P .Grice came up with in 1970s. One of these Gricean Maxims is... well, I’ve already given you a hint. 后面結(jié)合屏幕的提示信息引出了Gricean Maxims這個語言規(guī)則。并且直接提出了第一點規(guī)則：不能說謊

　　Oh, you just can’t go around telling lies.

　　Right, or as Grice put it, “Do not say what you believe to be false.” That’s one of Grice’s Maxims of Quality as he called it. So that’s pretty obvious. But there are others just as important. Like, eh... suppose you would ask me what time it was and I replied ‘my sister just got married’ , what would you think?

　　You are not really answering my question.

　　No, I am not, am I? There is no connection at all, which feels wrong because you generally expect to find one. So one important maxim is simply: be relevant. 這里老師有說出了另一個規(guī)則：說話一定要相關(guān)性，不能答非所問。And using the so-called Maxim of Relevance we can infer things as well, or rather the speaker can imply things and the listener can make inferences. For instance, suppose you say you would really love to have a cup of coffee right now, and I say ‘there’s a shop around the corner’ . Now, what can you infer from what I said?

　　Well, the shop sells coffee for one thing.

　　Right, and that I believe it is open now. Because if I won’t implying those things, my response would not be relevant. It’d have no connection with what you said before. But according to the maxim, my response should be relevant to your statement, meaning, we should assume some connection between the statement and the response. And this maxim of relevance is quite efficient to use. Even if I don’t spell out all the details, you can still make some useful logical inferences, namely, the shop is open and it sells coffee. If we actually have to explain all these details, conversations would move along pretty slowly, wouldn’t they? 后面又以咖啡店的例子向我們表明，符合了相關(guān)性，我們在說話時可以更簡潔，可以從他人的話中推測一些信息。

　　OK, then there’s the maxims of manner, including things like be clear , and avoid ambiguity. 緊接著提出了第三點規(guī)則：說話要清晰不能模棱兩可，但是這點信息老師并沒有做太多的講解。

　　And another more interesting maxims is one of the so-called maxims of quantity, quantities of information, that is. It says, to give as much as is required in the situation. So suppose you asked me what I did yesterday and I say ‘I went to the Art Museum.’ You would likely infer that I saw some works of art. Suppose, though, that I did not go inside the museum, I just walked up to it then left. Then I violated the quantity maxim by not giving enough information. So you can see how important implications are to our ability to carry on a conversation. 最后一點老師用another這個詞表示的很明顯：數(shù)量原則。我們所說的話一定要有一定的量，別人才能聽懂所說的內(nèi)容。

　　But there are times when people will violate these maxims on purpose. Let’s say a boss is asked to write a letter of recommendation for a former employee seeking an engineering job. The letter he writes is quite brief. Something like, uh, Mr . X is polite and always dresses quite neatly. So what does this really mean? 后面出現(xiàn)了新的信息，講到大家有事會故意的違反說話的規(guī)則，并且列舉了幾個原因，首先以一個例子講出了第一個原因，暗示

　　Oh, I see. By not mentioning any important qualities related to the job, the boss is ... like, implying that this is best that can be said about Mr . X that he is really not qualified.

　　Exactly. It’s a written letter not a conversation, but the principle is the same. The boss is conveying a negative impression of Mr . X without actually saying negative about him. So, by violating the maxims, we ...eh... but ... it can be a way to be subtle or polite, or to convey humor through sarcasm or irony.

　　Sometimes though people will violate maxims for another purpose: to deceive. Now, can you imagine who might do such a thing? 后面another這個詞清楚的表現(xiàn)出了第二個原因；欺騙

　　Some politicians.

　　Or advertisers.

　　Right. Anyone who may see an advantage in implying certain things that are untrue without explicitly saying something untrue. They think, hey, don’t blame us if our audience happens to draw inferences that are simply not true. So next time you see an advertisement saying some product could be up to 20% more effective, think of these maxims of quantity and relevance, and ask yourself what inferences you are being led to draw. Think, more effective than what exactly? And why do they use those little phrases ‘could be’ and ‘up to’? These claims give us a lot less information than they seem to.