A STUDY ON CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES IN THE WORK UNCLE’S TOM CABIN BY HARRIET BEECHER STOWE
This study aimed at conducting to study the conversational implicature in the work Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It was done with a discourse analysis and pragmatics. Conversational implicature (C.I) is an interesting thing where it is not a matter of a sentence but instead of an utterance's meaning...
保存先:
| 第一著者: | |
|---|---|
| その他の著者: | |
| フォーマット: | 学位論文 |
| 言語: | English |
| 出版事項: |
Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Đà Nẵng
2025
|
| オンライン･アクセス: | https://data.ufl.udn.vn/handle/UFL/1804 |
| タグ: |
タグ追加
タグなし, このレコードへの初めてのタグを付けませんか!
|
| Thư viện lưu trữ: | Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ - Đại học Đà Nẵng |
|---|
| 要約: | This study aimed at conducting to study the conversational implicature
in the work Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It was done with a discourse analysis and
pragmatics. Conversational implicature (C.I) is an interesting thing where it is
not a matter of a sentence but instead of an utterance's meaning. The
researcher is interested in reading the work Uncle Tom’s Cabin, identifying
C.I found in the utterances of the main character Uncle Tom and the other
characters in the work. Then the researcher analyzed the C.I to find out the
types of C.I, the reasons for C.I and the effects of producing them. The
researcher used Grice's theory of conversational implicature as the basis of the
analysis of the study. The utterances containing implicatures fall into two
categories: generalized conversational implicatures and particularized
conversational implicatures. The study reveals that one single utterance can
have two types of C.I. Next, the theory of an indefinite article of the type "a/an
X", is typically interpreted according to the generalized conversational
implicature that: an X +> not speaker's. X cannot be generalized in this study
since it can be interpreted as the speaker's X. This fact, indeed, contradicts
with the theory proposed by Yule (1996). Moreover, the researcher found out 9
reasons for producing C.I. Lastly, those findings proved that not all the
communication was successful. This means that the hearers always manage to
get involved in interaction so that meanings are successfully exchanged with
other. |
|---|