Narrator: Listen to part of a lecture in a linguistics class.

旁白：听一段语言学课程。

Professor: 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.

教授：好的，统领对话的准则或前提，可能随着文化的不同，它们也会发生变化，但基本上说，交流对于人们而言，有必须遵守的某些规则。

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?

比如说，我和你们谈话的时候，说假话，如果你们不能分辨出来我的话语中的虚假成分和真实成分，那么，我们之间的交流就不会特别愉快，不是吗？为什么呢？

Because it violates one of the Gricean Maxims...

因为这种行为违背了格莱斯话语定律的其中一条……

That’s a set of rules or maxims a philosopher name H.P .Grice came up with in 1970s.

这是一套规则或格言，由名为H.P.Grice的哲学家在20世纪70年代提出的。

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

其中……嗯，我已经给了你们提示了哈。

Male Student: Oh, “you just can't go around telling lies”.

男学生：“我们不能到处说谎”这条。

Professor: Right, or as Grice put it, “Do not say what you believe to be false.”

教授：正解，格莱斯的说法是：“不要说你认为是假话的言语。”

That’s one of Grice’s Maxims of Quality as he called it.

格莱斯把这条规则称为话质量准则。

So that’s pretty obvious.

这种命名规则应该很好理解。

But there are others just as important.

但还有其它的重要方面。

Like, eh... suppose you would ask me what time it was and I replied ”my sister just got married“, what would you think?

比如，嗯……假设你们问我“现在几点了”但我却回答说“我姐姐刚刚结婚了”，你们会怎么想呢？

Male Student: You are not really answering my question.

男学生：你并没有真正回答我的问题。

Professor: No, I am not, am I?

教授：是的，我没有回答你的问题，对吗？

There is no connection at all, which feels wrong because you generally expect to find one.

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，因为你通常会期盼得到一个有关联的回答。

So one important maxim is simply: be relevant.

那么，这里其实涉及到一项简单的准则：答案要与问题相关。

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.

通过话语相关原则，我们可以领会出很多东西，或者说，说话的人在话语中暗含一些意图，而听话人从这些话语中领悟这些意图。

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“.

譬如说，你说你特别想喝一杯咖啡，我回答说“街头转角处有一家店”。

Now, what can you infer from what I said?

你们能从我的话里分析我的话语意图吗？

Male Student: Well, the shop sells coffee for one thing.

男学生：至少那家店有咖啡出售。

Professor: Right, and that I believe it is open now.

教授：对，而且，我这样说，还表明我相信那家店现在还没有关门。

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

因为，如果我不在我回答中暗含这些东西，我的回答就违背了相关性原则。

It’d have no connection with what you said before.

我就会脱离和你之前进行的谈话。

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.

但是，依照格莱斯定律，我的回答应该与你的问题相关，这就意味着，我们需要在问题和答案之间建立起联系。

And this maxim of relevance is quite efficient to use.

格莱斯定律的相关原则其实非常好用。

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.

即便我不一一指出所有的细节，你依然能够从中进行有效的逻辑推理，即那家店开门，且那家店卖咖啡。

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

假如，我要把这些细节全部说出来，这样的话，对话就会特别长，不是吗？

OK, then there’s the maxim of manner, including things like be clear, and avoid ambiguity.

好的，其次，格莱斯定律还有一条准则，即话语方式准则，说话要清楚，避免歧义。

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

之后的这一条准则，非常有趣，格莱斯称之为“话语量的准则”，即话语的信息量。

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

按照这条准则，在某一次交谈中，交谈双方需要给出尽可能多的信息。

So suppose you ask 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.

这样说吧，假设你问我，你昨天干了些啥，我回答说我去了艺术博物馆。那么，你可能会推断我看到了一些艺术品。

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

但假设，我没有进门儿，在门口站了一下就掉头走了。

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

这样的话，我就违背了话语量定律。

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

所以，同学们，你们应该能够理解为推动交流进行而提供足够话语暗含信息量的重要性了吧。

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

但是，有时人们会刻意违背话语量定律。

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

我们假设，一位员工为了找到新工作，向他的前任雇主请求写一封推荐信。

The letter he writes is quite brief.

老板写的信非常简略。

Something like, uh, Mr. X is polite and always dresses neatly.

内容是，比如，X先生非常有礼貌，穿得很干净。

So what does this really mean?

这些话的意思，到底是什么呢？

Female Student: Oh, I see.

女学生：哦，我明白了。

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 is really not qualified.

这位老板刻意回避了任何与工作有关的重要品质有关的描述，他这样做的目的……是想要说他给不出更好的评价了。

Professor: Exactly! It’s a written letter not a conversation, but the principle is the same.

教授：对！这是一封书面语写成的信，不是口头语的交流，但基本原则是不变的。

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

这位老板就是想要给X先生负面评价，虽然他没有用到任何一个带有负面意味的词语。

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.

总之，通过对格莱斯定律的可以违背，我们……嗯……应该说，这种方式可以表达一些精微、隐晦的信息，或传递幽默，或表示讥讽。

Sometimes though people will violate maxims for another purpose: to deceive.

有时，人们违背格莱斯原则，背后的目的却是欺骗。

Now, can you imagine who might do such a thing?

你们能告诉我一个这样的例子吗？

Male Student: Some politicians.

男学生：政客。

Female Student: Or advertisers.

女学生：或是广告商。

Professor: Right! Anyone who may see an advantage in implying certain things that are untrue without explicitly saying something untrue.

教授：正确！有时，有些人发现，如果说话的信息中暗含虚假信息，但不明确说出来的话， 常常会使他们占便宜。

They think, hey, don’t blame us if our audience happens to draw inferences that are simply not true.

他们总会想，别怪我们，我们可没有让你想一些不该想的东西。

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.

同学们，下次，如果你们看到一些广告，宣称某一种产品能够提高20%的效率的话，利用学过的格莱斯话语信息量定律和相关性定律，尝试推导这句话提供的信息导致的结论。

Think, more effective than what exactly?

想一想，这种产品提高20%效率的比较对象是什么？

And why did they use those little phrases ”could be“ and ”up to“?

并且，他们为什么用的是模棱两可的短语“可能”、“达到”？

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

这些词实际提供的信息比它们的表象要少得多。