On the manifestness of assumptions
Gaining insights into commitment and emotions
Right from the outset, relevance theory (
Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995) tried to define interpretation as a process of context elaboration. Interpretation is seen as a path of least effort leading to the selection of a set of most accessible assumptions. One of the central aspects of this context elaboration process lies in the fact that contextual assumptions are not randomly scattered in the hearer’s cognitive environment. Instead, relevance theory claims that there are some organising principles ordering contextual assumptions and determining which will be accessed first and, therefore, which will be retained as part of the optimally relevant interpretation.
The main organising principle is captured by the notion of manifestness, which combines two distinct properties of contextual assumptions: their accessibility and their strength in the cognitive environment.
Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995) define them as a function of the processing history of an assumption for the former and the confidence with which an assumption is held for the latter.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Intentions and context
- 3.Contextual assumptions in relevance theory
- 4.Manifestness, accessibility, salience, and strength
- 5.Strength and commitment
- 6.Accessibility and emotions
- 7.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (29)
References
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bonalumi, Francesca, Thom Scott-Phillips, Julius Tacha, and Christophe Heintz. 2020. “Commitment and Communication: Are We Committed to What We Mean, or What We Say?” Language and Cognition 12 (2): 360–384. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boulat, Kira. 2018. “It’s All about Strength: Testing a Pragmatic Model of Commitment.” PhD dissertation. University of Fribourg.
Boulat, Kira, and Didier Maillat. 2023. “Strength is Relevant: Experimental Evidence of Strength as a Marker of Commitment.” Frontiers in Communication 81. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boulat, Kira, and Didier Maillat. 2023. “Strength is Relevant: Experimental Evidence of Strength as a Marker of Commitment.” Frontiers in Communication 81. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Clark, Billy. 2013. Relevance Theory. Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Culioli, Antoine. 1971. “Modalité.” Encyclopédie Alpha, vol. 101. Paris: Grange Batelière and Novare: Istitutogeografico de Agostini, 40311.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dezecache, Guillaume, Pierre Jacob, and Julie Grèzes. 2015. “Emotional Contagion: Its Scope and Limits.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (6): 297–299. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dezecache, Guillaume, Hugo Mercier, and Thom Scott-Phillips. 2013. “An Evolutionary Approach to Emotional Communication.” Journal of Pragmatics 591: 221–233. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Editions de Minuit.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mazzarella, Diana, Robert Reinecke, Ira Noveck, and Hugo Mercier. 2018. “Saying, Presupposing and Implicating: How Pragmatics Modulates Commitment.” Journal of Pragmatics 1331: 15–27. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2017. The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moeschler, Jacques. 2009. “Pragmatics, Propositional and Non-Propositional Effects: Can a Theory of Utterance Interpretation Account for Emotions in Verbal Communication?” Social Science Information 48 (3): 447–464. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moeschler, Jacques. 2013. “Is a Speaker-Based Pragmatics Possible? Or How Can a Hearer Infer a Speaker’s Commitment?” Journal of Pragmatics 481: 84–97. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Morency, Patrick, Steve Oswald, and Louis de Saussure. 2008. “Explicitness, Implicitness and Commitment Attribution: A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach.” Commitment, ed. by Philippe de Brabanter, and Patrick Dendale, 197–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Saussure, Louis de, and Tim Wharton. 2020. “Relevance, Effects and Affect.” International Review of Pragmatics 121: 183–205. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language 25 (4): 359–393. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 2015. “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 151: 117–149.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wharton, Tim. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wharton, Tim, Constant Bonard, Daniel Dukes, David Sander, and Steve Oswald. 2021. “Relevance and Emotion.” Journal of Pragmatics 1811: 259–269. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wharton, Tim, and Claudia Strey. 2019. “Slave of the Passions: Making Emotions Relevant.” In Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. by Kate Scott, Billy Clark, and Robyn Carston, 253–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. “The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Emerald Group Publishing. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2004. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. London: Palgrave.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2019. “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 1451: 31–38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)