托福听力lecture并列型分析

　　之前我们介绍了lecture的并列型结构，一般是围绕某一个主题并列平行展开去讲解。这类结构没有之前我们见到的直线型结构那么好区分，因为他没有明显的表示时间地点人物的信号词，但是这种结构类型是我们TPO和考试中出现的比较多的结构类型。我们这次分析一篇按并列结构分层的一篇文章

　　今天我们以TPO20-L1为例，给大家讲解一下。

　　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. 文章开始就表明了我们今天谈论的主题：说话时要遵守的规则

　　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. 后面结合屏幕的提示信息引出了Gricean Maxims这个语言规则。并且直接提出了第一点规则：不能说谎

　　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. 这里老师有说出了另一个规则：说话一定要相关性，不能答非所问。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们表明，符合了相关性，我们在说话时可以更简洁，可以从他人的话中推测一些信息。

　　OK, then there’s the maxims of manner, including things like be clear , and avoid ambiguity. 紧接着提出了第三点规则：说话要清晰不能模棱两可，但是这点信息老师并没有做太多的讲解。

　　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. 最后一点老师用another这个词表示的很明显：数量原则。我们所说的话一定要有一定的量，别人才能听懂所说的内容。

　　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? 后面出现了新的信息，讲到大家有事会故意的违反说话的规则，并且列举了几个原因，首先以一个例子讲出了第一个原因，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这个词清楚的表现出了第二个原因；欺骗

　　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.