The Manipulative Disguise of Truth

Tricks and threats of implicit communication

image of The Manipulative Disguise of Truth

Becoming effective hunters of manipulative communicative moves is far from an easy capacity to develop. This book aims at offering a guide to the most dangerous traps of deceptive language as triggered by implicit communication strategies such as presupposition, implicature, topicalization and vague expressions. A look at different contexts of language use highlights some of the most remarkable implications of using indirect speech and of how it affects the correct comprehension of a message. Within the remit of communication and pragmatics studies, this work marks an advancement in the direction of delving into the linguistic manifestations of manipulative discourse, its most common contexts of use and the educational paths that can be undertaken to master it in everyday interactions.


  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2015 “Evidentials: Their Links with Other Grammatical Categories”. Linguistic Typology19(2): 239–277. 10.1515/lingty‑2015‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2015-0008 [Google Scholar]
  3. Amaral, Patricia , and Chris Cummins
    2015 “A Cross-linguistic Study on Information Backgrounding and Presupposition Projection”. InExperimental perspectives on presuppositions, ed. by Florian Schwarz , 157–172. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Attardo, Salvatore
    1997 “Locutionary and Perlocutionary Cooperation: The Perlocutionary Cooperative Principle”. Journal of Pragmatics27: 753–779. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(96)00063‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00063-X [Google Scholar]
  5. Austin, John L.
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, Nancy D. , and Patricia Greenfield
    1988 “The Developement of New and Old Information in Young Children’s Early Language”. Language Sciences10(1): 3–34. 10.1016/0388‑0001(88)90003‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(88)90003-4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baumann, Stefan , and Petra B. Schumacher
    2011 “(De-)Accentuation and the Processing of Information Status: Evidence from Event-related Brain Potentials”. Language & Speech55(3): 361–381. 10.1177/0023830911422184
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911422184 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bambini, Valentina
    2010 “Neuropragmatics. A Forward”. Italian Journal of Linguistics22(1): 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bambini, Valentina , Donatella Resta , and Mirko Grimaldi
    2014 “A Dataset of Metaphors from the Italian Literature: Exploring Psycholinguistic Variables and the Role of Context”. PLoS One9(9): e105634. 10.1371/journal.pone.0105634
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105634 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baixauli, Inmaculada , Ana Miranda , Carmen Berenguer , and Belén Rosello
    2017 “Pragmatic Competence of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Impact of Theory of Mind, Verbal Working Memory, ADHD Symptoms, and Structural Language”. Applied Neurophysiology8(1): 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bednarek, Monika
    2006Evaluation in Media Discourse. Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. New York/London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bekalu, Mesfin A.
    2006 “Presupposition in News Discourse.” Discourse & Society17(2): 147–172. 10.1177/0957926506060248
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060248 [Google Scholar]
  13. Berruto, Gaetano
    1976La semantica. Bologna: Zanichelli.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bianchi, Claudia
    2003Pragmatica del linguaggio. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Billig, Michael
    2008 “The Language of Critical Discourse Analysis: The Case of Nominalization”. Discourse and Society19(6): 783–800. 10.1177/0957926508095894
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508095894 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bloom, Paul
    2000How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3577.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3577.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Boas, Franz
    1900 “Sketch of the Kwakiutl language”. American Anthropologist2: 708–721. 10.1525/aa.1900.2.4.02a00080
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1900.2.4.02a00080 [Google Scholar]
  18. 1910Kwakiutl. An Illustrative Sketch. Washington: Government Printing Office.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bonini, Nicolao , Daniel Osherson , Riccardo Viale , and Timothy Williamson
    1999 “On the Psychology of Vague Predicates”. Mind & Language14(4): 377–393. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00117
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00117 [Google Scholar]
  20. Booth, Wayne C.
    1974A Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bredart, Stacy , and Karin Modolo
    1988 “Moses Strikes Again: Focalization Effect on a Semantic Illusion”. Acta Psychologica67: 135–144. 10.1016/0001‑6918(88)90009‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(88)90009-1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Brocca, Nicola , Davide Garassino , and Viviana Masia
    2016 “Politici nella rete o nella rete dei politici? L’implicito nella comunicazione politica italiana su Twitter”. PhiN-Beiheft11: 66–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Brocca, Nicola , Ewa A. Borowiec , and Viviana Masia
    2020 “Didactics of Pragmatics as a Way to Improve Social Media Literacy. An Experiment Proposal with Polish and Italian Students in L1”. heiEDUCATION Journal5: 81–107. doi:  10.17885/heiup.heied.2020.5.24158
    https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.heied.2020.5.24158 [Google Scholar]
  24. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  25. Bucholtz, Mary , and Kira Hall
    2005 “Identity and Interaction. A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach”. Discourse Studies7(4–5): 585–614. 10.1177/1461445605054407
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407 [Google Scholar]
  26. Burmester, Juliane , Katharina Spalek , and Isabell Wartenburger
    2014 “Context Updating During Sentence Comprehension: The Effect of Aboutness Topic”. Brain and Language137: 62–76. 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Cap, Piotr
    2016The Language of Fear. Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. UK: Palgrave Millan.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Cerezuela-Pastor, Gemma , Juan C. Yllescas Tordera , Francisco González-Sala , Maite Montagut-Asunción , and María-Inmaculada Fernández-Andrés
    2018 “Comprehension of Generalized Conversational Implicatures by Children with or without Autism Spectrum Disorder”. Frontiers in Psychology9: 272. doi: 10.3389/2Ffpsyg.2018.00272
    https://doi.org/10.3389/2Ffpsyg.2018.00272 [Google Scholar]
  29. Chafe, Wallace
    1976 “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of view”. InSubject and topic, ed. by Charles Li , 25–55. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1994Discourse, Consciousness and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Chafe, Wallace , and Joanna Nichols
    1986 (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Chemla, Emmanuel
    2009 “Similarity: Towards a Unified Account of Scalar Implicatures, Free Choice Permission and Presupposition Projection”. Under revision forSemantics and Pragmatics.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Christianson, Kiel , Andrew Hollingworth , John F. Halliwell , and Fernanda Ferreira
    2001 “Themaic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger”. Cognitive Psychology42: 368–407. 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0752 [Google Scholar]
  34. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1977 “The Movement Nature of Left Dislocation”. Linguistic Inquiry8(2): 397–423.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Coolidge, Frederick L. , and Thomas Wynn
    2012 “Cognitive Prerequisites for the Evolution of Indirect Speech”. InThe Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution, ed. by Kathleen R. Gibson , and Maggie Tallerman . Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb//9780199541119.013.00213
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb//9780199541119.013.00213 [Google Scholar]
  36. Coppola, Claudia
    2018 Analisi etnopragmatica dell’agentività in discorsi istituzionali di politici italiani e della sua interpretazione in tedesco. MA Thesis, Università degli Studi Internazionali di Roma.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Cory, Bill , Jacopo Romoli , Florian Schwarz , and Stephen Crain
    2014 “Scalar Implicatures vs. Presuppositions: The View from Acquisition.” Topoi35(1): 57–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Cotter, Colleen
    2010News Talk: Investigating the Language of Journalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511811975
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811975 [Google Scholar]
  39. Cowles, Heidi W. , Robert Kluender , Marta Kutas , and Maria Polinsky
    2007 “Violations of Information Structure: An Electrophysiological Study of Answers to Wh-questions.” Brain and Language102(3): 228–242. 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  40. Cresti, Emanuela
    2000Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2018 “The Illocution-Prosody Relationship and the Information Pattern in Spontaneous Speech According to the Language into Act Theory (L-AcT).” Linguistik Online88: 33–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Daneš, František
    1974 “Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text.” InPapers on functional sentence perspective, ed. by František Daneš , 106–128. Prague: Academia/The Hague.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Danler, Paul
    2005 “Morpho-Syntactic and Textual Realizations as Deliberate Pragmatic Argumentative Linguistic Tools?” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Discourse, language, mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure , and Peter Schulz , 45–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.17.04dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.04dan [Google Scholar]
  44. Dayter, Daria
    2014 “Self-Praise in Micro-Blogging.” Journal of Pragmatics61: 91–102. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.021 [Google Scholar]
  45. De Mauro, Tullio
    1982Minisemantica dei linguaggi non verbali e delle lingue. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Derrick, Deirdre J.
    2017 “Is Comprehending Text the Same as Learning from Text?” Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching24: 52–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Domaneschi, Filippo , Paolo Canal , Viviana Masia , Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri , and Valentina Bambini
    2018 “N400 and P600 Modulation in Presupposition Accommodation: The Effect of Different Trigger Types.” Journal of Neurolinguistics45: 13–35. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  48. Drai, Nathanaël , and Louis de Saussure
    2016 “When the Implicit Becomes Explicit: From Experimental Accident to Pilot Study.” Syntaxe et Sémantique17(1): 115–133. 10.3917/ss.017.0115
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ss.017.0115 [Google Scholar]
  49. Degen, Judith , and Michael K. Tanenhaus
    2015 “Processing Scalar Implicature: A Constraint-Based Approach.” Cognitive Science39: 667–710. 10.1111/cogs.12171
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12171 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ducrot, Oswald
    1972Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Erickson, Thomas D. , and Matthew E. Mattson
    1981 “From Words to Meaning. A Semantic Illusion.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior20(5): 540–551. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(81)90165‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1 [Google Scholar]
  52. Evans, Ash
    2016 “Stance and Identity in Twitter Hashtags.” [email protected]urn:nbn:de:0009-0-54947.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Fairclough, Norman
    2003Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203697078
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078 [Google Scholar]
  54. Faller, Martina T.
    2002 Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Department of Linguistics: University of Stanford, PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Farahzad, F. and Allameh, T.
    (1999) A Gestalt Approach to Manipulation. Museum Tusculanum Press University of Copenhagen.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Farwell, David , and Stephen Helmreich
  57. Ferreira, Fernanda , Karl G. D. Bailey , and Vittoria Ferraro
    2002 “Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension.” Current Directions in Psychological Science11(1): 11–15. 10.1111/1467‑8721.00158
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ferreira, Fernanda , and Matthew W. Lowder
    2016 “Prediction, Information Structure, and Good-Enough Language Processing.” Psychology of Learning and Motivation65: 217–247. 10.1016/bs.plm.2016.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2016.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  59. Fintel von, Kai
    2008 What is Presupposition Accommodation, Again?Philosophical Perspectives22(1): 137–170. 10.1111/j.1520‑8583.2008.00144.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x [Google Scholar]
  60. Frith, Chris D. , and Uta Frith
    2005 “Theory of Mind.” Advances in Clinical Neuroscience and Rehabilitation15: R644–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Fowler, Roger
    1991Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Fox, Barbara A.
    2001 “Evidentiality, Authority, Responsibility and Entitlement in English Conversation.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology11(2): 167–192. 10.1525/jlin.2001.11.2.167
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2001.11.2.167 [Google Scholar]
  63. Franke, Michael , and Robert van Rooij
    2015 “Strategies of Persuasion, Manipulation and Propaganda. Psychological and Social Aspects.” Models of Strategic Reasoning: Logics, Games, and Communities, 255–291. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑48540‑8_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48540-8_8 [Google Scholar]
  64. Frascarelli, Mara , and Roland Hinterhölzl
    2007 “Types of Topics in German and Italian.” On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: 87–116. 10.1075/la.100.07fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.07fra [Google Scholar]
  65. Frege, Gottlob
    1892 “Über Sinn und Bedeutung.” Zeitschrift für Philosophie un philosophische Kritik100: 25–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Friedman, Victor A.
    1986 “Evidentiality in the Balkans. Macedonian and Albanian.” InEvidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace Chafe , and Joanna Nichols , 168–187. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Frith, Chris D. , and Uta Frith
    2005 “Theory of Mind.” Advances in Clinical Neuroscience & Rehabilitation15: R644–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Gaio, Silvia
    2010 Vaghezza. APhEx. Portale Italiano di Filosofia Analitica1: 75–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Garassino, Davide , Viviana Masia , and Nicola Brocca
    2018 “Implicit Communication in Twitter. Analysis of the Pragmatic Functions of Politicians’ Use of Implicatures and Presuppositions.” Talk presented at the ARGAGE (Argumentation and Language) conference, 7–9 October, 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2019 “Tweet as You Speak. The Role of Implicit Strategies and Pragmatic Functions in Political Communication: Data From a Diamesic Comparison.” Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata2–3: 187–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Givón, Talmy
    1982 “Evidentiality and Epistemic Space.” Studies in Language6(1): 23–49. 10.1075/sl.6.1.03giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.6.1.03giv [Google Scholar]
  72. 1983Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. [Typological Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2002Bio-linguistics. The Santa Barbara Lectures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.113
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.113 [Google Scholar]
  74. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Gotzner, Nicole
    2019 “The Role of Focus Intonation in Implicature Computation: a Comparison With Only and Also.” Natural Language Semantics27: 189–226. 10.1007/s11050‑019‑09154‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09154-7 [Google Scholar]
  76. Gould, Stephen J. , and Elisabeth S. Vrba
    1982 “Exaptation. A Missing Term in the Science of Form.” Paleobiology8(1): 4–15. 10.1017/S0094837300004310
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0094837300004310 [Google Scholar]
  77. Gouvea, Ana C. , Colin Phillips , Nina Kazanina , and David Poeppel
    2010 “The Linguistic Processes Underlying the P600.” Language and Cognitive Processes25(2): 149–188. 10.1080/01690960902965951
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960902965951 [Google Scholar]
  78. Grabe, William
    2009Reading in a Second Language. Moving from Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Graham, Todd , Marcel Broersma , Karin Hazelhoff , and Guido van t’Haar
    2013 “Between Broadcasting Political Messages and Interacting with Voters: The Use of Twitter During the 2010 UK General Election Campaign.” Information, Communication & Society16(5): 692–716. 10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581 [Google Scholar]
  80. Grice, Herbert P.
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole , and Jerry Morgan , 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 1978 “Further Notes on Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics: Vol. 9. Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole , 113–128. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Grottanelli Vinigi, Lorenzo
    1966Ethnologica. L’uomo e la civiltà. Vol.III. Milano: Edizioni Labor.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Gutt, Ernst-A.
    1991Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Hagoort, Peter , Colin Brown , and Jolanda Groothusen
    1993 “The Syntactic Positive Shift (SPS) as an ERP Measure of Syntactic Processing.” Language and Cognitive Processes8(4): 439–483. 10.1080/01690969308407585
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308407585 [Google Scholar]
  85. Hagoort, Peter , and Stephen C. Levinson
    2014 “Neuropragmatics.” InThe Cognitive Neurosciences, ed. by Michael S. Gazzaniga , and George R. Mangun , 667–674. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Halliday, Michael K.
    1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Hamblin, Charles
    1970Fallacies. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Haro, Juan , Josep Demestre , Roger Boada , and Pilar Ferré
    2017 “ERP and Behavioral Effects of Semantic Ambiguity in a Lexical Decision Task.” Journal of Neurolinguistics44: 190–202. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  89. Heim, Irene
    1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. University of Massachussetts: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Hintz, Daniel J. , and Diane M. Hintz
    2017 “The Evidential Category of Mutual Knowledge in Quechua.” Lingua (186–187): 88–109. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.014 [Google Scholar]
  91. Hoey, Michael
    1999 “Persuasive Rhetoric in Linguistics: A Styilistic Study of Some Features of the Language of Noam Chomsky.” InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston , and Geoff Thompson , 28–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Hornby, Peter A.
