UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH FACULTY OF ARTS

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

ENG 828S: SEMANTICS

Question 12: THE CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES BETWEEN GRICE AND SPERBER AND WILSONS THEORY OF RELEVANCE.

! ROSE FOSUAA TA"IAH

#AR$ENS$12$%%1&'
Term Paper !"m#$$e% $& $'e Depar$me($ &) E(*+# ' &) $'e Fa,!+$- &) Ar$. /(#0er #$- &) Cape C&a $ #( par$#a+ )!+)#++me($ &) $'e re1!#reme($ )&r a2ar% &) Ma $er &) Ar$ #( E(*+# ' La(*!a*e

LECTURER: DR( )OSEPH AR*O AUGUST+ 2%1,

The gap between what people say and what they really mean has led to the emergence of different theories from different perspectives of which Grices theory of Implicatures and Relevance Theory by Sperber and Wilson are of no exception. Grice onversational Theory and Sperber and Wilsons Relevance Theory are the most exciting and inferential theories ever put forward in the field of pragmatics. !odern pragmatics open a new page with the wor" of the philosopher #aul Grice whose William $ames %ecture &given at 'arvard in ()*+, daunted the whole world with his onversational Theory. Some years later- Relevance

Theory proposed by .an Sperber and .eirdre Wilson emerged and showed more vitality. This new approach to pragmatics has been proved to be more applicable- scientific and systematic &Wesley- /001,.This paper sets out to discuss the convergences and divergences between Grice and Sperber and Wilsons theory of relevance. The paper is organised under the following headings2 3 brief introduction to Grice onversational theory and Sperber and Wilsons Relevance Theory4 the convergences between the two theorists subdivided into areas such as2 intentions and communicative intentions- conversational implicature- relevance and metarepresentational capacity and divergences subdivided into the following headings2 inferential model- principles of their theories- theoretical status of their principles- role of maxim violation- implicit and explicit side of communication and context.

Grices Conversational (Implicature) Theory There are so many philosophical topics such as intention- reason- value- personal identity and perception among others which are associated with #aul Grice- but his most influential contribution to linguistics is his theory of implicatures &'adi- /0(/, which is my focus in this paper. In ()1+- Grice distinguished between what he called natural and non5natural meaning. 6atural meaning is the "ind of meaning literally conveyed through conventional words while non5natural meaning is the meaning over and above what is literally with conventional words

Wharton- /0074

hina #apers- /0(0,. Grice however exhibited interest with the latter and

formed the theory of 8 onversational Implicature- which is something that is implied in conversation. That is- something which is left implicit in actual language use. #ragmatics is interested in this phenomenon because we seem to be dealing here with a regularity that cannot be captured in a simple syntactic or semantic 9rule:- but has to be accounted for in other ways &!ey- /00(,. 3s ;ilmes has expressed it- 9in everyday tal"- we often convey propositions that are not explicit in our utterances but are implied by them and sometimes- we are able to draw such inferences only by referring to what has been said to some conversational implicatures: &;ilmes- ()<*2/+,. In lectures and a couple of very influential articles &Grice ()+1- ()+<,- Grice proposed an approach to the spea"ers and hearers cooperative use of inference. 'e describes communication as adhering to what he calls the ooperative #rinciple and argues that- the basic underlying assumption we ma"e when we spea" to one another is that- we are trying to cooperate to construct meaningful conversations &'adi- /0(/,. ;y postulating a ooperative #rinciple- which is a "ind of tacit agreement by spea"ers and hearers to cooperate in communication- Grice sets out to explain the predictability of inference information. The assumption that hearers ma"e about a spea"ers conduct seemed to Grice to be of several different types- giving rise to different types of inferences- or- from the spea"ers point of view- implicatures. In identifying these- Grice called them 8maxims. 'e suggested that- rational communicators are assumed to obey the ooperative #rinciple and its maxims to achieve a successful communication. If the communicators disobey or flout the ooperative #rinciple and its maxims- conversational

implicature will be generated &Saaed- /007,. Grice classified implicatures into conventional implicature and conversational implicature- of which he further divided the latter into particulari=ed and generali=ed one & hina #apers- /0(0,.

