The Bottleneck of Linguistic Interface Study and Its Way out in the Context of New Liberal Arts

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2022.01.008

Abstract

Abstract:

In the past two decades, linguistic interface study informed by pragmatics has made great progress, but, due to the theoretical controversies between the semantics-pragmatics interface view and the context-determined view, it has hit a bottleneck. This article proposes a new linguistic interface view in the context of New Liberal Arts, which provides a way out. By introducing materialist dialectics, the cross-disciplinary research between linguistics and philosophy undoes the view of “taking a part for the whole” in the Western thought and proposes that convention and context are the unity of opposites, based on which default meaning is divided into structural default, socio-cultural default and situational default, and their context-dependence degrees increase in turn. “Linguistics+Computational Science” and “Linguistics+Experimental Science” deploy Chinese facts to verify “Linguistics+Philosophy”, facilitating the localization of pragmatics incorporating Chinese elements.

Key words: linguistic interface, New Liberal Arts, default meaning, context, convention

CLC Number:

ZHANG Yanfei, LIU Hongdong. The Bottleneck of Linguistic Interface Study and Its Way out in the Context of New Liberal Arts[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(1): 103-110.

Figures/Tables 1

References 23

[1]	Austin J. 1962. How to Do Things with Words[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[2]	Bach K. 1994. Conversational implicature[J]. Mind & Language 9(2):124-162.
[3]	Carston R. 2004. Truth-conditional content and conversational implicature[A]. In C. Bianchi (ed.). The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 65-100.
[4]	Carston R. 2009. The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication[J]. International Review of Pragmatics 1:35-62. doi: 10.1163/187731009X455839 URL
[5]	Giora, R.& S. Givoni. 2015. Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm[J]. Metaphor and Symbol 30:290-313. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804 URL
[6]	Grice P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words[M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[7]	Jaszczolt K. 2005. Default Semantics. Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[8]	Levinson S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[9]	Noveck I. 2018. Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10]	Noveck, I.& D. Sperber. 2004. Experimental Pragmatics[M]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
[11]	Recanati F. 2004. Literal Meaning[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[12]	Saussure F. 1916. Course in General Linguistics[M]. London: Duckworth.
[13]	Searle J 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[14]	Sperber, D.& D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[15]	Stainton R. 2004. The Pragmatics of Non-sentences[A]. In L. Horn & G. Ward (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics[C]. Oxford: Blackwell. 266-287.
[16]	Wittgenstein L. 1953. The Philosophical Investigations[M]. New York: Macmillan.
[17]	樊丽明. 2020. “新文科”:时代需求与建设重点[J]. 中国大学教学 (5) : 4-8.
[18]	胡开宝. 2020. 新文科视域下外语学科的建设与发展——理念与路径[J]. 中国外语 (3):14-19.
[19]	胡壮麟. 2002. 语境研究的多元化[J]. 外语教学与研究 (5):161-166.
[20]	张绍杰. 2008. 一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J]. 外语教学与研究 (3) :196- 203,241.
[21]	张绍杰. 2020. 语言界面观与外语教学理念创新[J]. 现代外语 (5) : 612-619.
[22]	张延飞. 2018. 默认意义新解:语法-语用互动视角[J]. 外语与外语教学 (6) : 36-41.
[23]	张延飞、张绍杰. 2009. 后格赖斯语用学:含义默认解释模式综观[J]. 外语与外语教学 (8) : 1-6.