Notes

The first is the distinction between linguistically decoded meaning and pragmatically inferred meaning

The pragmatic process at work here is known as free enrichment; it is “free” in that it is not under linguistic control. So, unlike saturation, it is an optional process, in the sense that there can be contexts in which it does not take place, though these tend to be somewhat unusual.

On the relevance-theoretic view, implicatures come in two sorts: implicated premises and implicated conclusions. Implicated premises are a subset of the contextual assumptions used in processing the utterance and implicated conclusions are a subset of its contextual implications. What distinguishes these subsets from other contextual assumptions and implications is that they are communicated (speaker-meant), hence part of the intended interpretation of the utterance.

The central claim of relevance theory is that the expectations of relevance raised by an utteranceare precise and predictable enough to guide the hearer toward the speaker’s meaning.

According to relevance theory, any external stimulus or internal representation which provides an input to cognitive processes may be relevant to an individual at some time. Utterances raise expectations of relevance not because speakers are expected to obey a Cooperative Principle and maxims or some other communicative convention, but because the search for relevance is a basic feature of human cognition, which communicators may exploit

The most important type of cognitive effect is a contextual implication, a conclusion deducible from input and context together, but from neitherinput nor context alone.

According to relevance theory, an input is relevant to anindividual when its processing in a context of available assumptions yields a positive cognitive effect. A positive cognitive effect is a worthwhile difference to the individual’s representation of the world: a true conclusion, for example. False conclusions are not worth having; they are cognitive effects, but not positive ones

What makes an input worth picking out from the mass of competing stimuli is not just that it is relevant, but that it is MORE relevant than any alternative input available to us at that time

According to relevance theory, other things being equal, the greater the positive cognitive effects achieved by processing an input, the greater its relevance will be. Thus, the sight of my train arriving one minute late maymake little worthwhile difference to my representation of the world, while the sight of it arriving half an hour late may lead to a radical reorganization of my day, and the relevance of the two inputs will vary accordingly

According to relevance theory, other things being equal, the greater the processing effort required, the less relevant the input will be. Thus, relevance may be assessed in terms of cognitive effects and processing effort:
(1) Relevance of an input to an individual a. Other things being equal, the greater the positive cognitive effects achieved by processing an input, the greater the relevance of the input to the individual at that time. b. Other things being equal, the greater the processing effort expended, the lower the relevance of the input to the individual at that time.

In therefore seems preferable to treat effort and effect (and relevance, which is a function of effort and effect) as non-representational dimensions of mental processes: they exist and play a role in cognition whether or not they are mentally represented; and when they are mentally represented, it is in the form of intuitive comparative judgments rather than absolute numerical ones.

automatically to pick out potentially relevant stimuli, our memory retrieval mechanisms tend automatically to activate potentially relevant assumptions, and our inferential mechanisms tend spontaneously to process them in themost productive way.

Cognitive Principle of Relevance Human cognition tends to be geared to the maximization of relevance.

Inferential communication – what relevance theory calls ostensiveinferential communication, for reasons that will shortly become apparent – involves an extra layer of intention:
(6) Ostensive-inferential communication a. The informative intention: The intention to inform an audience of something. b. The communicative intention: The intention to inform the audience of one’s informative intention.

Understanding is achieved when the communicative intention is fulfilled – that is, when the audience recognizes the informative intention.

My glass is empty.” More generally, ostensive-inferentialcommunication 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.

Given the cognitive tendency to maximize relevance, an audience will only pay attention to an input that seems relevant enough. By producing an ostensive stimulus, the communicator therefore encourages her audience to presume that it is relevant enough to be worth processing