Abstract
A general theory is testable not directly but through consequences it implies when it is taken together with auxiliary hypotheses. The test can be weaker or stronger depending, in particular, on the extent to which the consequences tested are specifically entailed by the theory (as opposed to being mostly entailed by the auxiliary hypotheses and being equally compatible with other general theories). The earliest experimental work based on Relevance Theory (Jorgensen, Miller and Sperber, 1984; Happé 1993) tested and confirmed Sperber and Wilson’s (1981) echoic account of irony (and much experimental work done since on irony has broadly confirmed it and refined it further). While this account of irony is part and parcel of Relevance Theory, it is nevertheless compatible with different pragmatic approaches. The experimental confirmation of this account, therefore, provides only weak support for Relevance Theory as a whole. More recent experimental work has made explicit, tested and confirmed other and more specific and central consequences of Relevance Theory (e.g. Sperber, Cara and Girotto, 1995; Politzer, 1996; Gibbs and Moise, 1997; Hardman, 1998; Nicolle and Clark, 1999; Matsui, 2000, 2001; Girotto, Kemmelmeir, Sperber and Van der Henst, 2001; Noveck, 2001; Noveck, Bianco and Castry, 2001; Van der Henst, Sperber and Politzer, 2002, Van der Henst, Carles and Sperber, 2002, Noveck and Posada, 2003; Ryder and Leinonen, 2003).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Braine, M. D. S., and O’Brien, D. P. (1998). Mental Logic. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Byrne, R. M. J., and Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Spatial reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language 28: 564–75.
Cheng, P. N., and Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology 17: 391–416.
Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition 31: 187–276.
Evans, J. St B. T. (1989). Bias in Human Reasoning: Causes and Consequences. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Evans, J. St B. T., Newstead, S. E., and Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Human Reasoning: The Psychology of Deduction. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fiddick, L., Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (2000). No interpretation without representation: The role of domain-specific representations in the Wason selection task. Cognition 77: 1–79.
Gibbs, R. W., and J. F. Moise (1997). Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition 62: 51–74
Girotto, V., Kemmelmeir, M., Sperber, D., and Van der Henst, J. B. (2001). Inept reasoners or pragmatic virtuosos? Relevance and the deontic selection task. Cognition 81: 69–76.
Green, D. W., and Larking, R. (1995). The locus of facilitation in the abstract selection task. Thinking and Reasoning 1: 183–99.
Griggs, R. A., and Cox, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason’s selection task. British Journal of Psychology 73: 407–20.
Happé, F. (1993) Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition 48: 101–19.
Hardman, D. (1998). Does reasoning occur in the selection task? A comparison of relevance-based theories. Thinking and Reasoning 4: 353–76.
Harman, G. (1995). Rationality. In E. E. Smith, and D. N. Osherson (eds), Thinking: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, vol. 3 (2nd edn). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., and Byrne, R. J. M. (1991). Deduction. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., and Byrne, R. M. J. (1995). A model point of view. Thinking and Reasoning 1: 339–50.
Jorgensen, J., Miller, G., and Sperber D. (1984) Test of the mention theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113: 112–20.
Liberman, N., and Klar, Y. (1996). Hypothesis testing in Wason’s selection task: Social exchange, cheating detection or task understanding. Cognition 58: 127–56.
Love, R., and Kessler, C. (1995). Focussing in Wason’s selection task: Content and instruction effects. Thinking and Reasoning 1: 153–82.
Manktelow, K. I. (1999). Reasoning and Thinking. Hove: Psychology Press.
Matsui, T. (2000). Bridging and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Matsui, T. (2001). Experimental pragmatics: Towards testing relevance-based predictions about anaphoric bridging inferences. In V. Akman et al. (eds), Context 2001: 248–60. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Medin, D. L., Coley, J. D., Storms, G., and Hayes, B. K. (2003). A Relevance Theory of induction. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 10(3): 517–32.
Nicolle, S., and Clark, B. (1999): Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition 66: 337–54.
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78: 165–88.
Noveck, I. A., and Posada, A. (2003). Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85: 203–10.
Noveck, I. A., Bianco, M., and Castry, A. (2001). The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 16: 109–21.
Politzer, G. (1996). A pragmatic account of a presuppositional effect. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25: 543–51.
Rips, L. J. (1994). The Psychology of Proof. London: MIT Press.
Ryder, N., and Leinonen, E. (2003). Use of context in question answering by 3-, 4- and 5-year-old children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32: 397–415.
Sperber, D. (1994). The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In L. A. Hirschfeld and S. A. Gelman (eds), Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture: 39–67. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D., Cara, F., and Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition 52: 3–39.
Sperber, D., and Girotto, V. (2002). Use or misuse of the selection task? Rejoinder to Fiddick, Cosmides, and Tooby. Cognition 85: 277–90.
Sperber, D., and Girotto, V. (2003). Does the selection task detect cheater-detection? In J. Fitness and K. Sterelny (eds), From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology. Monographs in Cognitive Science. Hove: Psychology Press.
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics: 295–318. New York: Academic Press
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language 17: 3–23.
Van der Henst, J. B., Carles, L., and Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance in telling the time. Mind and Language 17: 457–66.
Van der Henst, J. B., Sperber, D., and Politzer, G. (2002). When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems. Thinking and Reasoning 8: 1–20.
Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (ed.), New Horizons in Psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2004 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van der Henst, JB., Sperber, D. (2004). Testing the Cognitive and Communicative Principles of Relevance. In: Noveck, I.A., Sperber, D. (eds) Experimental Pragmatics. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4039-0351-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-52412-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)