    1974 “Surface Structure and Presupposition.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior13(5): 530–538. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(74)80005‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80005-8 [Google Scholar]
  93. Hruska, Claudia , and Kai Alter
    2004 “Prosody in Dialogues and Single Sentences. How Prosody Can Influence Speech Perception.” InLanguage, Context and Cognition. Information Structure: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects, ed. by Anita Steube , 211–223. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110905892.211
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110905892.211 [Google Scholar]
  94. Hunston, Susan , and Geoff Thompson
    1999Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Hunston, Susan & Thompson, Geoff
    (2001) Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Hutcheon, Linda
    1995Irony’s Edge. The Theory and Politics of Irony. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Jones, Peter E. , and Chik Collins
    2006 “Political Analysis versus Critical Discourse Analysis in the Treatment of Ideology: Some Implications for the Study of Communication.” Atlantic Journal of Communication14 (1–2): 28–50. 10.1207/s15456889ajc1401&2_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15456889ajc1401&2_3 [Google Scholar]
  98. Jorgensen, Julia , George A. Miller , and Dan Sperber
    1984 “Test of the Mention Theory of Irony.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. General113: 112–120. 10.1037/0096‑3445.113.1.112
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.112 [Google Scholar]
  99. Kamio, Akio
    1997Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.48
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48 [Google Scholar]
  100. Kapogianni, Eleni
    2016 “The Ironic Operation: Revisiting the Components of Ironic Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics91: 16–28. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  101. Kappenman, Emily S. , and Steven J. Luck
    2012The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Karttunen, Lauri
    1973 “Presupposition of Compound Sentences.” Linguistic Inquiry4(2): 169–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 1974 “Presupposition and Linguistic Context.” Theoretical Linguistics1(1): 181–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Kasher, Asa , Gila Batori , Nachum Soroker , David Graves , and Eran Zaidel
    1999 “Effects of Right- and Left-Hemisphere Damage on Understanding Conversational Implicatures.” Brain and Language68: 566–590. 10.1006/brln.1999.2129
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2129 [Google Scholar]
  105. Katan, David
    1999Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Keefe, Rosanna
    2000Theories of Vagueness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Keenan, Edward L.
    1978 “Some Logical Problems in Translation.” InMeaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches, ed. by Franz Guenthner , and Reutter M. Guenthner , 157–89. Duckworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Kierkegaard, Søren
    1972 [1944]Training in Christianity. And the Edifying Discourse that Accompanied it [translated by Walter D. D. Lowrie ]. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Kiparsky, Carol , and Paul Kiparsky
    1971 “Fact.” InSemantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader, ed. by Danny D. Steinberg , and Leon A. Jakobovitz , 345–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Kramina, Aiga
    2004 “Translation as Manipulation: Causes and Consequences, Opinions and Attitudes.” Studies about Languages6: 37–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Krebs, John R. , and Richard Dawkins
    1984 “Animal Signals: Mind-reading and Manipulation.” InBehavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, ed. by John R. Krebs , and Nicholas B. Davies , 380–402. Sunderland: MA: Sinauer Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Kutas, Marta , and Steven A. Hillyard
    1980 “Reading Senseless Sentences: Brain Potentials Reflect Semantic Incongruity.” Science207: 203–205. 10.1126/science.7350657
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7350657 [Google Scholar]
  113. Kutas, Marta , and Kara D. Federmeier
    2000 “Electrophysiology Reveals Semantic Memory Use in Language Comprehension.” Trends in Cognitive Science4(12): 463–470. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01560‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6 [Google Scholar]
  114. 2011 “Thirty Years and Counting: Finding Meaning in the N400 Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential (ERP).” Annual Review of Psychology62: 621–647. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 [Google Scholar]
  115. Kutas, Marta , Katherine A. De Long , and Nathaniel J. Smith
    2011 “A Look Around at What Lies Ahead: Prediction and Predictability in Language Processing.” InPredictions in the Brain. Using Our Past to Generate a Future, ed. by Moshe Bar , 190–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395518.003.0065
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395518.003.0065 [Google Scholar]
  116. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  117. Langford, John , and Virginia M. Holmes
    1979 “Syntactic Presupposition in Sentence Comprehension.” Cognition7: 363–383. 10.1016/0010‑0277(79)90022‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90022-2 [Google Scholar]
  118. La Rocca, Daria , Viviana Masia , Emanuele Maiorana , Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri , and Patrizio Campisi
    2016 “Brain Response to Information Structure Misalignments in Linguistic Contexts.” Neurocomputing199: 1–15. 10.1016/j.neucom.2016.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2016.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  119. Lazer, David , Matthew Baum , Yochai Benkler , Adam Berinsky , Kelly Greenhill , Filippo Menczer , Miriam Metzger , Brendan Nyhan , Gordon Pennycook , David Rothschild , Michael Schudson , Steven Sloman , Cass Sunstein , Emily Thorson , Duncan Watts , and Jonathan Zittrain
    2018 “The Science of Fake News. Addressig Fake News Requires a Multidisciplinary Effort.” Science359 (6380): 2–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Lee, Jayeon , and Weiai Xu
    2018 “The More Attacks, the More Retweets: Trump’s and Clinton’s Agenda Setting on Twitter.” Public Relations Review44(2): 201–213. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  121. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Levshina, Natalia
    2015How to do Linguistics with R. Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  123. Levy, Roger
    2008 “Expectation-Based Syntactic Comprehension.” Cognition106(3): 1126–1177. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  124. Lewis, David
    1979 “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic8(3): 339–359.
