1887
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Indirect speech is a remarkable trait of human communication. The present paper tackles the sociobiological underpinnings of communicative indirectness discussing both socio-interactional and cognitive rationales behind its manifestation in discourse. From a social perspective, the use of indirect forms in interactions can be regarded as an adaptive response to the epistemic implications of transacted new information in small primary groups, representing – in Givón’s terms – our “bio-cultural” descent. The design features of indirect strategies today may therefore be explained in terms of a form-function mapping in which indirect communicative expressions allowed a “safer” transaction of contents and a more cooperative attitude of speakers in both face-to-face and public contexts of communication. The unchallengeability effects notably induced by underencoded meanings have now received extensive experimental backing, unveiling intriguing underlying cognitive mechanisms such as the well-known cognitive illusions or fallacies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/is.18.1.07mas
2017-07-28
2018-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bambini, V. , Gentili, C. , Ricciardi, E. , Bertinetto, P. M. , & Pietrini, P
    (2011) Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Research Bulletin, 86, 203–216. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2011.07.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2011.07.015 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baron-Cohen, S
    (1991) Precursors to a theory of mind. In A. Whiten (Ed.), Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development, and simulation of everyday mindreading (pp. 233–252). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bianchi, C
    (2003) Pragmatica del linguaggio. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brocca N. , Garassino D. , & Masia, V
    . (2016). Politici nella rete o nella rete dei politici? L’implicito nella comunicazione politica italiana su Twitter. PhiN-Beiheft, 11(2016), 66–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, P. , & Levinson, S. C
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Burkhardt, P
    (2006) Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 98, 159–168. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, R
    (1990) Verbal irony as conversational implicature. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Muncie (Indiana), Ball State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cooley, C. H
    (1897) The process of social change. Political Science Quarterly, 12, 63–81. doi: 10.2307/2140028
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2140028 [Google Scholar]
  9. (1909) Social organization: a study of the larger mind. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. doi: 10.1037/14788‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/14788-000 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coolidge, F. L. , & Wynn, T
    (2012) Cognitive prerequisites for the evolution of indirect speech. In K. R. Gibson , & M. Tallerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford: Oxord University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541119.013.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541119.013.0021 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ferretti, F
    (2010) Coevoluzionismo senza se e senza ma. Rivista di estetica, 44(2), 29–43. doi: 10.4000/estetica.1686
    https://doi.org/10.4000/estetica.1686 [Google Scholar]
  12. Frith, U
    (2003) Autism: Explaining the enigma. 2nd Edition. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Givón, T
    (1973) The time-axis phenomenon. Language, 49(4), 890–925. doi: 10.2307/412067
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412067 [Google Scholar]
  14. (1991) Some substantive issues concerning verb serialization: Grammatical vs. cognitive packaging. In C. Lefebvre (Ed.), Serial verbs: grammatical, comparative, and cognitive approaches (pp. 137–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ssls.8.06giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssls.8.06giv [Google Scholar]
  15. (2002) Bio-Linguistics. The Santa-Barbara lectures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.113
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.113 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2005) Context as other minds. The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.130
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.130 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2009) The genesis of syntactic complexity: diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.146
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.146 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gould, S. J. , & Vrba, E
    (1982) Exaptation: A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiolgy, 8(1), 4–15. doi: 10.1017/S0094837300004310
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0094837300004310 [Google Scholar]
  19. Grice, P. H
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole , & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grottanelli Vinigi, L
    (1966)  Ethonologica . Luomo e la civilt. Vol. III, Milano: Edizioni Labor.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hagoort, P. , & Levinson, S. C
    (2014) Neuropragmatics. In M. S. Gazzaniga , & G. R. Mangun (Eds.), The cognitive neurosciences, 5th edition (pp. 667–674). Mass: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hamblin, C
    (1970) Fallacies. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hertrich, I. , Kirsten, M. , Tiemann, S. , Beck, S. , Whle, A. , Ackermann, H. , & Rolke, B
    (2015) Context-dependent impact of presuppositions on early magnetic brain responses during speech perception. Brain & Language, 149, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hornby, P. A
    (1973) Intonation and Syntactic Structure in the Development of Presupposition, paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development . Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1974) Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 530–538. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(74)80005‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80005-8 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jang, G. , Yoon, S. , Lee, S. , Park, H. , Kim, J. , Ko, J. H. , & Park, H
    (2013) Everyday conversation requires cognitive inference: Neural bases of comprehending implicated meanings in conversations. Neuroimage, 81, 61–72. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.027
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.027 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kierkegaard, S
    (1972 [1944]) Training in Christianity. And the edifying discourse that accompanied it. Princeton, translated by Walter Lowrie D. D. . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kiparsky C. , & Kiparsky P
    (1971) Fact. In D. D. Steinberg , & L. A. Jakobovitz (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 345–369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kutas, M. , & Federmeier, K. D
    (2000) Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 463–470. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01560‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lewis, D
    (1979) Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(3), 339–359. doi: 10.1007/BF00258436
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lombardi Vallauri, E
    (2009) La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lombardi Vallauri, E. , & Masia, V
    (2014) Implicitness impact: measuring texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 161–184. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  33. Oswald, S. , Maillat, D. , & Saussure, L. de
    (2016). Deceptive and uncooperative communication. In L. de Saussure , & A. Rocci (Eds.) Verbal communication (Handbooks of communicative science 3) (pp.509–534). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Philips, S
    (1976) Some sources of cultural variability in the regulation of talk. Language in Society, 5(1), 81–95. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006862
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006862 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pinker, S
    (2007) The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(4), 437–461. doi: 10.1515/IP.2007.023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.023 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pinker, S. , Nowak, M. A. , & Lee, J. J
    (2008) The logic of indirect speech. PNAS, 105(3), 833–838. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707192105
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707192105 [Google Scholar]
  37. Premack, D. , & Woodruff, G
    (1978) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515–526. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00076512
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rizzolatti, G. , & Arbib, M. A
    (1998) Language within our grasp. Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 188–194. doi: 10.1016/S0166‑2236(98)01260‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(98)01260-0 [Google Scholar]
  39. Saussure, L. de , & Oswald, S
    (2009) Argumentation et engagement du locuteur: pour un point de vue subjectiviste. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique franaise, 29, 215–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Saussure, L. de
    (2013) Background relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 178–189. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.009.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2014). Prsuppositions discursives, assertion darrire-plan et persuasion. In T. Herman , & S. Oswald (Eds.) Rhetoric and cognition. Theoretical perspectives and persuasive strategies. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sbis, M
    (2007) Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sperber, D. , Clment, F. , Heintz, C. , Mascaro, O. , Mercier, H. , Origgi, G. , & Wilson, D
    (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Tomasello, M
    (2008) Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tversky, A. , & Kahneman, D
    (1974) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 [Google Scholar]
  46. Walton, D
    (1996) The Straw Man Fallacy. In J. Benthem , F. van Emeren , R. van Grootendorst , & F. Veltman (Eds.), Logic and argumentation (pp. 115–128). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wang, L. , & Schumacher, P
    (2013) New is not always costly: evidence from online processing of topic and contrast in Japanese. Frontiers in Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00363.
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00363 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/is.18.1.07mas
Loading

Most Cited This Month

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