考满分 toefl

1 .<-NARRATOR:->Listen to part of a lecture in a linguistics class.

旁白：听语言学课上的一部分课。

1 .<-FEMALE PROFESSOR:->OK, the conventions or assumptions that govern conversation- these may vary from one culture to another, but basically, for people to communicate, there's, uh- they have to follow certain rules.

教授：好，支配会话的准则或前提，这些可能因为文化的不同而不同，但基本上说，交流对于人们而言，有必须遵守的某些规则。

2 .Like, if I'm talking with you, and I start saying things that're not true- if you can't tell when I'm lying and when I'm telling the truth, well, we're not going to have a very...satisfactory conversation, are we?

比如，如果我和你说话，我开始说不真实的事情—如果你不知道我什么时候撒谎，什么时候我说实话，那么，我们不会有一个非常令人满意的谈话，是吗？

3 .Why? Because it violates one of the "Gricean maxims."

为什么？因为它违反了一个“会话合作原则”。

1 .That's a set of rules or maxims a philosopher named H. P. Grice came up with in the 1970s.

这是一套规则或格言，一位哲学家H. P. Grice在20世纪70年代提出的。

2 .One of these Gricean maxims is... well, I've already given you a hint.

其中一个会话合作原则是…嗯，我已经给你一个提示。

1 .<-MALE STUDENT:->Oh, you just can't go around telling lies.

学生：哦，你就是不能到处说谎。

1 .Right-or, as Grice put it, "Do not say what you believe to be false."

对，或者，正如格莱斯所说的，“不要说你认为错误的话。”

2 .That's one of Grice's maxims of quality, as he called it.

这是格莱斯的质量格言之一，正如他所称的那样。

3 .So that's pretty obvious, but there're others just as important.

这是很明显的，但也有其他重要的。

4 .Like, ah, suppose you were to ask me what time it was, and I replied, "My sister just got married."

比如，假设你问我现在是什么时候，我回答说：“我姐姐刚结婚。”

5 .What would you think?

你会怎么想？

1 .<-MALE STUDENT:->Uh, you're not really answering my question!

学生：呃，你不是真的回答我的问题！

1 .<-FEMALE PROFESSOR:->No, I m not, am I? There's no connection at all, which feels wrong because you generally expect to find one.

教授：是的，我没有回答你的问题！我给出的答案和你想要的答案之间一点关系都没有，听到这种回答，我们心里会觉得这有问题。

2 .So one important maxim is simply, "Be relevant."

因此，一个重要的格言就是“要有关联”。

3 .And using this so-called maxim of relevance, we can infer things as well- or rather, the speaker can imply things and the listener can make inferences.

用这个所谓的关联准则，我们也可以推断出事情的真相—或者更确切地说，说话者可以暗示事物，听者可以做出推论。

4 .For instance, suppose you say you'd really love to have a cup of coffee right now.

例如，假设你说你现在真的很想喝杯咖啡。

5 .And I say, "There's a shop around the corner."

我说：“拐角处有家商店。”

6 .Now, what can you infer from what I said?

现在，你能从我说的话中推断出什么？

1 .<-MALE STUDENT:->Well, that the shop sells coffee, for one thing.

学生：嗯，首先那家商店卖咖啡。

1 .<-FEMALE PROFESSOR:->Right! And that I believe it's open now.

教授：正确的！我相信它现在是开着的。

2 .Because if I weren't implying those things, my response would not be relevant.

因为如果我没有暗示这些事情，我的回答就不相关了。

3 .It'd have no connection with what you said before.

这和你之前说的毫无关系。

4 .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.

但按照格言，我的回答应该与你的陈述有关，意思是我们应该在陈述和回答之间建立某种联系。

5 .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."

这个关联性的格言是很有效的；即使我没有讲清楚所有细节，你仍然可以做出一些有用的逻辑推论，即“商店是开着的”和“它卖咖啡”。

6 .If we actually had to explain all these details, conversations would move along pretty slowly, wouldn't they?

