Grice, his critics, and pragmatics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 40
About This Presentation
Title:

Grice, his critics, and pragmatics

Description:

Grice, his critics, and pragmatics Rong Chen California State University San Bernardino, USA Pragmatics then Morris 1938: syntax, semantics, pragmatics Pragmatics ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:434
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 41
Provided by: ronc91
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Grice, his critics, and pragmatics


1
Grice, his critics, and pragmatics
  • Rong Chen
  • California State University
  • San Bernardino, USA

2
Pragmatics then
  • Morris 1938 syntax, semantics, pragmatics
  • Pragmatics anything else, things that do not
    fit into syntax or semantics

3
Pragmatics now
  • Pragmatics has edged its way towards the center,
    embraced by at least some interested in
    syntaxe.g. functionalists, cognitivistsand many
    in semantics and language philosophy, and are
    still going strong, attracting more and more
    practitioners by the day.

4
Who is/are responsible?
  • Oxonian run-of-the-mill-language philosophers
    Austin and students Searle and Grice.
  • According to at least one scholar, Grice is the
    man Not only is Grices account highly
    illuminating, it is also, as far as I know, the
    only published attempt ever made by a philosopher
    or anyone else to say precisely and completely
    what it is for someone to mean something
    (Schiffer 1972 7).
  • But that is also THEN, in 1972. How about NOW,
    in 2005?

5
The presence of Grice
  • Cooperative Principle, maxims, implicature have
    become received terms one can use them without
    having to define them.
  • (A biased and unscientific survey Cited in 221
    out of 300 articles and 78 out of 100 books on my
    shelf.)

6
So, we
  • Look back at Grices critics in the past few
    decades
  • Compare CP with Relevance Theory (henceforth RT).

7
Grice is, well, put simply, wrong.
  • Are we as cooperative as Grice claims? (Gandy
    1989, Kasher 1976, Sampson 1976).
  • Bargaining in a free market buyer wants to spend
    as little as possible, seller wants to get as
    much as possible. Goals are diametrically
    opposite.

8
A possible response
  • They do talk to each other. Why?
  • Even in a situation like this, there seems to
    exist a common goal that forces both parties to
    cooperate, that in order for each to get what
    she wants, a deal has to be made.

9
Another example
  • Cross-examination in court, where the witness has
    no motivation to cooperate.
  • But does she? Shes made to swear with her hands
    on the book. She would be punished by law if she
    doesnt.
  • What does that suggest?

10
The world changes but the maxims are fixed
(Sampson 1976).
  • But the maxims seemed to have held up through the
    ages (Schroeder, in preparation).
  • In the Chinese context chit-chat on a train. 30
    years ago vs. now.
  • The specific requirement may change, the maxims
    seem to remain.

11
How do we know speakers detect violation?
  • Native speakers failure to understand the
    intention or read an implicature when it is not
    there.
  • Second or foreign language learners

12
Heard in an auto mechanics shop
  • C So, what do you think should be done?
  • M I would have it fixed right away. Its not
  • something you want to wait.
  • C Please dont do it. I have to arrange my
  • finances first.

13
Universality of maxims (Keenan 1974)
  • Members of Malagasy society regularly provide
    less information than is required
  • A Where is your mother?
  • B Shes either in the house or at the market.
  • It has been disputed by many (Green 1989 Brown
    Levinson 1987 Chen 1990, 1993), and Keenan may
    have admitted her own misunderstanding of Grice
    (Brown and Levinson 1987). But she still gets
    cited, until this day (Mooney 2004903)

14
Old ideas in new package?
  • The Gricean maxims are Nothing less than the
    rules of classical rhetoric adapted to the modern
    position of speech (Morpugo-Tagliabue 1981).
  • Definition of a good communicator. (Wilson and
    Sperper 1979, quoted in Kaufer 1981).

15
Replacing Grice
  • Kempson 1975, but see Kiefer 1979
  • Lakoff 1977. but see Lakoff 1987
  • Gazdar 1977, but see Kiefer 1979
  • Maxims of Communication (Leudar and Browning
    1988)

16
Patching Grice
  • Incorporation of Mutual knowledge (Chen 1990,
    1993).
  • Maxims of joking (Grices maxims contextualized
    for the joke genre (Attardo 1990).
  • Incorporation of Levinsons activity types
    (Mooney 2004).

17
We now compare CP with RT
  • Without a doubt, Sperber and Wilsons RT has
    proven to be the most serious competitor to
    Grices CP.
  • We will compare the two in terms of theoretical
    assumptions, basic claims, as well as how well
    each handles a particular type of communication.

18
Sperber and Wilsons RT
  • Optimal relevance something being said in such a
    way that it costs the least effort to process and
    produces the most effect.
  • In ostensive communication, speakers try to be
    optimally relevant.
  • When something is said in such a way that it
    costs more than the least effort for
    processing, the hearer looks around for
    interpretations that justify the additional
    effort, which is often what is not said but can
    be arrived at by considering contextual factors.

19
A crude and possibly unjust comparison
CP RT
Assumption Cooperation Optimal relevance
Beyond the baseline Violation of maxims More than the least effort
That extra meaning Implicature Cognitive effect implicature
20
An example
A How do you like my new suit?
B1 It looks silly.
21
What would each say?
  • RT B1 requires little (least?) effort and
    produces enough contextual effect for the hearer.
  • CP B1 observes all maxims.

22
What if B says something different?
A How do you like my new suit?
B2 I really appreciate your tailors sense of
humor.
23
A. What do you think of my new suit? B2. I
really appreciate your tailors sense of humor.
  • 1. Bs utterance requires more than the least
    effort (TRIGGER).
  • 2. Assuming that B strives for optimal relevance,
    he must have intended additional contextual
    effect (ASSUMPTION).
  • 3. Based on other contextual factors, he must
    mean that As suit is funny, that he doesnt
    think highly of it (ARRIVING AT CONTEXTUAL
    EFFECT, IMPLICTURE).

1. B1 violates the Maxim of Relation (TRIGGER) 2.
Assuming that B has no reason to cooperate, he
must have meant something else
(ASSUMPTION) 3. Based on what he says as well as
the context, he must mean that As suit looks
funny and that he doesnt think highly of it.
(ARRIVING AT IMPLICUTURE).
24
RT and CP similar or different?
  • SIMILARITY
  • Three major steps
  • Trigger
  • Using assumption
  • Getting implicature
  • DIFFERENCE
  • In terms of details
  • In terms of terminology

25
A. What do you think of my new suit?B1. It
looks silly. B2. I really appreciate your
tailors sense of humor.
  • RT B1 and B2 are both relevant.
  • B1 is relevant by costing the least effort.
  • B2 is relevant by producing more effect that
    justifies the additional effort needed to
    process.
  • Does the theory tell us which is more relevant?
    If they are equally relevant, arent we missing
    something here?
  • CP B1 and B2 are both cooperative utterances but
    differing in important ways
  • B1 cooperates by following the maxims.
  • B2 cooperates by breaching at least one of
  • them.

26
Irony
What lovely weather were having
27
Its pouring.A. What lovely weather were
having!
  • As ironic utterance is echoic (echoing, for
    instance, a weather forecaster.)
  • The process of understanding is no different from
    that of a non-ironic utterance.
  • The hearer does not have to reject the literal
    meaning of the utterance the speaker does not
    mean the opposite of what is said. She means
    precisely what is said.
  • A violation of Quality (Grice) for the purpose
    of
  • expressiveness and possibly of politeness
  • (Chen 1992).
  • The hearer realizes the violation, rejects the
  • literal meaning as being incongruent with
  • context, and arrives at the intended meaning
  • via implicature.

28
The key does the literal meaning have to be
rejected?
Maybe yes
Evidence?
Just click!
29
  • Speakers DO miss ironytry Swifts A Modest
    Proposal in an American college freshman class
    and see what happens.
  • 2. Lets go back to our examples.

30
Responding to irony
B1 Yes. Its awful.
A What lovely weather were having!
B2 It is, isnt it?
31
A. What lovely weather were having.B1. Yes.
Its awfulB2. It is, isnt it?
  • RT would predicts that B2 is acceptable, as
    it doesnt recognize the semantic incongruity of
    an ironic utterance and does not admit that the
    hearer has to reject the literal meaning of the
    utterance (because theres no falsehood intended
    or recovered.)
  • CP Allows for an explanation of the
    unacceptability of B2.
  • It recognizes the two layers of meaning what is
    said and what is meant.
  • Since the speaker means the opposite of what is
    said, she is cooperating by uttering a false
    statement.
  • The hearer has therefore to do the same to
    cooperate by saying what she doesnt literary
    mean.

32
The power of irony
By saying the opposite of what I mean, I dictates
the mode of communication. Sorry, you have no
choice.
33
How about un-cooperation?
  • A How do you explain the failed attempt to
  • find any WMDs in Irag?
  • B1 No comments.
  • B2. My lips are sealed today.
  • B3. walks away

34
Uncooperation cont.
  • RT The speaker is either unwilling or unable to
    provide information (Sperber and Wilson 2004). Is
    it considered relevant, though?

CP if speakers assume cooperation under
normal circumstances, then when they
confronts a case of uncooperation, they
are encouraged to seek reasons for it.
Opting out of cooperation leads to
implicature about the speakers beliefs,
positions on an issue, or other things.
35
How about mis-communication?
Have you sent out the letter I asked you to this
morning?
No. I didnt mean that. I need to make a few
changes before it goes out.
Ill do it right now, Sir.
36
A. Have you sent out the letter I gave you this
morning?B. Ill do it right now, Sir.A. I
didnt mean that. I need to make a few changes.
  • CP As question can be interpreted as both a
    question (observing the maxim of relation) and a
    request (violating Rela-tion). Since the theory
    allows two layers of meaning, it seems to
    accounts for such cases readily miscommunication
    such as this occurs when the speaker and hearer
    do not act on the same layer of meaning.
  • RT B derives a contex-tual effect different from
    the one intended by A. What would the theory say
    about this discrepancy, since apparently both A
    and B have good reasons to say what they say?
    Both are relevant?

37
A summery of sorts
  • RT has derived from CP
  • RT is the only serious challenge/ alternative to
    CP
  • Not clear if RT is indeed a more superior theory.

38
Grices reluctance to write leaves us wondering
  • 1. Cooperation why are we under so much
  • pressure to cooperate?
  • 2. The power of the theory we derive
  • meaning and intention even if we opt out
  • of cooperation altogether.
  • 3. Maxims how did he get them? Why
  • four? Why these four?

39
Final musing
  • Public discourse, legal issues, commerce, and
    other arenas of social life we argue about truth
    and falsity, about how much is enough
    information, about if something is relevant,
    about how to say things in ways that are clear.
  • It seems that the four maxims have captured so
    much of our life, both linguistic and otherwise.

40
On will live Grice.
Attardo, S. 1990. The violation of Grices maxims
in Jokes. In Hall, K. and J. P. Koenig eds.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Berkeley
Linguistics Society pp 355-362. Chen, Rong.
1985. Grices conversational implicature. Foreign
Languages 3.3763-67. (In Chinese) Chen, Rong.
1990. Verbal irony as conversational implicature.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Ball State Univerity. Chen,
Rong. 1993.Conversational implicature and poetic
metaphor. Language and Literature (Trinity
University, Texas) 53-47. Gazdar, G. 1977.
Implicature, presupposition, and logic form.
Indiana Linguistics Club. Grandy, R. 1989. On
Grice on language. The Journal of Philosophy
86.10514-525. Grice, Paul H., 1975. Logic and
conversation. In Cole, P. and J. Morgan eds.,
Syntax and Semantics 3 Speech acts, 41-58. New
York Academic Press. Kasher, A. 1976.
Conversational maxims and rationality. In Kasher,
A. ed. Language in Focus, pp. 197-216. Dordrecht
Reidel. Kaufer, D. Understanding ironic
communication. Journal of Pragmatics
5495-510. Keenan, E. 1974. In R. Fasold and R.
Shuy eds. Studies in Language Variation,
255-265, Washington, DC. Georgetown UP. Kiefer,
F. 1979. What do conversational maxims explain?
Lingvistae Investigationes III.157-74. Kempson,
R. 1975. Presupposition and the delimitation of
semantics. Cambridge Cambridge University
Press. Lakoff, G. 1977. Pragmatics in natural
logic. In Rogers A, B. Wall, and J. P. Murphy,
eds. Proceedings of the Texas Conference on
Performatives, Presuppositions, and
Implicatures. Center for Applied Lingustics.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Wowen, Fire, and Dangerous
Things. Chicago The Chicago University
Press. Leudar, Ivan and P. Browning. 1988.
Meaning, maxims of communication and language
games. Language and Communication
8.11-16. Morris, C. 1938. Foundations of the
theory of signs. The Hague Mouton
(1971). Mooney, A. 2004. Co-operation,
violation, and making sense. Journal of
Pragmatics 36 899-920. Morpurgo-Tagliabue, G.
1981. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric in a pragmatic
perspective. In Parret, Spisa M., and
Verschueren, J. eds. Possibilities and
limitations of pragmatics Proceedings of the
International Conference on Pragmatics at
Urbino, July 8-14, 1979. Amsterdam John
Benjamins, PP 493-508. Sampson, G. 1982. The
economics of conversation Comments on Joshis
paper. In N. Smith ed. Mutual Knowledge. New
York Academic Press, 200-210. Schiffer, S.
1972. Meaning. Oxford Clarendon
Press. Schroeder, Peter. 1983. Hidden depth
Dialogue and characterization in Chaucer and
Malory. PMLA, May 1983347-387. Schroeder, Peter.
In preparation. Words, words, words Speech and
suggestion in Early English Literature. Wilson,
D. and D. Sperber. 1979. On Grices theory of
conversation. Unpublished manuscript. Department
of Linguistics, University of London. Wilson,
D. and D. Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In G.
Ward and L. Horn eds. Handbook of Pragmatics,
607-632. Oxford Blackwell.
Rong Chen rchen_at_csusb.edu (909) 537-5834
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com