1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

The argument I wish to advance in this paper is that Gricean theory (Grice 1968, 1969, 1975, 1978, 1981) and, in particular, the potentially useful relevance theory which developed from it (Sperber & Wilson 1986), are flawed through their failure to consider cultural and social context; but that attempts to relate linguistic pragmatics to more socially-conscious models of language use, such as register/genre theory (Ure and Ellis 1977; Halliday 1978; Gregory and Carroll 1978; Ghadessy 1988, 1993; Swales 1988; Martin 1985, 1992 etc.) may produce interesting cross-fertilization and be beneficial to both. This essay falls into three sections. The first is a brief introductory critique of Grice's theory as an asocial idealized construct. The second section brings relevance theory and genre/register theory face to face and under the spotlight, hoping to reveal the weaknesses of each and show how, theoretically, they could compensate for and complement each other. In the third section I consider the case of metaphor, arguing that and demonstrating how the account of metaphor provided in Relevance: Communication and Cognition can be supplemented in practice by considering the kinds of register/genre in which metaphors find expression.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.4.2.05goa
1994-01-01
2019-11-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bateson, G
    (1991) Men are grass: Metaphor and the world of mental process. InA sacred unity: Further steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Cornelia and Michael, pp.237-42
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauman, R. , and J. Scherzer
    (eds.) (1974) Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. London: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaugrande, R. de , and W. Dressier
    (1981) Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhatia, V.K
    (1983) An applied discourse analysis of English legislative writing. University of Aston.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bilmes, J
    (1993) Ethnomethodology, culture and implicature: Towards an empirical pragmatics. Pragmatics3.4: 387-410
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boyd, R
    (1989) Metaphor and theory change: What is “metaphor” a metaphor for?In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought. London: Cambridge University Press, pp.237-244
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, P. , and S. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. London: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Carter, R
    (1987) Vocabulary. London: Allen and Unwin
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chafe, W
    (1982) Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In D. Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, pp.35-53
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky, N
    (1965) Aspects of a theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, H
    (1987) Relevance to what?Behavioural and Brain Sciences10.4: 714-5. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00055394
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00055394 [Google Scholar]
  12. Collins, A. , and E. Loftus
    (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Research82: 407-428.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Crystal, D. , and D. Davy
    (1969) Investigating English style. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1975) Advanced conversational English. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. De Man, Paul
    (1979) The epistemology of metaphor. In S. Sacks (ed.), On metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.11-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Doheny-Farina, S. , and L. Odell
    (1985) Ethnographic research on writing; Assumptions and methodology. In L. Odell , and D. Goswami (eds.), Writing in non-academic settings. New York: Guilford, pp.503-55.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dyer, G
    (1982) Advertising as communication. London: Methuen. doi: 10.4324/9780203328132
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203328132 [Google Scholar]
  18. Edmondson, W
    (1981) Spc cen discourse: A model for analysis. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Emmott, C
    (1989) Reading between the lines: Building a comprehensive model of participant reference in real narrative. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1992) Splitting the referent: An introduction to narrative enactors. In M. Davies and L. Ravelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Empson, William
    (1953) Seven types of ambiguity. London: Chatto and Windus.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fairclough, Norman
    (1989) Language and power. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fillmore, C
    (1977) Frame semantics and the nature of language. In S. Hamad , H. Stecklis , and J. Lancaster (eds.), Origin and evolution of language and speech. New York Academy of Sciencesvol. 280.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Freud, S
    (1960) Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. Strachey, J . (trans.) London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. fies, P
    (1991) The structuring of information in written English text. Paper delivered at the18th nternational Systemic Congress. Tokyo, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ghadessy, M
    (ed.) (1988) Registers of written English. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goatly, A.P
    (1987) Interrelations of metaphors in Golding’s novels: A framework for the study of metaphoric interplay. Language and Style20.2: 125-144.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1993) Species of metaphor in varieties of English. In M. Ghadessy (ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. . (in preparation) Aspects of metaphors.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gregory, M. , and S. Carroll
    (1978) Language and situation. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Grice, P
    (1957) Meaning. Philosophical Review66: 377-88. doi: 10.2307/2182440
