Dear RT list,
I am interested in the role of Grice’s work within RT and the position of RT within the larger field of pragmatics. As with my previous posts, please feel free to correct me if I demonstrate an obvious lack of understanding of RT.
I came to the field of pragmatics (and Grice’s work) through RT and my understand of the relationship of the two is as follows. Are my observations here correct?
1. RT builds upon and goes beyond Grice’s Cooperative Principle and maxims by further refining and postulating “relevance” as the only essential maxim. Through this maxim, a working theory of pragmatics can be suggested.
2. Thus, though RT has roots in Grice, it really departs from traditional Grican pragmatics.
3. Within the general field of pragmatics which is dominated by traditional Grican practitioners, RT is not widely accepted and generally rejected (e.g., Levinson, “review of ‘Relevance,’” 1989; Mey, Pragmatics, 1993). I do not share this belief; this is merely my observation..
The reason I ask about my observations is because of a statement made by Jeffrey T. Reed, in an article called “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament: A Basic Guide to Theory, Terminology, and Literature” in Approaches to New Testament Study, ed. S. E. Porter and D. Tombs (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 222-65.
Within a section on Pragmatics (234-42) in a subsection called “presupposition and implicature” (238-42), Reed describes Grice’s co-operative principle and four maxims. Near the end of the section, he states, “Indeed all of the above communicative principles may be summed up under Sperber and Wilson’s single axiom of relevance: Principle: The speaker tries to make the utterance as relevant as possible to the hearer.”
I do agree with this statement; however, it seems to me to be suggesting that this position is the normal position within the field of pragmatics (remember, this is a work meant to introduce pragmatics to biblical scholars and thus should represent the broader field and if not it should at least note important controversy).
I assume this would represent the RT’s position; however, is Reed’s representation accurate here of pragmatics in general?
Any comments to help me clarify the role of RT within the larger field of pragmatics would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Joe Fantin
Sheffield
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 23 2001 - 23:48:19 GMT