英语论文网

g conditions: Extent condition 1: an assumption is relevant in a context to the extent that its contextual effects in this context are large. Extent condition 2: an assumption is relevant in a context to the extent that effort required to process it in this context is small. [3] Thus we see firstly that relevance is dependent on the interplay of two factors: contextual effects and processing effort, which are crucial factors that make inferential communication possible. Secondly, since both these factors are context-dependent, the notion of “relevance” itself is context-dependent, too. Thirdly, relevance is comparative notion----utterances can vary according to the degree of relevance they achieve in some context. [4] According to Sperber and Wilson, the degree of relevance depends on the contextual effects and processing effort. However, the contextual effects cannot be achieved easily. Even if people put in a lot of processing effort, they may not achieve the sufficient contextual effects. The achievement of contextual effects always depends on the following factors: the complexity of an utterance, the explication of the context and processing effort that are made to reason the contextual effects. In the framework of relevance not all the contextual implications of a given proposition can be easy to obtain. Those derived from small, easily accessible contexts will be relatively cheap in processing terms. Those derived from large, less easily accessible contexts will be relatively expensive in processing terms, because of the additional effort required to put into reasoning and selecting the most suitable context to the certain context. So the universal aim in context processing is to obtain the maximum of contextual implication in return for any processing effort expended. But relevance is a comparative concept, for it contrasts with the context and depends on the context; and also it is decided by the communicators’ cognitive capacity and environment, so the degree of relevance can be classified as maximally relevant, very relevant, weakly relevant and irrelevant. Look at the following examples: (1) A: How long did the conference last? B: Two hours. In this dialogue, the contextual effect is maximal, the processing efforts are minimal, the relevance is the strongest, so we can say that the dialogue has a very clear context, and need little processing efforts. And the utterance and context are maximally relevant. (2) A: I am out of petrol. B: There is a garage around the corner. In the dialogue above, sentence A actually means, “Where can I buy petrol?” And sentence B means that “You can buy petrol in the garage”. In this case, sentence A and B seems irrelevant, but “we can buy petrol in the garage” is a common sense that everybody knows it. We still can understand the utterance, but it needs hearers more processing efforts than the first example. So it is still a very relevant utterance. (3) A: The hostess is an awful bore. Do you think so? B: The roses are lovely, aren’t they? In this case, B gives a completely irrelevant answer to A, and gives no information about question. The answer seems irrelevant semantically, while it has relevance pragmatically. In this time, to obtain certain contextual effects, lots of processing efforts needed, and then the utterance will have a special conversation meaning: let’s not talk about the hostess here and now. 2.3. Principle of relevance and optimal relevance The linguist