Introduction relevance theory and literary style, anielski, przetwarzanie, pragmatyka, relewancja
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Language and Literature
Introduction: relevance theory and literary style
Adrian Pilkington
Language and Literature
1996 5: 157
DOI: 10.1177/096394709600500301
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for
Language and Literature
can be found at:
Email Alerts:
Subscriptions:
Reprints:
Permissions:
Citations:
>>
- Jan 1, 1996
Downloaded from
by guest on July 5, 2012
ARTICLE
Introduction:
relevance
theory
and
literary
styl1
Adrian
Pilkington, Royal Holloway University
of
London,
UK
Relevance
theory
is
a
theory
of verbal communication
grounded
in
a
theory
of
cognition
and,
as
such,
has
influenced
and
contributed
to
research in
a
number of
related
disciplines,
most
notably
linguistics, psychology
and
philosophy. 2
It also
offers
a
new
theoretical
perspective
on
the
study
of rhetoric and
style,
a
perspective
that should
encourage
new
lines of research for those
working
at
the
’interface*
of
language
studies and
literary
criticism.
In this introduction I wish
to
suggest
some
ways
in which relevance
theory
may
contribute
to
a
better
understanding
of
literary style,
and,
more
particularly,
to
the
understanding
of
poetic
effects. Before I do that I will make
a
few
general
remarks about relevance
theory
as a
pragmatic theory.
It should be
recognised
that the
account
I
offer
here is
very
simplified
and
incomplete.
Clark,
in this
issue,
provides
his
own
brief
summary
and
more
comprehensive
accounts
of the
theory
are
given
by
works cited in the
reference.
3
Relevance
theory rejects
both code models of verbal communication and
purely
inferential
accounts.
Utterance
interpretation,
it is
claimed,
involves
two
distinct
phases.
A
context-independent decoding phase yields
semantic
representations
which
provide
a
schematic but
radically incomplete
representation
of the
thoughts
that
are
communicated.
An inferential
phase
brings
non-linguistic
contextual information
to
bear
upon
the
output
of
decoding
to
arrive
at
the
fully-fledged thoughts
that
are
communicated.
This inferential
phase
involves
fleshing
out
the semantic
representation
by
resolving ambiguities,
assigning
reference
and
enriching
the
content
of
concepts
that contribute
to
the
proposition expressed.
It
also determines the addresser’s attitude
to
the
proposition
expressed
and leads
to
the derivation of
implicatures.
In this view
thoughts
are
considerably
richer in
meaning
than the
meanings
of the
linguistic
expressions
that
are
used
to
communicate them.
A
pragmatic theory
has
to
explain
how
context,
in the form of
particular
concepts
and contextual
assumptions,
is accessed
or
constructed,
before it
can
play a
role in
inferencing.
It should be noted that for relevance
theory
context
construction is
a
dynamic
part
of
utterance
interpretation:
context
is
not
static
and
pre-given,
as
it is in earlier
code model
accounts.
The
concepts
that
contribute
to
the
thoughts
communicated
are
also
addresses
at
which
lexical,
logical
and
encyclopaedic
information
are
stored. The
encyclopaedic
entry
attached
to
a
conceptual
address contains
assumptions carrying
information
about the extension of the
concept
and
culturally
shared information
relating
to
the
concept.
These
assumptions
become available for
use as
contextual
assumptions
in the
inferencing
stage
of
utterance
interpretation,
together
with
assumptions
constructed
on
the
basis
of
perceptual information
derived from the
physical
environment. In the
case
of
literary
communication
they, together
with
Downloaded from
by guest on July 5, 2012
158
assumptions
derived
from
earlier
parts
of
the text,
are
the exclusive
source
of
contextual
assumptions.
Utterance
interpretation
is
guided
by
the search for
an
interpretation
that is
consistent
with the
principle
of
relevance.
According
to
the
principle
of
relevance
every
utterance
carries the
presumption
that its
interpretation
will
provide
a
satisfactory
range
of contextual effects for
no
unjustifiable processing
effort.4
Contextual effects
are
achieved when
new
information interacts with
a
context
of
existing
assumptions
in
one
of three
ways:
by causing
a
relatively
weakly
held
existing
assumption
to
be
strengthened,
by
contradicting
and
eliminating
an
existing
assumption,
or
by combining
with
an
existing assumption
to
yield
a
contextual
implication.
In the latter
case
the contextual
assumption
is
a
logical
implication
that is derivable neither from the
new
information
alone,
nor
from
the
context
alone,
but from the
new
information and
the
context
combined.
