Relevance Theory

1
Relevance Theory

• Sperber Wilson (1986)

2
Introduction

• Dont forget to meet us in the cafeteria
• this afternoon.

-gt Yes, sure I will be there. -gt What time? -gt I
have to go to the copy shop anyway. -gt My hamster
is ill.
What is RELEVANCE?
3
Relevance (Sperber Wilson)

• An assumption is relevant in a context if and
  only if it
• has some contextual effect in that context.

An assumption is relevant in a context to the
extent that its contextual effects in this
context are large. An assumption is relevant in
a context to the extent that the effort required
to process it in this context is small.
4
Grice Be relevant!

• Keep on the subject, dont get carried away.

New aspects in Relevance Theory

• Relevance Theory doesnt require a common purpose
  
• Theory is not a maxime.
• Grice interested in successful communication
• Sperber Wilson define whether relevance can
  be proven or not

5
The notions of explicature and implicature
We will call an explicitly communicated
assumption an explicature. Any assumption
communicated, but not explicitly so, is
implicitly communicated it is an implicature.
(SW 1986182)
explicature
an elaborated logical form
implicature
a new logical form
both are taken to represent meanings conveyed by
the speaker
6
1. An explicature is
an ostensively communicated assumption which is
inferentially developed from the incomplete
conceptual representation (logic form) resulting
from linguistic decoding.
2. An (conversational) implicature is
an ostensively communicated assumption that is
derived solely via process of pragmatic
inference.
Some implicatures are intended contextual
assumptions and so function as premises in
inference process that issues in others which are
intended contextual implications.
7
Example Peter It is cold in here.
1. Explicature
The temperature in the room is low.
2. Implicature dependant on the context
1. Peter freezes.
2. It is too cold for Peters hamster.
the new level of explicature proposed by SW
provides an intermediate level between what is
said and implicatures
it is a graded scale at three levels (said,
explicature, implicature)
8
Implicated premises and implicated conclusions
We will distinguish between two kinds of
implicatures implicated premises and implicated
conclusions (SW 1986 195)
according to SW deriving an implicature from an
explicature is frequently a two-step process
which requires a first implicature
? this is called the implicated premise before
the consequent implicature or the implicated
conclusion can be inferred
What is said(the decoded form)
Explicature(what is explicitly said)
Implicated premise
Implicated conclusion
9
Example implicated premise and implicated
conclusion
Peter It is cold in here.
Implicated premise
Peter freezes.
Implicated conclusion
The window should be shut.
10
Speaker judgement and hearer resources
the speaker must make some assumptions about the
hearer's cognitive abilities and contextual
resources these assumptions will necessarily be
reflected in the way she communicates and in
particular what she chooses to mention explicitly
or what she chooses to leave implicit (1986
218)
A speaker who intends an utterance to be
interpreted in a particular way must also expect
the hearer to be able to supply a context which
allows that interpretation to be recovered (SW
1986 16)
11
Accessibility
the most accessible interpretation is the most
relevant one
Relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure
the hearer should take the decided linguistic
meaning
following a path of least effort
he should enrich it at the explicit level
and complement it at the implicit level until the
resulting interpretation meets his expectation of
relevance
12
Subtask in the overall comprehension process
a) Constructing an appropriate hypothesis about
explicit content (EXPLICATURES) via decoding,
disambiguation, reference resolution and other
pragmatic enrichment process
b) Constructing an appropriate hypothesis about
the intended contextual assumptions
(IMPLICATED PREMISES)
c) Constructing an appropriate hypothesis about
the intended contextual implications
(IMPLICATED CONCLUSION)
these subtasks should not be seen as sequentially
ordered
? comprehension is an on-line process
13
effect and effort

• How are degrees of relevance determined?