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Lewis, Fiona M. , Gail C. Woodyatt , and Bruce E. Murdoch
    2008 “Linguistic and Pragmatic Language Skills in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Pilot Study.” Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders2(1): 176–187. 10.1016/j.rasd.2007.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2007.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  126. Li, Charles , and Sandra A. Thompson
    1976 “Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language.” InSubject and Topic, ed. by Charles Li , 455–488. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Libert, Alan R.
    2016 “Adpositions and Presuppositions.” SpringerPlus5: 858. 10.1186/s40064‑016‑2500‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2500-2 [Google Scholar]
  128. Loftus, Elizabeth F.
    1975 “Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report.” Cognitive Psychology7: 560–572. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90023‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7 [Google Scholar]
  129. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
    2009La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 2016 “Implicits as Evolved Persuaders.” InPragmemes and Theories of Language Use, ed. by Keith Allan , Alessandro Capone , and Istvan Kecskes , 725–748. Springer: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43491‑9_36
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_36 [Google Scholar]
  131. 2018 “Topics are (Implicit) Indirect Reports.” InIndirect Reports and Pragmatics in the World Languages. Perspectives in Pragmatics vol.19, Philosophy & Psychology, ed. by Alessandro Capone , Manuel García-Carpintero , and Alessandra Falzone , 149–170. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo , and Viviana Masia
    2014 “Implicitness Impact: Measuring Texts.” Journal of Pragmatics61: 161–184. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  133. 2016a “Misurare l’informazione implicita nella propaganda politica italiana.” InProceedings of XI° ASLI Congress – Associazione per la Storia della Lingua Italiana, L’italiano della politica e la politica per l’italiano, 539–557. Firenze: Franco Cesati.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 2016b Specificità della lingua persuasiva: l’implicito discutibile. InProceedings of XIII° SILFI Congress, La lingua variabile nei testi letterari, artistici e funzionali contemporanei (1915–2014): analisi, interpretazione, traduzione, 637–654. Firenze: Franco Cesati.
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 2018 “Context and Information Structure constraints on factivity: the case of “know”. Language Sciences66: 103–115. 10.1016/j.langsci.2018.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  136. 2020 “La comunicazione implicita come dimensione di variazione tra tipi testuali.” InLinguaggi settoriali e specialistici. Sincronia, diacronia, traduzione, variazione, ed. by Jaqueline Visconti , Manuela Manfredini , and Lorenzo Coveri , 113–120. Firenze: Franco Cesati.
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Lucisano, Pietro , and Maria Emanuela Piemontese
    1988 “GULPEASE: una formula per la predizione della difficoltà dei testi in lingua italiana.” Scuola e città3(31): 110–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Machetti, Sabrina
    2011 “La vaghezza linguistica come problema della pragmatica. Questioni teoriche e dati a confronto.” Esercizi Filosofici6: 195–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Maclellan, Effie
    1997 “Reading to Learn.” Studies in Higher Education22(3): 277–288. 10.1080/03075079712331380896
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331380896 [Google Scholar]
  140. Maillat, Didier , and Steve Oswald
    2009 “Defining Manipulative Discourse: The Pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions.” International Review of Pragmatics1: 348–370. 10.1163/187730909X12535267111651
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12535267111651 [Google Scholar]
  141. Marwick, Alice , and Danah boyd
    2011 “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies17: doi: 10.1177/2F1354856510394539
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1354856510394539 [Google Scholar]
  142. Masia, Viviana
    (2017) Sociobiological Bases of Information Structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Masia, Viviana
    2017aSociobiological Bases of Information Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/ais.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.9 [Google Scholar]
  144. 2017b “On the Evidential Status of Presupposition and Assertion.” International Journal of Linguistics9(4): 134–153. 10.5296/ijl.v9i4.11794
    https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v9i4.11794 [Google Scholar]
  145. 2017c “A Sociobiological Account of Indirect Speech.” Interaction Studies18(1): 142–160. 10.1075/is.18.1.07mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.1.07mas [Google Scholar]
  146. Masia, Viviana , Paolo Canal , Irene Ricci , Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri , and Valentina Bambini
    2017 “Presupposition of New Information as a Pragmatic Garden Path: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials.” Journal of Neurolinguistics42: 31–48. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  147. Masia, Viviana
    2020 “(Re-)assessing the Status of Second Occurrence Focus in Information Structure: Evidence from Phonological, Processing and Micropragmatic Perspectives.” Italian Journal of Linguistics32(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  148. 2020 “Presupposition, Assertion and the Encoding of Evidentiality in Political Discourse.” Linguistik Online102(2): 129–153. 10.13092/lo.102.6828
    https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.102.6828 [Google Scholar]
  149. Masini, Francesca , Caterina Mauri , and Paola Pietrandrea
    2018 “List Constructions: Towards a Unified Account.” Italian Journal of Linguistics30(1): 49–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Mathesius, Vilèm
    1939 “On the So-Called Topic/Comment articulation of the sentence.” SaS5: 171–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Matić, Dejan
    2014 “Deriving Information Structure from Field Data.” InMethodological Issues in the Study of Information Structure, ed. by Dina El Zarka , and Steffen Heidinger , 25–42. Graz: Universität Graz.
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Mazzarella, Diana , Robert Reinecke , Ira Noveck , and Hugo Mercier
    2018 “Saying, Presupposing and Implicating: How Pragmatics Modulates Commitment.” Journal of Pragmatics133: 15–27. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  153. Meibauer, Jörg
    2014 “A Truth That’s Told with Bad Intent. Lying and Implicit Content.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics28(1): 97–118. 10.1075/bjl.28.05mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.28.05mei [Google Scholar]
  154. Morency, Patrick , Steve Oswald and Louis de Saussure
    2008 “Explicitness, Implicitness and Commitment Attribution: A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics22: 197–219. 10.1075/bjl.22.10mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.10mor [Google Scholar]
  155. Murray, Sarah E.
    2017The Semantics of Evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  156. Mushin, Ilana
    2001Evidentiality and Epistemological stance. Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.87
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.87 [Google Scholar]
  157. Nichols, Shaun , and Stephen P. Stich
    2003Mindreading. An Integrated Account of Pretence, Self-Awareness, and Understanding Other Minds. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/0198236107.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0198236107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  158. Noveck, Ira A.
    2001 “Why Children are More Logical than Adults: Experimental Investigations of Scalar Implicatures.” Cognition78: 165–188. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00114‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 [Google Scholar]
  159. Noveck, Ira A. , and Andres Posada
    2003 “Characterizing the Time Course of an Implicature. An Evoked Potentials Study.” Brain and Language85: 203–210. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00053‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1 [Google Scholar]
  160. Oesch, Nathan
    2016 “Deception as a Derived Function of Language.” Frontiers in Psychology7: 1485. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01485
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01485 [Google Scholar]
  161. Ohta, Amy S.
    1991 Evidentiality and Politeness in Japanese. Issues in Applied Linguistics2(2): 211–238.
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Oswald, Steve , Didier Maillat , and Louis de Saussure
    2016 “Deceptive and Uncooperative Communication.” InVerbal Communication (Handbooks of Communicative Science 3), ed. by Louis de Saussure , and Andrea Rocci , 509–534. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110255478‑026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255478-026 [Google Scholar]
  163. Paganini, Elisa
    2011 “Vague Objects Without Onticate Indeterminate Identity.” Erkenntnis74: 351–362. 10.1007/s10670‑010‑9257‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-010-9257-8 [Google Scholar]
  164. Parvaresh, Vahid , and Mohammad Ahmadian Javad
    2016 “The Impact of Task Structure on the Use of Vague Expressions by EFL Learners.” The Language Learning Journal44(4): 436–450. 10.1080/09571736.2016.1204108
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1204108 [Google Scholar]
  165. Pfurtscheller, Gert , and Fernando Lopes da Silva
    1999 “Event-Related EEG/MEG Synchronization and Desynchronization: Basic Principles.” Clinical Neurophysiology110: 1842–1857. 10.1016/S1388‑2457(99)00141‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00141-8 [Google Scholar]
  166. Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo
    1995L’arte di persuadere. Come impararla, come esercitarla, come difendersene. Milano: Mondadori.
    [Google Scholar]
  167. Piciucco, Emanuela , Viviana Masia , Emanuele Maiorana , Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri , and Patrizio Campisi
    . under review. “Information Structure Effects on the Processing of Nouns and Verbs: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials.”
    [Google Scholar]
  168. Pijnaker, Judith , Peter Hagoort , Jan Buitelaar , Jan-Pieter Teunisse , and Bart Geurts
    2009 “Pragmatic Inferences in High-Functioning Adults with Austism and Asperger Syndrome.” Journal of Autism Development and Disorder39: 607–618. 10.1007/s10803‑008‑0661‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-008-0661-8 [Google Scholar]
  169. Pinker, Steven
    2007 “The Evolutionary Social Psychology of Off-Record Indirect Speech Acts.” Intercultural Pragmatics4–4: 437–461.
    [Google Scholar]
  170. Pinker, Steven , Martin A. Nowak , and James J. Lee
    2008 “The Logic of Indirect Speech.” PNAS105(3): 833–838. 10.1073/pnas.0707192105
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707192105 [Google Scholar]
  171. Politzer-Ahles, Stephen , and Laura Gwilliams Laura
    2015 “Involvement of Prefrontal Cortex in Scalar Implicatures: Evidence from Magnetoencephalography.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience30(7): 853–866. 10.1080/23273798.2015.1027235
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1027235 [Google Scholar]
  172. Popa-Wyatt, Mihaela
    2019 “Embedding Irony and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction.” Inquiry62(6): 674–699. 10.1080/0020174X.2018.1446048
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2018.1446048 [Google Scholar]
  173. Rabassa, G.
    (1984) The Silk Purse Business: A Translator’s Conflicting Responsibilities. In Frawley, W. (ed.) Translation: Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives. Newark: University of Delaware Press. pp.35–40
    [Google Scholar]
  174. Reboul, Anne
    2011 “A Relevance-Theoretic Account of the Evolution of Implicit Communication.” Studies in Pragmatics13(1): 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  175. Récanati, François
    1987Meaning and Force. The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Regel, Stefanie , Thomas C. Gunter , and Angela D. Friederici
    2011 “Isn’t it Ironic? An Electrophysiological Exploration of Figurative Language Processing.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience23(2): 277–293. 10.1162/jocn.2010.21411
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21411 [Google Scholar]
  177. Reinhart, Tanya
    1982 “Pragmatics and Linguistics. An Analysis of Sentence Topics.” Philosophica27(1): 53–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  178. Renvoisé, Patrick , and Christophe Morin
    2007Neuromarketing. Understanding the “Buy Botton” in Your Customer’s Brain. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [Google Scholar]
  179. Rigotti, Eddo
    2005 “Towards a Typology of Manipulative Processes.” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Discourse, language and mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure , and Peter Schulz , 61–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.17.05rig
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.05rig [Google Scholar]
  180. Rosch, Eleanor
    1978 “Principles of Categorization.” InCognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch , and Barbara B. Lloyd , 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  181. Russell, Bertrand
    1905 “On denoting.” Mind14(56): 479–493. 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 [Google Scholar]
  182. Sanatifar, Mohammad S.
    2016 “How to Treat Implicatures in the Translation of Political Speech: A Relevance-theory Perspective.” Journal of Translator Education and Translation Studies1(2): 97–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  183. Santos, Diana
    1998 “The Relevance of Vagueness for Translation: Examples from English to Portuguese.” TradTerm5(1): 71–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  184. Saussure de, Louis
    2005 “Manipulation and Cognitive Pragmatics: Preliminary Hypotheses.” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure , and Peter Schulz , 113–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.17.07sau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.07sau [Google Scholar]
  185. 2011 “Discourse Analysis, Cognition and Evidentials.” Discourse Studies13(6): 781–788. 10.1177/1461445611421360b
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360b [Google Scholar]
  186. Saussure de, Louis , and Peter Schulz
    (eds.) 2005Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17 [Google Scholar]
  187. Saussure de, Louis
    2018 “The Strawman Fallacy as a Prestige-Gaining Device.” InArgumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discourse Explorations. Argumentation Library 32, ed. by Steve Oswald , 171–190. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_8 [Google Scholar]
  188. 2018 “Des présuppositions stricto sensu aux présuppositions discursives.” La Présupposition entre théorisation et mise en discours: 35–56. doi: 10.15122/isbn.978‑2‑406‑06648‑4.p.0035
    https://doi.org/10.15122/isbn.978-2-406-06648-4.p.0035 [Google Scholar]
  189. Sbisà, Marina
    1999 “Ideology and the Persuasive Use of Presupposition.” InLanguage and Ideology. Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatic Conference Vol. 1, ed. by Jef Verschueren , 492–509. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  190. 2007Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  191. Scarpa, Federica
    2008La traduzione specializzata. Milano: Hoepli.
    [Google Scholar]
  192. Schaeken, Walter , Marie Van Haeren , and Valentina Bambini
    2018 “The Understanding of Scalar Implicatures in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Dichotomized Responses to Violations of Informativeness.” Frontiers in Psychology9: 1266. doi: 10.3389/2Ffpsyg.2018.01266
    https://doi.org/10.3389/2Ffpsyg.2018.01266 [Google Scholar]
  193. Schumacher, Petra B.
    2012 “Context in Neurolinguistics: Time-Course Data From Electrophysiology.” InWhat is a context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges, ed. by Rita Finkbeiner , Jörg Meibauer , and Petra B. Schumacher , 33–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.196.05sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.196.05sch [Google Scholar]
  194. Schumacher, Petra B. , and Yu-Chen Hung
    2012 “Positional Influences on Information Packaging: Insights From Topological Fields in German.” Journal of Memory and Language67(2): 295–310. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  195. Schwarz, Florian , and Sonja Tiemann
    2015 “Presupposition Projection in Online Processing.” Available at: florianschwarz.net/wp-content/uploads/papers/PresupProjectionProcessing.pdf
  196. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts. An Essay on the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  197. Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
    1985 “Intonation, Stress and Meaning.” Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 491–504.
    [Google Scholar]
  198. Shapiro, Stewart , and Eric Snyder
    2016 “Vagueness and Context.” Inquiry. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy59(4): 343–381.
