International Conference on Social Science and Technology (ICSSTE 2015)

Critical Thinking in the Teaching of Linguistics

Liu Jianwen

School of Foreign , Wuhan Polytechnic University, Wuhan, 430024, China

Abstract: Theories of every discipline are rooted in goal? Philosophers are always optimistic, and require critical thinking to get them because they’re never afraid of questions--they through. Studies in linguistics are no exception. This were born to think about, propose and solve paper, taking perspectives of segmentation and problems. This deserves our respect: their , presents analysis of one problem—the courage and unique perspective in thinking. So conflict between the Cooperative Principle and its the inspiration for us is: as long as we’re willing maxims—the violations of maxims and the observation to and dare to think, there is always the way to of the Cooperative Principle, which obsesses many understand and solve problems. This article beginners of linguistics; from this discussion, we can aims to clear the following confusion in college find that some linguistic theories (pragmatic theories in students’ learning linguistics, which is particular) develop from and therefore are rooted in concerned with Grice’s Cooperative philosophy. So, when we deal with some linguistic Principle--if principle should be followed but at theories, we should not only observe them for the sake the same time violated, then it contradicts with of linguistics superficially, but also find out their the law of identity. (Zhao Yanchun, 2005: 76) philosophical background to help us get a thorough That confuses many beginners of linguistics--if understanding of them; during this process, we should only the maxims or submaxims are violated learn to think about, analyze and solve linguistic while the general principle is abode by, then it is problems philosophically. illogical. Of course, that is not what Grice meant Key words: Critical Thinking; the Teaching of by proposing Cooperative Principle. Linguistics; Cooperative Principle; Segmentation; II. The ‘Conflict’ in the Cooperative Intentionality; Principle I. Introduction Cooperative Principle (CP for short) is one Be is one of the most discussed topics in of the fundamental theories of linguistics, western philosophy. The philosophical study of pragmatics in particular, which needs no it begins with and forms ontology-- “What is detailed introduction here. As a linguistics being? What is the nature of the world”. When teacher, I found that the question confuses most there is no desired answers, the study turns to college students is: Grice discusses the the second phase-- (i.e., How do violations of maxims after explaining CP. We humans interpret being? What is the relation know that the observance of CP is the between thinking and being, and what is the of successful conversations. So, how could the source, capability and limit of human’s maxim(s) (which will result in implicature) be ?) (Qian Guanlian, 1999: 9). Can violated at the same time CP observed? Here is philosopher, especially philosophers of , where critical thinking words. I will analyze this find the desired answers to them? Are they phenomenon from the following two avoiding those questions or approaching their perspectives: segmentation and intentionality.

© 2015. The authors - Published by Atlantis Press 176 1. Segmentation wrongdoings. In the second phase of generative grammar, (Li Xinhua, 2000: 63) (i.e., Standard Theory), Chomsky put forward Obviously, this is a transferred epithet. It is the hypotheses of ‘deep structure’ and ‘surface the thief not the confess that trembles. This structure’ to get a deeper understanding of the makes sense to us, but why can we get such an structures of sentences. This double structure understanding? This problem can be solved with became the core concepts in the period of his the concept of double structure. Now we will theory. In , before Chomsky, some rewrite the the sentence (in the form of surface philosophers and linguists have expressed structure) with its two deeper structures: similar ideas. Wittgenstein discussed the relation a. The thief did wrong doings. between deep grammar and surface grammar; b. The thief made a confession. Hockeet also adopted similar concepts in A c. The thief was trembling when he made a Course in Modern Linguistics. All they try to confession. say is that we should differentiate what is From the analysis above, this transferred expressed directly and what is expressed epithet violates both Quality maxim and indirectly. (editorial board of Foreign Languages Quantity maxim on the surface level, but it , 1982: 87) Withe the same purpose, abides by Cooperative Principle on the deep Chomsky discussed with similar level. This accords with human . We approach in his syntactic analysis (ibd.: 93) can regard expressions on the surface level as This binary division gives us such a the result of the transformation and combination : we should segment or reduce questions of the three expressions on the deep structure. we face to their most base forms. The following The double structures of both rhetorical device is an example of lexical rhetorical device. E.g.: and Cooperative Principle can be analyzed The thief made a trembling confess of his respectively and shown in the following table: Table 1: two levels of structure in the violations of Grciean maxims in stylistic lexical devices: Two levels of structure Surface structure Deep structure Lexical stylistic devices What is literally said/written What is implied

Gricean maxims (in lexical One or more Gricean maxims are The CP is observed at a deep stylistic devices) violated level (Liu Jianwen, 2009: 154) As we know, many rhetorical devices have implicature, as a media, bridges the gap between both literal meaning and implied meaning. This lexical stylistic devices and Gricean maxims, for accords with the violation of one or more implicature itself is a kind of implied meaning Gricean maxims on the surface level and the (Hu Zhuanglin, 2001). In fact, almost all the observance of CP on the deep level. The end of examples of lexical rhetorical devices are the double structure is implied meaning and justified to be analyzed from the perspective of conversational implicature, which are same in the violations Gricean maxims. So, the critical nature. In the above table, when Gricean thinking, segmentation here is vital in maxims are violated, observing the CP at a deep understanding and mastering the theory of level, implicature is generated. Note that conversational implicature.

