Thanks for the response. This is very helpful and will take some time to digest. Just to clarify my position on a couple of points.
[J. Fantin]
>> 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."
[JL]
> What belief? that RT is rejected, or the belief that
> you believe that RT is generally rejected? :)
> I take it that you mean the former, but I don't call
> "rejection" a belief, but an attitude.
Yes, it seems to me that many in the field of pragmatics reject RT in favor of Grice. I personally have found RT a better theoretical framework than Grice’s to explain the communicative process.
[JL]
> --- I don't see why you see Levinson as anti
> RT when the man did so much for RT --
As for my mention of Levinson, I note him here because his review of "Relevance" seemed rather negative when I read it. However, it has been a while and maybe I misunderstood him. In any case, he did not seem like an RT practitioner.
Again, thanks.
Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 20:20:46 GMT