李晓辉
南宁师范大学，广西南宁，530000
Abstract: code model and inferential model are two ways of semantic extraction. The traditional code theory holds that the understanding of discourse is a decoding process. This view simplifies and absolutizes understanding. According to Grice's inferential model, the standard of successful communication is to understand the speaker's intention, not just the literal meaning. This theory has made a revolutionary contribution to the interpretation of discourse understanding.
Key words: code model、inferential modal、semantic extraction
Introduction
For the interpretation of communication process, there are code (decoding / coding) mode and inferential mode. Semiotics advocates the use of code mode, and holds that discourse understanding is a process in which meaning can be obtained by decoding according to rules. In this process, context is regarded as static, so although there are inferential factors, it is only attached to the decoding process. Sperber and Wilson think that just as different means of transportation can be used from A to B, there are many ways to express meaning. It is also futile to explain various modes of communication in one way. Because the communication process itself has the use of two modes, we should combine them organically so that we can explain parts properly and get better results.
Symbolic meaning mainly studies the construction, expression, interpretation, and transmission of symbolic meaning, which are inseparable from the various elements involved in symbolic meaning. Different researchers explore symbolic meaning from different angles and levels according to their own disciplinary background and theoretical basis, combined with different symbolic meaning elements. Because of the different theoretical basis and research angle of different views on symbolic meaning. Saussure's sign dualism combines signifier and signified into sign. Morris divides semiotics into three categories: syntactics. With the development of research. Legitimation Code Theory is a set of conceptual framework used to analyze the internal structure of knowledge and its organizational principles. The so-called legitimization refers to the practice activities or ideas that the subjects in a certain field are engaged in, which conform to the definition standard of "success" in this field. The so-called code refers to the principle that can determine and help judge whether knowledge construction behavior has the status of "legalization".
The discourse interpretation of code model
In 1949, Shannon and Weaver put forward a communication model which was later widely used to explain the communication process. Written communication is the same, for example, the newspaper writes information into the manuscript from the reporter, and obtains information from the circulation of the newspaper to the readers. However, it's not so simple. The key part of communication, the transmission of intention, is ignored. Taking the newspaper as an example. No matter the editor's further selection and revision of the reporter's manuscript to reflect the position, viewpoint and characteristics of the newspaper, readers, as information recipients, will also form their own opinions and opinions after reading the contents of the newspaper, and may have subsequent effects, such as calling to express support, concern or opposition to certain aspects, etc. Therefore, the code model only shows the way of communication and fails to reflect the real content of communication, as well as the process of processing and forming understanding of the stimulus received by the receiver.
According to the code model, discourse involves a series of symbols and information, as well as codes that link them. In discourse communication, symbols are expressed as discourse, that is, code. In short, code is a set of conventional rules for flexible use of language, which promotes the corresponding relationship between the speaker's words and the meaning of expression. Thus, the relationship between discourse and its meaning may be arbitrary, and discourse understanding is a non-intelligent mechanical decoding process.
The mutual knowledge hypothesis
Grammatical meaning provides the possibility for the understanding of utterance meaning, but its specific meaning cannot be determined yet. Proper understanding should be combined with context factors to infer the most reasonable understanding from many possible interpretations. As a remedy, if inference is included in the decoding process, that is to say, if inference is attached to the decoding mode as a secondary part, can we properly understand the meaning of utterance? Let's first look at several factors and their characteristics that affect the meaning of utterance.
The meaning of utterance includes semantic and non-semantic parts. The former is obtained by using grammar rules and lexical meaning decoding, while the latter is obtained by inferential according to contextual factors. The main factors that affect the result of inferential are inferential method and premise. Inferential methods, such as grammar. In other words, people use the same inferential method. To ensure that the hearer fully understands the meaning of the speaker, are consistent with both the speaker and the hearer. On this basis, code / semiotics put forward the hypothesis of shared / mutual context, that is, mutual knowledge hypothesis. Considering contextual knowledge as mutually owned, static, has little influence on implicative inferential, so inferential is secondary and subordinate to decoding process.
The advantages and disadvantages of code model
As mentioned above, the code model holds that the relationship between symbols (utterances) and meaning / thought in communication is derived from the decoding of code rules. This approach is highly explanatory and operable, that is, any discourse can be based on grammatical rules, plus pragmatic rules to get the idea / meaning of the communicator.
However, the basic assumption that code theory equates the contextual elements of both sides of communication, that is, mutual knowledge, is fundamentally untenable. Context factors include physical environment, discourse context and encyclopedia knowledge. First of all, physical context is not completely equal to each other. For the same environment, different people pay different attention, so the cognitive effect will not be the same. For example, for specific events such as car accidents, different witnesses tend to remember different details. Secondly, for the context of utterance, the effects of previously said utterances on the minds of both sides of communication are not exactly the same. Of course, the biggest difference comes from the context of encyclopedia knowledge. Different life experiences, social and cultural backgrounds, education levels, opinions and expectations of the past, the present and the future will be very different, which determines that the communicators' views on the same thing, the premise used in inferential the meaning of the discourse will not be completely the same, of course, it cannot ensure that everyone's inferential on the same discourse will get exactly the same results.
It is because of different contextual assumptions that misunderstandings often appear in communication. The code model absolutizes the context and holds that the context is equal to each other's knowledge. Therefore, the understanding of the discourse (the acquisition of the speaker's thought / meaning) is the process of drawing conclusions based on the decoding of rules (grammar + pragmatic rules). However, due to the fact that mutual knowledge does not exist and code theory cannot stand, decoding can only obtain discourse semantics, and the speaker's intention / meaning cannot be obtained by decoding.
The interpretation of inferential model
In his 1957 article "Meaning", Grice described the process of meaning transmission of the speaker as follows: the process of the speaker expressing his meaning through discourse is roughly equivalent to that of the speaker imagining that the listener can produce some effect by identifying the intention of the discourse. Later, in a series of lectures at Harvard University. Discourse is the basis of the speaker's meaning, not a simple symbol. Only when the hearer deduces the speaker's meaning from the discourse can he realize the understanding of the discourse. This view forms the basic communicative view of inferential model.
According to the inferential model, the purpose of communicating is to make the other party understand the intention behind the thought. The intention can only be inferred from the decoding, which denies the code model fundamentally. This is especially true of nonverbal communication. For the endless talk of late night visitors, if you want to show that he should go, the host can look at his watch, yawn, pretend to sleep and any other way can show that "it's too late, you should go back". The meaning conveyed in this nonverbal communication cannot be decoded, because there is no code or convention relationship between any of the above choices and the meaning expressed.
In order to make communication successful, both sides of communication must cooperate and abide by the principles of authenticity, sufficiency, relevance and clarity, which is the "principle of cooperation" proposed by Grice. When the rules are obviously violated, the hearer needs to go beyond the literal meaning, continue to assume that the speaker abides by the cooperative principle and rules, and infer the meaning behind the words. Because the speaker violates the principle and criterion of cooperation in order to express some implied meaning.
The advantages and disadvantages of inferential model
Grice puts forward the problem of intention in communication, and holds that the most important thing for the communicators to convey and understand is the meaning behind the words, not just the literal meaning. This statement liberates people from the traditional semantic approach and returns to the common sense communicative intention, which improves people's understanding of meaning in the process of communication.
People can't help but imagine whether communication is restricted by other principles besides cooperation principle, such as politeness principle, purpose principle, interest principle, inspiration principle, etc. Even for the nine principles under the principle of cooperation, people will inevitably ask: Why are the nine? Can we have more? Can we have less? It is difficult to reveal the internal laws of communication activities in depth only from experience, observation and other peripheral factors, even after theoretical abstraction and reaching a general explanatory power. Secondly, it is not in accordance with the internal cognitive and psychological characteristics of communication activities to explain the communication process with the rules and regulations formed by the experience abstraction. On the contrary, this approach is consistent with the idea that the code model overemphasizes the role of rules. From this point of view, Grice's implicative inferential mode and code model are the same in methodology.
Complementary between code model and inferential model
On the one hand, complex forms of communication involve the use of language, which will inevitably lead to the problem of language coding / decoding; on the other hand, due to the efficiency of communication, it is impossible for the speaker to fully explain all aspects of his or her thought and intention, so the speaker's words are only a part of his or her intended thought and intention, or incomplete evidence of his or her intention. In order to understand the speaker's intention, the hearer must use context (physical context, discourse context and knowledge hypothesis) to complete and reason the discourse. A successful communication is one in which the real intention / thought of the speaker is understood rather than the literal meaning.
Therefore, inference plays an important role in discourse understanding, but semantic interpretation is the basis of inference. In the actual communication process, the hearer always starts from the recognition of sound signals, makes clear the meaning of each word, and then obtains the sentence meaning. If the meaning cannot meet the expectation of the hearer, then further inferential is needed to obtain the meaning beyond the sentence meaning. On the one hand, it's hard to imagine that the hearer can start inferential and understand what the other party wants to express without clearly listening to the other party's words or not knowing what the other party has said at all. On the other hand, after understanding the literal meaning of the other party's discourse, it is often necessary to further speculate to clarify the other party's true intention, which is implied in the literal meaning of the discourse, and can only be obtained by the listener's inferential according to the discourse semantics and combining the contextual factors.
Conclusion
According to code theory, the understanding process of utterance meaning is a process of encoding / decoding. If there is inferential in the process of understanding, it is only simple inferential, and inferential belongs to decoding. Because the premise of inferential is that context is equal and mutual. However, this assumption is fundamentally wrong. Context includes physical context, linguistic context and knowledge hypothesis, so it is cognitive, dynamic and different from person to person. Therefore, just as in real communication, it is impossible to ensure that the speaker's meaning can be successfully inferred. The fatal flaw of code theory in this issue leads to the failure of the theory in the interpretation of meaning.
Discourse understanding involves not only the decoding of language, but also the inferential based on it. Both ways play a role in communication. Decoding to obtain semantics is the basis, and inferring the speaker's intention is the key. Therefore, decoding belongs to inference. In the process of inferential, the decisive factors are premise and method. The presuppositions include discourse semantics and context input. The variability of context is the key to the result of inferential. To properly describe and explain the process of understanding, we must make an appropriate explanation of the process of context selection. In Grice's inferential mode, context is regarded as static, which causes the fundamental shortage of inferential mode.
Reference
[1] Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
[2] John I. Saeed. Semantics [M]. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社.2000.8
[3] 陈开举. 话语权的文化学研究[M]. 广州：中山大学出版社.2012.10
[4] 汤斌. Maton 的合理化语码理论与系统功能语言学的合作［J.现代外语,2014( 2) : 52-61,145 -146．