大学英文文献及翻译

Conversational Inference in Cross-cultural Communication

韩兆明

理学院

数学与应用数学

学号：

Abstract:

Generally if the literal sentences deduced nothing, it need not to continue. Respect of

intercultural

communication,

reasoning

occupies

an

important

role

in

oral

communication .

Different from the communication between the same nation, only when we use the pragmatic

exchange

rules

correctly

and

pragmatically

while

understand

the

dialogue

clearly,

can

we

achieve success in cross-cultural communication.

Keywords:

cultural exchange

；

cultural activation

I

Pragmatic principles and Inference

When people indulge in some kinds of communicative activities, they use the right words for

the purpose of understanding each other while it is relatively not too important whether their

words observe particular syntactic or semantic rules. For various reasons, we can not catch the

communicator’s

intention

unless

we

make

some

inferences

by

applying

certain

pragmatic

principles and maxims.

a) Queen Victoria was made of iron

Inference: this utterance overly flouts the maxim of Quality since Queen

Victoria in fact lacked the properties of iron. By saying so the speaker may implicate that she

had some of the identical properties like hardness, resilience, non- flexibility or durability. The

meaning

of

utterance

is

context-dependent.

It

may

be

a

commendation

conveying

her

possession of the properties of toughness and resilience if said by admirer; it may be taken as

denigration

conveying

her

lack

of

flexity,

emotional

impassivity

or

belligerence,

if

said

by

a

detractor.

b

）

War is war

Inference:

this

utterance

is

a

tautology,

seen

from

a

semanic

point

of

view,

and

bears

no

communicative value, at least in principle. When it is uttered for communicative purpose in a

certain context, it has communicative significance. It overtly flouts the maximum of Quantity,

which requires that speakers be informative. So, if the assumption that the speakers are actually

preserving

cooperating,

some

informative

inference

must

be

made.

The

utterance

might

implicate

“err

a

ble thing always happen in war”

，

“that’s its nature and it’s no good lamenting

- 1 -

that particular disaster.”

c) A: What do you intend to do today

B: I have a terrible headache.

Inference:

B’s answer breaches the maxim of ralevanc

e as it is not, at least superficially,

related

to

A’s

question.

If

we

assume

that

B’s

still

cooperating,

we

have

to

do

some

further

inferring. By saying so B is forcing A to infer the implicature

“B is not going to do anyt

hing

today”.

d) A:

Let’s get the

kids something.

B: OK, but veto I-C-E-C-R-E- A-M-S.

Inference:

B

deliberately

infringes

the

maxim

of

manner

(be

perspicuous)by

spelling

out

the

word

“ice

-

cream”.

By

saying

so,

B

is

trying

to

force

A

to

infer

the

real

meaning

B’s

utterance may implicate that B would rather not have ice cream mentioned in the presence of

the children in case they are thereby prompted to demand some improvement.

II

Context and Inference

According to Malinowski, context plays an important role in understanding

the speaker’s

intention.“Exactly

as

in

the

reality

of

spoken

or

written

languages,

a

word

without

linguistic

context is a mere figment and stands for noting by itself, so in the reality of a spoken living

tongue, the utterance has no meaning except in the context of situa

tion.”

(1923)

Undoubtedly,

both

communication

within

a

culture

and

cross-cultural

one

must

comply

with Cp. But cross-cultural communication figures more on context.

a) Verbal Context

According to He Zhaoxiong(1989), context includes language knowledge and non- language

knowledge, which is similar as the classification of it in this paper.

b) Non-verbal Context

Non- verbal Context is involved in concrete situation and cultural knowledge (Malinowski,

1923).

It

is

characterized

by

generality

and

inseparable

part

leading

to

successful

communication. In communication, the concerned non-verbal context is prerequisite condition

for making correct inferences, which result in successful exchange ultimately.

- 2 -

But on account of the special characters of cross-cultural communication and the limited

scale of the paper, both of them above will not be discussed here.

III

Intelligence and Inference

As we have said ,it is most necessary for us to understand the basic nature of the human

interpretive

process

to

seek

solutions

to

this

ambiguity.

This

interpretive

process

is

what

the

sociologists Stephen Levinson (1990) calls interactive intelligence the innate human capacity to

draw

inferences

from

ambiguous

information.

In

spite

of

the

guidance

of

CP

and

relevance

theory,

and

interference

of

context,

conversational

inference

can’t

be

understood

without

the

control

of

interactive

intelligence,

which

runs

through

the

whole

ongoing

process

of

interpretation.

It seems that bearing upon interactive intelligence the process of interpretation works very

successfully

when

conversationalists

share

common

histories,

cultures,

and

experiences.

The

inferences they draw by assuming others think just as they do are generally safe. Problems are

encountered, however, especially in the complex environment of international communication,

when

participants

in

a

conversation

hold

different

assumption

because

of

membership

in

different

groups.

At

that

moment,

interactive

intelligence

plays

a

rather

fundamental

role

in

human cognitive process.

Levinson’s

interactive intelligence here is similar to Qian Guanlian’s so

-called

“intelligence

involvement”

(1997).

“

Intelligence involvement is a process of inferr

ing the speaker’s conversation implicature on

the basis of the basic logic,

the world knowledge and interpersonal relationship.”

According

to Qian’s opinion,

there are four factors connected with this inferential process:

a) A most basic logic as starting point

b) The world knowledge and schema. (May be shared, or not)

c) Referential context

d) Auxiliary language signs

His

four

factors

cover

essentially

all

the

aspects

discussed

above.

His

conclusion

embodies.

- 3 -

Widespread significance on the basis of other linguists, such as Levinson, Xu Shenghuan,

inferential model; he presents his own one:

Language communication=mixed signs+context involvement+intelligence involvement

Words

Auxiliary language signs

Other unexpected signs

On Qian’s part,

intelligence involvement is a process of seeking for proper sense (1997).

Out

of

effort

saving,

his

model

can

be

improved

as

the

following

in

accordance

with

cross-culture activation.

Language communication =context+intelligence involvement+culture activation

Language context

Extra-language context

Here as mixed sigins can be included in extra-language context, so it is omitted. Thanks to

the special culture involvement in intercultural conversation, culture activation is added to it.

After all, using a foreign language to communication with a native speaker, the best way is to

speak in the way as they do in the common culture.

IV Conclusion

This paper aims to discuss the conversational inference in cross- cultural communication.

In order to realize this purpose, the author concentates her attention on the common pragmatic

principles and inseparable contextual factors concerned to demonstrate the complex process of

inferential

interpretation.

And

at

last

on

the

basis

of

Qian

Guanlian’s

inference

model,

she

makes some improvement and induces the model of cross-cultural communication. But in the

whole, the paper represents a general introduction and discussion surrounding the topic. Many

aspects, such as the mental process of inference, the reasons leading to failure of inference and

the way out, remain indiscussed and need to be studied in the later.

References:

[1]Grice

H

P.

Presupposition

and

Conversational

Implicature.

In

Radial

Pragmatics.

- 4 -