Re: Relevance Theory and the Bible - a Few Resources

Biblical Greek morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 380
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Relevance Theory and the Bible - a Few Resources

Post by Matthew Longhorn » September 18th, 2020, 12:02 pm

If you mean a paper you can read in that time, give this one a bash; It’s a 2024 paper by Wilson who pioneered the theory
https://www.academia.edu/22606655/Relevance_theory
2 x



Jason Hare
Posts: 705
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Relevance Theory and the Bible - a Few Resources

Post by Jason Hare » September 18th, 2020, 12:49 pm

Matthew Longhorn wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 12:02 pm
If you mean a paper you can read in that time, give this one a bash; It’s a 2024 paper by Wilson who pioneered the theory
https://www.academia.edu/22606655/Relevance_theory
Thanks for posting that. I'm going to take the time now to sit and read it. I appreciate it - and the rest of the information that you're collecting here.
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 380
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Relevance Theory and the Bible - a Few Resources

Post by Matthew Longhorn » September 18th, 2020, 1:29 pm

Jason Hare wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 12:49 pm
I appreciate it - and the rest of the information that you're collecting here.
Good to know I am not just being annoying with it!
0 x

Jason Hare
Posts: 705
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Relevance Theory and the Bible - a Few Resources

Post by Jason Hare » September 18th, 2020, 1:41 pm

Matthew Longhorn wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 1:29 pm
Jason Hare wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 12:49 pm
I appreciate it - and the rest of the information that you're collecting here.
Good to know I am not just being annoying with it!
Well, I sat down and read the first two pages again and again, and it is still going over my head. I just decided that I'm going to start with Grice so that they're not talking about things that I haven't read myself. I've just downloaded Grice's 1957 article on meaning, and I'm going to start there.

You're not being annoying at all. I really appreciate the overload of information, and I hope that I can make enough sense of it to have it change some of my own perspectives on semantics and meaning. Thanks again.
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Daniel Semler
Posts: 200
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: Relevance Theory and the Bible - a Few Resources

Post by Daniel Semler » September 18th, 2020, 2:08 pm

Matthew Longhorn wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 12:02 pm
If you mean a paper you can read in that time, give this one a bash; It’s a 2024 paper by Wilson who pioneered the theory
https://www.academia.edu/22606655/Relevance_theory
Thanx Matthew, I'll take a look. I assume it's not really a paper from the future :)

Thx
D
0 x

Jason Hare
Posts: 705
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Relevance Theory and the Bible - a Few Resources

Post by Jason Hare » September 18th, 2020, 2:22 pm

All right, I have to say that I disagree with Grice from the very beginning of his presentation.
Grice wrote:“Those spots mean (meant) measles.”
Grice wrote:(I) I cannot say, “Those spots meant measles, but he hadn’t got measles”...
Grice wrote:(2) I cannot argue from “Those spots mean (meant) measles” to any conclusion about “what is (was) meant by those spots”; for example, I am not entitled to say, “What was meant by those spots was that he had measles.”
Grice wrote:(3) I cannot argue from “Those spots meant measles” to any conclusion to the effect that somebody or other meant by those spots so-and-so.
Grice wrote:(4) For none of the above examples can a restatement be found in which the verb “mean” is followed by a sentence or phrase in inverted commas. Thus “Those spots meant measles” cannot be reformulated as “Those spots meant ‘measles’” or as “Those spots meant 'he has measles.’”
How can he so confidently say these things? It would seem completely reasonable to me to say that “These spots mean measles” could easily be understood to say “These spots mean/indicate that you have (the patient has) measles.” If not, then these words have no meaning at all! Why would he start out his article with something that is intuitively false?!

I hope it gets better than this.
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 380
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Relevance Theory and the Bible - a Few Resources

Post by Matthew Longhorn » September 18th, 2020, 2:29 pm

It has been a while since I looked at Grice, and note that RT departs from him in a number of ways.
I to give him a read through later and comment, unless others can
0 x

Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 380
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Relevance Theory and the Bible - a Few Resources

Post by Matthew Longhorn » September 18th, 2020, 2:52 pm

I just got out Billy Clark's 2013 book on RT which discusses Grice and meaning. I didn't want to assume before I read back again, but Clark notes that the distinction Grice is making is between natural meaning and non-natural.
With natural meaning, you infer a logical relationship from something. The reason that you can't say that "those spots meant measles, but he hadn't got measles" is that in this context we are saying that there is a causal relationship. So you can't reasonably say "this means X but it doesnt mean X".
Spots don't mean something though in the same way as communication does. They are just a fact

Grice apparently also uses the example of a bus bell ringing to communicate it is full. This is non-natural / communicated meaning with an intention behind it. In other words, we are being asked to take the sign given to us, and to interpret it in some way based on our assumptions about the communicator's intention. This isn't a logical if x then y, as we may misconstrue the intention, or the sign may be produced with the right intention but erroneously.

Putting the measles back into the context of natural and non-natural meaning, the spots don't have intention behind them. We don't feel they are intentionally communicating to us, therefore they don't "mean" in something the same way
I may have just butchered this :) as I said, a long time since I looked at this particular bit

Putting this against relevance theory - RT crucially makes a distinction between an communicative intent and an informative intent; it argues that a communicator should show that he intends for us to pay attention (produce ostensive communication), and they will seek to inform us of something. For RT there is a lot of "mind-reading", inferring the communicators intention based on the communication, context, background knowledge etc.


Check out the google books preview of Clark
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wP- ... &q&f=false
0 x

Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 380
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Relevance Theory and the Bible - a Few Resources

Post by Matthew Longhorn » September 18th, 2020, 2:57 pm

Daniel Semler wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 2:08 pm
Thanx Matthew, I'll take a look. I assume it's not really a paper from the future :)

Thx
D
You will just have to infer my meaning in this case ;-)
0 x

Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 380
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Relevance Theory and the Bible - a Few Resources

Post by Matthew Longhorn » October 3rd, 2020, 6:18 am

Perry, S (2019)
“Do not harm the trees!” Ecology, Empire, and Translation in the Book of Revelation
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 7019875207
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Greek Language and Linguistics”