Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:14:12.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Relevance Theory and Intercultural Communication

from Part I - Theoretical Foundation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2022

By
Jacques Moeschler
Edited by
Istvan Kecskes
Istvan Kecskes
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Summary

Relevance Theory is a cognitive pragmatic theory devoted to utterance interpretation. Its main assumption is that linguistic communication is guided by the communicative principle of relevance, which states that the addressee is invited to take the speaker’s contribution as optimally relevant. In intracultural communication, the crucial point is to understand how communication succeeds, since its success depends not on a complete linguistic decoding but rather on accessing the relevant contextual assumptions; that is, the assumptions that are closest to the speaker’s informative intention. This chapter’s first aim is to elucidate both how Relevance Theory is included in Grice’s legacy, and how it diverges from Grice. Its second aim is to discuss the place of Relevance Theory in pragmatics today, and more specifically to explore whether Relevance Theory makes different predictions than do neo-Gricean approaches. Its third aim is to give insights into Relevance Theory’s contributions to the intercultural pragmatics agenda, and in particular to discuss how Relevance Theory converges with but also diverges from the intercultural pragmatics paradigm initiated by Kecskes in 2014.

Keywords

relevance theoryspeaker-hearerutterance meaningcognitive theoriesconversational principlesintentions
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 40 - 62
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Assimakopoulos, S. (2015). Motivating procedural analysis of logical connectives. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 32, 59–70.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A., and Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21, 37–46.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances: An introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blochowiak, J. and Grisot, C. (2018). The pragmatics of descriptive and metalinguistic negation: Experimental data from French. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3 (1), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.440.Google Scholar
Bonnefon, J.-F., Feeney, A., and Villsjoubert, G. (2009). When some is actually all: Scalar inferences in face threatening contexts. Cognition, 112, 249–258.Google Scholar
Borg, E. (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borg, E. (2012). Pursuing Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breheny, R., Katsos, N., and Williams, J. (2006). Are generalized conversational implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100(3), 434–463.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1996). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 309–330.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Utterances and Thoughts: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2017). Relevance theory and metaphor. In Semino, E. and Demjén, Z., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 42–55.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2019). Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R., eds., Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–162.Google Scholar
Cave, T. and Wilson, D. (2018). Reading Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le Dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Dupuy, L., Stateva, P., Andreetta, S., Cheylus, A., Deprez, V., Van der Henst, J.-B., Jayez, J., Stepanov, A., and Reboul, A. (2018). Pragmatic abilities in bilinguals: The case of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. https://doi 10.1075/lab.17017.dup.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M., and Ahern, A. (eds.) (2011). Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grigoroglou, M. and Papafragou, A. (2019). The development of pragmatic abilities. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R., eds., Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–202.Google Scholar
Grisot, C. (2017). Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Grisot, C. and Moeschler, J. (2014). How do empirical methods interact with theoretical pragmatics? The conceptual and procedural contents of the English Simple Past and its translation into French. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms. Cham: Springer, pp. 7–33.Google Scholar
Happé, F. (1994). Autism: An Introduction of Psychological Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, R. (2019). Relevance and metaphor understanding in a second language. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R., eds., Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 218–230.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jodłowiec, M. and Piskorska, A. (2015). Metonymy revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(2), 161–187. https://doi.10.1515/ip-2015–0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–219.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2021a). Intercultural communication and our understanding of language. Langages, 222, 25–42.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2021b). Processing implicatures in English as a Lingua Franca communication. Lingua, 256, 103067. https://doi.10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103067.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Kirner-Ludwig, M. (2019). “Odd structures” in English as a lingua franca discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.007.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: A Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, D. (2015). Politeness, relevance and scalar inference. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 93–106.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason: A New Theory of Human Understanding. London: Allen Press.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2004). Intercultural pragmatics: A cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2007). The role of explicature in communication and in intercultural communication. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 73–94.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2016). Where is procedural meaning? Evidences from discourse connectives and tenses. Lingua, 175–176, 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.006.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2018). A set of semantic and pragmatic criteria for descriptive vs. metalinguistic negation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3 (1), 1–30. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.439.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2019). Non-Lexical Pragmatics: Time, Causality and Logical Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2021). Why Language? What Pragmatics Tells Us about Language and Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. and Reboul, A. (1994). Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I., Politzer, G., and Bastide, A. (2007). A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition, 14, 347–376.Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2013). The social evolution of language and the necessity of implicit communication. In Anderson, S. R., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, F., eds., The Language-Cognition Interface. Geneva: Droz, pp. 253–273.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2017). Cognition and Communication in the Evolution of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1994). Contextualism and anti-contextualism in the philosophy of language. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 156–166.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2004). Context in dynamic interpretation. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 197–220.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. ([1916] 1978). Cours de linguistique Générale: Édition critique préparée par Tullio di Mauro. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Saussure, L. de and Wharton, T. (2020). Relevance, effects and affect. International Review of Pragmatics, 12(2), 183–205.Google Scholar
Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.) (2019). Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scott-Phillips, Th. (2015). Speaking our Minds: Why Human Communication Is Different, and How Language Evolved to Make it Special. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., and Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25, 359–393.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Origgi, G. (2000). Evolution, communication, and the proper function of language. In Carruthers, P. and Chamberlain, A., eds., Evolution and the Human Mind: Language, Modularity and Social Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–169.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1977). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Rogers, A., Wall, B., and Murphy, J. P., eds., Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, pp. 135–147.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M., Weissman, B., and Roy, J. (2020). Different scalar terms are affected by face differently. International Review of Pragmatics, 12, 1–44. doi:10.1163/18773109-01201103.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2003). Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 273–291.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2016). The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. Journal of Pragmatics, 175 –176, 5–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2017). Irony, hyperbole, jokes and banter. In Blochowiak, J., Grisot, C., Durrlemann, S., and Laenzlinger, C., eds., Formal Models in the Study of Language: Applications in Interdisciplinary Contexts. Cham: Springer, pp. 201–219.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2006). Metaphor, relevance and the “emergent property” issue. Mind & Language, 21, 406–433.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N., ed., Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 230–259.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2019), Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance Theory. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 607–632.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A. (2019). Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×