The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon

We argue that the presence of a word in an utterance serves as starting point for a relevance guided inferential process that results in the construction of a contextually appropriate sense. The linguistically encoded sense of a word does not serve as its default interpretation. The cases where the contextually appropriate sense happens to be identical to this linguistic sense have no particular theoretical significance. We explore some of the consequences of this view. One of these consequences is that there may be many more mentally represented concepts than there are linguistically encoded concepts

Metaphor and the \u27Emergent Property\u27 Problem: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach

The interpretation of metaphorical utterances often results in the attribution of emergent properties; these are properties which are neither standardly associated with the individual constituents of the utterance in isolation nor derivable by standard rules of semantic composition. For example, an utterance of ‘Robert is a bulldozer’ may be understood as attributing to Robert such properties as single-mindedness, insistence on having things done in his way, and insensitivity to the opinions/feelings of others, although none of these is included in the encyclopaedic information associated with bulldozers (earth-clearing machines). An adequate pragmatic account of metaphor interpretation must provide an explanation of the processes through which emergent properties are derived. In this paper, we attempt to develop an explicit account of the derivation process couched within the framework of relevance theory. The key features of our account are: (a) metaphorical language use is taken to lie on a continuum with other cases of loose use, including hyperbole; (b) metaphor interpretation is a wholly inferential process, which does not require associative mappings from one domain (e.g. machines) to another (e.g. human beings); (c) the derivation of emergent properties involves no special interpretive mechanisms not required for the interpretation of ordinary, literal utterances

Outline of Relevance Theory

No abstract

Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-reading

The central problem for pragmatics is that sentence meaning vastly underdetermines speaker's meaning. The goal of pragmatics is to explain how the gap between sentence meaning and speaker's meaning is bridged. This paper defends the broadly Gricean view that pragmatic interpretation is ultimately an exercise in mind-reading, involving the inferential attribution of intentions. We argue, however, that the interpretation process does not simply consist in applying general mind-reading abilities to a particular (communicative) domain. Rather, it involves a dedicated comprehension module, with its own special principles and mechanisms. We show how such a metacommunicative module might have evolved, and what principles and mechanisms it might contain

Relevance theory

This paper outlines the main assumptions of relevance theory (while attempting to clear up some common objections and misconceptions) and points out some new directions for research. After discussing the nature of relevance and its role in communication and cognition, it assesses two alternative ways of drawing the explicit–implicit distinction, compares relevance theory’s approach to lexical pragmatics with those of Grice and neo-Griceans, and discusses the rationale for relevance theory’s conceptual–procedural distinction, reassessing the notion of procedural meaning in the light of recent research. It ends by looking briefly at the relation between the capacity to understand a communicator’s meaning, on the one hand, and the capacity to assess her reliability and the reliability of the communicated content, on the other, and considers how these two capacities might interact

Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics

Both cognitive linguists and relevance theorists are developing original approaches to metaphor. Both shed new light on old debates and suggest fruitful directions for research. Although there has so far been little interaction between the two approaches, Raymond Gibbs and Markus Tendahl (2006, 2008) have recently begun to compare them and consider how they might be combined. This paper is intended as a contribution to that debate. After outlining some parallels and differences between the two approaches, I will discuss how they might fit together to give a fuller picture of the role of metaphor in language and thought

End of Life, Elder Abuse, and Guardianship: An Exploration of New York’s Surrogate Decision-Making Framework

The best end of life care is always that which aligns with the wishes and values of the incapacitated person. For individuals with the capacity to execute advance directives, these documents and conversations with appointed surrogates are the clearest way to make care values known. However, the time, access, and ability to engage in advance planning is not an opportunity equally afforded.For those without advance directives and now involved in a guardianship proceeding, the party petitioning or otherwise involved in the case should consider addressing end of life decision-making directly in the guardianship hearing when major medical decision-making power may be granted. Although this is not necessary in all guardianship proceedings, older adults with progressive diagnoses that are found to lack capacity are likely to have a guardian at the end of life. The hearing may present a unique opportunity to explore end of life wishes before capacity is further impacted or diminished over time. Clarity about who the surrogate decision-maker is and any indication of the AIP’s wishes’ and values can be invaluable. When available, testimony about conversations addressing end of life care values and wishes from family members, friends, or professionals should be elicited during the guardianship proceeding. To ensure the guardian’s powers are clear, involved parties can advocate to specifically include “end of life care” in the petition and request the same language in the final guardianship order. This provides an opportunity to address this power before the court while clarifying the role and responsibilities of the parties involved. Once appointed, guardians with major medical powers must directly discuss end of life care questions with the IP. If the IP’s answer is unclear, the guardian must work diligently to discern their ward’s value system and beliefs by reaching out to family, friends, or professionals that may be able to attest to that value system. Particularly when the IP has progressive disease that impacts cognition, the earlier the guardian can have these conversations, the better. By the time these decisions must be made, the IP may no longer be able to indicate their wishes. Even in states that do not allow a guardian to make end of life decisions without a court order, genuine attempts to have these conversations must be made. Although the guardian will have to go back to court before making any decisions, these conversations and indications of wishes and values will be key information for any hearing or request to the court. Unique tools have been developed to facilitate these difficult conversations. For example, tools like Five Wishes, Prepare for Your Care, and The Conversation Project all offer clear questions and topics to address some of the complicated scenarios and care choices at end of life. These complex conversations and decisions are a vital—and often overlooked or ignored—part of the guardian’s role. Some guardians try to avoid the topic all together in an attempt to avoid this responsibility or feared liability, but this attempt to avoid making the decision is a decision in itself

Evidencing the Need for a National Citizens Clothing Circularity Strategy (NCCCS), White Paper Scottish Parliament

No abstract available