Relevance Theory - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

7/27/2019 Relevance Theory - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

1/4

3/11/2014 Relevance theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_theory

Relevance theoryFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relevance theoryis a proposal by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson that seeks to explain the second method of

communication: one that takes into account implicit inferences. It argues that the hearer/reader/audience will search

for meaning in any given communication situation and having found meaning that fits their expectation of relevance,

will stop processing.

Contents

1 Relevance theory contrasted with the Conduit Metaphor

2 Examples

3 Overview

4 Formalization

5 Terminology

6 See also7 References

8 Further reading

Relevance theory contrasted with the Conduit Metaphor

There are two ways toconceive of how thoughts are communicated from one person to another. The first way is

through theuse of strictcoding and decoding, (such as is used with Morse code). In this approach the

speaker/author encodes their thoughts and transmits them to their audience. The audience receives the encodedmessage and decodes it to arrive at the meaning the speaker/author intended. This can be visualized as follows:

Speaker's thought/intention encoded transmitted decoded intention/thought understood.

This is usually referred to as the code model[1]or the conduit metaphor[2]of communication. Human

communication however, is almost never this simple. Context almost always plays a part in communication as do

other factors such as the author's intentions, the relationship between the sender and rec eiver and so forth.

The second way of conceiving how thoughts are communicated is by the author/speaker only conveying as much

information as is needed in any given context, so that the audience can recover their intended meaning from what

was said/written as well as from the context and implications. In this conceptual model, the author takes into

account the context of the communication and the mutual cognitive environment between the author and the

audience. (That is what the author/speaker thinks that audience already knows). They then say just enough to

communicate what they intend - relying on the audience to fill in the details that they did not explicitly communicate

This can be visualized as follows:

Speaker's thought/intention context-mediated information encoded transmitted decoded

context-mediated information thought/intention understood by hearer (an interpretive resemblance to the

speaker's intention).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Sperberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deirdre_Wilsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deirdre_Wilsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Sperber


2/4



Examples

Here is a simple example:

Mary: How many loaves of bread do we have?

Bill: five.

Bill did not say "five loaves". He also did not say "five loaves of bread". Both are implied with his reply. But both

are somewhat redundant. What Bill said was just enough to understand his meaning. Mary fills in the missingcontext-mediated information, i.e. that the question was about loaves of bread and not about something else. She

understands that they have five loaves of bread from Bill's one word answer.

Here is another slightly harder example:

Mary: Would you like to come for a run?

Bill: I'm resting today.

We may understand from this example that Bill does not want to go for a run. But that is not what he said. He only

said enough for Mary to add the context-mediated information: i.e. someone who is resting doesn't usually go for a

run. The implication may appear that Bill doesn't want to go for a run today.

A closer analysis may however reveal a different picture. Bill in fact may fancy another woman, Jane, more, and

wants to go for a run with Jane and not Mary. He doesn't want to say "no", because he doesn't want Mary to kno

he's disinterested, because he wants to continue selfishly exploiting Mary's one-sided interest. He doesn't want to

say "yes" because he would lie. So he says he's resting today, which is true, with a deceptive intention for the

answer to be interpreted as a no. In fact he's resting only part of the day, and after that will go running with Jane.

After all, Mary didn't ask what he's doing today, but whether he wants to go for a run. Mary may see through this

and feel disrespected by Bill evading her question.

These examples illustrate an important point: speech underdetermines thought. What we say (write, etc.) is smallcompared to the thoughts which generate the communicative act as well as the thoughts the act typically provokes.

Overview

Sperber and Wilsons theory begins with some watershed assumptions that are typical of pragmatic theories.

Namely, it argues that all utterances are encountered in some context and that utterances convey a number of

implicatures. In addition, they posit the notion of manifestness, which is when something is grasped either

consciously or unconsciously by a person.

They further note that it will be manifest to people who are engaged in inferential communication that each otherhave the notion of relevance in their minds. This will cause each person engaged in the interaction to arrive at the

resumption of relevance, which is the notion that (a) implicit messages are relevant enough to be worth

bothering to process, and (b) the speaker will be as economical as they possibly can be in communicating i

The core of the theory is the communicative principle of relevance, which states that by the act of making an

utterance the speaker is conveying that what they have said is worth listening to, i.e. it will provide "cognitive

effects" worthy of the processing effort required to find the meaning. In this way, every ostensive act of

communication (that is the lexical "clues" that are explicitly conveyed when we speak/write) will look something lik

this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utterancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics


3/4



1. The speaker purposefully gives a clue to the hearer, ("ostensifies"), as to what she wishes to communicate - that

is a clue to her intention.

2. The hearer infers the intention from the clue and the context-mediated information. The hearer must interpret the

clue, taking into account the context, and surmise what the speaker intended to communicate.

For Sperber and Wilson, relevance is conceived as relative or subjective, as it depends upon the state of

knowledge of a hearer when they encounter an utterance. However, they are quick to note that their theory does

not attempt to exhaustively define the concept of "relevance" in everyday use, but tries to show an interesting andimportant part of human communication, in particular ostensive-inferential communication.

Formalization

Relevance Theory's central insights are formalized in the following two-part principle, the Presumption of Optimal

Relevance (see Postface to Sperber and Wilson 1995, p. 270):

The ostensive stimulus is relevant enough for it to be worth the addressee's effort to process it.

The ostensive stimulus is the most relevant one compatible with the communicator's abilities and preferences

Terminology

Sentence

Sentence Utterance

Sentence Sense

Logical Form

Explicature

Contextually Enriched Logical Form

Fully Propositional Logical Form

Truth-Conditional Proposition

Explicit Proposition

Explicated Proposition

Implicature

Implicit Proposition

Implicated Proposition

Encoding

A sentence encodesa set of sentence senses.

Deriving/Entailment

A set of sentence senses entaila contextually enriched logical form.

Deriving/Implying

An explicit proposition impliesimplicit propositions.

See also

Gricean maxims

Relevance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gricean_maximshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicature


4/4



References

1. ^Sperber, Dan/Wilson, Deirdre (1995): Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Second Edition,

Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 29.

2. ^Reddy, M. (1979): "The conduit metaphor a case of frame conflict in our language about language." In: Orton

(ed., 1979), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 284324.

Further reading

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. (1987) Precis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.Behaviora

andBrain Sciences.10, 697-754.

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. (2004) "Relevance Theory" in G. Ward and L. Horn (eds)Handbook o

Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 607-632. [1] (http://www.dan.sperber.fr/?p=93)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relevance_theory&oldid=576942504"

Categories: Pragmatics Theories of language Communication

Thispage was last modified on 13 October 2013 at 03:44.

Textis available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply.

By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policyhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Usehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_Licensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Categoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relevance_theory&oldid=576942504http://www.dan.sperber.fr/?p=93http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pragmatics

Documents

Relevance Theory - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia