Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:06:58.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Phatic interpretations and phatic communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 1999

VLAD ŽEGARAC
Affiliation:
University of Luton
BILLY CLARK
Affiliation:
Middlesex University

Abstract

This paper considers how the notion of phatic communication can best be understood within the framework of Relevance Theory. To a large extent, we are exploring a terminological question: which things which occur during acts of verbal communication should the term ‘phatic’ apply to? The term is perhaps most frequently used in the phrase ‘phatic communication’, which has been thought of as an essentially social phenomenon and therefore beyond the scope of cognitive pragmatic theories. We suggest, instead, that the term should be applied to interpretations and that an adequate account of phatic interpretations requires an account of the cognitive processes involved in deriving them. Relevance Theory provides the basis for such an account. In section 1, we indicate the range of phenomena to be explored. In section 2, we outline the parts of Relevance Theory which are used in our account. In section 3, we argue that the term ‘phatic’ should be applied to interpretations, and we explore predictions about phatic interpretations which follow from the framework of Relevance Theory, including the claim that phatic interpretations should be derived only when non-phatic interpretations are not consistent with the Principle of Relevance. In section 4 we consider cases where cognitive effects similar to those caused by phatic interpretations are conveyed but not ostensively communicated.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 1999 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For financial support, we would like to thank the School of English, Cultural and Communication Studies at Middlesex University. For useful discussion and comments, we would like to thank John Bird, Richard Breheny, Robyn Carston, Alan Durant, Steve Nicolle, Villy Rouchota, Dan Sperber, Deirdre Wilson, two anonymous JL referees, audiences at the University of Brighton, Middlesex University, the University of Sussex, the ‘Colloquium on the Processes of Linguistic Communication’ at the University of Wales Bangor and the Linguistics Association of Great Britain conference at the University of Salford.