177 2. Intentionality communication, lexical stylistic devices, either After the linguistic turning of philosophy, in written or spoken form, help people meaning becomes the centre topic of it. communicate effectively aided by their aesthetic Philosophers see the speakers’ intention as the function via violating Gricean maxims of the CP main component of meaning. (Qian, 2005: 65) literally and on purpose. Many examples of the Rationality and intentionality, accordingly, violations of Gricean maxims given, it is not become the core concepts in Grice’s theory of difficult to find that there is a double-structure conversational implicature. “intentionality is in both of lexical stylistic devices and Gricean one of the most important concepts in Grice’s maxims. These two structures can be connected theory of meaning, and it decides the meaning by conversational implicature, whose generation of conversations.” (Xu Guangwu, 2006: 7) helps realize the aesthetic function of lexical Besides, Grice mentioned “rational” and stylistic devices. “rationalist” several times. Those two concepts III .CONCLUSIONS are very helpful in answering the question we From what we discuss above, it is no raised at the beginning of this article. Theories difficult to say that if we do not explain some of meaning, in its philosophical sense, attach linguistic theories with critical thinking (be it great importance to the elements of humans, the philosophical background or else), it will be such as rationality and intentionality in difficult to for our students take in those theories. particular. That’s because human activities, The are easy: most linguistic theories including speech acts, are done with specific (pragmatic theories in particular) are rooted in purposes. Speech acts are carried out to philosophy (especially philosophy of language). communicate and therefore, they carry the This is also an inevitable outcome of the speakers’ intention and are “governed” by linguistic turn of philosophy, although the rationality. Hou (Hou Guojin, 2006: 11) points philosophers (of language) did not meant to out that “both Grice’s and Searle’s theories can analyze philosophy in this way. It brings us very be called theories of rationality or intentionality. useful implications about Linguistics teaching: Whether the two parties of speech acts we should encourage the students to think cooperate or not agrees with their intention.” critically, to see through the appearance of some Therefore, we provide the following solution to linguistic theories to perceive the essence of the problem confusing college students: if the them; what’s more, students should learn to seemingly intro-linguistic (purely concerned think and analyze questions to finally solve with language) non-cooperation expressions them. Therefore, in teaching linguistics, what is transmit the speakers’ intention, that is to say, as more important than linguistic theories is the long as the two parties can communicate with critical thinking beneath them. Only in this way each other successfully, they should be regarded can we help them to know what is the main as cooperative. Now it’s clear that this type of content of a specific theory as well as why it is critical thinking about rationality or so. intentionality can help the students better understand and master the concerned linguistic theories. Broadly speaking, as a special form of

178 : [1] Grice, H. P. and conversation. In Cole, P. & J. Morgan (eds.) and 3: Speech Acts[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1975: 41-58. [2] Feng Guangwu. Rationality in Grice' s Theory of Meaning[J]. Foreign Languages Research, 2006 (4): 6-11. [3] Editorial Board of Foreign Language Research. Introduction to Chomsky’s theory of meaning[C]. 1982. [4] Hou Huojin. Pragmatic Markedness -Model--a perspective of classic and neo-Gricean pragmatics[J]. Foreign Languages Education, 2006 (3): 8-14. [5] Hu Zhuanglin. Introduction to Linguistics (4th Ed.)[M]. Beijin: Peking University Press. 2011. [6] Li Xinhua. Detailed Analysis of English Rhetorical Devices[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2000. [7] Liu, Jianwen. The Violations of Grciean Maxims in Stylistic Lexical Devices[J]. Jounal of Chongqing Institute of Arts and Sciences (social science edition), 2009 (6): 152-154. [8] Qiang, Guanlian. Languages in orbit around philosophy of west[J]. Foreign Languages, 1999 (6): 9-16. [9] Qiang, Guanlian. Philosophical background of Pragmatics[J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 1999 (6): 4-8. [10] Qiang, Guanlian. Language: The Last Homestead of Human Beings[M]. Beijing: Commercial Press. 2005. [11] Searle, John. , Language and Society[M], (translated by Li Bulou). Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House. 2006. [12] Zhao, Yanchun. The Philosophical of Linguistics[M]. Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House. 2005.

179