semantics term paper (rose fosuaa tawiah)-1

8/12/2019 Semantics Term Paper (Rose Fosuaa Tawiah)-1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/semantics-term-paper-rose-fosuaa-tawiah-1 1/22

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH

FACULTY OF ARTS

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

ENG 828S: SEMANTICS

Question 12:

THE CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES BETWEEN

GRICE AND SPERBER AND WILSON’S THEORY OF

RELEVANCE.

!

ROSE FOSUAA TA"IAH

#AR$ENS$12$%%1&'

Term Paper !"m#$$e% $& $'e Depar$me($ &) E(*+#' &) $'e Fa,!+$- &) Ar$ /(#0er#$- &)

Cape C&a$ #( par$#a+ )!+)#++me($ &) $'e re1!#reme($ )&r aar% &) Ma$er &) Ar$ #(

E(*+#' La(*!a*e

LECTURER: DR( )OSEPH AR*O

AUGUST+ 2%1,

1



The gap between what people say and what they really mean has led to the emergence of

different theories from different perspectives of which Grice’s theory of Implicatures and

Relevance Theory by Sperber and Wilson are of no exception. Grice onversational Theory

and Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory are the most exciting and inferential theories

ever put forward in the field of pragmatics. !odern pragmatics open a new page with the

wor" of the philosopher #aul Grice whose William $ames %ecture &given at 'arvard in ()*+,

daunted the whole world with his onversational Theory. Some years later- Relevance

Theory proposed by an Sperber and eirdre Wilson emerged and showed more vitality.

This new approach to pragmatics has been proved to be more applicable- scientific and

systematic &Wesley- /001,.This paper sets out to discuss the convergences and divergences

between Grice and Sperber and Wilson’s theory of relevance. The paper is organised under

the following headings2 3 brief introduction to Grice onversational theory and Sperber and

Wilson’s Relevance Theory4 the convergences between the two theorists subdivided into

areas such as2 intentions and communicative intentions- conversational implicature- relevance

and metarepresentational capacity and divergences subdivided into the following headings2

inferential model- principles of their theories- theoretical status of their principles- role of

maxim violation- implicit and explicit side of communication and context.

Grice’s Conversational (Implicature) Theory

There are so many philosophical topics such as intention- reason- value- personal identity and

perception among others which are associated with #aul Grice- but his most influential

contribution to linguistics is his theory of implicatures &'adi- /0(/, which is my focus in this

paper. In ()1+- Grice distinguished between what he called natural and non5natural meaning.

6atural meaning is the "ind of meaning literally conveyed through conventional words while

non5natural meaning is the meaning over and above what is literally with conventional words

2



Wharton- /0074 hina #apers- /0(0,. Grice however exhibited interest with the latter and

formed the theory of 8onversational Implicature’- which is something that is implied in

conversation. That is- something which is left implicit in actual language use. #ragmatics is

interested in this phenomenon because we seem to be dealing here with a regularity that

cannot be captured in a simple syntactic or semantic 9rule:- but has to be accounted for in

other ways &!ey- /00(,. 3s ;ilmes has expressed it- 9in everyday tal"- we often convey

propositions that are not explicit in our utterances but are implied by them and sometimes- we

are able to draw such inferences only by referring to what has been said to some

conversational implicatures: &;ilmes- ()<*2/+,. In lectures and a couple of very influential

articles &Grice ()+1- ()+<,- Grice proposed an approach to the spea"ers and hearers

cooperative use of inference. 'e describes communication as adhering to what he calls the

ooperative #rinciple and argues that- the basic underlying assumption we ma"e when we

spea" to one another is that- we are trying to cooperate to construct meaningful conversations

&'adi- /0(/,. ;y postulating a ooperative #rinciple- which is a "ind of tacit agreement by

spea"ers and hearers to cooperate in communication- Grice sets out to explain the

predictability of inference information. The assumption that hearers ma"e about a spea"er’s

conduct seemed to Grice to be of several different types- giving rise to different types of

inferences- or- from the spea"er’s point of view- implicatures. In identifying these- Grice

called them 8maxims’. 'e suggested that- rational communicators are assumed to obey the

ooperative #rinciple and its maxims to achieve a successful communication. If the

communicators disobey or flout the ooperative #rinciple and its maxims- conversational

implicature will be generated &Saaed- /007,. Grice classified implicatures into conventional

implicature and conversational implicature- of which he further divided the latter into

particulari=ed and generali=ed one &hina #apers- /0(0,.

3



Relevance Theory

Relevance Theory is an inferential theory of communication- which aims to explain how the

audience infers the communicator’s intended meaning. The relevance5theoretic explanation

of these inference processes is rooted in an account of cognition &>nger- /00(,. The central

claim of Relevance Theory is that- the expectations of relevance raised by an utterance are

precise and predictable enough to guide the hearer towards the spea"er’s meaning. The aim is

to explain in cognitively realistic terms what these expectations of relevance amount to and

how they might contribute to an empirically plausible account of comprehension. Relevance

is a potential property not only of utterances and other observable phenomenon- but of

thought- memories and conclusions of inferences &Sperber ? Wilson- /00/,. Within

Relevance Theory- relevance is treated as a property of inputs to cognitive processes and

analysed in terms of the notions of cognitive effect and processing effort. When an input- for

instance- an utterance is processed in a context of available assumptions- it may yield some

cognitive effect by modifying or re5organising these assumptions &Wilson- ())),.

In relevance theoretic terms- any external stimulus or internal representation which provides

an input to cognitive processes may be relevant to an individual at some time. 3ccording to

Relevance Theory- utterances raise expectations of relevance not because spea"ers are

expected to obey a ooperative #rinciple and maxims or some other specifically

communicative convention- but because the search for relevance is a basic feature of human

cognition- which communicators may exploit. @n relevance5theoretic account- in

communication process- human has the intuition to relevance and communication is

relevance5oriented. ommunicators have tendency and intuition to relevance and can identify

between the relevant &strong, information and irrelevant &wea", information. Relevance

Theory ma"es a cognitive approach to probe communication process on the basis of the

cognitive principle of relevance- the communicative principle of relevance and ostensive5

4



inferential communication model &Sperber ? Wilson- /00/,. The next section focuses on the

convergences between Grice’s theory of Implicatures and Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance

Theory.

CONVERGENCES

Intentions and Communicative Intentions

;oth Grice and Sperber and Wilson believe that- an essential feature of most human

communication- both verbal and non5verbal- is the expression and recognition of intentions

&Grice- ()<),. Grice’s onversational Theory and Sperber and Wilson’s Theory of Relevance

are both premised on the view that- communication involves spea"ers expressing their

intentions and hearers attributing intentions to those spea"ers. They both hold the view that- if

intentions attributed by the hearers are roughly the same as those expressed by the spea"er-

then communication is considered to have been successful Grice and Sperber and Wilson’s

theories describe communication as speech acts that produce communicative intentions.

ommunicative intention to these theorists is an important phenomenon for two main

reasons. Airst of all- it helps hearers to recognise the meaning of an utterance and secondly- it

is important because of the nature of utterances- that is- their ambiguity. Grice tal"s about

reflexive communicative intention which he defines as an intention which serves for

producing effects by the recognition of the intention. 'e describes a reflexive communicative

intention in this way2 spea"er S thin"s something by utterance p only if he intends to produce

some effects on the public by means of a speech act- thus , when the public recogni=es his

intention. ;ut Grice allows that- the hearer could recogni=e semantic meaning even if she

doesnBt "now the spea"erBs communicative intention. It is enough that the public believes that

the spea"er truly believes in the sentences he utters. GriceBs basic idea is that- we are able to

present the meaning of a sentence in terms of spea"er meaning and non5semantic terms 5

5



communicative intentions &'augh- /00<,. Grice’s ingenious notion of reflexive intention was

designed to capture what is distinctive about what we intend when we communicate &;ach-

/0((,. Grice’s intentions are deconstructed by Sperber and Wilson into informative intention-

which is- the intention 9to ma"e manifest or more manifest to the audience a set of

assumptions: and communicative intention- namely the intention 9to ma"e it mutually

manifest to the audience that- the communicator has this informative intention: &Sperber and