New
information
is relevant when it achieves contextual effects in that
context;
its relevance
is
relatively
greater,
the
greater
the contextual effects. The other
factor
affecting
relevance is the
processing
effort
required
to
decode
an
utterance,
to
access
context
and
to
compute
contextual
effects
in that
context.
In
this
case
the smaller the
processing
effort involved in
interpretation
the
greater
the relevance.
According
to
this
view
one
of the main factors
guiding interpretation
is
the
relative
accessibility
of
assumptions:
the
more
accessible
they
are
the easier
they
are
to
process.
The addresser in
fashioning
his
or
her
utterance
takes
into
account
what he
or
she considers
to
be the
concepts
and
assumptions
that
are
most
accessible
to
the addressee. The addressee follows
a
route
of least effort in
using
the
most
accessible
concepts
and
assumptions
until
a
range
of contextual
effects that the addresser could
rationally
have intended is derived. Context is
extended until such effects
are
achieved.
These effects then constitute the
interpretation.
An addresser
might
achieve
particular stylistic
effects
by creating special
kinds of
processing
difficulties
for
the addressee. He
or
she
might,
for
example,
encourage
the
construction
of
a
certain
context,
which,
once
constructed,
has
to
be
rejected
and
replaced
with another. Such is the
case
with
jokes,
or
with
humorous
utterances
more
generally.
(See
Jodlowiec
1991 and
Curc6
1995 for
more
detailed
accounts.)
The
pragmatic garden-pathing
involved here is linked
to
a
special
kind of
physiological
response,
culminating
perhaps
in
laughter,
and
to
a
special
kind of
qualitative
response
or
experience -
what it feels like for
something
to
be
funny.
An addresser
may
cause
the addressee
to
engage
in
a more
extensive search
through
context
than is
normally
the
case.
Metaphorical
utterances
typically
communicate
a
range
of
assumptions
simultaneously.~ This
set
of
assumptions
constitutes
a
complex thought
that the addresser wishes
to
communicate.
The
contextual
assumptions
used
to
interpret
a
standard
or
conventional
metaphor
are
relatively easily
accessible.
Because the addressee
is
fairly
confident that the
Downloaded from
by guest on July 5, 2012
159
implicatures
these
give
rise
to
are
intended
by
the addresser
they
are
said
to
be
strongly
communicated. Even
so,
it is
usually
not
possible
to
find
adequate
paraphrases
for
such
metaphors
in
terms
of
a
list
of
what
might
be taken
as
implicatures.
The
metaphor
seems
to
lose
some
of
its
expressive
power
in the
paraphrase.
This
suggests
that
a
further
range
of
implicatures
are
more
weakly
communicated.
Where the addressee is
reasonably
certain that the addresser
wishes
to
communicate
a
certain
implicature,
then it is said
to
be
a
strong
implicolllre.
Where
the addressee is
given
some
encouragement
to
explore
context
further,
but is less certain
as
to
whether the addresser wishes
to
communicate
the
resulting implicatures,
then these
are
said
to
be wean
iniplicatitres.
The notion of weak
implicature,
developed
within
relevance
theory,
is
crucially important
for
explaining poetic
effects. Poetic
metaphors,
for
example,
are
characterised in
terms
of the communication of
a
wide
array
of
weak
implicatures.
This notion of weak
implicature helps
to
explain
the
indeterminacy
of
poetic
effects
(the
problem
of
saying exactly
what
range
of
implicatures
are
communicated).
It also
helps
to
explain why
poetic metaphors
and other
sources
of
poetic
effects
are
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
translate.
As
in
the
case
for
humour,
in
the communication
of
poetic
effects
a
special
kind of
pragmatic
processing
is
encouraged,
in
this
case
involving
a
wide-ranging
search
through
the
encyclopaedic
entries of certain
concepts
for
assumptions
that
might
be used
in
the
interpretation
process.
This kind
of
pragmatic
processing might
similarly
be linked
to
a
special
kind of
physiological
response,
and
to
a
special
kind
of
qualitative
response
or
experience -
an
aesthetic
response
or
experience.
It
should
be noted that
stylistic
effects,
as
described
here,
refer
to
assumptions
communicated
(in
various combinations and
with
varying
degrees
of
strength).
In
terms
used
by
Leech
and
Short
(1981,
Chapter
1),
stylistic
choices
are,
in this
view,
choices of
matter
or
content
rather than choices of
manner or
expression.
The
assumptions
communicated also affect the reader in
specific
ways.
A certain
kind
of
pragmatic processing
is
encouraged,
leading
to
a
certain
kind
of
qualitative
response.