Relevance Theory Relevance Theory is an inferential theory of communication- which aims to explain how the audience infers the communicators intended meaning. The relevance5theoretic explanation of these inference processes is rooted in an account of cognition &>nger- /00(,. The central claim of Relevance Theory is that- the expectations of relevance raised by an utterance are precise and predictable enough to guide the hearer towards the spea"ers meaning. The aim is to explain in cognitively realistic terms what these expectations of relevance amount to and how they might contribute to an empirically plausible account of comprehension. Relevance is a potential property not only of utterances and other observable phenomenon- but of thought- memories and conclusions of inferences &Sperber ? Wilson- /00/,. Within Relevance Theory- relevance is treated as a property of inputs to cognitive processes and analysed in terms of the notions of cognitive effect and processing effort. When an input- for instance- an utterance is processed in a context of available assumptions- it may yield some cognitive effect by modifying or re5organising these assumptions &Wilson- ())),. In relevance theoretic terms- any external stimulus or internal representation which provides an input to cognitive processes may be relevant to an individual at some time. 3ccording to Relevance Theory- utterances raise expectations of relevance not because spea"ers are expected to obey a ooperative #rinciple and maxims or some other specifically

communicative convention- but because the search for relevance is a basic feature of human cognition- which communicators may exploit. @n relevance5theoretic account- in communication process- human has the intuition to relevance and communication is relevance5oriented. ommunicators have tendency and intuition to relevance and can identify between the relevant &strong, information and irrelevant &wea", information. Relevance Theory ma"es a cognitive approach to probe communication process on the basis of the cognitive principle of relevance- the communicative principle of relevance and ostensive5

inferential communication model &Sperber ? Wilson- /00/,. The next section focuses on the convergences between Grices theory of Implicatures and Sperber and Wilsons Relevance Theory.

CONVERGENCES Intentions and Communicative Intentions ;oth Grice and Sperber and Wilson believe that- an essential feature of most human communication- both verbal and non5verbal- is the expression and recognition of intentions &Grice- ()<),. Grices onversational Theory and Sperber and Wilsons Theory of Relevance are both premised on the view that- communication involves spea"ers expressing their intentions and hearers attributing intentions to those spea"ers. They both hold the view that- if intentions attributed by the hearers are roughly the same as those expressed by the spea"erthen communication is considered to have been successful Grice and Sperber and Wilsons theories describe communication as speech acts that produce communicative intentions. ommunicative intention to these theorists is an important phenomenon for two main reasons. Airst of all- it helps hearers to recognise the meaning of an utterance and secondly- it is important because of the nature of utterances- that is- their ambiguity. Grice tal"s about reflexive communicative intention which he defines as an intention which serves for producing effects by the recognition of the intention. 'e describes a reflexive communicative intention in this way2 spea"er S thin"s something by utterance p only if he intends to produce some effects on the public by means of a speech act- thus, when the public recogni=es his intention. ;ut Grice allows that- the hearer could recogni=e semantic meaning even if she doesnBt "now the spea"erBs communicative intention. It is enough that the public believes that the spea"er truly believes in the sentences he utters. GriceBs basic idea is that- we are able to present the meaning of a sentence in terms of spea"er meaning and non5semantic terms 5

communicative intentions &'augh- /00<,. Grices ingenious notion of reflexive intention was designed to capture what is distinctive about what we intend when we communicate &;ach/0((,. Grices intentions are deconstructed by Sperber and Wilson into informative intentionwhich is- the intention 9to ma"e manifest or more manifest to the audience a set of assumptions: and communicative intention- namely the intention 9to ma"e it mutually manifest to the audience that- the communicator has this informative intention: &Sperber and Wilson- ())12 1<5*(,. In other words- informative intention is the intention to present a manifest group of presuppositions which serve to present the meaning of an utterance- and communicative intention is a higher class of intention by which the informative intention is shown or manifested to the hearer and to the listener. Relevance Theory by Sperber and Wilson is often framed as building upon Grices intention5centred view of meaning. In framing the informative intention as an intention to modify the cognitive environment of the addressee rather than his or her thought per se and by distinguishing it from the communicative intention- they arguably allow for more nuanced view of intention &'augh/00<,.

