Relevance theory

The relevance theory is a linguistic embossed cognition theory, which was developed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson in 1986. It is based on the conversational maxim of relevance of Paul Grice on, but waived his cooperation principle and instead provides two own relevance principles. As the theory of Paul Grice provides the relevance theory, a Inferenzmodell for communicative processes.

Relevance principles

The relevance theory provides two basic principles: the principle of cognitive relevance and the communicative relevance principle. The cognitive relevance principle states that human cognition is geared towards maximizing relevance. This is due to the way how our cognitive system has developed: selection pressure towards higher efficiency has meant that this system automatically records potentially relevant stimuli and our processing system automatically draws conclusions relevant. The communicative relevance principle states that utterances always generate the expectation to be relevant. The reason for this principle is the fact that each utterance is an ostensive stimulus, an observable event, which was produced to draw attention to themselves. A spokesman encouraged his audience to assume that his statement is relevant.

Definition of relevance

Relevance is in the relevance theory as a function of processing costs ( processing effort) and cognitive effect (positive cognitive effect) defined. The processing costs are a measure of the effort that a listener or recipient shall operate an utterance or information to pick them up and make them usable. A (positive ) cognitive effect is attained when an information for the situation in which a recipient is located, is particularly important or significant change in the representation of the environment of the vacuum chamber is raised. The lower the processing costs and the higher the cognitive effect of a stimulus, the more relevant is this stimulus.

For example, if a train traveler without knowledge of the timetable at the station appeals to a stranger, and the question arises as to when the next train arrives at this track, the train passengers can get different answers:

Answer 1 is inaccurate and provides a smaller positive effect for the railway passengers who still do not know after this reply, when the train will arrive. Answer 3 is logically equivalent to say 2 but means the conversion of seconds to hours and minutes high processing costs. Answer 2 is thus the most relevant response that can get the train passengers.

Application of the theory

If two individuals communicate with each other, they are both controlled relevance. The hearer of an utterance processes them as they communicative relevance principle. The speaker knows this and tries to make his skills and readiness according his statement relevant. The ability to predict the listener behavior is similar to the theory of mind. To move from an utterance to information that is for the current situation or the current topic of importance, passes through a listener, a procedure similar to the Inferenzkette in which Grice's cooperation principle:

The hypotheses in step 2 are divided into

• Hypotheses for explicit content or Explikaturen ( explicatures )
• Contextual assumptions ( implicated premises )
• Contextual conclusions ( implicated conclusions )

Understanding is an online process, so that this hypothesis formation process in sequence or sequences not classified, but occur spontaneously. An example of a relevance -driven inference process would be for example:

At the earliest at this point John has made ​​a sufficient connection to the conversation context by the principles of relevance for Mary's answer.

Criticism

Another criticism of the relevance theory, among other things, how the definitions of relevance, processing costs and cognitive effects related exactly. To evaluate a cognitive effect, the relevance of the principles themselves are consulted. This results in a circular definition of relevance, since it is their own declaration basis. The claim that both a cognitive effect and its processing costs are not absolute but only intuitively measurable, on the one hand criticizes itself, but simultaneously also an attempt, nor mitigate a further point of criticism: How can you know the actual cost of processing a cognitive effect or. how can you know which processing costs are lowest if you have processed anything yet?

Criticism is also directed to the inference of relevance theory; Thus, the authors prior to a fundamental formal inference system, but fail to examine its properties in more detail. Elsewhere this deductive mechanism is deemed insufficient to capture all context-sensitive shades of meaning, which is problematic for a model of human cognition.