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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bianchi, C. (2003). Pragmatica del linguaggio. Roma-Bari: Laterza.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Burkhardt, P. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 981, 159–168. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chen, R. (1990). Verbal irony as conversational implicature. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Muncie (Indiana), Ball State University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cooley, C. H. (1897). The process of social change. Political Science Quarterly, 121, 63–81. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization: a study of the larger mind. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ferretti, F. (2010). Coevoluzionismo senza se e senza ma. Rivista di estetica, 44(2), 29–43. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frith, U. (2003). Autism: Explaining the enigma. 2nd Edition. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, T. (1973). The time-axis phenomenon. Language, 49(4), 890–925. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. (1982). Exaptation: A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiolgy, 8(1), 4–15. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grottanelli Vinigi, L. (1966).
Ethonologica
. Luomo e la civilt. Vol. III1, Milano: Edizioni Labor.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 121, 463–470. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(3), 339–359. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lombardi Vallauri, E. (2009). La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lombardi Vallauri, E., & Masia, V. (2014). Implicitness impact: measuring texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 611, 161–184. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pinker, S. (2007). The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(4), 437–461. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., & Lee, J. J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. PNAS, 105(3), 833–838. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, 515–526. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M. A. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience, 211, 188–194. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Saussure, L. de (2013). Background relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 591, 178–189.
.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., Clment, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wang, L., & Schumacher, P. (2013). New is not always costly: evidence from online processing of topic and contrast in Japanese. Frontiers in Psychology.
.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Reboul, Anne
2021.
Truthfully Misleading: Truth, Informativity, and Manipulation in Linguistic Communication.
Frontiers in Communication 6
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.