>I am trying to develop a procedure
>to determine the assumptions that a
>writer has regarding the meaning of direct
>quotes that he/she quotes in his/her writing.
This is what 'intertextuality' is all about, right? (And I wonder who coined
>Naturally, the context in which the quote is put in will hint
>towards these assumptions. For this, I feel Relevance
>Theory can be of much help. I would really appreciate it
>if anyone can give me a lead on how to proceed with this.
>I am specifically looking for any works in Relevance Theory
>that have dealt with direct quotations.
>Thanks in advance.
Well, Sperber/Wilson (Relevance, p. 227) have the example:
A: And what did the inn-keeper say?
B: Je l'ai cherche partout!
-- and how it relates to 'echoic interpretation' and 'mention'; then, there
are cases -- to restrict to conversational ones -- like
A: So, that's it, ednit?
B: Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
D. Potter, _Pennies from Heaven_ (BBC, London, Faber, ed.
-- where B (an 'underworld' character) is quoting (direct from) The Bard,
while not actually _saying_ it (i.e. that he is quoting [from] The Bard).
This raises the question as to _how_ relevant it is for the _addressee_
(never mind the utterer) to _know_ (if not merely 'believe' -- :-)) what the source
of the (direct) quotation is? (And who is _Shakespeare_ quoting, and so on ad
infinitum ... -- when a proverb becomes cliché)
To link this with S. Malmberg's post: Potter's text brings in a more complex
scenario: in being literary_ -- a TV script), it is generated, we assume,
under the assumption that the intended addressee (for "'Neither a borrowe nor a
lender be'") will _differ_ from the actual co-conversationalist in the dialogue
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 04 2004 - 20:59:14 GMT