亚洲免费av电影一区二区三区,日韩爱爱视频,51精品视频一区二区三区,91视频爱爱,日韩欧美在线播放视频,中文字幕少妇AV,亚洲电影中文字幕,久久久久亚洲av成人网址,久久综合视频网站,国产在线不卡免费播放

        ?

        Pragmatic research on Friends

        2018-05-29 09:57:02Majingyi
        校園英語·上旬 2018年3期
        關(guān)鍵詞:中央民族大學(xué)簡介外國語

        Friends first aired in the US in 1994, featuring a cast of six young men and women in New York, who were Monica, Ross, Chandler, Joey, Phoebe and Rachel. Today Id like to analyze the Speech Act and Cooperative Principles in Friends.

        In Paul Grices view, this general principle, Cooperative Principle , has four maxims—which are as follows: The maxim of quantity, The maxim of quality, The maxim of relation and The maxim of manner. I will give one example respectively used wonderful in Friends under each maxims.

        First of all, the violation of the maxim of quantity. Lets observe the following conversation:

        Janice: Oh! What is that on your finger? I am blind. So who is the lucky guy?

        Monica: Oh, it is a funny story.

        Janice asked Monica about who was her fiance. However, obviously, Monicas response concealed her fiances name and implied it was another story that was too difficult to talk about currently instead, which is an open violation of the maxim of quantity, because her fiance was Chandler who was Janices ex-boyfriend and Chandler tried his best to escape from Janice ever. So, if Monica had replied Janice directly, it would have embarrassed them both. This completely stems from the prevention embarrassment consideration. Thus Monica was withholding some of the information required at this stage of conversation and was thus flouting the maxim of quantity in order to avoid embarrassment.

        Second, the violation of the maxim of quality:

        Monica: He was my best friend in fifth grade. One day, I asked him to be my boyfriend and he said no. Do you know why?

        Chandler: Because you kept talking to him while he was trying to go to the bathroom?

        This conversation happened when Chandler was using the bathroom but Monica was keeping telling Chandler about her love stories during the school-days from the other side of the bathrooms door simultaneously. Monica intended to make Chandler guess the reason of her rejected experience. However, Chandler responded her with apparently impossible answer to remind her that it was not convenient for him to converse with her when he was using the bathroom. Obviously, Chandler did not observe the maxim of quality for he said something that he believed to be false and he also knew that Monica also knew it was false.

        Third, the violation of the maxim of relation:

        Phoebe: (to Monica) So have you decided on a band for the wedding? Because you know, I am kind of musical.

        Rachel: Phoebe, she just got engaged a couple of hours ago. I doubt she even has time for this.

        Phoebe: Speaking of chiming in, remember the time you burned down my apartment?

        Rachel: (to Monica) Yeah, you are on your own.

        Phoebe was obsessed with playing the guitar, but she is a terrible guitar player. At the time Monica announced her engagement, Phoebe was raring to be weddings band. It seemed that Rachels response was totally irrelevant to Phoebes question, but Phoebe understood that Rachel was trying to help Monica to refuse her request in an euphemistic way. What Phoebe did was also cut off the relation between her and Rachels words.So it was this kind of “cutting off the relation” that helped Phoebe to beat Rachel in language, flouting the maxim of relation.

        Last, the violation of the maxim of manner:

        Chandler: There was something we wanted to tell you about the wedding. It is going to be a small ceremony.

        Monica: It is actually going to be just family.

        Janice: Wait. You two think of me as family?

        Chandler and Monica was going to hold the engagement ceremony where they wouldnt like Janice to join, they said these words and hope Janice to quit the ceremony voluntarily.However, the reaction from Janice was out of their control since their obscurity of expression misled Janice that they considered Janice a member of their family, which would strengthen Janices idea to take part to their ceremony. Actually, this was an good example that obscurity of expression, which flouted the maxim of the manner, would mislead hearer and fail the speakers communicative goals.

        In short, to familiarize ourselves with the pragmatics of the language we are using or learning is of essential significance, where speech act and cooperative principles play an important role and whenever we use or learn a language, we should pay attention to avoid pragmatic failure.

        References:

        [1]Searle,J.“what is a Speech Act?” in Giglioli,P.(ed.)Language and Social Context.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1972.

        【作者簡介】Majingyi,北京中央民族大學(xué)外國語學(xué)院。

        猜你喜歡
        中央民族大學(xué)簡介外國語
        中央民族大學(xué)
        An Analysis on Holden’s Anti-hero Imagein The Catcher in the Rye
        長江叢刊(2018年24期)2018-11-14 15:58:43
        Research on Guidance Mechanism of Public Opinion in Colleges and Universities in Micro Era
        Book review on “Educating Elites”
        Hometown
        鄭州外國語學(xué)校
        ?????? ??? ?????―?? ,?? ??? ????
        ??? ?? ??? ??? ‘? ??’?????? ????
        An Analysis on the Structure of “Yue Lai Yue X”
        健康體檢數(shù)據(jù)分析肥胖及相關(guān)疾病——以中央民族大學(xué)退休教工為例
        亚洲天堂av大片暖暖| 日韩精品无码av中文无码版| 国产成人久久精品二区三区牛| 国产好片日本一区二区三区四区| 韩国日本一区二区在线| 亚洲成熟丰满熟妇高潮xxxxx | 94久久国产乱子伦精品免费| 免费av在线国模| 日本人妻系列一区二区| 国产一区二区视频在线免费观看| 日本三级欧美三级人妇视频黑白配| 亚洲红怡院| 高清国产精品一区二区| 老熟女富婆激情刺激对白| 四川少妇大战4黑人| 精品国产乱码一区二区三区在线| av人妻在线一区二区三区| 熟妇人妻无乱码中文字幕真矢织江| 久久久亚洲色| 丁香九月综合激情| 国产不卡在线观看视频| 亚洲中字慕日产2020| 日韩亚洲欧美中文高清在线| 亚洲国产精品午夜一区| 国产一区二区三区精品免费av| 久久久久亚洲精品无码网址色欲 | 性感人妻中文字幕在线| 国产婷婷色一区二区三区深爱网| 2021久久精品国产99国产精品| 亚洲午夜无码AV不卡| 久久午夜一区二区三区| 中文字幕人成乱码熟女| 久久国产成人午夜av影院| 午夜日韩视频在线观看| 一区二区三区免费看日本| 男女车车的车车网站w98免费| 免费看欧美日韩一区二区三区| 成人影院视频在线播放| 日本少妇高潮喷水xxxxxxx| 久久天天躁狠狠躁夜夜爽蜜月| 一本久久伊人热热精品中文|