Interpretation, relevance and the ideological effects of discursive practice
Research in Critical Discourse Studies has for long recognised the central role that both direct and indirect
communicative strategies play in the reproduction of social inequality, but a main proponent of this approach has expressed
scepticism with regard to the contribution that theories of pragmatics which specifically focus on speaker intentions can make to
its agenda. This paper sets out to examine how relevance theory’s theoretical machinery can be applied to the critical discussion
of ideology in discourse, by offering insights that overcome the limitations imposed by this concentration of its precursors on
speaker intentions. More specifically, I discuss how the cognitive perspective that relevance theory adopts can inform our
understanding of the way in which ideological effects automatically arise during spontaneous utterance interpretation. After
accounting for the derivation of these effects, I briefly suggest how it can additionally be taken to underlie the propagation of
ideologies through discursive practice.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Relevance theory and the territory beyond speaker meaning
- 3.The ideological effects of discourse
- 4.The propagation of ideological effects through discursive practice
- 5.Concluding remarks
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (59)
References
Althusser, Louis. 1971. Ideology
and ideological state apparatuses. In Louis Althusser (ed.) Lenin
and Philosophy and Other
Essays, pp. 121–173. London: Verso.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2017. Context
in relevance theory. In Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman, Christopher Laenzlinger (eds.) Formal
Models in the Study of Language: Applications in Interdisciplinary
Contexts, pp. 221–242. Cham: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2022. Ostension
and the communicative function of natural language. Journal of
Pragmatics 1911: 46–54. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Balkin, Jack M. 1998. Cultural Software: A Theory of
Ideology. New Haven / London: Yale University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brescoll, Victoria L. 2016. Leading with their hearts? How
gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. The Leadership
Quarterly 27 (3): 415–428. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cave, Terence & Deirdre Wilson (eds.). 2018. Reading
Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance
Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Dijk, Teun A. 1995a. Discourse semantics and
ideology. Discourse &
Society 6 (2): 243–289. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Dijk, Teun A. 1995b. Discourse analysis as ideology
analysis. In Christina Schäffner & Anita L. Wender (eds.) Language
and Peace. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Dijk, Teun A. 2006. Discourse, context and
cognition. Discourse
Studies 8 (1): 159–177. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Dijk, Teun A. 2008. Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive
Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language
and
Power. Harlow: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing
Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London / New York: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fazio, Lisa K., Nadia M. Brashier, B. Keith Payne & Elizabeth J. Marsh. 2015. Knowledge
does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General 144 (5): 993–1002. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fogal, Daniel, Daniel W. Harris & Matt Moss (eds.). 2018. New
Work on Speech Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Forceville, Charles. 1998. Pictorial
Metaphor in Advertising. London / New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fowler, Roger. 1991. Language
in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London / New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Garg, Nikhil, Londa Schiebinger, Dan Jurafsky & James Zou. 2018. Word
embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 115 (16): E3635–E3644. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and
conversation’, in Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax
and Semantics (vol.3): Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The
Social Interpretation of Language and
Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hart, Christopher. 2010. Critical
Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration
Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hart, Christopher. 2011. Introduction. In Christopher Hart (ed.) Critical
Discourse Studies in Context and
Cognition, pp. 1–5. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnstone, Barbara. 2018. Discourse
Analysis (3rd edn). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krzyżanowski, Michał. 2020. Discursive
shifts and the normalisation of racism: Imaginaries of immigration, moral panics and the discourse of contemporary right-wing
populism. Social
Semiotics 30 (4): 503–527. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maillat, Didier. 2013. Constraining
context selection: On the pragmatic inevitability of manipulation. Journal of
Pragmatics 59 (Part
B): 190–199. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maillat, Didier & Steve Oswald. 2009. Defining
manipulative discourse: The pragmatics of cognitive illusions. International Review of
Pragmatics 1 (2): 348–370. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mey, Jacob L. & Mary Talbot. 1988. Computation
and the soul. Journal of
Pragmatics 121: 743–789. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Musolff, Andreas. 2004. Metaphor
and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about
Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oswald, Steve. 2014. It
is easy to miss something you are not looking for: A pragmatic account of covert communicative influence for (critical)
discourse analysis. In Christopher Hart & Piotr Cap (eds.) Contemporary
Studies in Critical Discourse
Analysis, pp. 97–120. New York / London: Bloomsbury.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2017. Conceptual
competence injustice and relevance theory: A reply to Derek Anderson.” Social Epistemology
Review and Reply
Collective 6 (12): 39–50.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Polyzou, Alexandra. 2018. Pragmatics
and critical discourse studies. In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds.) The
Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse
Studies, pp. 195–207. London / New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Saussure, Louis. 2011. Discourse
analysis, cognition and evidentials. Discourse
Studies 13 (6): 781–788. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Saussure, Louis. 2012. Cognitive
pragmatic ways into discourse analysis: The case of discursive presuppositions. Lodz Papers in
Pragmatics 8 (1): 37–59. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Saussure, Louis and Tim Wharton. 2020. Relevance,
effects and affect. International Review of
Pragmatics, 12(2): 183–205. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schulz-Hardt, Stefan, Annika Giersiepen & Andreas Mojzisch. 2016. Preference-consistent
information repetitions during discussion: Do they affect subsequent judgments and
decisions? Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 641: 41–49. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan. 1996. Explaining
Culture: A Naturalistic
Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, Francesco Cara & Vittorio Girotto. 1995. Relevance
theory explains the selection
task. Cognition 57 (1): 31–95. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi & Deirdre Wilson. 2010. Epistemic
vigilance. Mind &
Language, 25 (4): 359–393. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance:
Communication and Cognition (2nd
edn). Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1987. Precis
of Relevance. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences 10 (4): 697–710. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1997. Remarks
on relevance theory and the social
sciences. Multilingua 161: 145–151. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 2015. Beyond
speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of
Philosophy 151: 117–149.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Watson, James & Anne Hill. 2012. Dictionary
of Media and Communication Studies (8th edn). New York / London: Bloomsbury.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Waugh, Linda R., Theresa Catalano, Khaled Al Masaeed, Tom Hong Do & Paul G. Renigar. 2016. Critical
discourse analysis: Definition, approaches, relation to pragmatics, critique, and
trends. In Alessandro Capone & Jacob L. Mey (eds.) Interdisciplinary
Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and
Society, pp. 71–135. Cham: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wharton, Tim, Constant Bonard, Daniel Dukes, David Sander & Steve Oswald. 2021. Relevance
and emotion. Journal of
Pragmatics 1811: 259–269. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre. 2006. The
pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or
pretence? Lingua 116 (10): 1722–1743. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre. 2018. Relevance
theory and literary interpretation. In Terence Cave and Deirdre Wilson (eds.) Reading
Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance
Theory, pp. 185–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre. 2019. Relevance
theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Linguistics. Retrieved 12 June
2021, from ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston. 2019. Pragmatics
and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of
Pragmatics 571: 125–148. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 1985. On
choosing the context for utterance-interpretation. In Jens Allwood & Erland Hjelmquist (eds.) Foregrounding
Background, pp. 51–64. Lund: Doxa.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance
theory. In Lawrence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.) The
Handbook of
Pragmatics, pp. 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2005. Reply
to Rajagopalan. Intercultural
Pragmatics 2 (1): 99–103. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wodak, Ruth & Michael Meyer. 2016. Critical
discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods
of Critical Discourse Studies (3rd
edn), pp. 1–22. London: Sage.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
de Oliveira Fernandes, Daniel & Steve Oswald
2022.
On the Rhetorical Effectiveness of Implicit Meaning—A Pragmatic Approach.
Languages 8:1
► pp. 6 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.