This is because the addresser has
a
certain
kind of
complex
thought,
linked
to
certain
qualitative properties,
that he
or
she wishes
to
communicate.
It
should
also be noted that
no
special literary reading strategies,
conventions
or
maxims
are
needed
to
explain
how
poetic
effects
are
communicated,
or
how
literary
communication works
more
generally.
There
is
the
same
on-line
search
for
intepretations
consistent
with
the
principle
of
relevance.
What
distinguishes
poetic
effects
is that
extra
processing
effort is
required
because
of
the
lack of
readily
accessible contextual
assumptions
that
might
lead
to
a
range
of
satisfactory
contextual
effects. A
more
extensive
search
through
context
is
encouraged.
Where addressees find such
context
rich
enough,
the
extra
processing
effort is
compensated
for
by
a
wider
range
of contextual effects than
would
normally
be the
case.
Addressees
may
find
contexts
rich in different
ways,
of
course,
or
they
may
not
find them rich
at
all.
Downloaded from
by guest on July 5, 2012
160
Poets
(and
novelists and
playwrights)
may
spend
a
considerable
amount
of
time
making
sure
that the
right
words
are
placed
in the
right
order.
They
take
this trouble because the
thoughts
that
they
wish
to
communicate
are
extremely
rich and subtle.
Only by adopting
a
theoretical
approach
of the kind that
relevance
theory
offers,
concentrating
on
thoughts
as
complex
sets
of
assumptions
of
varying degrees
of
strength
and
weakness,
interacting
dynamically
on-line with other
sets
of
assumptions,
can
justice
be done
to
the
complexity
of the
thoughts
that
may
be communicated. As I have
argued
elsewhere
(Pilkington
1992)
the notion of literariness
might
more
satisfactorily
be defined in
terms
of mental
representations
and mental
processes,
of the
specific
kind described
here,
than in
terms
of the
linguistic properties
of
texts.
Linguistic foregrounding
does
not
necessarily,
of
itself,
lead
to
poetic
effects.
This
special
issue of
Language
and Literature is devoted
to
articles
which
explore
the
implications
of relevance
theory
for the
study
of rhetoric and
literary
style.
In the
case
of rhetoric relevance
theory
has
reanalysed
tropes
and offered
new
accounts
of how
they
are
interpreted
in
the
light
of
the
more
general theory
of communication and in
a
way
that is consistent with
current
psycholinguistic
research. This
reanalysis rejects
the Gricean view that
tropes
deviate from
a
literal
norm.6
Relevance
theory
uses a
number of
new
concepts
to
explain
them,
most
importantly
the notions of
irrterpretative
use
and,
in the
case
of
irony,
echoic
rrse.
These
concepts
are
explained
and illustrated in the articles that follow.
Papafragou
and Vicente tackle theoretical issues
relating
to
metonymy
and
metaphor respectively. They
are
both concerned with
a
cognitive
explanation
of
how these
tropes
are
interpreted. Papafragou
shows that there is
a
stylistic
continuum from conventional
through
to
creative
uses
of
metonymy.
She
develops
an
account
of creative
uses
of
metonymy
using
the
notion of
interpretive
use.
She also discusses the
process
of semanticisation that
metonymy
may
undergo.
In
particular
this article raises
interesting
theoretical issues for the
field of lexical semantics and for the notion of
interpretative
use
within
relevance
theory.
One incidental feature of
Papafragou’s
article,
which I would like
to
draw
attention
to
here,
is her criticism of Lakoff and Johnson’s
(1980)
account
of
metonymy.
Lakoff and associates
are
mainly
famous for their
account
of
metaphor.
Lakoff and Turner
(1989),
in
particular,
is
a
key
text
that has been
extremely
influential for research into
poetic
metaphor.
Given
the
influence of
Lakoff’s
work,
it is
important
to
point
out
the differences between the
two
approaches,
as
Papafragou
does
(indicating problems
that the Lakoff
account
has
in
explaining
some
of the
data),
and
to
develop
a
debate between the
two
accounts.
One of the main differences would
appear
to
be that Lakoff and
associates
are
concerned with structural
questions
about how
conceptual
domains
map
onto
each other rather than with the
process
of
interpretation.
Vicente’s article
contrasts
a
relevance-theoretic
account
of
metaphor
with
semantic
and
Gricean
accounts.
The
main interest of this article is the
consideration it
gives
to
alternative
accounts
of
metaphor
that
may
be consistent
Downloaded from
by guest on July 5, 2012
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]