Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulates commitment
| Autor: | Ira A. Noveck, Robert Reinecke, Diana Mazzarella, Hugo Mercier |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Laboratoire sur le langage, le cerveau et la cognition (L2C2), École normale supérieure de Lyon (ENS de Lyon)-Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (UCBL), Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), École normale supérieure - Lyon (ENS Lyon)-Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (UCBL) |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2018 |
| Předmět: |
060201 languages & linguistics
Linguistics and Language Implicit communication media_common.quotation_subject 05 social sciences 06 humanities and the arts Pragmatics 050105 experimental psychology Language and Linguistics [SCCO]Cognitive science Empirical research Artificial Intelligence Order (business) 0602 languages and literature Damages 0501 psychology and cognitive sciences Function (engineering) Empirical evidence Psychology Social psychology ComputingMilieux_MISCELLANEOUS media_common |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Pragmatics Journal of Pragmatics, 2018, 133, pp.15-27. ⟨10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.009⟩ Journal of Pragmatics, Elsevier, 2018, 133, pp.15-27. ⟨10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.009⟩ |
| ISSN: | 0378-2166 1879-1387 |
| Popis: | Commitment plays a crucial role in the stabilization of communication. While commitment increases the acceptance of the message communicated, it comes with a price: the greater the commitment, the greater the cost (direct or reputational) the speakers incur if the message is found unreliable (Vullioud et al., 2017). This opens up the question of which linguistic cues hearers deploy in order to infer speaker commitment in communication. We present a series of empirical studies to test the hypothesis that distinct meaning-relations – saying, presupposing and implicating – act as pragmatic cues of speaker commitment. Our results demonstrate that, after a message p is found to be false, speakers incur different reputational costs as a function of whether p had been explicitly stated, presupposed, or implicated. All else being equal, participants are significantly more likely to selectively trust the speaker who implicated p than the speaker who asserted or presupposed p. These results provide the first empirical evidence that commitment is modulated by different meaning-relations, and shed a new light on the strategic advantages of implicit communication. Speakers can decrease the reputational damages they incur by conveying unreliable messages when these are implicitly communicated. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect