UNIT 6.

RELEVANCE: COMMUNICATION
AND COGNITION

Relevance theory (RT):

• was created by Sperber and Wilson (S&W)
• it’s grounded in human cognition
• is a development from and a reaction against Grice

The central claim of this reaction is that utterances raise expectations, i.e.,
guide Hs to S’s meaning.

RT questioned:
1) CP and maxims
2) Focus on implicatures
3) Deliberate maxim violation
4) Figurative language as deviation from truthfulness

Relevance is explained by two principles:

• The cognitive principle
• The communicative principle

1. THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE

Human cognition tends to be geared to the maximization of relevance (S&W)

Any stimulus (sight, sound, utterance, memory) raises expectations of

relevance not because Ss are expected to obey CP and maxims, but because
relevance is a basic aspect of human cognition Ss exploit.

When is an input relevant to a person? When it connects with available

background info and yields conclusions important to Hs (answering a question,
confirming a suspicion, correcting a mistaken impression, improving knowledge
on a topic…).

The relevance of a stimulus depends on 2 factors:

• The effort needed to interpret something
• The positive cognitive effects achieved in a context

Relevance is a matter of degree: the greater the processing effort, the lower the
relevance of the stimulus/input. The greater the positive effects achieved in an
input, the greater the relevance of the input.

Mary, who dislikes most meat and is allergic to chicken, asks a waiter what is on
the menu. He could tell her any of the following things:

1. We’re serving meat.

1
 2. We’re serving chicken.
3. We’re serving chicken or the capital of Italy isn’t Rome

Which answer is more relevant? Why? ANSWER: (2) + relevant than (1) & (3)
• (2) entails (1), so it derives all the conclusions (=positive cognitive effects)
derivable from (1) & more.
• (3) yields the same positive cognitive effects as (2) but involves more
processing effort (2nd disjunct).

New information may give rise to 3 types of positive effects:

• A contextual implication (deductible from old and new info).
• Strengthen an existing assumption
• Contradict and eliminate an assumption

A bus driver is to leave from a bus stop when he sees a woman with a bus pass.
The bus driver may derive the following positive cognitive effects:
• If a person is holding a bus pass, s/he intends to travel on a bus. Hence,
this woman intends to travel on my bus (contextual implication).
• The bus driver’s existing assumption that the woman is trying to catch his
bus may be strengthened by the fact that she’s holding a bus pass.
• The bus driver’s existing assumption that the woman intends to catch his
bus is contradicted & eliminated when the woman walks off in the opposite
direction.

2. THE COMMUNICATIVE PRINCIPLE

Every ostensive1 stimulus conveys a presumption of its own optimal
relevance.

Presumption of optimal relevance an ostensive stimulus is optimally

relevant to H iff:
a. It is relevant enough to be worth the H’s processing effort.
b. It is the most relevant one compatible with the S’s abilities and
preferences.

Clause (a): Utterance expected to be + relevant than any other information the
H is processing at that time.
Clause (b): S wants to be understood in the least effort-demanding way (without
misunderstandings)

Examples:

1. A stranger to another on a lift: + Beautiful day, isn’t it?

2. Ann: Did you ever go surfing when you were in New Zealand?
Beth (a): We were living in Taihape.
Beth (b): We were living in Taihape, which is inland.

1
Ostension is when we attract the attention of hearers. Communication is ostensive-inferential
(every time that we talk, we want to catch the hearer’s attention. It is ostensive because hearers
presume that what the speakers says is relevant to him.

2
 3. EXPLICIT-IMPLICIT COMMUNICATION
Grice speaker-meaning

What is said What is implicated

- Literal meaning - Conversationally
- Reference assignment - GCIs
- Disambiguation - PCIs
- Non-conversationally
- Conventional

S&W (1995: 182) speaker-meaning

Explicature Implicature

- Literal meaning - Any assumption

- Reference assignment implicitly communicated
- Disambiguation
- Enrichment

3.1. Explicature

Several utterances with the same explicature but different degrees of

explicitness (from less to more pragmatic inference):

i. Mary Jones put the book by Donne on the table in the downstairs sitting-
room.
ii. Mary put the book on the table.
iii. She put it there

Several utterances with the same explicature but different degrees of

explicitness:

3
Reference assignment: referents determined by an appropriate contextual
value (not linguistic meaning).

John told Bill that he wanted to date his sister.

Disambiguation: Involves selecting 1 sense when the linguistic

meaning provides 2 or more

1. I’m taking a course in modern English grammar. Structural ambiguity

I’m taking a course in grammar of I’m taking a course in modern

modern English grammar of English

2. She is standing near the bank. Lexical ambiguity

She is standing near the bank of She is near the place where
the river people withdraw money

Free enrichment: inferential completion of the utterance’s content

• Saturation: semantic meaning filled with unarticulated constituents:

o John works too hard [for a not well-paid job].
• Narrowing: a concept is made more specific in the explicature:
o Mary has a brain Mary has a [very good] brain.
• Loosening: the meaning of a concept is broadened in the context,
becoming non-literal:
o Here’s my new flatmate [referring to a newly acquired cat].

Utterances may have several explicatures:

i. Bill: Did your son visit you at the weekend?
Mary (visibly happy): He did.
ii. Father to son: Have a shower!

Base-level explicature:

1. Mary’s son visited her at the weekend

(ref. assign.) (disambiguation) (free enrichment)
2. The son has to have a shower at the moment of the utterance

Higher-level explicature:
• Mary is happy that her son visited her

4
 • The father orders the son to shower

3.2. Implicature

Content of implicature wholly supplied by inference

• Some utterances don’t have implicatures (for example, answers to

questions).
o Max: What time is it? Ann: It’s 9 o’clock
• In others, implicatures will be more relevant than explicatures.
o Max: How was the party? Did it go well?
Ann: There wasn’t enough drink, so everyone left early.
Implicature: The party didn’t go very well.

TYPES OF IMPLICATURES

IMPLICATED PREMISES: contextual information

IMPLICATED CONCLUSIONS:
implicatures (speaker-meant) –
derived from the explicatures and the
context

Example:

Betty: Let’s go to a movie. I’ve heard Sense and Sensibility is good.

Phil: Costume dramas are usually boring.

To understand Phil’s meaning, Betty derives these implicatures:

1. Sense and Sensibility is a costume drama (implicated premise).
2. If Sense and Sensibility is a costume drama, it is likely to be boring
(implicated premise).
3. Phillip does not want to watch Sense and Sensibility (conclusion).

Example:

Implicatures are communicated with different degrees of strength (or saliency):

1. A: Do you want a beer?

B: I don’t drink alcohol No, B doesn’t want a beer (strong implicature
no other interpretation S might have H to access and use)

2. Their friendship blossomed.

Their friendship became stronger
It grew from small beginnings Weak implicatures
It developed into something beautiful, etc. (indeterminate)

5
 4. DERIVING EXPLICATURES AND IMPLICATURES
Relevance-theoretic comprehension strategy:
a. Consider interpretations in order to accessibility (i.e., follow a path of
least effort in computing cognitive effects).
b. Stop when the expected level of relevance is reached.

Explicatures and implicatures are derived rapidly, online and in parallel.

Example:

Explicature: it’s raining at locationx

Jo: Shall we play tennis? Imp. premise: if raining, bob does not want to
Bob: It’s raining. play tennis at locationx

Imp. conclusion: Bob does not want to play

tennis at locationx