A Relevance-Theory Approach To DMI In Crosstalk

Based on Relevance theory (1986/1995), the thesis gives a systematic and qualitativeanalysis of DMI in crosstalk.Though many scholars have made great achievements in the study of DMI from theperspective of semantics, the research in this area is still incomplete, in the presence of theneglection of the criteria for judging intentionality in DMI, the unsystematic analysis of thegenerative and operating mechanisms, which is mainly from the perspective of semantics ratherthan pragmatics, and the insufficient concern for the positive and negative functions of DMI oncommunication.Many classical cases of crosstalk are collected and analyzed in this thesis, based on whichthe criteria for judging the intentionality in DMI are inferred: the utterance output of theaddressee obviously violates common sense; the utterance output of the addressee evidentlydiverges from the context that the addressor establishes earlier; the cognitive abilities of the twoparties involved in communication tend to be at the same level.As for the generative process of DMI, the thesis holds that DMI is caused by the ambiguityof language and pragmatic vagueness. DMI caused by the ambiguity of language is studied inthe following aspects: lexical ambiguity, structural ambiguity, omission ambiguity, deixisambiguity and certain rhetorical devices. DMI caused by pragmatic vagueness is specificallyreflected in different illocutionary forces and conversational implicatures.The study finds that DMI is a process in which the addressee literally adapts to theaddressor’s informative intention, but in fact, he deliberately violates the addressor’scommunicative intention; DMI is a process to change and enlarge the mutual-manifestcognitive context of the two parties involved in communication; DMI is a process in which thepresumption of optimal relevance created by the addressee’s practical utterance output deniesthe addressor’s presumption of maximal relevance.The author concludes that DMI is carried out by two means: deliberately violatingcongruency and deliberately deviating from the specific context or changing it. Violatingcongruency can be classified into: violating the conventional meanings of vocabularies,confounding different meanings of the same vocabulary, shifting or changing the topic andchanging the order of words.The thesis finally summarizes the following communicative functions of DMI: creatinghumorous effects and embarrassing atmospheres; maintaining face and threatening face;coordinating social relationships and causing conflicts; educating.