8

mins if ve of us; 10 mins if four of us.

The QR code here will take you to a blog post with these slides and the notes on
them. Ill give a web address at the end.

What I want to talk about today is what I propose as cogniEve pragmaEc rhetorical
or CPR theory.

Sydney harbour bridge (steel arch bridge). Image 2014 Duncan c. CreaEve
Commons license CC BY-NC 2.0 hTps://ic.kr/p/pnXgDm

I have three commitments or premises driving me:

First, pragmaEcs gures in rhetoric through the work of AusEn and Searle, who
developed speech-act theory, and Grice, who proposed the CooperaEve Principle
and related maxims, among others (AusEn, 1975; Searle, 1970, 1979; Grice, 1989).
Many theorists in rhetoric and its subelds of genre theory and argumentaEon
theory have called on these principles (a few examples: BerkenkoTer & Huckin,
1994; BhaEa, 1993; Butler, 1997; Jacobs, 2000; van Eemeren & Grootendorst,
2004). I fear that rhetoricians import theoreEcal concepts from pragmaEcs
without exposing and exploring their theoreEcal baggage.
Second, many brands of pragmaEcs, including parEcularly the work of Searle and
Grice, conEnue a raEonalist bias in that eld. CogniEve science suggests that
emoEons and cogniEve heurisEcs/biases have a powerful eect on
communicaEon. (See Gigerenzer & Brighton, 2009; Haidt, 2001; Mercier &
Sperber, 2011.) Id like a theory that accounts for that.
Finally, Im an empiricist, so I want a model for producEon and interpretaEon of
rhetorical performances that is amenable to empirical study. (Sperber & Wilson,
1995; Wilson & Sperber, 2006, 2012.) In other words, Id like to gure out whether
the model works by seeing whether it has explanatory and predicEve power.
Given these commitments, a parEcular brand of experimental pragmaEcs called
relevance theory oers an excellent starEng point. IniEaEng with the work of

<read>

In short, a goal of the speaker is to change the listeners mind, her cogniEve
environment.

So lets look at the cogniEve environment in more detail.

Head image: <div>Icons made by <a href="hTp://www.freepik.com"

Etle="Freepik">Freepik</a> from <a href="hTp://www.aEcon.com"
Etle="FlaEcon">www.aEcon.com</a> is licensed by <a href="hTp://
creaEvecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" Etle="CreaEve Commons BY 3.0"
target="_blank">CC 3.0 BY</a></div>

CogniEve environments include assumpEons, goals, and emoEons. Of course, like all
models, this one simplies at the risk of oversimplicaEon. There may be other types
of components, and assumpEons, goals, and emoEons are not always mutually
exclusive. Nevertheless, each of the components makes up a part of the cogniEve
environment . . .

Lets look at each component in turn.

AssumpEons: These are beliefs about the world that can be expressed in proposiEons
or declaraEve sentences.

For example: <read>

Goals are Consequences (end states or otherwise) desired or unwanted by an agent

and capable of moEvaEng an agent to acEon. (My def, based on Gutman, 1997.)

For example: <read>

I admit that this is the least theoreEcally developed porEon of the model to date.

Each of these three components of the cogniEve environment is subject to two
constraints: accessibility and strength. Well consider these next.

My deniEon: An assumpEon or goal is more accessible than another if it is available

to inuence informaEon processing and decision-making with lower search costs
than the other assumpEon or goal; in general, search costs are lower where a
cogniEve heurisEc (a la Gigerenzer and Brighton (2009)) or the agents habitual
pracEce leads to the assumpEon or goal, or the assumpEon or goal is closely related
to one already made accessible by previous communicaEon.

For example . . .

10

I illustrate these characterisEcs graphically with shapes on a chart. The higher on the
chart the shape is, the more accessible a component is; the larger the shape is, the
more commiTed to it the agent is or the more intense it is. Im experimenEng with
having students create large charts like this as a class acEvity in groups. I want to
provide visual and hapEc experiences for those students who value them.

So here, assumpEon 1, goal 3, and emoEon 6 are all relaEvely accessibleavailable
to the audience without much search cost. But assumpEon 2, goal 4, and emoEon 5,
though not as accessible, are all more strongly held. By making them more accessible,
the writer can hope to inuence the readers acEons. Which takes us back to that
basic principle of CPR theory . . .

11

This means some combinaEon of (a) introducing and strengthening new components,
(b) strengthening, weakening, or eliminaEng exisEng components, and (c) making
components more accessible. One easy way to make an assumpEon more accessible
is either to menEon it or to make it accessible by associaEon or priming.

Lets illustrate this just using the example of assumpEons on the next slide.

12

Triangle image: CC BY-SA 3.0, hTps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?

curid=617373

Now before showing you this slide, I might have presumed that all of you know of
Pythagoras theorem and believe with a high degree of condence that it
solves a common problem in geometry. I might also have presumed that this
assumpEon was not accessible in your cogniEve environments at that
moment. By showing you the slide, Ive made those assumpEons more
accessible. Ive also probably made some other assumpEons accessible,
including possibly A2 the actual equaEon for Ps theorem, A3: A square
has four right angles, A4: Euclid was important in Greek
geometry; A5: Socrates used geometry to illustrate a point in
one of Platos dialogs.

By bringing up Greek geometry here, I expect that Ive made a variety of assumpEons
you have more accessible to you. If I wanted to tell a geometry joke right now, youd
be about as primed for it as I could make you. In this way, every uTerance that I uTer
sets the stage for the next uTerance by shaping your cogniEve environment. But if I
wanted to tell a geometry joke, why bother seung the stage this way? The answer is
relevance . . .




13

Upper image: hTp://www.gauridas.com/2015/08/talent-genius-and-hard-work.html

Lower image: hTp://www.bitrebels.com/lifestyle/what-will-you-be-when-you-growup/

The idea of a raEo or fracEon here is a metaphor. Not to be taken literally, of course.

For you as an audience, the probability that youll properly interpret my geometry
joke if I tell it is aected by relevance, which is the raEo of the cogniEve eect you
expect to get (perhaps enjoyment from a good joke) to the eort you need to invest
in interpretaEon. If you have to search for assumpEons about geometry, Pythagoras,
etc., because I have not yet made them accessible to you, you may not bother, or at
least you may not enjoy my geometry joke as much. BTW, Im not telling you a
geometry joke.

It is this relevance raEo that determines in part how your communicaEons will be
received and . . .

14

 . . .it operates on every scale or level.

It also aects not only the cogniEon of the reader or hearer, but also the energy or
eort the speaker or writer invests in communicaEon. For example . . .

15

Images: hTp://deadline.com/2015/02/neighbors-2-release-datemay-2016-1201367683/

In most cases, I might not give a second thought to how I say hello to a neighbor.
Hey!

But if I have a big crush on my neighbor, my goal may be to oer a hook to begin a
conversaEon, and if that goal is accessible and strong enough, I might invest
considerable energy into invenEng my greeEng. In this case, Hey, what a cute baby!

We should certainly consider this goal orientaEon when interpreEng our students
performance in wriEng classes. They will invest cogniEve eort only to the extent the
eect will advance their goals. But the theory also provides some direct pedagogical
possibiliEes . . .

16

Pedagogically, this approach helps students see how their wriEng has to do many
things.

Say a students iniEal assessment tells her that the reader prefers plan A and
disfavors plan B, in part because he is relaEvely commiTed to certain accessible
assumpEons about plan A, and she knows that he has a strong emoEonal response to
having his authority challenged.

She has to decide how to get to the end-state she desires, the readers adherence to
Plan B. That probably means weakening the assumpEons supporEng plan A,
introducing and strengthening assumpEons supporEng plan B, and minimizing his
sense that his authority is being challenged.

There are many paths that the student could invent to get from her starEng point to
her goals. But its dicult to being invenEng the correct path unEl she characterizes
the beginning and end points.

Im experimenEng with this approach now with my undergraduates now. But thats
all I have Eme for today, so . . .

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

I made AssumpEon 2 smaller because I might conclude that you are more likely to
remember with condence Pythagoras signicance than his formula.

But what happened when I showed that image of a triangle?

24

Its my contenEon that just by showing you that triangle with the sides marked, I
have made these assumpEons more accessible. In fact, the fact that I put the
equaEon on the last slide probably means that you are now much more condent
about it. Maybe more like this.

25

 . . .and just menEoning Pythagoras and geometry has probably primed you (or at
least some of you) to have some other assumpEons accessible . . .

26

<<Read A3 and A4.>> A5 represents an assumpEon that I would expect many

audiences would not hold, but one comprising rheotricians perhaps would.

By now, I also expect you have an emoEon creeping into the scene (6): ImpaEence
with me for stepping you through this so laboriously . . .

By bringing up Greek geometry here, I expect that Ive made a variety of assumpEons
you have more accessible to you. If I wanted to tell a geometry joke right now, youd
be about as primed for it as I could make you. In this way, every uTerance that I uTer
sets the stage for the next uTerance by shaping your cogniEve environment. But if I
wanted to tell a geometry joke, why bother seung the stage this way? The answer is
relevance.

27