1. A stimulus is any input for mental processing. Stimuli can broadly be divided into verbal stimuli (e.g. an utterance) and nonverbal stimuli (e.g. a gesture). The latter may also play a vital part in the (un)successful outcome of communication. 2. To do so, the steps are always the same according to relevance theory: (a) follow a path of least effort in computing the interest provided by the utterance (“cognitive effects” in relevance theory terminology). In particular, test interpretive hypotheses in order of accessibility; and (b) stop when your expectations of relevance are satisfied (Sperber and Wilson, 2002: 18). 3. Sperber and Wilson (2002: 14-15) claim that this ability to predict the thoughts and inferential patterns of others is part of the general human tendency to maximise relevance. Specifically, speakers can predict: (a) which stimulus in an individual B’s environment is likely to attract B’s attention (i.e. the most relevant stimulus in that environment); (b) which background information from B’s memory is likely to be retrieved and used in processing this stimulus (i.e. the background information most relevant to processing it); and (c) which inferences B is likely to draw (i.e. those inferences which yield enough cognitive benefits for B’s attentional resources to remain on the stimulus rather than being diverted to alternative potential inputs competing for those resources). 1 Business language from a cognitive perspective José Mateo and Francisco Yus 1. Introduction: Relevance and cognition According to Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/95) relevance theory, human beings have developed an ability to maximise the relevance of the stimuli that they process, both in intracultural and 1 intercultural settings. Since it is utterly impossible to pay attention to all the barrage of information that constantly reaches our minds, we have an evolved capacity to filter and dismiss potentially irrelevant information and to focus our attention on what, in the current situation, is bound to provide some benefit. Besides, it is also essential for us to identify underlying intentions and attitudes in the behaviours (communicative or otherwise) of other people. Finally, as an essential 2 aspect of our cognition we invariably tend to select from context only the information that might be relevant and usually combine new information with information already stored in our brains or which is accessible at the current stage of interpretation in order to derive interesting conclusions. These human abilities are summarised in the so-called cognitive principle of relevance: “human cognition tends to be geared to the maximisation of relevance”. This principle is applied to all kinds of processing, including (and especially) linguistic processing. In fact, relevance theory is mainly interested in the information that interlocutors intentionally try to communicate to one another (that is, information communicated ostensively), and there is a specific principle accounting for this, the communicative principle of relevance (“every act of overt communication conveys a presumption of its own optimal relevance”) that we use on order to interpret the speaker’s intended interpretation. But other sources of information also 3 involve relevance judgements. This is the case of our own thoughts, some of which are more likely to be entertained than others at the current stage of a conversation. Additionally, information which is simply conveyed without a prior intentionality can also be relevant. For example, some information may stand out from the environment and draw the person’s attention. Similarly, while we are speaking we are unconsciously giving off information whose processing may be relevant, especially in contexts like business negotiations, as we will comment on below. In these cases, we have to determine whether there is any intention or lack of it in the speaker’s behaviour. Take, for instance, a wink: