RT list: the replies I've got

Dear All,

Here are the replies I've received to my questions. I am sorry, but I assumed that everybody got them!

All the best,

Anabella
.................................................

Hi, Anabella,

In an e-mail for this list in January 29 , 2007, Dan Sperber wrote:

"It is true we now use "cognitive effects" rather than "contextual effects". This is a terminological rather than a substantive change. "Contextual effect" has to be defined or else it does not evoke any clear meaning, not even a rough one, in most readers. "Cognitive effect" on the other hand can be roughly understood (as something worth achieving) even without a precise idea of what it might consist of. So, when we have to explain in a few paragraphs the basic tenets of the theory, " cognitive effect" yield more cognitive/contextual effect for less effort than "contextual effect". Still, it is hard to imagine any cognitive effect, or at least any cognitive effect of a non-negligible magnitude, that would not satisfy our definintion of contextual effect (i.e. some effect that follows neither from the input alone or from the context alone, but that follows from the union of the input and the context). I hope this helps."

Aline A. Vanin

Hi Anabella-Gloria,

Deirdre and Dan switched from contextual to cognitive effects after the first edition of Relevance. Same concept but different lexemes. Cognitive effects is the preferred term as it focuses attention on the mental processes. They discuss the change in the intro to their second edition, if memory serves.

Gene

Gene L. Green, PhD
Professor of New Testament
Director of Project Teacher
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois 60187
USA
+630.752.5283

Hi Anabella,

Hope all is well.. As far as I remember a contextual effect is (rather abstractly/formally) a non-trivial change resulting from the union of some stimulus with the context of its processing, whereas a cognitive effect is a contextual effect that pertains to an individual's beliefs (and thus has some relation to his/her cognitive goals).. The discussion I have in mind, alongside definitions I would guess, should be in the Postface of the 2nd edition of Relevance, where Sperber and Wilson discuss relevance and truth.

Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong, as this is off the top of my head.

Cheers,
Stavros

Dear Anabella, I dare paste here for you an ancient email that Dan Sperber send to the list, in January 27th, 2007. I found it very useful!

Bests

Edoardo Acotto

It is true we now use "cognitive effects" rather than "contextual effects". This is a terminological rather than a substantive change. "Contextual effect" has to be defined or else it does not evoke any clear meaning, not even a rough one, in most readers. "Cognitive effect" on the other hand can be roughly understood (as something worth achieving) even without a precise idea of what it might consist of. So, when we have to explain in a few paragraphs the basic tenets of the theory, " cognitive effect" yield more cognitive/contextual effect for less effort than "contextual effect". Still, it is hard to imagine any cognitive effect, or at least any cognitive effect of a non-negligible magnitude, that would not satisfy our definintion of contextual effect (i.e. some effect that follows neither from the input alone or from the context alone, but that follows from the union of the input and the context). I hope this helps.

Cheers, Dan
Received on Wed Aug 22 18:39:06 2012