Sperber Wilson compare the concept of relevance
with concepts such as productivity or yield,
which involve some form of cost-benefit analysis
2 Relevance Factors 1) degree of contextual
effect 2) processing effort
A firm is productive to some degree when having
an output of any value -gt assumption with any
contextual effect is relevant to some degree
14

• -gt the effort to produce an utterance has to be
  taken into account in assessing degrees of
  relevance

Processing effort is a negative factor other
things being equal, the greater the processing
effort, the lower the relevance.
Which sentence is more relevant? (1) Peter is
getting married to Susan. (2) Peter is getting
married to Susan, and 1967 was a great year for
French wines.
other things being equal, an assumption with
greater contextual effects is more relevant and
other things being equal, an assumption requiring
a smaller processing effort is more relevant
15
Exercise Peter Im tired
Mary (1) I will make the dinner then. (2) Our
car is green. (3) I will make the dinner
tonight, if you are tired.
16

• Within relevance theory, the problem is not to
  assess contextual effects and processing effort
  from the outside, but to describe how the mind
  assesses its own achievements and efforts from
  the inside, and decides as a result to pursue its
  efforts or reallocate them in different
  directions.

-gt Which effects are worth which effort?
- some people are more willing to incur a
certain processing effort to achieve contextual
effect
- some people are more alert, so for them its
easier to explore relevance in an utterance
17

• Relevance is a function of effect and effort and
  a property which needs to be represented in terms
  of comparative judgements (irrelevant/weakly
  relevant/very relevant).

Effort and effect are two criteria for comparing
the relevance of different assumptions in a given
context, but how is the context determined?
18
4 hypothesis Context

• (1) assumptions expressed

(2) or implicated by preceding utterances,
(3) PLUS the encyclopaedic entries attached to
any concepts used in these assumptions

• PLUS the encyclopaedic entries attached to
• any concept used in the new utterance

19
utterance

• I am tired.

assumption (expressed/implicated)
wish to get the meal made by Mary
I will make the meal.
concept of MEAL
meal dessert main course
The dessert is ready. I will make the main
course.
encyclopaedic entries attached to the concept
Main course is e.g. an osso-bucco
1st layer of the enc.entry
I will make an osso-bucco
Osso-bucco is the specialty of the Capri
Restaurant.
2nd layer ...
I will make the specialty of the Capri Restaurant.
20

• problem
• amount of encyclopaedic information can increase
  the contextual effect and each expansion of the
  context means an increase in processing effort

-gt worst case this would lead to a general loss
of relevance.
Peter I am tired. Mary The desert is ready.
I will make the specialty of that restaurant
next to where John lives.

• Relevance in this case decreases to a minimum.

21

• We have assumed that the context is uniquely
  determined
• I am tired leads automatically to the
  assumption that Peter wishes Mary to make the
  meal?!?!

Each utterance can express or imply a selected
set of background assumptions from diverse
sources (long-term memory, short-term memory,
perception).
-gt an individuals encyclopaedic memory limits
the class of potential contexts, because not all
chunks are equally accessible at any given time
and people never produce new information with a
blank mind. Certain information is always
accessible.
22
What determines the selection of a particular
context out of that range?
the search for relevance

• People
• try to obtain as great a contextual effect as
  possible for as small as possible a processing
  effort

hope that the assumption being processed is
relevant and they try to select a context
which will justify this hope a context which
will maximise relevance
23
Ostensive-inferential communication

• Ostensive-inferential communication involves the
  use of an
• ostensive stimulus, designed to attract an
  audience's attention
• and focus it on the communicator's meaning.

According to relevance theory use of an ostensive
stimulus may create precise and predictable
expectations of relevance not raised by other
inputs.
24

• ostensive-inferential communication involves two
• intentions

• an informative intention to make manifest to the
  audience a set of assumptions (the intention to
  inform an audience of something)

2. a communicative intention to make the
informative intention mutually manifest (the
intention to inform the audience of one's
informative intention)
Mary (to Peter) Hey Peter the shop at the
corner is open non-stop
from now on!
25