    [Google Scholar]
  199. Shiffrin, Richard M. , and Walter Schneider
    1984 “Theoretical Note: Automatic and Controlled Processing Revisited.” Psychological Review91(2): 269–276. 10.1037/0033‑295X.91.2.269
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.2.269 [Google Scholar]
  200. Simone, Raffaele , and Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri
    2011 “Natural Constraints on Language: The Ergonomics of the Software.” Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure64: 119–141.
    [Google Scholar]
  201. Simons, Mandy
    2001 “On the Conversational Basis of Some Presuppositions.” InProceedings of SALT XI, ed. by Rachel Hastings , Brendan Jackson , and Zsofia Zvolensky , 431–448. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  202. Skopeteas, Stavros , Ines Fiedler , Sam Hellmuth , Anne Schwarz , Ruben Stoel , Ginsbert Fanselow , Caroline Féry , and Manfred Krifka
    2006Questionnaire on Information Structure (ISIS, Vol. 4), Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  203. Sorensen, Roy A.
    (1991) Fictional Incompleteness as Vagueness. Erkenntnis, 34, 55–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  204. Sperber, Dan , and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  205. Sperber, Dan , Fabrice Clément , Christophe Heintz , Olivier Mascaro , Hugo Mercier , Gloria Origgi , and Deirdre Wilson
    2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language25: 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  206. Spychalska, Maria , Jarmo Kontinen , and Markus Werning
    2014 “Electrophysiology of Pragmatic Processing: Exploring the Processing Cost of the Scalar Implicature in the Truth-Value Judgment Task.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society36(36): 1497–1502.
    [Google Scholar]
  207. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    1973 “Presuppositions.” Journal of Philosophical Logic2: 447–457. 10.1007/BF00262951
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262951 [Google Scholar]
  208. 1974 “Pragmatic Presuppositions.” InSemantics and Philosophy, ed. by Munitz K. Milton , and Unger K. Peter , 471–482. New York: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  209. 1999Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0198237073.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  210. 2002 “Common Ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy25: 701–721. 10.1023/A:1020867916902
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  211. Surian, Luca , and Michael Siegal
    2008 “Language and Communication in Autism and Asperger Syndrome.” InHandbook of Neuroscience of Language, ed. by Brigitte Stemmer , and Harry A. Whitaker , 377–385. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑008045352‑1.00037‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045352-1.00037-9 [Google Scholar]
  212. Sweller, John
    2003 “Evolution of Human Cognitive Architecture.” Psychology of Learning and Motivation43: 215–266. 10.1016/S0079‑7421(03)01015‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(03)01015-6 [Google Scholar]
  213. Tavano, Erin , and Elsi Kaiser
    2010 “Processing Scalar Implicature: What Can Individual Differences Tell Us?” Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium16(1): 215–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  214. Thompson, Sandra A.
    1985 “Grammar and Written Discourse: Initial vs. Final Purpose Clauses in English.” Text5(1/2): 55–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  215. Tomasello, Michael
    2008Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  216. van Dijk, Teun A.
    (1988) News as discourse. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  217. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1988aNews Analysis: Case Studies of International and National News in the Press. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  218. 1988bNews as Discourse. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  219. Van der Sandt, Rob A.
    1992 “Presupposition Projection as Anaphora.” Journal of Semantics9: 333–377. 10.1093/jos/9.4.333
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.333 [Google Scholar]
  220. Van Dijk, Teun
    1997 “What is Political Discourse Analysis?” Belgian Journal of Linguistics11(1): 11–52. 10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij [Google Scholar]
  221. 2006 “Discourse and Manipulation.” Discourse & Society17(2): 359–383. 10.1177/0957926506060250
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 [Google Scholar]
  222. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    2009 “News, Discourse and Ideology.” InThe Handbook of Journalism Studies, ed. by Karin Wahl-Jorgensen , and Thomas Hanitzsch , 191–204. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  223. Van Tiel, Bob , and Walter Schaeken
    2017 “Processing Conversational Implicature: Alternatives and Counterfactual Reasoning.” Cognitive Science41: 1119–1154. 10.1111/cogs.12362
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12362 [Google Scholar]
  224. Varzi, Achille C.
    2001Parole, oggetti, eventi ed altri argomenti di metafisica. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  225. 2003 “Higher-Order Vagueness and the Vagueness of “Vague”. Mind112: 295–299. 10.1093/mind/112.446.295
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/112.446.295 [Google Scholar]
  226. Vleugel, Thijs
    2014 “Meaning Irony: The Ethics of Irony.” Frame16/2: 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  227. Wang, Luming , and Petra B. Schumacher
    2013 “New is Not Always Costly: Evidence from Online Processing of Topic and Contrast in Japanese.” Frontiers in Psychology4: 363. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00363
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00363 [Google Scholar]
  228. Willett, Thomas
    1988 A Cross-linguistic Survey of Grammaticalization of Evidentiality. Studies in Language12(1): 57–91. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  229. Williamson, Timothy
    1994Vagueness. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  230. Wilson, Deirdre
    2006 “The Pragmatics of Verbal Irony: Echo or Pretence?” Lingua116: 1722–1743. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  231. Winner, Ellen
    1988The Point of Words. Children’s Understanding of Metaphor and Irony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  232. Zurawicki, Leon
    2010Neuromarketing. Exploring the Brain of the Consumer. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑77829‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77829-5 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error