Wilson- ())12 1<5*(,. In other words- informative intention is the intention to present a

manifest group of presuppositions which serve to present the meaning of an utterance- and

communicative intention is a higher class of intention by which the informative intention is

shown or manifested to the hearer and to the listener. Relevance Theory by Sperber and

Wilson is often framed as building upon Grice’s intention5centred view of meaning. In

framing the informative intention as an intention to modify the cognitive environment of the

addressee rather than his or her thought per se and by distinguishing it from the

communicative intention- they arguably allow for more nuanced view of intention &'augh-

/00<,.

Conversational Implicature

;oth Grice and Sperber ? Wilson deal with a very important- independently motivated

concept2 that of implication- and its pragmatic variant- implicature. #aul Grice launched the

word 9implicature: for use within his theory of spea"er meaning- in order to account for

aspects of spea"er meaning not contributing to the truth conditions of the sentence uttered by

the spea"er. 3ccording to Grice- spea"ers create implicatures in two main ways. The first is

by direct appeal to the maxims and the second method is by blatantly violating or flouting a

maxim. Surprisingly enough- he never explicitly defines 9implicature:4 but provides

examples of it. 'e however tal"s about one "ind of implicature4 the one he is most interested

6



in2 conversational implicature &Sbisa- /007, which he further subdivides into particulari=ed

and generali=ed one &hina #apers- /0(0,. onversational implicature which is something

implied in conversation and left implicit in actual language use featured prominently in both

Grice’s onversational Theory and Sperber and Wilson’s Theory of Relevance. 3ccording to

Grice- there are two types of implicatures2 8conversational implicature’- and 8conventional

implicature’. Grice’s account of conversational implicature aimed to explain how we say one

thing and manage to communicate something else. Generally- conversational implicature

concerns the way we understand an utterance in a conversation in accordance with what we

expect to hear. Thus- if we as" a Cuestion- a response which on the face of it doesn’t ma"e

8sense’ can very well be an adeCuate answer. To "now what people mean- one has to interpret

what they say through guesswor". 3s %eech remar"s- 9interpreting an utterance is ultimately

a guess wor" or hypothesis formation: &()<72705(,. onventional implicatures are the

implicatures that do not depend on a particular context of language use. ertain expressions

in language implicate by themselves- or 8conventionally’- a certain state of the world-

regardless of their use. Such implications cannot be attributed to our use of language in

conversation. Aor instance- the word 8last’ always by conventional implicature means 8the

ultimate item in a seCuence’ as in 8the last page of a boo" or manuscript4 in contrast- in

conversation- it might imply2 8that which came before the time of spea"ing’- as when a

spea"er refers to 8last winter’ &!ey- /00(,. Similarly- on the relevance5theoretic view-

implicatures come in two sorts2 implicated premises and implicated conclusions &arston-

/00D,. Implicated premises are a subset of their contextual assumptions used in processing

the utterance and implicated conclusions are a subset of its contextual implications. What

distinguishes these subsets from other contextual assumptions and implications is that- they

are communicated &spea"er meant,- hence part of the intended interpretation of the utterance.

;elow is an example from Sperber and Wilson &()<*,.

7



E2 oes $ohn li"e catsF

2 'e doesn’t li"e any animals.

a. 3TS 3RH 36I!3%S

b. $@'6 @HS6’T %IH 3TS

c. @GS 3RH 36I!3%S

d. $@'6 @HS6’T %IH @GS

3ccording to the relevance5theoretic account- all of &a, 5 &d, are implicatures of ’s utterance-

with &a, and &c, as implicated premises and &b, and &d, as implicated conclusions. These

communicated assumptions described here as implicated premises and implicated

conclusions Cualify as particularised implicatures for Grice &arston- /00D,. Aor Grice- it is

conversational implicature in particular which is rational. !oreover- conversational

implicature is 9calculable:- and since calculations are Cuite obviously a rational matter- his

9rational: approach to conversational implicature influenced his followers and critics to such

an extent that- it is rational spea"ers and hearers that according to Relevance Theory- conform

to the Relevance #rinciple to yield inferential interpretations of explicit and implicit utterance

meaning including implicatures &Sbisa- /007,.

Relevance

3nother point of convergence between the two theories is that- Relevance Theory rests

sCuarely on Gricean foundations. @ne of Grice’s maxims is the maxim of relevance which

behoves on the spea"er to ma"e his contributions or responses relevant to the topic of

discussion. Relevance as one of the maxims is concerned with cases of conveying

8



"IVERGENCES

In#erential !odel

@ne main point of divergence between the two theorists concerns the inferential model. Grice

embraced inferential model to such an extent that- he totally discarded code model. 'is

central claim is that- an essential feature of most human communication- both verbal and non5

verbal- is the expression and recognition of intentions &Grice ()<),. Therefore- in developing

this claim- Grice laid the foundations for an inferential model of communication as an

alternative to the classical code model- because according to him- the recognition of the

communicator’s intentions lies largely upon inference. @n the other hand- for Sperber and

Wilson- inferential and code model can be reconciled. In other words- they do not completely

reLect the idea that communication reCuires a code model- but they reassess its scope by the

addition of an inferential component. The code model to them- only accounts for the first

phase of linguistic treatment that provides the hearer with the initial input that is enriched

through inferential processes in order to obtain the spea"er’s meaning. They therefore see

code model as an indispensable part during verbal communication and without adeCuate

analysis of this code4 inference becomes impossible &Mufferey- /0(0,. Secondly- another

point of divergence with regard to the inferential model is seen in terms of their definition of

inference. Grice ta"es inferences as forms of conscious discursive reasoning processes on the

part of the hearer. Sperber and Wilson on the other hand- believe that- inferences in general

are instantaneous- unconscious automatic processes and therefore see this definition of Grice

to be Cuite problematic on the basis that- such conscious forms of reasoning may seem Cuite

complex for adults and more especially for young children who will not be able to master it

when they start to use language for communication &Wesley- /001,. Thirdly- their basis of

11



inferential model is different. Aor Sperber and Wilson- it is people’s cognitive nature that

guides them and engrossed them in the inferential process. Relevance Theory therefore

claims that- humans have an automatic tendency to maximi=e relevance not because they

have a choice in the matter or the wor" they rarely do- but because of the way their cognitive

system has evolved. ue to the constant selection pressure toward increasing efficiency- the

human cognitive system has developed in such a way that- their perceptual mechanisms tend

automatically to pic" out potentially relevant stimuli. 3lso- the memory retrieval mechanisms

tend automatically to activate potentially relevant assumptions and finally- their inferential

mechanisms tend spontaneously to process them in the most productive way. In other words-

while we are all li"ely to notice the sound of glass brea"ing in our vicinity- we are li"ely to

attend to it more and process it deeply when our memory and inference mechanisms identify

it as the sound of our glass brea"ing- and compute the conseCuences that are li"ely to be most

worthwhile for us. 6evertheless- for Grice- it is the ooperative #rinciple and the tendency to

obey the maxims which drive people in such processes &Wesley- /001,.

Cooperative $rinciples and t%o $rinciples o# Relevance Theory

3gain- another point of divergence between Grice’s theory of implicature and Sperber and

Wilson’s theory of relevance is in relation to the principles of the two models. Grice claims

that- utterances automatically create expectations which guide the hearer towards the

spea"er’s meaning. Grice described these expectations in terms of a ooperative principle

and the maxims of Nuality &truthfulness,- Nuantity &Informativeness,- Relation &relevance,

and manner &clarity, which spea"ers are to observe. To Grice- the ooperative #rinciple and

its subordinate maxims are the fundamental principles of verbal communication. If the

communicators do not obey- thus violate or flout these principles- conversational implicature

12



comes into being. Sperber and Wilson on the contrary- maintain that- there are no rules or

maxims in the communication process- and that the expectations of relevance raised by

utterances are precise enough to guide the hearer toward the spea"er’s meaning. They hold

the belief that- the cognitive principle of relevance and the communicative principle of

relevance are "ey to illustrating the cognitive process of communication- and that the two

principles of relevance are not maxims or rules that spea"ers can obey or violate but a simple

description of what happens in communication &hina #apers- /0(0,.

