Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
Journal articles

When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems

Abstract : When is a conclusion worth deriving? We claim that a conclusion is worth deriving to the extent that it is relevant in the sense of relevance theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1995). To support this hypothesis, we experiment with "indeterminate relational problems" where we ask participants what, if anything, follows from premises such as A is taller than B, A is taller than C. With such problems, the indeterminate response that nothing follows is common, and we explain why. We distinguish several types of determinate conclusions and show that their rate is a function of their relevance. We argue that by appropriately changing the formulation of the premises, the relevance of determinate conclusions can be increased, and the rate of indeterminate responses thereby reduced. We contrast these relevance-based predictions with predictions based on linguistic congruence.
Complete list of metadatas

Cited literature [33 references]  Display  Hide  Download

https://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00000099
Contributor : Dan Sperber <>
Submitted on : Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 11:32:53 AM
Last modification on : Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - 3:59:36 AM
Long-term archiving on: : Saturday, April 3, 2010 - 8:08:42 PM

Identifiers

  • HAL Id : ijn_00000099, version 1

Collections

Citation

Jean-Baptiste van der Henst, Dan Sperber, Guy Politzer. When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 2002, 8 (1), pp.1-20. ⟨ijn_00000099⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

466

Files downloads

548