RT and conversational implicature

From: J L Speranza (jls@netverk.com.ar)
Date: Tue Sep 04 2001 - 18:44:29 GMT

  • Next message: J L Speranza: "RT -- "relevance" in the OED"

    Excerpts from review of

    A. Kasher, ed.
    Presupposition, Implicature
    & Indirect Speech Acts.
    London: RKP.
    (by AS, LINGUIST 12.2154).

    JL
    Grice Circle.

    ====
    The volume contains 27 essays divided in three parts: presupposition (6),
    conversational implicature (17) and indirect speech acts (4).

    SECTION ON CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE:

      1. H.P.Grice, St John's, Oxford.

      2. H.P.Grice

      3. H.P.Grice
         Retrospective Epilogue. Strand Six.
         -- discussion and "criticism" inter alia, of Wilson & Sperber.

         "Only after the identification of a focus of _relevance_ can
         [an] assessment [of underinformativeness] be made; the force
         of this consideration seems to be blunted by writers like
         Wilson and Sperber who seem to be disposed to sever the notion
         of relevance from the specification of some particular direction
         of relevance" (Studies, p.372).

         In 'Reply to Richards', Grice sees he is moved and honoured that
         people like Wilson and Sperber contributed to the festschrift
         (PGRICE Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories,
         Ends, ed. R. Grandy), seeing that the contributors are "not just
         a haphazard band of professional colleagues" but "every one of them"
         "a personal friend". (p.45).

      4. A.P.Kasher, Tel Aviv.

      5. E.Ochs, UC/B

      6. R.M.Harnish, MIT

      7. J.M.Sadock, Stanford.

      8. J.D.Mccawley, Chicago

    * 9. Sperber/Wilson (irrespectively,
         UCL & CNRS, and P.G.R.I.C.E.)
         Groupe pour la reserche de la inference & la comprehension
         elementaire, Paris)

    ((The authors are the mother and father, irrespectively, of
    RT, and members of this list)).

    * 10. Sperber/Wilson. Same as 9.
      11. LR Horn, Yale.
      12. J.K. Hintikka, Gainesville.
    * 13. R Carston, UCL

    ((moderator to this list))

      15. J. Fretheim
    * 16. F Recanati, GRICE

    ((member of this list)).

    * 17. F Recanati, GRICE

    NOTES on RT-relevant essays.

    "Sperber and Wilson's essay (No. 9) is "On Grice's Theory of Conversation"

    Originally published in S. Levinson as a Pragmatics Microfiche and repr. in
    P. Werth, Conversation & Discourse, London: Croom Helm.

    Essay No 9 is "Mutual Knowledge & Relevance in Theories of Comprehension"

    Their contribution to the symposium on "Mutual Knowledge" held by NV Smith
    at USx/Brighton, and to which Grice contributed with "Meaning Revisited".
    The proceedings published by Smith for Academic Press.

    The reviewer writers:

    "Wilson and Sperber find Grice's distinction between "what is said" and
    "what is conversationally implicated" inadequate."

    "They claim, instead, that the proposition expressed by an utterance ("what
    is said") is also derived using pragmatic processes."

    "They further criticize Grice's pretense-based, as it was called, analysis
    of irony and metaphor, and call for a separate treatment of these within a
    theory of rhetoric."

    ((cfr. R. Carston's contribution on "metaphor and effort" to this list)).

    "Wilson and Sperber suggest a reduction of Grice's maxims to a single
    principle of relevance: a rational speaker will choose an utterance that
    will provide the hearer with a maximum number of contextual implications in
    a minimum processing effort."

    This view is first developed by Wilson in Smith & Wilson, Modern
    Linguistics: The results of Chomskyan revolution and her PhD for MIT under
    Chomsky.

    "A feature of Sperber and Wilson's theory which is significantly different
    from Grice's is that the processing of an utterance involves a construction
    of a context in which the effects of the utterance are evaluated. The
    context is not given, but enriched in such a way that facilitates the
    processing of the utterance. For a recent critique of relevance theory see
    Levinson, Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Conversational Implicature".

    Distributed by JLS with this list.
     
    Levinson launches an extensive attack on Relevance Theory, his
    sparring-partner throughout. His main critique resides in the observation
    that Wilson and Sperber and their followers do not allow for an
    intermediate level of generalized conversational implicatures, in between
    "literal meaning" (semantics) and once-off ("nonce") inferences. Levinson
    proceeds to show how semantics and implicatures interpenetrate. What he
    calls "semantics" seems to encompass the traditional semantic
    representations (even though Levinson advocates a much more abstract
    "meaning representation", and as such embraces the trend toward
    "underdetermined" meanings, and a second, truth-conditional level that
    enriches the semantic structure of the first component (taking into account
    implicatures, presuppositions and other pragmatic meaning contributions).
    An example
    concerns the ellipsis in an answer like

    1. John.

    to the question of for example, "Who came?". The semantics of the answer
    can be enriched to

    2. John came

    by means of an Informativeness-based inference and thus acquires a
    truth-conditional content. In constant, often implicit, but sometimes
    vehement discussion with the rivaling accounts of Relevance Theory, which
    deny the existence of an intermediate level between "once-off" inferences
    and "literal" or "conventional" meaning, he offers data that suggest the
    existence of such a level, thereby crucially relying on the difference
    between entailment and defeasible inference.

    Essay 13 is R. Carston, "Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-theoretic
    Semantics",

    First published in relevance-list member
    RM Kempson, ed
    Mental Representations, Cambridge.

    Carston introduces here -- she she had done it already in "A realanysis of
    some quantity implicatures" the notion of

        "explicature",

    viz. the proposition explicitly expressed by an utterance. Carston argues
    that this is not the minimal proposition that we get from the *logical
    form* (or truth-condition) of an utterance after the three
    Wilsonian-Sperberian processes of 1. disambiguation, 2. reference
    assignment, and 3. semantic enrichment, but something which is derived by a
    pragmatic process. She considers the problem of distinguishing explicatures
    from implicatures in a relevance-theoretic framework. The paper is followed
    by a postscript especially written for this volume, which she probably has
    in attach format (:)).

    Essays 16 and 17 are relevance-list member F. Recanati, "Truth-Conditional
    Pragmatics" and "Primary Pragmatic Processes", which, the reviewerer
    writes, are intimately related to R Carston's contribution.

    And which I'd love if the author would have it in attach format as I'd love
    to have them, or else as offprints to

    JLS
    Calle 58, No 611
    La Plata CP 1900
    Pcia BUENOS AIRES, Argentina.

    "Recanati argues that many cases that were analyzed as implicatures are
    pragmatic constituents of the proposition expressed. He rejects the popular
    view in formal semantics that "what is said" is derived from "sentence
    meaning" by filling in empty slots -- such as an appropriate domain of
    quantification -- on the grounds that there are cases who cannot be
    explained in this way."

    "However, it is not at all clear that the cases Recanati discusses in this
    context are not just implicatures and are indeed a part of the proposition
    expressed by the sentence. He proposes instead that there are pragmatic
    processes which operate locally, below the sentence level, before the
    computation of the proposition from word meanings.

    "I guess that adherents of Relevance theory would miss a contribution by
    Blakemore."

    Yes I guess he's right. I miss Blakemore. Should she have any essay in
    attach form or a second hand copy of her book I could get from her (I can
    send check in sterling drawn on a UK bank or work with credit card -- or
    should I cc Blackwell direct) I should love to read her (or any other
    worker who has attach's et al).
    ==

       



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 04 2001 - 21:22:49 GMT