Perspective Of Relevance Theory Research Articles

A Tale of Two Translation Theories

This paper considers two theories of communication and the theories of translation shaped by them. First, the Code Model of communication is characterized and reasons are presented for why it is an inadequate and misleading theory of communication. Then Source-Meaning-Receptor theories of translation that were shaped by the Code Model are characterized and their inadequacies surveyed. Second, the Relevance Theory of communication is introduced. Then Gutt’s Relevance Theory-based theory of translation is sketched and its dramatic implications for translation are surveyed. Finally, broader implications of the shift from a Code Model to a Relevance Theory perspective are considered, including implications for the praxis of translation, the checking of translations, and the training of translators.

Translation as secondary communication. The relevance theory perspective of Ernst-August Gutt

Ernst-August Gutt started one of the greatest translation debates of the past ten years when he suggested that relevance theory holds the key to providing a unified account of translation. The bulk of the debate has been between practitioners of functional equivalence and advocates of a relevance theoretic approach to translation. However, opponents of the relevance theoretic approach have widely misunderstood Gutt's claims and objectives, with the result that too much discussion has focused on minor points of his account of translation. This article will attempt to clarify his objectives and claims, and to clear up some common misunderstandings about the implications of embracing a relevance theoretic approach to translation. (Acta Theologica, Supplementum 2, 2002: 107-117)

Review of Pilkington (2000): Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective

Review of Pilkington (2000): Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective

Approaching modality from the perspective of Relevance Theory

In this paper, key elements of the Relevance Theoretic approach to the relationship between semantics and pragmatics are introduced. The proposal is that a minimalist semantics is contextually enriched according to a single principle of “relevance”. This is in contrast to standard models that assume a rich semantics and a relatively parsimonious pragmatics enriched by several conversational maxims or principles. A review follows of one of the first in depth monographs on a single linguistic domain in Relevance Theoretic terms, Anna Papafragou's Modality: Issues in the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface [Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, 6 (2000)]. Papafragou argues for a unitary approach to root-epistemic distinctions, and for treating epistemic modality as a case of embedded representation (“metarepresentation”). Broad-ranging issues in diachrony and language acquisition are also addressed.

Bridging and Relevance (review)

Reviewed by: Bridging and relevance by Tomoko Matsui Carlos Inchaurralde Bridging and relevance. By Tomoko Matsui. (Pragmatics and beyond series.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000. Pp. xi, 247. Cloth $83.00. This book deals with bridging reference assignment, addressing it from the perspective of relevance theory. Bridging reference is introduced through the notion of bridging implicature which, according to the author, is ‘a contextual assumption, warranted by the explicit content of previous discourse, needed to introduce an intended referent which has not itself been explicitely mentioned’ (199). After Ch. 1, ‘Introduction’ (1–23), and Ch. 2, ‘Relevance theory’ (25–49), which give a brief introduction to the topic and summarize the central claims of relevance theory, the book goes on to discuss explanations based on the accessibility of candidate referents (Ch. 3, ‘Bridging reference assignment and accessibility of discourse entities’, 51–91); the role of contextual assumptions in the interpretation of bridging (Ch. 4, ‘Accessibility of bridging assumptions and other contextual assumptions’, 93–130); and the factors affecting its acceptability (Ch. 5, ‘Acceptability judgments for bridging reference’, 131–96). Factors governing referent accessibility according to past studies include order of mention, syntactic position, recency of mention, semantics of main verb, parallel function and choice of conjunction, manner of mention, and overall salience. Matsui claims that these factors do not explain all the data since the accessibility of candidate referents is not the only necessary condition for bridging reference assignment. Another crucial factor affecting the hearer’s choice of referent is the accessibility of contextual assumptions. Anthony Sanford and Simon Garrod’s scenario-based account, in which both bridging implicatures and contextual assumptions are accessed before the hearer encounters the bridging reference, is considered inferior to Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson’s relevance theory, in which the selection of the right referent is made as part of the overall interpretation process. Sperber and Wilson’s approach explains well how the hearer can access contextual assumptions that do not fall within an activated scenario, as happens in some of the examples discussed by M, which either require contextual assumptions not provided by the currently activated scenario or which require more than one scenario simultaneously for referent selection. These examples cannot be analyzed well according to Sanford and Garrod’s theory. As for factors affecting acceptability judgments, we are told that a hearer will find a bridging reference stylistically infelicitous either when it is obvious that there is a better way of achieving the intended effects or when it is impossible to decide what the intended effects are. These cases of infelicitous bridging reference can also be [End Page 383] explained by means of relevance theory. Unacceptability is equated here with the speaker’s failure to achieve optimal relevance. The author concludes that relevance theory seems to be the most satisfactory model for dealing with bridging reference assignment as far as the resolution of bridging and its acceptability are concerned (Ch. 6, ‘Conclusions’, 197–209). The study is supported by three questionnaire surveys which are detailed in the appendix of the book (211–29). This book reads well and succeeds in presenting the topic in a clear, orderly manner. Carlos Inchaurralde University of Zaragoza Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America

Book Reviews

Book reviews: Allen, Graham, Intertextuality (reviewed by Mari-Ann Berg); Cook, Guy, Language Play, Language Learning (reviewed by Charles Forceville); Pilkington, Adrian, Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective (reviewed by Charles Forceville); Davis, H.G., Words: An Integrational Approach (reviewed by Paul Meara)

The translation of modifying participles in scientific discourse from the perspective of relevance theory

Este articulo presenta un ejemplo de la aplicacion de la teoria de la Relevancia a la traduccion, y muestra que el modelo de comunicacion ostensivo-inferencial proporciona una respuesta a la cuestion de equivalencia en traduccI6n. Hemos usado la teoria de la relevancia para determinar si las diferentes formas ligusticas usadas en espanol para traducir los principios con funcion de modificadores que aparecen en textos cientificos ingleses son apropiadas. La diferencia en los sistemas del participio en ambas lenguas y el hecho de que los principios tienen funciones retoricas especiales en el discurso cientifico hacen que no exista una forma correspondiente disponible para traducir tos participios ingleses a espanol.