The Theoretical Status o# the t%o main $rinciples o# Relevance Theory and the #our

!a&ims

Grice is mainly concerned with the distinction between saying and meaning . That is to say-

how spea"ers are able to generate implicit meanings and assume that- their addressees will

reliably understand their intended meaning. 'is main aim therefore- is to discover the

mechanism behind this process and to do so4 he posits the ooperative #rinciple and its

attendant four maxims as a way of explaining this implication process. The ooperative

#rinciple states that2 9ma"e your contribution such as reCuired- at the stage at which it occurs-

by the accepted purpose or direction of the tal" exchange in which you are engaged: &Grice

()+12D1,. The maxim of 8Nuantity’ posits that2 ma"e your contribution as informative as is

reCuired and do not ma"e your contribution more informative than is reCuired. The maxim of

8Nuality’ states that2 do not say what you believe to be false and do not say that for which

you lac" adeCuate evidence. The third maxim is that of 8Relation’ which calls for the spea"er

to be relevant and finally the maxim of 8!anner’ which behoves on the spea"er to avoid

obscurity of expression- ambiguity- unnecessary prolixity and be brief and orderly &Grice

()+12D15D*,. The theory of Relevance &Sperber and Wilson- /00/, on the other hand- has two

13



main principles of relevance. The first &cognitive principle of relevance, is that- human

cognition tends to be geared toward the maximisation of relevance. This means that- when

listeners process a stimulus- they will converge upon the interpretation that grants the

stimulus the maximum degree of relevance. The second &the communicative principle of

relevance, is that- the very production of an utterance carries a presumption of its own

optimal relevance. This means that- the utterance is the most relevant one compatible with the

spea"er’s abilities and preferences &;ianca !uller- /0(0,. The theoretical status of these

principles of relevance within Relevance Theory is Cuite different to the theoretical status of

the four maxims stated above. Whereas the ooperative #rinciple and the four maxims are

behaviours that spea"ers are simply thought to aim for- the principles of relevance are argued

on the basis of a number of simple observations to be fundamental facets of human

communication and cognition &Scott5#hillips- /00),. Secondly- unli"e the ooperative

#rinciple- the principles of relevance are inviolable. The four maxims of conversation are

9only operable on the bac" of considerable amount of priori context5dependent inference:

&Wedgwood- /0012 D),. The principles of relevance in contrast attempt to explain how that

context5dependent inference can occur in the first place. It is in this vein- that- Relevance

Theory can be seen as radical change to- rather than a refinement of the Gricean paradigm

&Scott5#hillips- /00),.

Irony

In Grice’s framewor"- the treatment of irony parallels the treatments of metaphor and

hyperbole. Aor Grice- irony is an overt violation of the maxim of truthfulness and differs from

metaphor and hyperbole only in the "ind of implicature it conveys. Grice’s analysis of irony

as an overt violation of the maxim of truthfulness is a variant of the classical rhetorical view

14



of irony as literally saying one thing and figuratively meaning the opposite. To Grice-

metaphor implicates a simile based on what was said- hyperbole implicates a wea"ening of

what was said and irony implicates the opposite of what was said. Relevance Theory reLects

both the Gricean analysis of irony and the general assumption that- metaphor- hyperbole and

irony should be given parallel treatments. Aor Relevance Theory- while it is easy to see how a

spea"er aiming at optimal relevance might convey her meaning more economically by

spea"ing loosely rather than using a cumbersome literal paraphrase- it is hard to see how a

rational spea"er could hope to convey her meaning more economically by choosing a word

whose encoded meaning is the opposite of the one she intends to convey. 3ccording to the

explanation put forward by Relevance Theory- verbal irony involves no special machinery or

procedures not already needed to account for a basic use of language- interpretive use-

specific form of interpretive use and echoic use. To them- an utterance may be interpretively

used to represent another utterance or thought that it resembles in content &Wesley /001,.

Role o# !a&im Violation

3 further divergence between the two framewor" is over the role of maxim violation. Grice

saw the four maxims as rules that spea"ers can obey or disobey &violates,. 'e therefore listed

a number of ways in which a spea"er could violate the maxims such as2 she could opt out-

explicitly or implicitly- thus suspending a maxim. She could also covertly violate a maxim

with intent to deceive and finally- she could overtly violate a maxim- thus creating an

implicature. The assumption that- overt violation can create an implicature plays a crucial

role in Grice’s framewor"- specifically- in his account of metaphor and irony. Relevance

theory on the other hand- reLects this assumption on the basis that- the principle of relevance

is not a maxim or rule to be obeyed or disobeyed by spea"ers but rather an exceptionless

15



generalisation about what happens when someone is addressed. In such a framewor"- there is

therefore no need to claim that- the principle of relevance can overtly be violated to create an

implicature. 3ccording to Relevance Theory- utterances raise expectations of relevance not

because spea"ers are expected to obey a ooperative #rinciple and maxims or some other

specifically communicative convention- but because the search for relevance is a basic

feature of human cognition- which communicators may exploit &Wesley- /001,.

Implicit and E&plicit side o# Communication

3gain- another difference between Grice’s conversational theory and Sperber and Wilson’s

theory of relevance is that- whereas Grice was mainly concerned with the implicit side of

communication4 Sperber and Wilson were concerned with the explicit side. Grice tal"ed of

his ooperative #rinciple and maxims mainly in connection with the recovery of

implicatures- and he seems to have thought of them as playing no significant role on the

explicit side. 'is few remar"s on disambiguation and reference assignment- which he saw as

falling on the explicit rather than the implicit side- suggest that- he thought of them as

determined by sentence meaning and contextual factors alone- without reference to pragmatic

principles or spea"ers’ intentions &Wesley- /001,. @n relevance5theoretic account- the

spea"erBs meaning consists of explicit content &explicature,- context and implicit content

&implicature,. Aor communicators- the first step identifying the explicature is a combination

of decoding and inference- while the second step- inferring the implicature is a matter of

identifying implicit premises and implicit conclusions &hina #apers- /0(0,. Sperber and

Wilson tal"ed of explicitly communicated content &explicatures, to mean 9a communicated

proposition recovered by a combination of decoding and inference- which provides a premise

for the derivation of contextual implications and other cognitive effects: &Sperber ? Wilson-

()<*a,. These two different sides &explicit and implicit sides, have resulted in recent

16



pragmatic literature treating the 9primary: processes involved in the recovery of explicit

content as significantly different from the secondary processes involved in the recovery of

implicatures &Sperber ? Wilson- /00/,.

Conte&t

The notion of context is essential to the pragmatic study of language. Aor Grice’s inferential

model- context involves in the inference process as a presupposition. @nly if the context and

the ooperative #rinciples are decided- the audience can Ludge whether the communication

obeys or flouts one of the four maxims and then infer its linguistic meaning and conversation

implicature according to how he or she treats the maxim. 'owever- for Relevance Theory-

context is a psychological construct which represents an individual’s assumption about the

world at any given time and place- and is supposed to include three types of information

namely logical- encyclopaedic and lexical information. %ogical information are logical

inference rules valid in the context that allow us to reason- and according to Sperber and

Wilson- such rules are deductive. Hncyclopaedic information are information about obLects-

properties and events that are instantiated in the context. Ainally- lexical information are

lexical rules that allow us to interpret the natural language utterances and sentences. Within

Relevance Theory- context is decided by the audience and is invariable. Aor the audience to

interpret the meaning of the utterances- they have to form the contextual assumptions and

apply them as the presupposition for inference. The Ludge of the correctness of the context is

determined by relevance &Wesley- /001,.

