Paulo Sousa has sent me a question of general interest:
>I have a doubt about your remarks about effort. In your reply to Robyn,
>you seem to imply that the calculation of extra effects should be counted
>in envisaging the amount of effort in the interpretation of an utterance.
>For example: "When more effects are actually derived, there is the added
>cost of just deriving these effects."; "On the whole, metaphorically
>interpreted utterances tend to carry some extra, typically weak, effects
>and may therefore involve more effort." On the other hand, I point made in
>the RT-book is that the effort of calculating extra effects should not be
>counted in envisaging the relevance of an utterance because, if so
>counted, great cognitive effects would imply great cognitive effort and
>therefore a zero balance of relevance. Is there a problem here?
Reply: As we argued indeed in _Relevance_, the effort specifically expended
in the derivation of effects (as opposed to the effort needed for decoding
an utterance, or for accessing contextual assumptions) does not lower
relevance. Nevertheless, it will show up in well-designed experiments
aiming at assessing or comparing the amount of effort involved in utterance
interpretation.
Cheers,
Dan
-----------------------------
Dan Sperber
Institut Jean Nicod (CNRS et EHESS)
http://www.institutnicod.org
1bis avenue de Lowendal
75007 Paris, France
email: dan@sperber.com
web site: http://www.dan.sperber.com
-----------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 28 2001 - 20:40:52 GMT