At 16:15 24/09/01 EDT, you wrote:
>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.
====
what key do you use to type "'", as in "Grice's". Whatever YOU type comes
out on my screen as "No. 8217", which I don't think is your natural
explicature, precisely. :)
====
>
>[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.
No, I don't think he is.
Anyway, sorry for this rather dull reply, but I was online when I got your
reply,
and I think it's very polite to reply to people's thanking people
I know in your HTM hypertext versions, "Grice's", comes out beautiful, too!
Keep us posted when you digest this, because it seems to many that what the
RT practitioner (sic in general as you use it) is doing is replacing
Grice's No. 8217 Cooperative Principle for the Relevance Principle. I.e in
monotonic terms.
A: 73627281891
B: 73822228222
I.e. A has uttered 73627281891. And B has replied, 73822228222. Yet,
"7382228222" can't be a proper answer to "73627281891", so there's
something wrong in here:
GRICE's EXPLANATION
1. B is being cooperative,
therefore
TUM DUM TUM DUM DUM DUM
non-monotonicity, etc.
2. What he means is 98989898989
RT's explanation
1. B is being relevant,
but his answer is not _prima facie_ relevant,
therefore,
TUM DUM TUM DUM DUM DUM
non montonicity
hired-wired in her brain,
and some vestiges of the code of algebra,
2. What B means is 98989898989
In short, so far, I have to see how a Gricean and a RT DIVERGE in what they
explain. I don't care HOW they explain the thing (the "tum dum tum dum dum
dum"). But the end result (if I may be redundant) seems to be the same,
which is just as well, since, who would like to contradict Grice!?!?!?!
Also, try and get hold of Wilson & Sperber's idea (in that 1977 microfiche)
that all maxims get _sub-sumed_ under "be relevant", since that can give us
food for thought, or thought for food, or, alternatively, (n)either
And you're welcome!
Best,
JL
GC
J L Speranza, Esq
Country Town
St Michael's Hall Suite 5/8
Calle 58, No 611 Calle Arenales 2021
La Plata CP 1900 Recoleta CP 1124
Tel 541148241050 Tel 542214257817
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina
http://www.netverk.com.ar/~jls.htm
jls@netverk.com.ar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 22:09:01 GMT