!odel o# Communication

Ainally- another point of divergence between Grice’s conversational theory and Sperber and

Wilson’s theory of relevance is that- the former’s model of communication was the

17



reCuirement that- in order to be conveyed- the spea"er’s informative intention as well as all

contextual assumptions needed to identify it had to be mutually "nown- which created an

infinite regression of metarepresentations. @n the other hand- in Sperber and Wilson’s model-

the spea"er’s meaning does not have to be mutually "nown but only mutually manifest to be

conveyed. They therefore remar" that- 9the reali=ation that a trustworthy communicator

intends to ma"e you believe something is an excellent reason for believing it: &Sperber ?

Wilson- ()<*2(*7,. This mutually manifest assumption is at the core of their thin"ing &!ey-

/00(,. To Sperber and Wilson- though Grice’s hypothesis may seem theoretically sound- it

creates a practical problem since the infinite series of metarepresentation presented above

cannot be represented by the human mind. The divergence between these two accounts comes

from the fact that- an assumption cannot be "nown without being explicitly represented in the

spea"er’s mind. 3lso- for an assumption to be manifest to a spea"er at a given time- it must

only be informed- so from the cognitive point of view- Sperber and Wilson’s model is much

more plausible because it does not involve a regression of metarepresentations that cannot be

dealt with by the human mind &Mufferey- /0(0,.

Conclusion

;ased on the above discussions- it is clear that- Grice conversational theory converge with

Sperber and Wilson’s theory of relevance in terms of intention and communicative intentions-

implicature- relevance and metarepresentational capacity. Though the two theorists share

these assumptions- they developed their framewor" in different ways bringing about

divergences in areas such as inferential model- principles of their theories- theoretical status

of their principles- irony- role of maxim violation- implicit and explicit side of

communication and context. Regardless of these convergences and divergences between

18



Grice conversational theory and Sperber and Wilson’s theory of relevance- the two theorists

have contributed to the field of pragmatics in diverse ways. The Gricean approach to

communication amended and refined in the light of subseCuent developments has dominated

the field of linguistic pragmatics since its inception. Grice’s accounts of spea"er meaning and

conversational implicature have had lasting strategic impact on philosophy and linguistic

pragmatics. espite the disagreement and controversies associated with his theory-

specifically- ooperative #rinciple- it is widely ac"nowledged that- the Gricean approach

lessens the burden on Semantics by see"ing to diverse meaning phenomenon with the help of

general principles of rational language use rather than needlessly complex word meanings.

3lso- Grice’s model has been applied to problems not only in philosophy of language but also

in epistemology and meta5ethics. 3gain- it has been employed in linguistics and computer

science to address such important topics as lexicon- anaphora- speech planning and discourse

analysis. 'is legacy is encapsulated in widely used phrases such as 9Gricean intention-

Gricean maxims- Gricean pragmatics and Gricean reasoning and Gricean approach among

others &;ach- /0((,. Relevance theory also offers a radical alternative that if widely accepted

could be seen as a paradigm change in the field. ;y unifying the Gricean ooperative

#rinciple and conversational maxims into a single principle of relevance- Relevance Theory

brings plasticity and flexibility into the explanation of cognitive and inferential processes.

Replacing the Gricean concepts of mutual cooperation and mutual "nowledge by those of

mutual manifestness and cognitive environment respectively- and postulating the existence of

variable emerging contexts regulated by given relevance in the place of variable degrees of

relevance- Relevance Theory framewor" brings us a plausible account of the notion of

context as it ta"es into account individual differences among interlocutors thereby explaining

communication as subLect to different degrees of success instead of being simply a matter of

processing pieces of suitable information &3lves- /007,.

19



RE'ERENCES

3lves- A. &/007,. Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research.

3msterdam. The 6etherlands2 $ohn ;enLamins #ublishing ompany.

;ach- . &/001,. 8ontext ex machina’. In M. S=abo &ed.,- Semantics versus Pragmatics.

@xford2 @xford >niversity #ress- pp.(15DD.

;ach- . &/0((,. 8Grice’. In ;. %ee &ed.,- Philosophy of Language: The Key Thinkers.

%ondon2 ontinuum- (+)5()<.

;ianca- !. &/0(0,. ilson ! Sper"er#s Relevance Theory. !unich2 GRI6 Oerlag.

