1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 28, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 28, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Research in Critical Discourse Studies has for long recognised the central role that both direct and indirect communicative strategies play in the reproduction of social inequality, but a main proponent of this approach has expressed scepticism with regard to the contribution that theories of pragmatics which specifically focus on speaker intentions can make to its agenda. This paper sets out to examine how relevance theory’s theoretical machinery can be applied to the critical discussion of ideology in discourse, by offering insights that overcome the limitations imposed by this concentration of its precursors on speaker intentions. More specifically, I discuss how the cognitive perspective that relevance theory adopts can inform our understanding of the way in which ideological effects automatically arise during spontaneous utterance interpretation. After accounting for the derivation of these effects, I briefly suggest how it can additionally be taken to underlie the propagation of ideologies through discursive practice.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21015.ass
2022-06-27
2024-09-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.21015.ass
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Althusser, Louis
    1971 Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. InLouis Althusser (ed.) Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, pp.121–173. London: Verso.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Assimakopoulos, Stavros
    2017 Context in relevance theory. InJoanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman, Christopher Laenzlinger (eds.) Formal Models in the Study of Language: Applications in Interdisciplinary Contexts, pp.221–242. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑48832‑5_12
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_12 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2021 Beyond meaningNN and ostension: Pragmatic inference in the wild. InElly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure, Tim Wharton (eds.) Beyond Meaning, pp.11–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.324.c1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.324.c1 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2022 Ostension and the communicative function of natural language. Journal of Pragmatics191: 46–54. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.021
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.021 [Google Scholar]
  5. Balkin, Jack M.
    1998 Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology. New Haven / London: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Brescoll, Victoria L.
    2016 Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. The Leadership Quarterly27 (3): 415–428. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cave, Terence & Deirdre Wilson
    (eds.) 2018 Reading Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198794776.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794776.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chilton, Paul
    2005 Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. InRuth Wodak & Paul Chilton (eds.) A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity, pp.19–53. Amsterdam / Philadelphia : John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.13.05chi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.13.05chi [Google Scholar]
  9. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1995a Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society6 (2): 243–289. 10.1177/0957926595006002006
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006002006 [Google Scholar]
  10. 1995b Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. InChristina Schäffner & Anita L. Wender (eds.) Language and Peace. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2006 Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies8 (1): 159–177. 10.1177/1461445606059565
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059565 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2008 Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511481499
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fairclough, Norman
    1989 Language and Power. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2003 Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London / New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203697078
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fazio, Lisa K., Nadia M. Brashier, B. Keith Payne & Elizabeth J. Marsh
    2015 Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General144 (5): 993–1002. 10.1037/xge0000098
     https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000098 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fogal, Daniel, Daniel W. Harris & Matt Moss
    (eds.) 2018 New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198738831.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198738831.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Forceville, Charles
    1998 Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London / New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fowler, Roger
    1991 Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London / New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Garg, Nikhil, Londa Schiebinger, Dan Jurafsky & James Zou
    2018 Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America115 (16): E3635–E3644. 10.1073/pnas.1720347115
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720347115 [Google Scholar]
  20. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation’, inPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics (vol.3): Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp.41–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood
    1978 Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hart, Christopher
    2010 Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230299009
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299009 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2011 Introduction. InChristopher Hart (ed.) Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, pp.1–5. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.01har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.01har [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnstone, Barbara
    2018 Discourse Analysis (3rd edn). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Krzyżanowski, Michał
    2020 Discursive shifts and the normalisation of racism: Imaginaries of immigration, moral panics and the discourse of contemporary right-wing populism. Social Semiotics30 (4): 503–527. 10.1080/10350330.2020.1766199
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1766199 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  27. Maillat, Didier
    2013 Constraining context selection: On the pragmatic inevitability of manipulation. Journal of Pragmatics59 (Part B): 190–199. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  28. Maillat, Didier & Steve Oswald
    2009 Defining manipulative discourse: The pragmatics of cognitive illusions. International Review of Pragmatics1 (2): 348–370. 10.1163/187730909X12535267111651
     https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12535267111651 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2011 Constraining context: A pragmatic account of cognitive manipulation. InChristopher Hart (ed.) Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, pp.65–80. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.04mai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.04mai [Google Scholar]
  30. Mey, Jacob L. & Mary Talbot
    1988 Computation and the soul. Journal of Pragmatics12: 743–789. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90056‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90056-2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Musolff, Andreas
    2004 Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230504516
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
  32. Oswald, Steve
    2014 It is easy to miss something you are not looking for: A pragmatic account of covert communicative influence for (critical) discourse analysis. InChristopher Hart & Piotr Cap (eds.) Contemporary Studies in Critical Discourse Analysis, pp.97–120. New York / London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2017 Conceptual competence injustice and relevance theory: A reply to Derek Anderson.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective6 (12): 39–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Polyzou, Alexandra
    2018 Pragmatics and critical discourse studies. InJohn Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, pp.195–207. London / New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. de Saussure, Louis
    2007 Procedural pragmatics and the study of discourse. Pragmatics & Cognition15 (1): 139–159. 10.1075/pc.15.1.10sau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.10sau [Google Scholar]
  36. 2011 Discourse analysis, cognition and evidentials. Discourse Studies13 (6): 781–788. 10.1177/1461445611421360b
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360b [Google Scholar]
  37. 2012 Cognitive pragmatic ways into discourse analysis: The case of discursive presuppositions. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics8 (1): 37–59. 10.1515/lpp‑2012‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2012-0004 [Google Scholar]
  38. de Saussure, Louis and Tim Wharton
    2020 Relevance, effects and affect. International Review of Pragmatics, 12(2): 183–205. 10.1163/18773109‑01202001
     https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schulz-Hardt, Stefan, Annika Giersiepen & Andreas Mojzisch
    2016 Preference-consistent information repetitions during discussion: Do they affect subsequent judgments and decisions?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology64: 41–49. 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sperber, Dan
    1996 Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Sperber, Dan, Francesco Cara & Vittorio Girotto
    1995 Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition57 (1): 31–95. 10.1016/0010‑0277(95)00666‑M
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00666-M [Google Scholar]
  42. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi & Deirdre Wilson
    2010 Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25 (4): 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 1987 Precis of Relevance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences10 (4): 697–710. 10.1017/S0140525X00055345
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00055345 [Google Scholar]
  45. 1997 Remarks on relevance theory and the social sciences. Multilingua16: 145–151. 10.1515/mult.1997.16.2‑3.145
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1997.16.2-3.145 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2015 Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy15: 117–149.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Watson, James & Anne Hill
    2012 Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies (8th edn). New York / London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Waugh, Linda R., Theresa Catalano, Khaled Al Masaeed, Tom Hong Do & Paul G. Renigar
    2016 Critical discourse analysis: Definition, approaches, relation to pragmatics, critique, and trends. InAlessandro Capone & Jacob L. Mey (eds.) Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, pp.71–135. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_4 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wharton, Tim, Constant Bonard, Daniel Dukes, David Sander & Steve Oswald
    2021 Relevance and emotion. Journal of Pragmatics181: 259–269. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wilson, Deirdre
    2006 The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence?Lingua116 (10): 1722–1743. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2018 Relevance theory and literary interpretation. InTerence Cave and Deirdre Wilson (eds.) Reading Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory, pp.185–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 2019 Relevance theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Retrieved12 June 2021, from10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.201
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.201 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston
    2019 Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics57: 125–148. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    1985 On choosing the context for utterance-interpretation. InJens Allwood & Erland Hjelmquist (eds.) Foregrounding Background, pp.51–64. Lund: Doxa.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 2004 Relevance theory. InLawrence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp.607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2005 Reply to Rajagopalan. Intercultural Pragmatics2 (1): 99–103. 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.99
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.99 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wodak, Ruth
    2007 Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition15 (1): 203–225. 10.1075/pc.15.1.13wod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.13wod [Google Scholar]
  58. Wodak, Ruth & Michael Meyer
    2016 Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. InRuth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (3rd edn), pp.1–22. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Yus, Francisco
    2011 Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.213
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.213 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21015.ass
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): critical discourse studies; ideology; relevance theory; speaker intentions

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error