Conversational Implicature ;oth Grice and Sperber ? Wilson deal with a very important- independently motivated concept2 that of implication- and its pragmatic variant- implicature. #aul Grice launched the word 9implicature: for use within his theory of spea"er meaning- in order to account for aspects of spea"er meaning not contributing to the truth conditions of the sentence uttered by the spea"er. 3ccording to Grice- spea"ers create implicatures in two main ways. The first is by direct appeal to the maxims and the second method is by blatantly violating or flouting a maxim. Surprisingly enough- he never explicitly defines 9implicature:4 but provides examples of it. 'e however tal"s about one "ind of implicature4 the one he is most interested
6

in2 conversational implicature &Sbisa- /007, which he further subdivides into particulari=ed and generali=ed one & hina #apers- /0(0,. onversational implicature which is something

implied in conversation and left implicit in actual language use featured prominently in both Grices onversational Theory and Sperber and Wilsons Theory of Relevance. 3ccording to Grice- there are two types of implicatures2 8conversational implicature- and 8conventional implicature. Grices account of conversational implicature aimed to explain how we say one thing and manage to communicate something else. Generally- conversational implicature concerns the way we understand an utterance in a conversation in accordance with what we expect to hear. Thus- if we as" a Cuestion- a response which on the face of it doesnt ma"e 8sense can very well be an adeCuate answer. To "now what people mean- one has to interpret what they say through guesswor". 3s %eech remar"s- 9interpreting an utterance is ultimately a guess wor" or hypothesis formation: &()<72705(,. onventional implicatures are the

implicatures that do not depend on a particular context of language use. ertain expressions in language implicate by themselves- or 8conventionally- a certain state of the worldregardless of their use. Such implications cannot be attributed to our use of language in conversation. Aor instance- the word 8last always by conventional implicature means 8the ultimate item in a seCuence as in 8the last page of a boo" or manuscript4 in contrast- in conversation- it might imply2 8that which came before the time of spea"ing- as when a spea"er refers to 8last winter &!ey- /00(,. Similarly- on the relevance5theoretic viewimplicatures come in two sorts2 implicated premises and implicated conclusions & arston/00D,. Implicated premises are a subset of their contextual assumptions used in processing the utterance and implicated conclusions are a subset of its contextual implications. What distinguishes these subsets from other contextual assumptions and implications is that- they are communicated &spea"er meant,- hence part of the intended interpretation of the utterance. ;elow is an example from Sperber and Wilson &()<*,.

E2 .oes $ohn li"e catsF G2 'e doesnt li"e any animals. a. 3TS 3RH 36I!3%S

b. $@'6 .@HS6T %IIH 3TS c. .@GS 3RH 36I!3%S d. $@'6 .@HS6T %IIH .@GS 3ccording to the relevance5theoretic account- all of &a, 5 &d, are implicatures of Gs utterancewith &a, and &c, as implicated premises and &b, and &d, as implicated conclusions. These communicated assumptions described here as implicated premises and implicated conclusions Cualify as particularised implicatures for Grice & arston- /00D,. Aor Grice- it is conversational implicature in particular which is rational. !oreover- conversational implicature is 9calculable:- and since calculations are Cuite obviously a rational matter- his 9rational: approach to conversational implicature influenced his followers and critics to such an extent that- it is rational spea"ers and hearers that according to Relevance Theory- conform to the Relevance #rinciple to yield inferential interpretations of explicit and implicit utterance meaning including implicatures &Sbisa- /007,.

Relevance 3nother point of convergence between the two theories is that- Relevance Theory rests sCuarely on Gricean foundations. @ne of Grices maxims is the maxim of relevance which behoves on the spea"er to ma"e his contributions or responses relevant to the topic of discussion. Relevance as one of the maxims is concerned with cases of conveying
8

information by saying one thing and leaving something else out. Grices two best5"nown examples are of this type2 (. There is a garage around the corner. J which is said in response to 8I am out of petrolK /. 'e is punctual- and his handwriting is excellent Jthe entire body of a letter of recommendationK 3n utterance of &(, is relevant- and a rational spea"er would intend it as such- only if the spea"er means also that- the garage is open and has petrol for sale. So it behoves on the hearer to reason accordingly. Hxample &/, on the other hand- is Cuite different on account of the spea"ers reason for not being more explicit. In this case- the writer intends the reader to figure out that- if she had anything more positive to say about the candidate- she would have said it &;ach- /0((,. This maxim together with the other three- does not prescribe how one should tal"- but explains the listeners assumption regarding the way spea"ers should tal". ;ach &/001, believes that- the maxims of Grice of which relevance is one of them- were introduced as instructions for successful communication. 'e thin"s that- they are better understood as presumptions about utterances- presumptions that listeners count on and spea"ers use &'adi- /0(/,. Sperber and Wilson share Grices intuition that utterances create expectations of relevance. 6evertheless- they do not thin" that- it is relevant to have a ooperative #rinciple as well as maxims of conversation in order to explain this phenomenon. 3ccording to them- it is necessary that spea"ers cooperate in Grices sense for communication to be successful. It is in the light of this that- they come up with a more radical development of Grices maxims 5 the Relevance Theory- which see"s to unify the Gricean ooperative #rinciple and conversational maxims into a single principle of relevance that will motivate a hearers influential strategy. 3ccording to Sperber and Wilson &())12 (1<, 9every act of ostensive communication communicates the presumption of its own
9

optimal relevance:. They use the term ostensive communication to describe a situation where there is an interaction. The communicator wants to signal something and create a mutual environment of communication and this intention is recognised by the hearers. This principle of relevance follows Grice in recognising that- hearers can assume a spea"er has a communicative intent. In the Relevance Theory of Sperber and Wilson- it is this intent that leads the spea"er to calculate the relevance of her utterances with the hearers role in mind &Saeed- /007,.

!etarepresentational Capacity 3nother point of convergence between Grice and Sperber and Wilsons theory of relevance is that- on both theoretic accounts- the interpretation of every utterance involves a high degree of metarepresentational capacity- since comprehension rests on the ability to attribute informative and communicative intentions. Grices analysis of overt communication as involving the expression and recognition of intentions treats comprehension as a variety of 9mind5reading: or 9theory of mind:. That is- the ability to attribute mental states to others in order to explain and predict their behaviour. The lin" between mind5reading and communication is confirmed by a wealth of developmental and neuropsychological evidence. Sperber and Wilson are of the view that- mental5state attributions reCuired for comprehension are automatically generated by more general mind5reading mechanisms which apply across the whole domain and therefore there is no need for a special purpose inferential comprehension. 3ccording to Sperber and Wilson- inferential comprehension typically involves several layers of metarepresentation while in regular mind5reading4 a single level is generally enough &Sperber ? Wilson- /00/,. The next section focuses on divergences between the two theorists.

10

"IVERGENCES In#erential !odel @ne main point of divergence between the two theorists concerns the inferential model. Grice embraced inferential model to such an extent that- he totally discarded code model. 'is central claim is that- an essential feature of most human communication- both verbal and non5 verbal- is the expression and recognition of intentions &Grice ()<),. Therefore- in developing this claim- Grice laid the foundations for an inferential model of communication as an alternative to the classical code model- because according to him- the recognition of the communicators intentions lies largely upon inference. @n the other hand- for Sperber and Wilson- inferential and code model can be reconciled. In other words- they do not completely reLect the idea that communication reCuires a code model- but they reassess its scope by the addition of an inferential component. The code model to them- only accounts for the first phase of linguistic treatment that provides the hearer with the initial input that is enriched through inferential processes in order to obtain the spea"ers meaning. They therefore see code model as an indispensable part during verbal communication and without adeCuate analysis of this code4 inference becomes impossible &Mufferey- /0(0,. Secondly- another point of divergence with regard to the inferential model is seen in terms of their definition of inference. Grice ta"es inferences as forms of conscious discursive reasoning processes on the part of the hearer. Sperber and Wilson on the other hand- believe that- inferences in general are instantaneous- unconscious automatic processes and therefore see this definition of Grice to be Cuite problematic on the basis that- such conscious forms of reasoning may seem Cuite complex for adults and more especially for young children who will not be able to master it when they start to use language for communication &Wesley- /001,. Thirdly- their basis of

11

inferential model is different. Aor Sperber and Wilson- it is peoples cognitive nature that guides them and engrossed them in the inferential process. Relevance Theory therefore claims that- humans have an automatic tendency to maximi=e relevance not because they have a choice in the matter or the wor" they rarely do- but because of the way their cognitive system has evolved. .ue to the constant selection pressure toward increasing efficiency- the human cognitive system has developed in such a way that- their perceptual mechanisms tend automatically to pic" out potentially relevant stimuli. 3lso- the memory retrieval mechanisms tend automatically to activate potentially relevant assumptions and finally- their inferential mechanisms tend spontaneously to process them in the most productive way. In other wordswhile we are all li"ely to notice the sound of glass brea"ing in our vicinity- we are li"ely to attend to it more and process it deeply when our memory and inference mechanisms identify it as the sound of our glass brea"ing- and compute the conseCuences that are li"ely to be most worthwhile for us. 6evertheless- for Grice- it is the ooperative #rinciple and the tendency to obey the maxims which drive people in such processes &Wesley- /001,.

Cooperative $rinciples and t%o $rinciples o# Relevance Theory 3gain- another point of divergence between Grices theory of implicature and Sperber and Wilsons theory of relevance is in relation to the principles of the two models. Grice claims that- utterances automatically create expectations which guide the hearer towards the spea"ers meaning. Grice described these expectations in terms of a ooperative principle

and the maxims of Nuality &truthfulness,- Nuantity &Informativeness,- Relation &relevance, and manner &clarity, which spea"ers are to observe. To Grice- the ooperative #rinciple and its subordinate maxims are the fundamental principles of verbal communication. If the communicators do not obey- thus violate or flout these principles- conversational implicature

12

comes into being. Sperber and Wilson on the contrary- maintain that- there are no rules or maxims in the communication process- and that the expectations of relevance raised by utterances are precise enough to guide the hearer toward the spea"ers meaning. They hold the belief that- the cognitive principle of relevance and the communicative principle of relevance are "ey to illustrating the cognitive process of communication- and that the two principles of relevance are not maxims or rules that spea"ers can obey or violate but a simple description of what happens in communication & hina #apers- /0(0,.

The Theoretical Status o# the t%o main $rinciples o# Relevance Theory and the #our !a&ims Grice is mainly concerned with the distinction between saying and meaning. That is to sayhow spea"ers are able to generate implicit meanings and assume that- their addressees will reliably understand their intended meaning. 'is main aim therefore- is to discover the mechanism behind this process and to do so4 he posits the ooperative #rinciple and its ooperative

attendant four maxims as a way of explaining this implication process. The

#rinciple states that2 9ma"e your contribution such as reCuired- at the stage at which it occursby the accepted purpose or direction of the tal" exchange in which you are engaged: &Grice ()+12D1,. The maxim of 8Nuantity posits that2 ma"e your contribution as informative as is reCuired and do not ma"e your contribution more informative than is reCuired. The maxim of 8Nuality states that2 do not say what you believe to be false and do not say that for which you lac" adeCuate evidence. The third maxim is that of 8Relation which calls for the spea"er to be relevant and finally the maxim of 8!anner which behoves on the spea"er to avoid obscurity of expression- ambiguity- unnecessary prolixity and be brief and orderly &Grice ()+12D15D*,. The theory of Relevance &Sperber and Wilson- /00/, on the other hand- has two

13

main principles of relevance. The first &cognitive principle of relevance, is that- human cognition tends to be geared toward the maximisation of relevance. This means that- when listeners process a stimulus- they will converge upon the interpretation that grants the stimulus the maximum degree of relevance. The second &the communicative principle of relevance, is that- the very production of an utterance carries a presumption of its own optimal relevance. This means that- the utterance is the most relevant one compatible with the spea"ers abilities and preferences &;ianca !uller- /0(0,. The theoretical status of these principles of relevance within Relevance Theory is Cuite different to the theoretical status of the four maxims stated above. Whereas the ooperative #rinciple and the four maxims are

behaviours that spea"ers are simply thought to aim for- the principles of relevance are argued on the basis of a number of simple observations to be fundamental facets of human communication and cognition &Scott5#hillips- /00),. Secondly- unli"e the ooperative

#rinciple- the principles of relevance are inviolable. The four maxims of conversation are 9only operable on the bac" of considerable amount of priori context5dependent inference: &Wedgwood- /0012 D),. The principles of relevance in contrast attempt to explain how that context5dependent inference can occur in the first place. It is in this vein- that- Relevance Theory can be seen as radical change to- rather than a refinement of the Gricean paradigm &Scott5#hillips- /00),.

