1887
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

According to relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986; Blakemore 1991) some cases of communication depend on the hearer recognising that a particular speech act, for example admitting, betting or promising, is being performed. These are ‘communicated’ acts. Other cases of communication do not depend on the hearer recognising that a particular speech act, for example predicting, warning or permitting, is being performed. These are ‘non-communicated’ acts. In the case of non-communicated acts communication is successful so long as the hearer recovers adequate contextual effects without having to recognise the speaker’s intentions. Against this view, I will argue that each of the speech acts considered to be non-communicated in the relevance theory literature fall into one of two categories. The speech acts in one category contribute to the strength of associated assumptions, and those in the other convey socially relevant information. I will argue that according to relevance theory both types of speech act must be recognised and that they are in fact communicated. If relevance theory is to be internally consistent, therefore, the distinction between communicated and non-communicated speech acts must be abandoned.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.10.2.04nic
2000-01-01
2019-11-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andersen, G. , and T. Fretheim
    (in press) (eds.) Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.79
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.79 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arundale, R.B.
    (1999) An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics9: 119–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakemore, D.
    (1991) Performatives and parentheticals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society91: 197–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Carston, R. , and S. Uchida
    (1998) (eds.)Relevance theory: Applications and implications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.37
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cosmides, L. , and J. Tooby
    (1992) Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. Barkow , L. Cosmides and J. Tooby (eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dominicy, M. , and N. Franken
    (forthcoming) Speech acts and relevance theory. To appear in D. Vanderveken and S. Kubo (eds.) Essays in speech act theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.77.16dom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.77.16dom [Google Scholar]
  7. Escandell-Vidal, V.
    (1996) Towards a cognitive approach to politeness. In K. Jaszczolt and K. Turner (eds.), Contrastive semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp.629–650.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Franken, N.
    (1997) Les performatifs dans la théorie de la pertinence. Paper presented atthe 3ème Rencontre des Jeunes Linguistes, Université du Littoral, Dunkerque, 16–17 May 1997.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Jary, M.
    (1998a) Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics30: 1–19. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)80005‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)80005-2 [Google Scholar]
  10. (1998b) Is relevance theory asocial?Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses11: 157–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Humphrey, N.
    (1976) The social function of the intellect. In P.P.G. Bateson and R.A. Hinde (eds.), Growing points in ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Myers-Scotton, C.
    (1993) Common and uncommon ground: Social and structural factors in codeswitching. Language in Society22: 475–503. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500017449
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017449 [Google Scholar]
  13. (1995) What do speakers want? Codeswitching as evidence of intentionality in linguistic choices. In P. Silberman and J. Loftin (eds.), SALSA 2 (Papers from the Symposium about Language and Society at Austin). Austin: University of Texas, Department of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Nicolle, S.
    (1999) On the translation of implicit information: Experimental evidence and further considerations. Notes on Translation13.3: 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (in press)Markers of general interpretive use in Amharic and Swahili. In G. Andersen and T. Fretheim (eds.) Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.174–188. doi: 10.1075/pbns.79.08nic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.79.08nic [Google Scholar]
  16. Okamoto, S.
    (1999) Situated politeness: Manipulating honorific and non-honorific expressions in Japanese conversations. Pragmatics9: 51–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. O’Neill, J.
    (1988-89) Relevance and pragmatic inference. Theoretical Linguistics15: 241–261.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Recanati, F.
    (1987) Meaning and force. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Rouchota, V. , and A. Jucker
    (1998) (eds.)Current issues in relevance theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.58
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.58 [Google Scholar]
  20. Sperber, D.
    (1994) The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In L.A. Hirschfeld and S.A. Gelman (eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.39–67. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511752902.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752902.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. Sperber, D. , and D. Wilson
    (1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Terkourafi, M.
    (1999) Frames for politeness: A case study. Pragmatics9: 97–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Tooby, J. and L. Cosmides
    (1992) The psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow , L. Cosmides and J. Tooby (eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber
    (1993) Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua90: 1–25. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.10.2.04nic
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Communication , Non-communication , Performative , Relevance theory and Speech act
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