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  32. (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole , and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, pp.41-58.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (1978) Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp.113-128.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (1981) Presupposition and conversational implicature. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp.183-198.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gumperz, J. J
    (1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gumperz, J.J , T.C. Jupp , and C. Roberts
    (1979) Crosstalk: A study of cross-cultural communication. London : The National Centre for Industrial Language Training.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Halliday, M.A.K. , and R. Hasan
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1978) Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (1985) Introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Halliday, M.A.K. , and R. Hasan
    (1985) Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hasan, R
    (1989) Linguistics, language and verbal art. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hoey, M
    (1991) Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hymes, D
    (1974) Foundations in sociolinguistics: an ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Johnson, M
    (1987) The body in the mind. London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kress, G
    (1985) Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lakoff, G. , and M. Johnson
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Leech, G.N
    (1969) A Linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Levinson, S
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (1989) Review of “Relevance: Communication and cognition”. Journal of Linguistics25.2: 455-473. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700014183
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700014183 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lyons, J
    (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Martin, J.R
    (1985) Factual writing. Victoria: Deakin University.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Martin. J.R
    (1992) English text; system and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  54. Martinet, A
    (1960) Elements of general linguistics. London: Faber.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Matthiessen, C
    (1993) Register in the round: Diversity in a unified theory of register analysis. In M. Ghadessy (ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice. London: Pinter, pp.221-292.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Mey, J. , and M. Talbot
    (1988) Computation and the soul. Journal of Pragmatics12: 5-6. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90056‑2
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90056-2 [Google Scholar]
  57. Minsky, M
    (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (ed.), The psychology of computer vision. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, pp.211-277.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Pawley, A. , and F.H. Syder
    (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J.C. Richards , & R.W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman, pp.191-227.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Pike, K
    (1982) Linguistic concepts: An introduction to tagmemics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Pratt, M.L
    (1981) The ideology of speech act theory. Centrum (new series) vol 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Rhodes, R.A. , and J.M. Lawler
    (1981) Athematic metaphors. InPapers from the seventeenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS 17)Chicago Illinois, pp.318-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Said, E
    (1978) Orientalism. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Sanford, A.J. , and S.C. Garrod
    (1981) Understanding written language. Chichester: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Sarangi, S. , and S. Slembrouck
    (1992) Non-cooperation in communication: A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics17: 117-153. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90037‑C
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90037-C [Google Scholar]
  65. Saville-Troike, M
    (1982) The ethnography of communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Schänk, R. , and R. Abclson
    (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Sinclair, J.M
    (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Sinclair, J.M. , and M. Coulthard
    (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sperber, D. , and D. Wilson
    (1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. (1987) Presumptions of relevance. Behavioural and Brain Sciences10.4: 736-54. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00055618
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00055618 [Google Scholar]
  71. Steiner, G
    (1975) After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Svartvik, J. , and R. Quirk
    (1980) (eds.)A corpus of English conversation. Lund: Gleerup.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Swales, J
    (1990) Genre analysis; English in academic and research settings. London: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Tannen, D
    (1989) Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse. London: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Trimble, L
    (1985) English for science and technology. London: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Ure, J. , and J. Ellis
    (1977) Register in decriptive linguisties and linguistic sociology. In O. Oribe-Villas (ed.). Issues in sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp.197-243.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Wijsen, L.M.P.T
    (1980) Cognition and image formation m literature. Frankfurt: Peter D. Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Young, D
    (1985) Some applications of systemic grammar to TEFL or whatever became of register analysis?In J.D. Benson , and W. Greaves (eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse volume 2. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp.282-294.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.4.2.05goa
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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