Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-89wxm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T17:36:58.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Relevance Theory and Context

from Part III - Pragmatic Approaches to Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2023

By
Deirdre Wilson
Edited by
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Get access

Summary

This chapter considers the treatment of context in relevance theory, a cognitively oriented pragmatic theory which sees human communication and cognition as governed by the search for relevance. Utterance interpretation crucially relies on context, and a central question for pragmatics is about how hearers find the right contextual information to use in interpreting an utterance, and thus succeed in identifying the speaker’s meaning. According to relevance theory, utterances raise precise and predictable expectations of relevance which guide the hearer in every aspect of utterance interpretation, from disambiguation and reference resolution to the choice of contextual information and the derivation of implicatures (i.e. intended implications). After outlining the main assumptions of Relevance Theory, the chapter illustrates with examples how these different aspects of interpretation fit together, and compares Relevance Theory’s treatment of context with some alternative treatments discussed in the pragmatic literature, including those based on a notion of “common ground.”

Keywords

Ostensive communicationspeaker’s meaningcommon groundexpectations of relevancecontextual implicationprocessing effort
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context , pp. 247 - 267
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allan, K., and Jaszczolt, K., eds. (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allott, N. (2018). Conversational implicature. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.205.Google Scholar
Allott, N, (2019). Scientific tractability and relevance theory. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.), Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation (pp. 29–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allott, N., and Wilson, D. (2021). Chomsky and pragmatics. In Allott, N., Lohndal, T., and Rey, G. (eds.), A Companion to Chomsky (pp. 433–447). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley–Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (2002). The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 361–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, S. (2017). Context selection in relevance theory. In Blochowiak, J., Grisot, C., Durrleman, S., and Laenzlinger, C. (eds.), Formal Models in the Study of Language: Applications in Interdisciplinary Contexts (pp. 221–242). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. (2000). Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A. (2016). What properly belongs to grammar: A response to Lepore and Stone. Inquiry, 59, 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, H., and Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1995). Quantity maxims and scalar implicature. Lingua, 96, 213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance, and scalar implicature. In Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications (pp. 179–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2012). Metaphor and the literal–non-literal distinction. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 469–492). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2016). Linguistic conventions and the role of pragmatics. Mind and Language, 31, 612–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R., and Hall, A. (2012). Implicature and explicature. In Schmid, H. J. (ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (pp. 47–84). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond (pp. 39–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1992). Language and interpretation: Philosophical reflections and empirical enquiry. In Earman, J. (ed.), Inference, Explanation and Other Frustrations: Essays in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 99–128). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar
Clark, B. (2013). Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H, (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H., and Marshall, A. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A., Webber, B., and Sag, I. (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Csibra, G. (2010). Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind and Language, 25, 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csibra, G., and Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 148–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dupuy, L., Van der Henst, J.-B., Cheylus, A., and Reboul, A. (2016). Context in generalized conversational implicatures: The case of some. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(381), March 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilan, N., Hoerl, C., McCormack, T., and Roessler, J., eds. (2005). Joint Attention: Communication and Other Minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22: 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Carpintero, M. (2016). Accommodating presuppositions. Topoi, 35, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. (2017). Experimental pragmatics. In Huang, Y. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 310–325). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66: 377–388. Repr. in Grice (1989), pp. 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. William James Lectures, Harvard University. Repr. in Grice (1989), pp. 1–143.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions, Philosophical Review, 78, 147–177. Repr. in Grice (1989), pp. 86–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, D. (2017). Review of Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language by E. Lepore and M. Stone. Philosophical Review, 26, 554–558.Google Scholar
Heintz, C., and Scott-Phillips, T. (2022). Expression unleashed: The evolutionary and cognitive foundations of human communication. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Jan. 5. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X22000012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschberg, J. (1991). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (2004). Implicature. In Horn, L. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horn, L. and Ward, G., eds. (2004). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lepore, E., and Stone, M. (2010). Against metaphorical meaning. Topoi, 29, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepore, E., and Stone, M. (2015). Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8: 339–359. Repr. in Lewis (1983), pp. 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1983). Philosophical Papers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. (1995). Philosophy of language. In Audi, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (pp. 586–589). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mazzone, M. (2015). Constructing the context through goals and schemata: Top-down processes in comprehension and beyond. Frontiers in Psychology, May 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, J. (2012). What is a context? Theoretical and empirical evidence. In Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, P. (eds.), What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges (pp. 9–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Noveck, I., and Sperber, D. (2007). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of “scalar inferences.” In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 184–212). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2015). Accommodation in a language game. In Loewer, B. and Schaffer, J. (eds.), A Companion to David Lewis (pp. 345–366). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schulze, C., and Tomasello, M. (2015). 18-month-olds comprehend indirect communicative acts. Cognition, 136, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, K., Clark, B. and Carston, R., eds. (2019). Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13, 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. V. (1982). Mutual Knowledge. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., and Csibra, G. (2009). Sensitivity to communicative relevance tells young children what to imitate. Developmental Science, 12, 1013–1019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperber, D. (2005). Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In Carruthers, P., Lawrence, S., and Stich, S. (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Content (pp. 53–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (2018). Rethinking ostension, (1) and (2). Dan Sperber’s blog, cognitionand culture.net.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2021). Rethinking common ground. Conference presentation, MK40: Common knowledge, common ground and context in communication. University College London.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1987). Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 697–751.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1990). Spontaneous deduction and mutual knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1995). Postface to Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995), Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. .Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–26. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2005). Pragmatics. In Jackson, F. and Smith, M. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy (pp. 468–501). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15, 117–149.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and Content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R, (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stojnić, U. (2021). Context and Coherence: The Logic and Grammar of Prominence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Henst, J.-B., and Sperber, D. (2004). Testing the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. In Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. (eds.), Experimental Pragmatics (pp. 141–171). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 279–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Henst, J.-B., Sperber, D., and Politzer, G. (2002). When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of determinate relational problems. Thinking and Reasoning, 8, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T., Jagoe, C., and Wilson, D., eds. (2022). Special issue, Relevance Theory: New Horizons. Journal of Pragmatics, 124.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2017). Relevance theory. In Huang, Y. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2019). Relevance theory. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.201.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2022). Communication, comprehension, and interpretation. In Colston, H., Matlock, T., and Steen, G. (eds.), Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond (pp. 143–155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., and Carston, R. (2019). Pragmatics and the challenge of “non-propositional” effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111, 583–632. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 47–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A. (2019). Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×