Talk:Relevance theory

Hi - I just made a new page

Hi - I just made a new page for the Relevance theory as the old one was vague and hard to understand. Let me know if you think it is better than the previous version.Thebloks (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we expand this page to mention the more recent theories by Vervaeke and 
collaborators (e.g. http://logcom.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/exp067)? 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.169.128 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 

"the second method of communication"  ???

The first sentence of the article reads, "Relevance theory is a proposal by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson that seeks to explain the second method of communication: one that takes into account implicit inferences." Well what is the first method of communication? This is a inappropriate way to start the article. Thaistory (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It may be a reference to Grice's concepts of natural and non-natural meaning? I think the refernce should be deleted if a refernce cannot be given for it (also see below) LookingGlass (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Attention by an expert required

The first section "Relevance theory contrasted with the Conduit Metaphor", does not set out two distinct theories ("ways"), nor does it contrast Relevance theory with the Conduit metaphor. Context is a factor in BOTH intitial thought and encoding, or, if it is not for some reason considered to be always present, then in encoding and decoding so the two expressions are essentially the same. At this point in the article Relevance theory has not be detailed so it is innappropriate for it to be contrasted with other theories. The section though bears little relevance to the subject of the article, so rather than sort the (unreferenced muddle out I suggest its deletion.

The Overview's opening sentence could be simply expressed as:

"Sperber and Wilson argue that (1) all utterances are encountered in some 
context and (2) utterances convey a number of mplicatures.", 

The term technical: implicatures, however needs either to be defined though it does not seem necessary to the article so again could be deleted. The notion of Manifestness should id relevant be explicated at a relevant place in the article, and this is not apparent.

The following repetitions combined make up the remainder of the article:

(a) implicit messages are relevant enough to be worth bothering to process, and 
(b) the speaker will be as economical as they possibly can be in communicating it.

by the act of making an utterance the speaker is conveying that what they have 
said is worth listening to, i.e. it will provide "cognitive effects" worthy of 
the processing effort required to find the meaning

The ostensive stimulus is relevant enough for it to be worth the addressee's effort 
to process it.
The ostensive stimulus is the most relevant one compatible with the communicator's 
abilities and preferences.

The following statement is also either another repetition of the above or is OR in that it seems to misunderstand the notion of ostensive (obvious or manifestly demonstrative). If it does not misunderstand it and it is not OR then the word needs to be defined and its relevance set out:

1. The speaker purposefully gives a clue to the hearer, ("ostensifies"), as to 
what she wishes to communicate - that is a clue to her intention. 
2. The hearer infers the intention from the clue and the context-mediated 
information. The hearer must interpret the clue, taking into account the context,
and surmise what the speaker intended to communicate.

LookingGlass (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A Google search provides no reliable reference for the opening sentence of the article: the "audience will search for meaning in any given communication situation and having found meaning that fits their expectation of relevance, will stop processing." It appears in "Innovation and Creativity, Pillars of the Future Global Economy: by Cram101 Textbook Reviews", a seemingly crude cut 'n paste publication available on Kindle, and I assume it is an OR summary. LookingGlass (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

I think there should be some mention of the fact that this theory is made up mostly of jargon and unexplained concepts. It is based on assumptions, conjectures, and unprovable hypotheses, and is not used in any practical sense that I can find. It seems to be nothing more than self deluding nonsense.--Max Loungeroom (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for this, feel free to add it! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)