Irony In Grices framewor"- the treatment of irony parallels the treatments of metaphor and hyperbole. Aor Grice- irony is an overt violation of the maxim of truthfulness and differs from metaphor and hyperbole only in the "ind of implicature it conveys. Grices analysis of irony as an overt violation of the maxim of truthfulness is a variant of the classical rhetorical view

14

of irony as literally saying one thing and figuratively meaning the opposite. To Gricemetaphor implicates a simile based on what was said- hyperbole implicates a wea"ening of what was said and irony implicates the opposite of what was said. Relevance Theory reLects both the Gricean analysis of irony and the general assumption that- metaphor- hyperbole and irony should be given parallel treatments. Aor Relevance Theory- while it is easy to see how a spea"er aiming at optimal relevance might convey her meaning more economically by spea"ing loosely rather than using a cumbersome literal paraphrase- it is hard to see how a rational spea"er could hope to convey her meaning more economically by choosing a word whose encoded meaning is the opposite of the one she intends to convey. 3ccording to the explanation put forward by Relevance Theory- verbal irony involves no special machinery or procedures not already needed to account for a basic use of language- interpretive usespecific form of interpretive use and echoic use. To them- an utterance may be interpretively used to represent another utterance or thought that it resembles in content &Wesley /001,.

Role o# !a&im Violation 3 further divergence between the two framewor" is over the role of maxim violation. Grice saw the four maxims as rules that spea"ers can obey or disobey &violates,. 'e therefore listed a number of ways in which a spea"er could violate the maxims such as2 she could opt outexplicitly or implicitly- thus suspending a maxim. She could also covertly violate a maxim with intent to deceive and finally- she could overtly violate a maxim- thus creating an implicature. The assumption that- overt violation can create an implicature plays a crucial role in Grices framewor"- specifically- in his account of metaphor and irony. Relevance theory on the other hand- reLects this assumption on the basis that- the principle of relevance is not a maxim or rule to be obeyed or disobeyed by spea"ers but rather an exceptionless

15

generalisation about what happens when someone is addressed. In such a framewor"- there is therefore no need to claim that- the principle of relevance can overtly be violated to create an implicature. 3ccording to Relevance Theory- utterances raise expectations of relevance not because spea"ers are expected to obey a ooperative #rinciple and maxims or some other

specifically communicative convention- but because the search for relevance is a basic feature of human cognition- which communicators may exploit &Wesley- /001,.

Implicit and E&plicit side o# Communication 3gain- another difference between Grices conversational theory and Sperber and Wilsons theory of relevance is that- whereas Grice was mainly concerned with the implicit side of communication4 Sperber and Wilson were concerned with the explicit side. Grice tal"ed of his ooperative #rinciple and maxims mainly in connection with the recovery of

implicatures- and he seems to have thought of them as playing no significant role on the explicit side. 'is few remar"s on disambiguation and reference assignment- which he saw as falling on the explicit rather than the implicit side- suggest that- he thought of them as determined by sentence meaning and contextual factors alone- without reference to pragmatic principles or spea"ers intentions &Wesley- /001,. @n relevance5theoretic account- the spea"erBs meaning consists of explicit content &explicature,- context and implicit content &implicature,. Aor communicators- the first step identifying the explicature is a combination of decoding and inference- while the second step- inferring the implicature is a matter of identifying implicit premises and implicit conclusions & hina #apers- /0(0,. Sperber and Wilson tal"ed of explicitly communicated content &explicatures, to mean 9a communicated proposition recovered by a combination of decoding and inference- which provides a premise for the derivation of contextual implications and other cognitive effects: &Sperber ? Wilson()<*a,. These two different sides &explicit and implicit sides, have resulted in recent
16

pragmatic literature treating the 9primary: processes involved in the recovery of explicit content as significantly different from the secondary processes involved in the recovery of implicatures &Sperber ? Wilson- /00/,.

Conte&t The notion of context is essential to the pragmatic study of language. Aor Grices inferential model- context involves in the inference process as a presupposition. @nly if the context and the ooperative #rinciples are decided- the audience can Ludge whether the communication

obeys or flouts one of the four maxims and then infer its linguistic meaning and conversation implicature according to how he or she treats the maxim. 'owever- for Relevance Theorycontext is a psychological construct which represents an individuals assumption about the world at any given time and place- and is supposed to include three types of information namely logical- encyclopaedic and lexical information. %ogical information are logical inference rules valid in the context that allow us to reason- and according to Sperber and Wilson- such rules are deductive. Hncyclopaedic information are information about obLectsproperties and events that are instantiated in the context. Ainally- lexical information are lexical rules that allow us to interpret the natural language utterances and sentences. Within Relevance Theory- context is decided by the audience and is invariable. Aor the audience to interpret the meaning of the utterances- they have to form the contextual assumptions and apply them as the presupposition for inference. The Ludge of the correctness of the context is determined by relevance &Wesley- /001,.

!odel o# Communication Ainally- another point of divergence between Grices conversational theory and Sperber and Wilsons theory of relevance is that- the formers model of communication was the
17

reCuirement that- in order to be conveyed- the spea"ers informative intention as well as all contextual assumptions needed to identify it had to be mutually "nown- which created an infinite regression of metarepresentations. @n the other hand- in Sperber and Wilsons modelthe spea"ers meaning does not have to be mutually "nown but only mutually manifest to be conveyed. They therefore remar" that- 9the reali=ation that a trustworthy communicator intends to ma"e you believe something is an excellent reason for believing it: &Sperber ? Wilson- ()<*2(*7,. This mutually manifest assumption is at the core of their thin"ing &!ey/00(,. To Sperber and Wilson- though Grices hypothesis may seem theoretically sound- it creates a practical problem since the infinite series of metarepresentation presented above cannot be represented by the human mind. The divergence between these two accounts comes from the fact that- an assumption cannot be "nown without being explicitly represented in the spea"ers mind. 3lso- for an assumption to be manifest to a spea"er at a given time- it must only be informed- so from the cognitive point of view- Sperber and Wilsons model is much more plausible because it does not involve a regression of metarepresentations that cannot be dealt with by the human mind &Mufferey- /0(0,.

Conclusion ;ased on the above discussions- it is clear that- Grice conversational theory converge with Sperber and Wilsons theory of relevance in terms of intention and communicative intentionsimplicature- relevance and metarepresentational capacity. Though the two theorists share these assumptions- they developed their framewor" in different ways bringing about divergences in areas such as inferential model- principles of their theories- theoretical status of their principles- irony- role of maxim violation- implicit and explicit side of communication and context. Regardless of these convergences and divergences between

18

Grice conversational theory and Sperber and Wilsons theory of relevance- the two theorists have contributed to the field of pragmatics in diverse ways. The Gricean approach to communication amended and refined in the light of subseCuent developments has dominated the field of linguistic pragmatics since its inception. Grices accounts of spea"er meaning and conversational implicature have had lasting strategic impact on philosophy and linguistic pragmatics. .espite the disagreement and controversies associated with his theoryspecificallyooperative #rinciple- it is widely ac"nowledged that- the Gricean approach

lessens the burden on Semantics by see"ing to diverse meaning phenomenon with the help of general principles of rational language use rather than needlessly complex word meanings. 3lso- Grices model has been applied to problems not only in philosophy of language but also in epistemology and meta5ethics. 3gain- it has been employed in linguistics and computer science to address such important topics as lexicon- anaphora- speech planning and discourse analysis. 'is legacy is encapsulated in widely used phrases such as 9Gricean intentionGricean maxims- Gricean pragmatics and Gricean reasoning and Gricean approach among others &;ach- /0((,. Relevance theory also offers a radical alternative that if widely accepted could be seen as a paradigm change in the field. ;y unifying the Gricean ooperative

#rinciple and conversational maxims into a single principle of relevance- Relevance Theory brings plasticity and flexibility into the explanation of cognitive and inferential processes. Replacing the Gricean concepts of mutual cooperation and mutual "nowledge by those of mutual manifestness and cognitive environment respectively- and postulating the existence of variable emerging contexts regulated by given relevance in the place of variable degrees of relevance- Relevance Theory framewor" brings us a plausible account of the notion of context as it ta"es into account individual differences among interlocutors thereby explaining communication as subLect to different degrees of success instead of being simply a matter of processing pieces of suitable information &3lves- /007,.

