Relevance Theory

Tracy Cheng

16070724

May 26th, 2010 Theory:“Relevance Theory”

People first adopting the theory: Relevance theory is defined as "cognitive account of pragmatic understanding". It was proposed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson in the book Relevance: Communication and Cognition published in 1986, and revised in 1995 (https://www.360docs.net/doc/b810390737.html,/%B5%F3%C2%F9%B9%AB%D6%F7112233/blog/item/ 422bb754f20ec652d1090637.html). The theory is based on Grice?s famous theory “inferential model of communication”(Sperber and Wilson, p.1). It sharesGrice?s ideas that utterances raise expectations of relevance, but adds that the expectations of relevance raised by an utterance are precise and predictable enough to guide the hearer towards the speaker?s meaning (Sperber and Wilson, p.2).

Clarification:

Grice once explained that in making conversation, the participants must first of all be willing to cooperate. This principle is called Cooperative Principle (CP), involving maxims of Quality, Quantity, Relation and Manner (truthfulness, informativeness, relevance and clarity). However, he left the maxim of relation (…be relevant?) undeveloped. “Relevance theory”aims to remedy this defect by saying what makes information worth attending to, but without appealing to notions such as topic or interest (Wilson, p.1). It differs from Grice?s theory in three main respects: It does not treat communication as necessarily cooperative in Grice?s sense. To communicate successfully, speaker and hearer only need to understand and be understood; The Communicative Principle of Relevance is not a maxim that speakers need to know, but a generalization about acts of inferential communication. Deliberate maxim-violation which is central to Grice?s theory has no role in relevance-theoretic comprehension(Wilson, p.4).

“Relevance theory” is based on a definition of relevance and two principles of relevance: a Cognitive Principle and a Communicative Principle(Wilson, p.1).

Within relevance theory,relevance is treated as a property of inputs to cognitive processes and analyzed in terms of the notions of cognitive effect and processing effort. When an input (for example, an utterance) is processed in a context of available assumptions, it may yield some cognitive effect (for example, by modifying or reorganizing these assumptions). Other things being equal, the greater the cognitive effects, the greater the relevance of the input. However, the processing of the input, and the derivation of these effects, involves some mental effort. Other things being equal, the smaller the processing effort, the greater the relevance of the input(Wilson, p.2).

On the basis of this definition, two general principles are proposed: the Cognitive Principle that human cognition tends to be geared to the maximization of relevance(Sperber and Wilson, p.6); and the Communicative Principle that every act of inferential communication communicates a presumption of its own optimal relevance (Sperber and Wilson, p.8). According to the Cognitive Principle of Relevance, human attention and processing resources are allocated to information that seems relevant. According to the Communicative Principle of Relevance, the speaker, byaddressing someone, communicates that the speaker?s utterance is the most relevant one and is at least relevant enough to be worth the hearer?s processing effort(Wilson, p.3). Illustration:

Here is an example reflecting the differences between Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Relevance Theory:

Suppose a stranger comes up and asks you the time. You look at your watch and see that it is 11:58 exactly. How should you reply? In Grice?s Cooperative Principle, a speaker obeying the maxim of truthfulness should say “11:58”. By saying “It?s 12.00” (speaking loosely and thus violating the maxim of truthfulness), you would be understood as conveying that it was (exactly) 12:00. By contrast, in Relevance Theory, a speaker aiming at optimal relevance has every reason to speak loosely (thus reducing her hearer?s processing effort) unless this would (in her view) lead to some significant loss of cognitive https://www.360docs.net/doc/b810390737.html,ually, a stranger comes up to ask you the time, he or she just wants to get a rough time. In this situation, speaking loosely is acceptable.However, if the stranger comes up in a hurry, maybe he or she is catching the train and will be late, it?s better to answer an accurate time, dropping the stranger a hint that “you still have some time to catch the train”.

It should therefore be possible, by varying the scenario in which the question is asked, to produce stricter or looser answers depending on whether or not the stricter answer would carry relevant implications. So “Relevance Theory” holds the opinion that communication is based on the mutual understanding of both the speaker and the hearer. Sometimes, without achieving maximization of relevance, according to the context and other elements (like culture, cognition) people can still communicate with each other well.