Cover not available
Article published In:
Concepts and Context in Relevance-Theoretic Pragmatics: New Developments
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska and Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics 33:3] 2023
► pp. 460–485

On the manifestness of assumptions

Gaining insights into commitment and emotions

ORCID logo | University of Fribourg

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.

In this paper, I will explore the explanatory potential of manifestness by putting the notions of strength and accessibility to work on two current trends in pragmatic research, namely commitment (Ifantidou 2001; Boulat and Maillat 2017, 2023; Mazzarella et al. 2018; Bonalumi et al. 2020) and emotion (Moeschler 2009; Dezecache et al. 2013, 2015; Wharton and Strey 2019; Wilson and Carston 2019; Saussure and Wharton 2020; Wharton et al. 2021). My goal will be to show how these two dimensions of manifestness, as they were developed in the very early days of RT, can provide us with new theoretical insights in the study of human communication. In this paper, I will argue that, beyond their usefulness in providing a guiding principle for the comprehension procedure, the strength and accessibility of contextual assumptions can also advantageously shed light on other phenomena like commitment and emotions.

Keywords: manifestness, strength of assumptions, accessibility of assumptions, evidentiality, commitment, emotion
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Intentions and context
  • 3.Contextual assumptions in relevance theory
  • 4.Manifestness, accessibility, salience, and strength
  • 5.Strength and commitment
    • 5.1Empirical evidence
  • 6.Accessibility and emotions
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21069.mai
References
Blakemore, Diane
2002 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
2023. “Strength is Relevant: Experimental Evidence of Strength as a Marker of Commitment.” Frontiers in Communication 81. DOI logo
Clark, Billy
2013 Relevance Theory. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culioli, Antoine
1971 “Modalité.” Encyclopédie Alpha, vol. 101. Paris: Grange Batelière and Novare: Istitutogeografico de Agostini, 40311.Google Scholar
Dezecache, Guillaume, Pierre Jacob, and Julie Grèzes
2015 “Emotional Contagion: Its Scope and Limits.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (6): 297–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dezecache, Guillaume, Hugo Mercier, and Thom Scott-Phillips
2013 “An Evolutionary Approach to Emotional Communication.” Journal of Pragmatics 591: 221–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald
1984 Le dire et le dit. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1989 Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly
2001 Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
2017 The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Is a Speaker-Based Pragmatics Possible? Or How Can a Hearer Infer a Speaker’s Commitment?” Journal of Pragmatics 481: 84–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Saussure, Louis de, and Tim Wharton
2020 “Relevance, Effects and Affect.” International Review of Pragmatics 121: 183–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2015 “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 151: 117–149.Google Scholar
Wharton, Tim
2009 Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim, Constant Bonard, Daniel Dukes, David Sander, and Steve Oswald
2021 “Relevance and Emotion.” Journal of Pragmatics 1811: 259–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
2019 “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 1451: 31–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
2012 Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar