Principle of Relevance

Apr 4, 2008 at 8:32 AM
2 comments

The 2nd part of the principle of relevance says, as Dr. Meyers put on the board, "Every communicative act carries with it the utterer's belief in its optimal relevance." What about when someone is trying to be as ambigous and obscure as possible. I don't have a good example, but sometimes people try to be just as confusing as possible and bring in statements and ideas out of left field. Does that constitute optimal relevance, even by the speaker's beliefs? Or is it relevant because they are trying to be confusing? Thoughts?

2 comments

Comments

I know what you're talking about; I do it a lot. I think it would still be irrelevant, even when the speaker is intended to be so. But in these instances, the goal usually is not to get a relevant response, either, so it shouldn't really matter that the speaker is violating the principle of relevance.

I agree with Alison. I don't believe that there would be any relevance even though the ambiguity was intentional. I have also done this on purpose before but just to be contrary and difficult to mess with my friends.

Principle of Relevance

Comments

Post a comment

About Me

Neighborhood

Archives