19

RE'ERENCES 3lves- A. &/007,. Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. 3msterdam. The 6etherlands2 $ohn ;enLamins #ublishing ompany. ;ach- I. &/001,. 8 ontext ex machina. In M. S=abo &ed.,- Semantics versus Pragmatics. @xford2 @xford >niversity #ress- pp.(15DD. ;ach- I. &/0((,. 8Grice. In ;. %ee &ed.,- Philosophy of Language: The Key Thinkers. %ondon2 ontinuum- (+)5()<. ;ianca- !. &/0(0,. ilson ! Sper"er#s Relevance Theory. !unich2 GRI6 Oerlag.

;ilmes- $. &()<*,. $iscourse and %ehaviour. 6ew Gor"- %ondon2 #lenum. arston- R. &/00D,. 8Relevance Theory and SayingP Implicating .istinction. In2 Philosophy of Language- >niversity ollege. %ondon. hina #apers &/0(0,. 83 omparative Study of Grices Theory of Implicatures and Relevance Theory. In &cademic 'ournal ()P. >S32 IISTH. Grice- '. #. &()1+,- 8!eaning- Philosophical Revie* **- 7++57<<. Grice- '.#. &()*+,. 8Logic and conversation#. William $ames %ectures. Reprinted in '.#.Grice &()<),- Studies in the *ay of *ords. ambridge- !32 'arvard >niversity #ress- pp. /(75//7. Grice- '. #. &()+1,- 8%ogic and conversation In ole- #. ? !organ- $. &eds., Synta+ and Semantics- vol. 7. Speech &cts. 6ew Gor"2 3cademic #ress. pp. D(51<. Grice- '. #. &()+<,. 8Aurther notes on logic and conversation. In ole # &ed.,- Synta+ and Semantics- vol.)2 Pragmatics. 6ew Gor"2 3cademic #ress. pp. ((75/<.
20

Grice- '. #. &()<),. Studies in the 'arvard >niversity #ress.

ay of

ords. The William $ames %ectures. ambridge2

'adi- 3. &/0(/,. 83 ritical 3pproach of Grices ooperative #rinciple. In2 Open 'ournal of ,odern Linguistics- vol. 7- 6o.(- **5+/. 'augh- !. &/00<,. 8Intentions in #ragmatics. -ntercultural Pragmatics 1&/,- ))5((0. %eech- G. 6. &()<7,. Principles of Pragmatics. %ondon2 %ongman. !ey- $. %. &/00(,. Pragmatics2 3n Introduction &/nd edition,. >S32 ;lac"well #ublishing %imited. Saeed- $. I. &/007,. Semantics &/nd edition,. @xford2 ;lac"well #ublishing %td. Sbisa- !. &/007,. 8Two onceptions of Rationality in Grices Theory of Implicature. -n ,ind and Language. Seven Symposia- vol. ((- pp. /775/D0. Scott5 #hillips- T. . &/00),. 8The Hvolution of Relevance. (ognitive Science 7D- pp. 1<75 *0(. Sperber- . ? Wilson- .. &/00/,. 8Relevance Theory. In G. Ward and %. 'orn &eds.,. /and"ook of Pragmatics. @xford2 ;lac"well. Sperber- .. ? Wilson- .. &()<*a, Relevance: (ommunication and (ognition. @xford2 ;lac"well. Sperber- .. ? Wilson- .. &())1, Relevance, (ommunication and (ognition &/nd edition,, oxford2 ;lac"well. >nger- . &/00(,. 8On the (ognitive role of genre: & relevance.theoretic perspective#. #'. thesis- >niversity of %ondon- pp. ()5/).

21

Wedgwood- .. &/001,. Shifting the )ocus: )rom static structures to the dynamic of interpretation. @xford- Hngland2 Hlsevier. Wesley &/001,. & Tentative (omparison "et*een 0rice#s (onversational Theory and Relevance Theory. Retrieved from2 www.cpra.com.cnP'tmlP3rticleP////00107/0(0/*D).html. Wharton- T &/007,. 86atural #ragmatics and 6atural odes. ,ind ! Language (<&1,- pp. DD+5D++,. Wilson- .. &())),. 8Relevance and Relevance Theory. In R. Wilson ? A. Ieil &eds., ())). ,-T 1ncyclopedia of the (ognitive Sciences. ambridge2 !IT #ress- !32 +()5//. Mufferey- S. &/0(0,. Le+ical Pragmatics and Theory of ,ind: The &c2uisition of (onnectiveness. 3msterdam. The 6etherlands2 $ohn ;enLamins #ublishing ompany.

22