A sociobiological account of indirect speech
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Societies of intimates
- 3.Pragmatic foundations and cognitive prerequisites for indirect communication
- 4.Reasons and linguistic manifestations of indirect communication
- 5.Indirect communication in political speeches
- 6.Indirect communication and cognitive fallacies
- 7.Concluding remarks
- Notes
-
References
This article is currently available as a sample article.
References (47)
References
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, 861, 203–216. 

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.
Bianchi, C. (2003). Pragmatica del linguaggio. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
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.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Burkhardt, P. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 981, 159–168. 

Chen, R. (1990). Verbal irony as conversational implicature. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Muncie (Indiana), Ball State University.
Cooley, C. H. (1897). The process of social change. Political Science Quarterly, 121, 63–81. 

Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization: a study of the larger mind. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 

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. 

Ferretti, F. (2010). Coevoluzionismo senza se e senza ma. Rivista di estetica, 44(2), 29–43. 

Frith, U. (2003). Autism: Explaining the enigma. 2nd Edition. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Givón, T. (1973). The time-axis phenomenon. Language, 49(4), 890–925. 

Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. (1982). Exaptation: A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiolgy, 8(1), 4–15. 

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.
Grottanelli Vinigi, L. (1966).
Ethonologica
. Luomo e la civilt. Vol. III1, Milano: Edizioni Labor.
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.
Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
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, 1491, 1–12. 

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.
Hornby, P. A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 530–538. 

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, 811, 61–72. 

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.
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.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 121, 463–470. 

Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(3), 339–359. 

Lombardi Vallauri, E. (2009). La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.
Lombardi Vallauri, E., & Masia, V. (2014). Implicitness impact: measuring texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 611, 161–184. 

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.
Philips, S. (1976). Some sources of cultural variability in the regulation of talk. Language in Society, 5(1), 81–95. 

Pinker, S. (2007). The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(4), 437–461. 

Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., & Lee, J. J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. PNAS, 105(3), 833–838. 

Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, 515–526. 

Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M. A. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience, 211, 188–194. 

Saussure, L. de, & Oswald, S. (2009). Argumentation et engagement du locuteur: pour un point de vue subjectiviste. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique franaise, 291, 215–243.
Saussure, L. de (2013). Background relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 591, 178–189.
.
Saussure, L. de (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.
Sbis, M. (2007). Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Sperber, D., Clment, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. 

Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. 

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.
Wang, L., & Schumacher, P. (2013). New is not always costly: evidence from online processing of topic and contrast in Japanese. Frontiers in Psychology.
.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Reboul, Anne
2021.
Truthfully Misleading: Truth, Informativity, and Manipulation in Linguistic Communication.
Frontiers in Communication 6

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.