SAN> ----- Original Message -----
SAN> From: "Hanno T. Beck" <banneker@progress.org>
SAN> To: "'Relevance List'" <relevance@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk>
SAN> Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 8:58 PM
SAN> Subject: RT list: A newcomer's inquiry
>> It seems to me that in cases (a) and (b) I am going to be willing to
>> invest more cognitive processing effort, and in case (c) less effort, than in a
>> neutral situation.
I think that in case (c) you will invest more processing effort, not
less. Being a Cautious Optimist (see Deirdre Wilson METAREPRESENTATION
IN LINGUISTIC COMMUNICATION) and knowing that the addresser is not trustworthy,
you are likely to metarepresent his utterance as:
1. He is lying that "The Melvin Hall dormitory is on fire".
2. It is possible that "The Melvin Hall dormitory is on fire", even though
the addresser is known to have lied on previous occasions.
3. He is telling the truth that "The Melvin Hall dormitory is on fire".
etc.
while in cases (a) and (b) the available cognitive context: "bosses
are to be trusted :) in case (a) and paralinguistic factors in case (b)
will enable you to achieve optimal relevance with less cognitive effort:
"The Melvin Hall is on fire" indeed.
For it is written:
"Follow a path of least effort in computing cognitive effects,
consider interpretations in order of accessibility,
stop when your expectation of relevance is satisfied"
(and yes, I am that parochial) :)
All the best,
Andre
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 05 2004 - 09:26:16 GMT