;ilmes- $. &()<*,. $iscourse and %ehaviour . 6ew or"- %ondon2 #lenum.

arston- R. &/00D,. 8Relevance Theory and SayingP Implicating istinction’. In2 Philosophy

of Language- >niversity ollege. %ondon.

hina #apers &/0(0,. 83 omparative Study of Grice’s Theory of Implicatures and

Relevance Theory. In &cademic 'ournal ()P . >S32 IISTH.

Grice- '. #. &()1+,- 8!eaning’- Philosophical Revie* **- 7++57<<.

Grice- '.#. &()*+,. 8 Logic and conversation# . William $ames %ectures. Reprinted in

'.#.Grice &()<),- Studies in the *ay of *ords. ambridge- !32 'arvard >niversity

#ress- pp. /(75//7.

Grice- '. #. &()+1,- 8%ogic and conversation’ In ole- #. ? !organ- $. &eds., Synta+ and

Semantics- vol. 7. Speech &cts. 6ew or"2 3cademic #ress. pp. D(51<.

Grice- '. #. &()+<,. 8Aurther notes on logic and conversation’. In ole # &ed.,- Synta+ and

Semantics- vol.)2 Pragmatics. 6ew or"2 3cademic #ress. pp. ((75/<.

20



Grice- '. #. &()<),. Studies in the ay of ords. The William $ames %ectures. ambridge2

'arvard >niversity #ress.

'adi- 3. &/0(/,. 83 ritical 3pproach of Grice’s ooperative #rinciple’. In2 Open 'ournal of

odern Linguistics- vol. 7- 6o.(- **5+/.

'augh- !. &/00<,. 8Intentions in #ragmatics’. -ntercultural Pragmatics 1&/,- ))5((0.

%eech- G. 6. &()<7,. Principles of Pragmatics. %ondon2 %ongman.

!ey- $. %. &/00(,. Pragmatics2 3n Introduction &/nd edition,. >S32 ;lac"well #ublishing

%imited.

Saeed- $. I. &/007,. Semantics &/nd edition,. @xford2 ;lac"well #ublishing %td.

Sbisa- !. &/007,. 8Two onceptions of Rationality in Grice’s Theory of Implicature’. -n

ind and Language Seven Symposia- vol. ((- pp. /775/D0.

Scott5 #hillips- T. . &/00),. 8The Hvolution of Relevance’. (ognitive Science 7D- pp. 1<75

*0(.

Sperber- ? Wilson- . &/00/,. 8Relevance Theory’. In G. Ward and %. 'orn &eds.,.

/and"ook of Pragmatics. @xford2 ;lac"well.

Sperber- . ? Wilson- . &()<*a, Relevance: (ommunication and (ognition. @xford2

;lac"well.

Sperber- . ? Wilson- . &())1, Relevance, (ommunication and (ognition &/nd edition, ,

oxford2 ;lac"well.

>nger- . &/00(,. 8On the (ognitive role of genre: & relevancetheoretic perspective# . #'

thesis- >niversity of %ondon- pp. ()5/).

21



Wedgwood- . &/001,. Shifting the )ocus: )rom static structures to the dynamic of

interpretation. @xford- Hngland2 Hlsevier.

Wesley &/001,. & Tentative (omparison "et*een 0rice#s (onversational Theory and

Relevance Theory. Retrieved from2

www.cpra.com.cnP'tmlP3rticleP////00107/0(0/*D).html.

Wharton- T &/007,. 86atural #ragmatics and 6atural odes’. ind ! Language (<&1,- pp.

DD+5D++,.

Wilson- . &())),. 8Relevance and Relevance Theory’. In R. Wilson ? A. eil &eds., ())).

-T 1ncyclopedia of the (ognitive Sciences. ambridge2 !IT #ress- !32 +()5//.

Mufferey- S. &/0(0,. Le+ical Pragmatics and Theory of ind: The &c2uisition of

(onnectiveness. 3msterdam. The 6etherlands2 $ohn ;enLamins #ublishing ompany.

22

semantics term paper (rose fosuaa tawiah)-1

Documents