though necessarily weaker, assumptions about what assumptions they are actually making. From assumptions about what is mutually manifest to all of us, we are in a position to derive further, and weaker, assumptions about the assumptions they attribute to us. And essentially, this is it. Human beings somehow manage to communicate in situations where a great deal can be assumed about what is manifest to others, a lot can be assumed about what is mutually manifest to them-selves and others, but nothing can be assumed to be truly mutually known or assumed. The situations which establish a mutual cognitive environment are essentially those that have been treated as establishing mutual knowledge. We have argued that assumptions of mutual knowledge are never truly warranted. Examples (49) and (50) are anecdotal evidence that they are unnecessary. The detour via mutual knowledge is superfluous: mutual cognitive environments directly provide all the information needed for communication and comprehension. The notions of cognitive environment and of manifestness, mutual or other-wise, are psychologically realistic, but by themselves shed little light on what goes on in human minds. A cognitive environment is merely a set of assumptions which the individual is capable of mentally representing and accepting as true. The ques-tion then is: which of these assumptions will the individual actually make? This question is of interest not only to the psychologist, but also to every ordinary communicator. We will argue that when you communicate, your intention is to alter the cognitive environment of your addressees; but of course you expect their actual thought processes to be affected as a result. In the next section we will argue that human cognition is relevance-oriented, and that as a result, someone who knows an individual’s cognitive environment can infer which assumptions he is actually likely to entertain.

DOI link for though necessarily weaker, assumptions about what assumptions they are actually making. From assumptions about what is mutually manifest to all of us, we are in a position to derive further, and weaker, assumptions about the assumptions they attribute to us. And essentially, this is it. Human beings somehow manage to communicate in situations where a great deal can be assumed about what is manifest to others, a lot can be assumed about what is mutually manifest to them-selves and others, but nothing can be assumed to be truly mutually known or assumed. The situations which establish a mutual cognitive environment are essentially those that have been treated as establishing mutual knowledge. We have argued that assumptions of mutual knowledge are never truly warranted. Examples (49) and (50) are anecdotal evidence that they are unnecessary. The detour via mutual knowledge is superfluous: mutual cognitive environments directly provide all the information needed for communication and comprehension. The notions of cognitive environment and of manifestness, mutual or other-wise, are psychologically realistic, but by themselves shed little light on what goes on in human minds. A cognitive environment is merely a set of assumptions which the individual is capable of mentally representing and accepting as true. The ques-tion then is: which of these assumptions will the individual actually make? This question is of interest not only to the psychologist, but also to every ordinary communicator. We will argue that when you communicate, your intention is to alter the cognitive environment of your addressees; but of course you expect their actual thought processes to be affected as a result. In the next section we will argue that human cognition is relevance-oriented, and that as a result, someone who knows an individual’s cognitive environment can infer which assumptions he is actually likely to entertain.

though necessarily weaker, assumptions about what assumptions they are actually making. From assumptions about what is mutually manifest to all of us, we are in a position to derive further, and weaker, assumptions about the assumptions they attribute to us. And essentially, this is it. Human beings somehow manage to communicate in situations where a great deal can be assumed about what is manifest to others, a lot can be assumed about what is mutually manifest to them-selves and others, but nothing can be assumed to be truly mutually known or assumed. The situations which establish a mutual cognitive environment are essentially those that have been treated as establishing mutual knowledge. We have argued that assumptions of mutual knowledge are never truly warranted. Examples (49) and (50) are anecdotal evidence that they are unnecessary. The detour via mutual knowledge is superfluous: mutual cognitive environments directly provide all the information needed for communication and comprehension. The notions of cognitive environment and of manifestness, mutual or other-wise, are psychologically realistic, but by themselves shed little light on what goes on in human minds. A cognitive environment is merely a set of assumptions which the individual is capable of mentally representing and accepting as true. The ques-tion then is: which of these assumptions will the individual actually make? This question is of interest not only to the psychologist, but also to every ordinary communicator. We will argue that when you communicate, your intention is to alter the cognitive environment of your addressees; but of course you expect their actual thought processes to be affected as a result. In the next section we will argue that human cognition is relevance-oriented, and that as a result, someone who knows an individual’s cognitive environment can infer which assumptions he is actually likely to entertain.