Re: RT list: Cognitive effects and processing effort

Thank you all for an interesting discussion. I am very interested in your prospective thesis, Stavros, though I am inclined to agree with Jan that 'this problem, if it is one, cannot be solved in terms of neurology or a
quantification of relevance, at least not in a straightforward or easy way.'

Best Stefan
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Jan Straßheim
  To: relevance list
  Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:39 PM
  Subject: Re: RT list: Cognitive effects and processing effort

  Dear Stavros,

  Thank you loads for your comment!
  Since I'm quite interested in the current discussion (thank you, Stefan!), I address this to the list. Somebody please shut me up if necessary.

  As you (and Robyn Carston) say, the (Pseudo-)Bach problem is not that RT somehow rules out consideration of the production side - it certainly doesn't. I guess we agree on the rest, too, but to make sure, I'll try to say what I think the real problem is.

  Your mention of optimal relevance highlights the fact that normally the question is just as acute for hearers: they have to find out (as "sophisticated understanders") what the speaker (sometimes erroneuosly) thought might have been most relevant to them, i.e., they, too, have to think about relevance expectations on the other's part which are different from their own. Again RT clearly includes this, just as it allows for, say, cultural biases, slave-master relationships, anonymous readers, fictional speakers, degrees of intellectual alertness etc. (cf. Relevance, pp. 158ff.).
  So the theory allows us to ask a great variety of questions about what people have to take into account when presuming what is how strongly manifest to individual others. And it stresses that answers to these questions are essential to understanding communication. The pursuit of maximal relevance is offered as the key (cf. Relevance, p. 46).
  But if this is the explanatory goal, then rightly pointing out that expectations of relevance ("prospective intuitions") shut out nearly everything in advance of the local comparison (though this is crucial, and possibly a solution to Kent Bach's "uniqueness problem"), is not enough. Observing others as it is required for competent communication should involve sometimes quite precise reference to how these expectations arise in the first place. In this sense, one might still want to say that competent speaking and hearing presupposes some naive reflection on relevance over and above regular ground-level maximising - although, as you say, if RT is right, then this reflection is itself driven by the pursuit of maximal relevance, so I'm very much looking forward to your thesis!

  As far as can see, this problem, if it is one, cannot be solved in terms of neurology or a quantification of relevance, at least not in a straightforward or easy way. Help wanted!

  All the best
  Jan
Received on Mon Oct 16 15:27:49 2006