The Positive Research on the Validity of Relevance Theory in Communication

本研究的目的是从关联理论的角度考察格莱斯的合作原则、莱文森的Q/I/M含义、利奇的礼貌原则和言语行为理论的不足之处；其次，分析电视访谈节目和日常对话中的话语理解，以验证关联理论的有效性。传统的语用学方法并没有从认知的角度解释话语，因为他们主要关注话语意义的分类。与这些自上而下的方法不同，关联理论采用自下而上的方法，考虑到话语解释所涉及的意义的各个阶段，并详细描述了通过话语编码的意义被恢复为显性意义并通过在线语用推理丰富为含义的推理过程。这样的描述是基于…的精确区分电视访谈中话语的显性意义和隐性意义、假设的形成和可及的语境假设之间存在着更多的区别。电视访谈中的会话根据参与者所分享的知识的质量和数量以及会话目标的不同而不同于日常会话中的显性意义和含意的推理丰富。在明示恢复方面，电视访谈中的句子主要成分在电视访谈中容易饱和，因为采访者分享的知识在数量上更多，在质量上更明确，这也是电视采访与日常对话的区别。在言外之意的丰富上，两种类型的会话在会话目的上有所不同，尽管它们的目的都是为了获得言外之意。电视节目的采访者试图从嘉宾的话语中为观众推导出一种真正的意义(即含意)，而日常对话中的受试者往往是为了确认他们对话语的理解而得出真正的意义(即含义)。较少

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