如果我们真的必须解释所有这些细节，谈话会进展得很慢，不是吗？

1 .OK, then there's the maxims of manner, including things like "Be clear" and "Avoid ambiguity."

好的，这就是方式准则，包括“清楚”和“避免歧义”之类的东西。

2 .And another, more interesting maxim is one of the so-called maxims of quantity- quantity of information, that is.

另一个更有趣的格言是所谓的数量格言，即话语的信息量。

3 .It says to give as much information as is required in the situation.

它说要提供尽可能多的信息。

4 .So suppose you ask me what I did yesterday and I say, "I went to the art museum."

假设你问我昨天做了什么，我说， “我去了美术馆。”

5 .You would likely infer that I saw some works of art.

你可能会推断我看到了一些艺术品。

6 .Suppose though that I did not go inside the museum, I just walked up to it, then left.

假设我没有进博物馆，我只是走上前去，然后离开了。

7 .Then I've violated the quantity maxim by not giving enough information.

然后，我违反了数量准则，没有提供足够的信息。

8 .So you can see how important implications are to our ability to carry on a conversation.

所以你可以看到暗示对我们进行谈话的能力有多重要。

1 .But there are times when people will violate these maxims on purpose.

但有时人们会故意违背这些准则。

2 .Let's say a boss is asked to write a letter of recommendation for a former employee seeking an engineering job.

假设一位老板被要求为一位寻求工程工作的前雇员写一封推荐信。

3 .The letter he writes is quite brief- something like, uh, Mr. X is polite and always dresses neatly.

他写的信很简短—嗯，X先生很有礼貌，总是穿得很整洁。

4 .So what does this really mean?

那么，这到底意味着什么呢？

1 .<-FEMALE STUDENT:->Oh, I see. By not mentioning any important qualities related to the job, the boss is, like, implying that this is the best that can be said about Mr. X- that he's really not qualified.

学生：哦，我明白了。不提及与工作有关的任何重要品质，老板是想要暗示X先生不能胜任工作。

1 .<-FEMALE PROFESSOR:->Exactly. It's a written letter, not a conversation, but the principle's the same.

教授：正是这样的。这是一封书面信，不是谈话，但原理是一样的。

2 .The boss is conveying a negative impression of Mr. X without actually saying anything negative about him.

老板事实上没有说任何负面的话便传达了对X先生的负面印象。

3 .So, by violating the maxims, we, ah-it-it can be a way to be subtle or polite...or to convey humor, through sarcasm or irony.

所以，通过违反准则，我们，这可能是一种微妙或礼貌的方式…或者通过挖苦或讽刺来表达幽默。

1 .Sometimes, though, people will violate maxims for another purpose-to deceive. [sarcastically] Now, can you imagine who might do such a thing?

然而，有时人们会为了另一个目的而违背格言—欺骗他人。现在，你能想象谁会做这样的事吗？

1 .<-MALE STUDENT:->Some politicians!

学生：一些政客！

1 .<-FEMALE STUDENT:->Or advertisers.

学生：或广告商。

1 .<-FEMALE PROFESSOR:->Right. Anyone who may see an advantage in implying certain things that are untrue... without explicitly saying something untrue.

教授：正确！任何人都会看到这样表达的优势：暗示某些不真实的东西，但不明确说出来。

2 .They think, "Hey, don't blame us if our audience happens to draw inferences that're simply not true."

他们认为，“嘿，如果我们的观众碰巧得出了一些不真实的推论，不要责怪我们。”

3 .So next time you see an advertisement saying some product "could be up to 20 percent more effective,"think of these maxims of quantity and relevance and ask yourself what inferences you're being led to draw.

所以下次你看到一个广告说某个产品“可能高达20%更有效，” 想想这些数量和相关性的格言，问问自己，你被引导得出的推论是什么？

4 .Think: "More effective than what, exactly?" And why did they use those little phrases "could be" and "up to"?

想想看：“比什么更有效？”为什么他们会使用那些“可以”和“最多”的短语呢？

5 .These claims give us a lot less information than they seem to.

这些主张给我们的信息比他们的表象似乎少了很多。