Abstract
Relevance theory has been developed as a general model for explaining the cognitive mechanisms underlying human verbal communication. As all theories, Relevance has been built up on several initial hypotheses. In this paper, it will be argued that if Relevance theory intends to be a theory of linguistic performance, what is one of the most characteristic hypotheses of Relevance theory, i.e., the 'communicative hypothesis', should be weakened because of the existence of noncommunicative uses of language. Thus, the main aim of this paper is to work out the consequences that a weakened communicative hypothesis would have on the 'principle of relevance', and on pragmatic theories in general. In this paper, then, it will be maintained that the 'principle of relevance' cannot be the only principle governing human linguistic performance, at least if its formulation is not changed.
Highlights
Relevance theory has been developed as a general model for explaming the cognitive mechamsms underiying human verbal communication
Let us refer to this last hypothesis as 'the strong communicative hypothesis', which may be defined as follows: The strong communicative hypothesis When the speaker uses the language, he or she always has the intention of communicating a set of assumptions {I}
The mainaim of this paper is to show that the step from the weak to the strong communicative hypothesis is not licit, at least if the term 'communication'' is to maintain some theoretical interest
Summary
Relevance theory has been developed as a general model for explaming the cognitive mechamsms underiying human verbal communication. 1. The 'communicative hypothesis' and the 'principie of relevance' It is very usual to think of language as a tool to convey one person's ideas to other human beings. Very simple observations, it may be concluded that to communicate something is the usual goal of language use, and that communication is an important pillar of language These conclusions constitute what will be dubbed 'the weak communicative hypothesis'. The set of assumptions {1} referred to in (1) stands for the huge set of beliefs held, in this case, by the speaker.' In Sperber and Wilson's words, "by assumptions, we mean thoughts treated by the individual as representations of the actual world" (Sperber & Wilson, 1986:2) This hypothesis may be strengthened in order that , it may be claimed, all uses of language are communicative, and that communication is the only pillar of language. Let us refer to this last hypothesis as 'the strong communicative hypothesis', which may be defined as follows: The strong communicative hypothesis (ftrst versión) When the speaker uses the language, he or she always has the intention of communicating a set of assumptions {I}
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
