The Positive Research on the Validity of Relevance Theory in Communication

本研究的目的是：首先，从关联理论的角度探讨Grice的合作原则、Levinson的Q/I/M含义、Leech的礼貌原则和言语行为理论的不足之处;第二，分析电视访谈节目和日常会话中的话语解读，以验证这种关联性-传统的语用学意义研究方法主要侧重于对话语意义的分类，因而没有从认知的角度对话语意义进行解释。与这些自上而下的研究方法不同，关联理论采用自下而上的研究方法，将话语意义理解的各个阶段都考虑在内，细致地描述了话语编码的意义通过在线语用推理恢复为显义并丰富为隐义的推理过程。这样的描述是基于精确的区分。 ...更多信息 在话语的显义和隐义、假设的形成和可及的语境假设之间，电视访谈的会话不同于日常会话，其显义和隐义是如何根据参与者共享的知识的质量和数量以及会话目标而不断丰富的。在显义的恢复上，电视访谈中由于访谈者所分享的知识量大而质确定，句子的主要成分容易饱和，这是电视访谈区别于日常会话的一个特点。在丰富话语含义方面，两类会话的目的不同，但都是为了推导话语的含义。电视节目中的采访者试图从嘉宾的话语中为观众推导出一个真实的意义（即含义），而日常对话中的听话者则倾向于推导出一个真实的意义，以证实他们对话语的理解。少

The aims of this study are, first, to investigate the shortcomings of Grice's cooperative principle, Levinson's Q/I/M implicatures, Leech's politeness principle, and speech act theories, from a relevance-theoretic point of view ; and, second, to analyze utterance interpretation performed in TV interview programs and daily conversations in order to validate this relevance-theoretic approach.Traditional pragmatic approaches to meaning have not accounted for utterance interpretation in a cognitively sound way because they have mainly focused on the classification of utterance meanings. Unlike these top-down approaches, relevance theory has a bottom-up approach by taking all of the stages of meanings involved in utterance interpretation into account, and minutely describes the inferential process in which the encoded meaning by utterance is recovered into explicature and enriched into implicature through on-line pragmatic inferences. Such description is based on the precise distinction bet … More ween explicit meaning and implicit meaning of utterance, hypothesis formation, and accessible contextual assumptions.The conversations of the TV interviews differ from the daily conversations in how explicature and implicature are inferentially enriched, according to the quality and quantity of the knowledge shared by participants and the conversational goals. On the recovery of explicature, the major elements of the sentence can be easily saturated in the case of the TV interviews because the knowledge shared by the interviewer is larger in quantity and definite in quality, and this differentiates the TV interviews from the daily conversations. On the enrichment of implicature, both types of conversations differ in the conversational goals, though they both aim to derive an implicature of the utterance. The interviewers on TV programs attempt to derive a true sense (i.e. implicature) from the guest's utterance for viewers, whereas the addressees in daily conversations tend to derive it in order to confirm their interpretation of the utterance. Less