• ostensive communication
• fulfillment of the communicative intention can
  lead to the fulfillment of the
• informative intention
• how the communicative intention itself is
  fulfilled

with ostensive communication the intended
communicative effect is the recognition of the
informative intention
informative intention
communicative intention
can but does not have to lead to
26
given the cognitive tendency to maximize
relevance, an audience will only pay attention to
an input that seems relevant enough
an ostensive stimulus is designed to attract the
audience's attention
by producing an ostensive stimulus the
communicator therefore encourages the audience to
presume that it is relevant enough to be worth
processing? a stimulus is only worth processing
if it is more relevant than any alternative input
at the time
ostensive stimuli ? must satisfy two conditions
(a) they must attract the audience's attention
(b) they must focus it on the communicator's
intentions
27
once the ostensive nature of a stimulus is
mutually manifest to speaker and hearer, it is
also mutually manifest that the communicator has
an informative intention (that is that he intends
to make manifest to the hearer some set of
assumptions)
most stimuli used in ostensive-inferential
communication evoke attention they typically
involve
(a) sudden loud noises ( e.g. shouts, knocking or
ringing at the door, the tone preceding the
station announcement, )
(b) striking visual stimuli as hand waves,
flashing lights or bright posters
(c) vigorous tactile stimulation such as prodding
or grasping
28
most important spoken utterances in one's own
native language automatically attract attention
if they are distinctive audible it is almost
impossible to filter them out as background noise
ostensive stimuli arouse definite expectations of
relevance, of relevance achievable once the
communicator's informative intention is
recognized
? so the speaker must intend to manifest to the
audience that the stimulus is relevant
? in other words, an act of ostensive
communication automatically communicates a
presumption of optimal relevance
29
Presumption of optimal relevance
1. The set of assumptions A which the
communicator intends to make manifest to the
addressee is relevant enough to make it worth
the addressee's while to process the ostensive
stimulus
2. The ostensive stimulus is the most relevant
one the communicator could have used to
communicate A
Examples
1. Leaving the empty glass on the desk vs. waving
the empty glass at sb.
2. Ive read the first chapter of the book
the audience assumes that I have only
read the first chapter of the book, because if
I had read more, I would have said so.
30
To achieve the communicative intention the
communicator has to choose one of a range of
different stimuli which would all make the
particular informative intention mutually
manifest.
it is in the interest of both
The speaker wants to be understood and therefore
makes his utterance as easy as possible for the
hearer to understand.
ensures
The hearer will receive that stimulus that
requires the least processing effort
31
Points for discussion

• Communication, interaction is not taken into
  consideration

Willingness of the addressee to understand an
utterance is required
Is relevance measurable at all?
effort/effect idea too economical? language
borrowed from computers and economics
32
Relevance in use

• A is waiting at a bus station. B is walking by,
  sees A, waves to A and stops to have a chat with
  A.
• B Hey, what are you doing here? Havent seen
  you in a while. How are you doing?
• A Hey, nice to see you. Im heading to the city
  center.
• B mhm,.listen, Im in a hurry, have to hand in
  a paper to my lecturer, his office will be closed
  in 5 minutes, so I have to gohowever, are you
  going to the party at Janes house tonight?
• A oh yes, I will be there. She asked me to come
  yesterday. So see you there
• or
• yeahmy bus is arrving in a minute anyway and
  yeah, Im going to the party.
•  
• As mobile is ringing, A answers the phone
• A oh, sorry..hello?
• C Hello, its Paul. Where are you?
• B well have to go anywaysee you tonight
• A yeah, see you later!..... Im at the bus
  station

33
Bibliography

• Sperber, D. Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance.
  Communication And Cognition. Cornwall T.J. Press
  Ldt. (p. 118-171)
• Breheny, R. Interface Economy and Focus. In
  Rouchota, V. Jucker, A.H.(eds) (1998) Current
  Issues In Relevance Theory. Amsterdam J.B. Publ.
  Company (p. 107-136, 331-341)
• Grundy, P. (1995) Doing Pragmatics. New York
  St. Martins Press Inc.
• (p. 141-149)
• Horn, L.R. Ward, G. (eds) (2006) The Handbook
  Of Pragmatics. Oxford Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  (p. 607-656)