{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013100436681222707, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.597122302158273, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On relevance scale approaches

We call approaches which use decision theoretic explications of Grice’ relevance maxim for selecting best answers and calculating implicatures relevance scale approaches. In this paper we discuss these approaches with respect to the questions: Are intuitively optimal assertions identical to assertions with maximal relevance? Can classical relevance implicatures be explained by the assumption that propositions are implicated to be false exactly if they are more relevant than what the speaker has actually asserted? The answers to both questions are negative. We will show that there exists a decision theoretically defined relevance scale which the hearer can use for calculating implicatures, but we will also see that this hearer related scale is only defined after the speaker’s assertion is known and, therefore, cannot be presupposed by a definition of Grice’ relevance maxim.