Billy Clark

Phatic interpretations and phatic communication

This paper considers how the notion of phatic communication can best be understood within the framework of Relevance Theory. To a large extent, we are exploring a terminological question: which things which occur during acts of verbal communication should the term ‘phatic’ apply to? The term is perhaps most frequently used in the phrase ‘phatic communication’, which has been thought of as an essentially social phenomenon and therefore beyond the scope of cognitive pragmatic theories. We suggest, instead, that the term should be applied to interpretations and that an adequate account of phatic interpretations requires an account of the cognitive processes involved in deriving them. Relevance Theory provides the basis for such an account. In section 1, we indicate the range of phenomena to be explored. In section 2, we outline the parts of Relevance Theory which are used in our account. In section 3, we argue that the term ‘phatic’ should be applied to interpretations, and we explore predictions about phatic interpretations which follow from the framework of Relevance Theory, including the claim that phatic interpretations should be derived only when non-phatic interpretations are not consistent with the Principle of Relevance. In section 4 we consider cases where cognitive effects similar to those caused by phatic interpretations are conveyed but not ostensively communicated.

Stylistic analysis and relevance theory

This article suggests a methodology for analysing the communicative effects of texts, based on relevance theory. It begins with a statement of some inferential conclusions which can be reached as a result of reading the text (in this case, Little Things by Raymond Carver) and then works backwards in an attempt to explain exactly how those inferences have been made. The methodology is useful in classes which focus on literature, on stylistics, or on linguistic meanings (semantics and pragmatics). It also focuses attention on important aspects of relevance theory, such as the distinctions between implications and implicatures and between strong and weak implicatures. Ke)words: Carver, Raymond; implication; implicature; inference; literary interpretation; pragmatics; relemnce; stylistics

Looking for an argument: a response to Green:

Keith Green’s response to the special issue of Language and Literature (1996: 5[3]) on relevance theory, rhetoric and literary style is itself hard to respond to. While it is full of assertions of a negative nature, we are unable to find any actual arguments in it that we can engage with. Compounding these difficulties, Green’s article dramatically misrepresents both relevance theory in general and the articles in the special issue in particular. His unsubstantiated assertions are not merely off-target; they are aimed at a target which does not exist. His response seems to be designed to bring an end to debate in this area. It may mislead those unfamiliar with relevance theory who take a serious interest in the relations between current pragmatic theory and the study of literary style. In our response to Green, therefore, we attempt to encourage a more constructive debate. We point out some of the more fundamental misinterpretations both of relevance theory and of our contributions to the special issue. We also respond to points made in Green (1993) and, following Green’s suggestion, to Toolan (1992). This inevitably involves repeating and re-emphasizing points made in our articles.

Phatic communication and Relevance Theory: a reply to Ward & Horn

WH they falsely claim that we take an omniscient view of communication ; they fail to appreciate the importance of the difference between the theoretical notion of mutual manifestness developed within Relevance Theory and the commonsense, intuitive concept of shared knowledge ; they misrepresent our views on the role of convetionalization in phatic communication ; without giving any plausible arguments, they assert that our account is vague and vacuous, and they make unsystematic assumptions about the purpose of references to previous literature in new research. A reply to Ward and Horn raises great expectations of relevance, based on the significant contributions they have each made to pragmatic research.

The Language Detective: A Course for Young Linguists

This article reports on a residential course, held at the Villiers Park Educational Trust centre in Foxton, Cambridgeshire, which introduces linguistics to students who are in their final two years of school education. Both students and tutors find the course challenging and fun. Students find the experience of developing their own linguistic investigations hugely rewarding. This is clearly indicated in feedback questionnaires and informal discussion at the end of the course. Feedback regularly shows over 95% of responses in the most positive (‘excellent’) category. Tutors find out more about their subject and about the interests and abilities of students at this level. This is, of course, interesting to any teacher for its own sake. We also have a particular interest in developing activities which make connections between linguistics and language study at school and in higher education.

Pragmatics and inference

This chapter considers the nature of inferential processes, pragmatic theories which have been developed to account for them, and applications of these theories in stylistics. It points out that we make a large number of inferences very quickly in everyday situations, says something about pragmatic theories which have been developed since the work of Paul Grice (1967/1975; 1989) and considers how these theories have been, and can be, applied in stylistics. It then considers some general theoretical questions which can be addressed to some extent by pragmatic theories. The conclusions are: that inferential processes play a significant role in the production, interpretation and evaluation of all texts; that an account of these processes is a vital part of accounts of any text or communicative act; that there are practical issues which need to be addressed when accounting for inferences; that we do not always need to refer to specific theoretical assumptions when discussing inferences, though in some cases this is useful; that pragmatics can be applied in exploring theoretical as well as analytical questions; and finally, that there is lots of exciting work which can be carried out by looking at inference.

Introduction: pragmatic literary stylistics

Pragmatics is an aspect of the study of language in use. It is concerned with how language users interact, communicate and interpret linguistic behaviour. Literary stylistics is the study of how close attention to language use can contribute to accounts of how texts are understood and evaluated. Yet despite the apparent overlaps and commonalities of interest between the two disciplines, there has, until now, been relatively little work that brings them together, or that explores the interface between them. This interface is central to the ten separate essays brought together in this volume, all representative of recent significant developments within the field that we are here naming ‘pragmatic literary stylistics’.1

Linguistics as a science

Blumer describes interactionism as the essence of being human. People interact with themselves through the generalized other; they reflect; they think about their actions for themselves and with others. In short, humans talk to themselves and to others too. Interaction is what defines human beings from other species. Fast and Clark (2008; Fast et al. 2014) have published also how interaction of the human minds is a key factor making economics into a science. For decades, Chomsky led linguistics into understanding the same argument for human behavior due to the uniqueness of language – the ability of human beings to communicate endlessly.

Drawing Things Together: Concluding Remarks

This chapter considers some of the ways in which the chapters in this volume contribute to ongoing debates on semantics and pragmatics and some of the directions they suggest for future research. Many of the contributions can be understood as being about exploring existing connections and developing new ones. Some of the chapters explore and develop understanding of existing connections, some make new connections, and some explore contrasting views. All of the work demonstrates the benefits of bringing theorists from different backgrounds together and developing a fuller conversation.

Before and After Chekhov: Inference, Interpretation and Evaluation

This chapter considers some of the inferential processes involved in reading, understanding and evaluating Anton Chekhov’s story The Lady with the Little Dog (Chekhov 2002, originally 1899/1903).1 This story has been very highly valued over the years but many readers report thinking it unimportant or even banal on first reading. The discussion here aims to account for some of the specific inferences involved in understanding the story and also to consider two things which have not been much discussed in previous pragmatic stylistic work: differences between inferences made after first and subsequent readings of a text and the role inferential processes play in evaluating texts. It also aims to consider to what extent an account of reader inferences can account for the fact that many readers report being puzzled by the story on first reading and then go on to value it very highly.