Relevance and lexical pragmatics.pdf
《Relevance and lexical pragmatics.pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《Relevance and lexical pragmatics.pdf(18页珍藏版)》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、Relevance and lexical pragmatics* DEIRDRE WILSON Abstract The goal of lexical pragmatics is to explain how linguistically specified (literal) word meanings are modified in use. While lexical-pragmatic processes such as narrowing, broadening and metaphorical extension are generally studied in isolati
2、on from each other, relevance theorists (Carston 2002, Wilson Ducrot 1972, 1984; Searle 1979; Lakoff Sperber Cruse 1986; Hobbs Lakoff 1987; Lahav 1989; Sweetser 1990; Horn 1992, 2000; Aitchison 1994; Bach 1994, 2001; Gibbs 1994; Copestake Franks 1995; Recanati 1995, 2004; Rips 1995; Bertuccelli Papi
3、 1997; Carston 1997, 1999, 2002; Blutner 1998, 2002; Lascarides Lasersohn 1999; Fauconnier Wilson Merlini Barbaresi 2003. 344 Deirdre Wilson defend the alternative view that they are outcomes of a single pragmatic process which fine-tunes the interpretation of virtually every word.2 I will adopt a s
4、imple model of linguistic semantics that treats words as encoding mentally-represented concepts, elements of a conceptual representation system or language of thought, which constitute their linguistic meanings and determine what might be called their linguistically-specified denotations.3 The goal
5、of lexical semantics is to investigate the relations between words and the concepts they encode, and the goal of lexical pragmatics is to account for the fact that the concept communicated by use of a word often differs from the concept encoded. Narrowing is the case where a word is used to convey a
6、 more specific sense than the encoded one, resulting in a restriction of the linguistically-specified denotation. Approximation and metaphorical transfer may be seen as varieties of broadening, where a word is used to convey a more general sense, with consequent widening of the linguistically-specif
7、ied denotation. The effect of narrowing is to highlight a proper subpart of the linguistically- specified denotation. Here are some illustrations: (1) All doctors drink. (2) a. As I worked in the garden, a bird perched on my spade. b. Birds wheeled above the waves. c. A bird, high in the sky, invisi
8、ble, sang its pure song. d. At Christmas, the bird was delicious. (3) Mary is a working mother. (4) I have a temperature. In (1), drink might convey not the encoded sense drink liquid but, more specifically, drink alcohol, or drink significant amounts of alcohol. In (2a-d), each use of bird would hi
9、ghlight a different subset of birds. As noted by Lakoff (1987: 80-82), (3) would generally indicate not just that Mary satisfies the definition female parent who works, but that she is a stereotypical working mother, bringing up young children while working for money outside the home; and (4) would
10、normally convey not the truism that the speaker has some temperature or other but that her temperature is high enough to be worth remarking on. 2 For elaboration of this view, see e.g. Carston 1997, 2002 chap. 5; Sperber Wilson Sperber 1996 chap 6; Carston 2002 chap 5; Wilson compare the interpretat
11、ions of flat in (8a-e): (8) a. This ironing board is flat. b. My garden is flat. c. My neighbourhood is flat. d. My country is flat. e. The Earth is flat. A second variety of broadening, which I will call category extension, is typified by the use of salient brand names (Hoover, Kleenex) to denote a
12、 broader category (vacuum cleaner, disposable tissue) including items from less salient brands. Personal names (Chomsky, Einstein) and common nouns both lend themselves to category extension (cf. Glucksberg 2001: 38-52). Some more creative uses are illustrated in (9-12): (9) Federer is the new Sampr
13、as. (10) Brown is the new black. (11) Mint is the new basil. (12) Is oak the new pine? In (9), Sampras evokes the category of gifted tennis players of a certain type. In (10) a typical piece of fashion writers discourse black evokes the category of staple colours in a fashion wardrobe; echoes are fo
14、und in cookery and interior design writing, as in (11) (herb of the moment) and (12) (trendy furniture wood). These examples of category extension are not analysable as approximations. The claim in (10) is not that Federer is a borderline case, close enough to being Sampras for it to be acceptable t
15、o call him Sampras, but merely that he belongs to a broader category of which Sampras is a salient member; and so on for the other examples. 346 Deirdre Wilson Metaphor and hyperbole may be thought of as more radical varieties of category extension.4 For example, (13) would be an approximation if us
16、ed to indicate that the water was close enough to boiling to be described as boiling, and a hyperbole if used to indicate that the water was merely hotter than expected, or uncomfortably hot: (13) The water is boiling. The metaphors in (14-16) are analysable on similar lines, as radical extensions o
17、f the linguistically-specified denotation: (14) Mary is a rose, a lily, a daisy, a violet; a jewel, a diamond, a ruby, a pearl. (15) That book puts me to sleep. (16) The leaves danced in the breeze. Thus, violet in (14) might be seen as representing the category of delicate, unflamboyant, easily ove
18、rlooked things, of which violets are a salient subcategory, and so on for other examples. Neologisms and word coinages provide further data for a theory of lexical pragmatics and shed some light on the nature of the mental mechanisms involved. Experiments by Clark Wilson Carston 1997, 1999, 2000; Sp
19、erber Glucksberg 2001; Wilson Hopper Bertuccelli Papi 2000. 6 Appeals to polysemy are probably justified in many cases. However, since each encoded sense of a polysemous word may undergo further pragmatic processing, polysemy does not eliminate the need for lexical pragmatics. 7 See e.g. Horn 1984,
20、1992, 2000; Levinson 2000; Blutner 1998, 2002. For discussion, see Lakoff 1987. 8 See e.g. Lewis 1979; Lasersohn 1999. For discussion, see Gross 2001. 9 See e.g. Grice 1975, Levinson 1983. 348 Deirdre Wilson Amplify the informational content of the speakers utterance, by finding the most specific in
21、terpretation, up to what you judge to be the speakers m-intended point . (ibid: 114). The I-heuristic might be seen as dealing with stereotypical narrowings such as (3) above, and the I-Principle as dealing with less stereotypical cases such as (4). However, this approach leaves many aspects of the
22、narrowing process unexplained. In the first place, there may be several possible degrees or directions of narrowing, as in (1) (where drink may be narrowed to drink alcohol or drink a lot of alcohol) and (2) (where bird is narrowed in different ways in different contexts). Levinson (ibid: 118) notes
23、 (and experimental evidence confirms, cf. Barsalou 1987) that even stereotypical narrowing is context dependent. For example, Englishman in (20) would evoke different stereotypes in a discussion of cooking, cricket, sailing, seduction, etc: (20) John is an Englishman. In the second place, stereotypi
24、cal narrowing also competes with other varieties of narrowing.10 In (21), man might be narrowed to an idealised rather than a stereotypical interpretation, indicating that Churchill is a man worthy of the name rather than a typical man: (21) Churchill was a man. According to the I-Principle, the hea
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- Relevance and lexical pragmatics
链接地址:https://www.31doc.com/p-5117168.html