Abstract

The ability to focus on relevant information is central to human cognition. It is therefore hardly unsurprising that the notion of relevance appears across a range of different disciplines. As well as its central role in relevance-theoretic pragmatics, for example, relevance is also a core concept in the affective sciences, where there is consensus that for a particular object or event to elicit an emotional state, that object or event needs to be relevant to the person in whom that state is elicited. Despite this, although some affective scientists have carefully considered what emotional relevance might mean, surprisingly little research has been dedicated to providing a definition. Since, by contrast, the relevance-theoretic notion of relevance is carefully defined, our primary aim is to compare relevance as it exists in affective science and in relevance theory, A further aim is to redress what we perceive to be an imbalance: Affective scientists have made great strides in understanding the processes of emotion elicitation/responses etc., but despite the fact that among humans the communication of information about emotional states is ubiquitous, pragmatists have tended to ignore it. We conclude, therefore, that affective science and relevance theory have much to learn from each other.

Highlights

  • The function of emotions is to fill gaps left by ‘pure reason’ in the determination of action: [...] it is one of Nature's ways of dealing with the philosophers' frame problem.de Sousa ((De Sousa, 1987), 195e196)

  • If what is claimed in this paragraph is correct, the main difference between the two notions of relevance when it comes to goals is that relevanceAFF relates to any kind of goal that may lead to an emotional reaction e from basic goals, such as being safe or reproducing, to elaborate ones, such as pursuing gender equality e while relevancePRAG is restricted to two goals: maximizing cognitive effects and minimizing processing efforts

  • RelevancePRAG is a proper subset of goal-relevance because we may react to goal-relevant stimuli in ways that are usually not studied by pragmatics

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The function of emotions is to fill gaps left by ‘pure reason’ in the determination of action: [...] it is one of Nature's ways of dealing with the philosophers' frame problem. There is a growing pragmatics literature on affective meaning and so-called non-propositional effects.2 These include work on: i) so-called descriptively ineffable contents e contents that are passed from a communicator to an audience but which cannot be broken down into representational meanings or propositions (Blakemore, 2011; Piskorska, 2012, 2016; de Saussure and Schulz, 2009; Wharton, 2015; Wilson and Carston, 2019; Yus, 2016); ii) impressions (Sperber and Wilson, 2015) e treated as undetermined, weakly manifest meanings; iii) literary effects (Carston, 2018; Cave and Wilson, 2018; Kolaiti, 2019).

Pragmatics and relevance
Ostensive and non-ostensive acts of communication
Non-propositional meaning
Relevance beyond ostension
Relevance in theories of emotion
Two notions of relevance?
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call