Element contents
Series: Elements in Pragmatics
Pragmatic Inference
Misunderstandings, Accountability, Deniability
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 March 2024
Summary
The concept of inference is foundational to the study of pragmatics; however, the way it is theoretically conceptualised and methodologically operationalised is far from uniform. This Element investigates the role that inference plays in pragmatic models of communication, bringing together a range of scholarship that characterises inference in different ways for different purposes. It addresses the nature of 'faulty inferences', promoting the study of misunderstandings as crucial for understanding inferential processes, and looking at sociopragmatic issues such as the role of commitment, accountability and deniability of inferences in interpersonal communication. This Element highlights that the question of where the locus of meaning lies is not only relevant to pragmatic theory but is also of paramount importance for understanding and managing real-life interpersonal communication conflict.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in PragmaticsOnline ISBN: 9781009036672Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 21 March 2024
References
Ariel, Mira. 2002. Privileged interactional interpretations. Journal of Pragmatics 34(8): 1003–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00061-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2016. Revisiting the typology of pragmatic interpretations. Intercultural Pragmatics 13(1): 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, Robert B. 1999. An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics 9: 119–53. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru.Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert B. 2008. Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2): 229–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, Robert B. 2013. Conceptualizing ‘interaction’ in interpersonal pragmatics: Implications for understanding and research. Journal of Pragmatics 58: 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, Robert B. 2020. Communicating & Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent 1994. Semantic slack: What is said and more. In: Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed). Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 267–291.Google Scholar
Beaver, David I., Geurts, Bart and Denlinger, Kristie. 2021. Presupposition. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/presupposition/.Google Scholar
Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella. 2000. Implicitness in Text and Discourse. Pisa: Edizoni ETS.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Claudia. 2021. Discursive injustice: The role of uptake. Topoi 40: 181–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-020-09699-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilmes, Jack. 1994. Constituting silence: Life in the world of total meaning. Semiotica 98(1–2): 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi-1994-981-204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonalumi, Francesca, Mahr, Johannes, Marie, Pauline and Pouscoulous, Nausicaa. 2022. Beyond the implicit/explicit dichotomy: The pragmatics of commitment, accountability, and plausible deniability. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z2bqt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonalumi, Francesca, Scott-Phillips, Thom, Tacha, Julius and Heintz, Christophe. 2020. Commitment and communication: Are we committed to what we mean, or what we say? Language and Cognition 12(2): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulat, Kira. 2015. Hearer-oriented processes of strength assignment: A pragmatic model of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 29: 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.29.01bou.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandom, Robert B. 1994. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Briscoe, Ted, Ann, Copestake and Alex, Lascarides. 1995 Blocking. In: Saint-Didzier, Patrick and Viegas, Evelyne (eds). Computational Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camp, Elisabeth. 2018. Insinuation, common ground. In: Fogal, Daniel, Harris, Daniel W. and Moss, Matt. New Work on Speech Acts. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 40–65.Google Scholar
Carson, Thomas L. 2010. Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1988. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In: Kempson, Ruth M. (ed). Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–81.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1997. Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes 23(3): 567–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul and Hepburn, Alexa. 2016. Absent apologies. Discourse Processes 53(1–2): 114–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2016. With or without intentions: Accountability and (un)intentional humour in film talk. Journal of Pragmatics 95: 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, Chi-Hé. 2019. Negotiating what is said in the face of miscommunication. In: Stalmaszczyk, Piotr (ed). Philosophical Insights into Pragmatics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 107–26.Google Scholar
Elder, Chi-Hé. 2021. Microaggression or misunderstanding? Implicatures, inferences and accountability. Journal of Pragmatics 179: 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, Chi-Hé and Beaver, David. 2022. ‘We’re running out of fuel’: When does miscommunication go unrepaired? Intercultural Pragmatics 19(5): 541–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2022-5001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, Chi-Hé and Savva, Eleni. 2018. Incomplete conditionals and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics 138: 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, Chi-Hé and Jaszczolt, Kasia M.. Forthcoming. Towards a flexible functional proposition for dynamic discourse meaning. In: Tanaka, Hiroaki, Hata, Kaori, Yoshida, Etsuko and Yamaguchi, Masataka (eds). Towards a Dynamic Pragmatics, volume 4. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Elder, Chi-Hé and Haugh, Michael. 2023. Exposing and avoiding unwanted inferences in conversational interaction. Journal of Pragmatics. 218: 115–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.09.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, Chi-Hé and Haugh, Michael. 2018. The interactional achievement of speaker meaning: Towards a formal account of conversational inference. Intercultural Pragmatics 15(5): 593–625. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott with 2 Ts [@theelliottqueen]. 2021. Twitter, 21 January 2021. https://twitter.com/theelliottqueen/status/1352388093404303360?s=20&t=U8i7IU9yE_zfJubFsJW-8w [Accessed 7 March 2022].Google Scholar
Embick, David, Benz, Johanna and Paparounas, Lefteris. 2023. Blocking effects. In: Ackema, Peter, Bendjaballah, Sabrina, Bonet, Eulàlia, and Fábregas, Antonio (eds). The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119693604.morphcom010Google Scholar
Ephratt, Michal. 2011. Linguistic, paralinguistic and extralinguistic speech and silence. Journal of Pragmatics 43(9): 2286–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binge, EW’s. 2021. RuPaul’s Drag Race season 13. Podcast episode, April. https://open.spotify.com/episode/1OtJeoElx4zCjefR70Znz9?si=ZfnOKvd4Q5axT-s-q7A4DA&nd=1 [Accessed 7 March 2022].Google Scholar
franzke, aline shakti, Bechmann, Anja, Zimmer, Michael, Ess, Charles M.. 2020. Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. The Association of Internet Researchers. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdfGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2019. Communication as commitment sharing: Speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical Linguistics 45(1–2): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eleni, Gregoromichelaki, Kempson, Ruth, Purver, Matt et al. 2011. Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse 2(1): 199–233. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2011.109.Google Scholar
Paul, Grice. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66 (3): 377–388. Reprinted in Grice, 1989, pp. 213–23.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds). Syntax and Semantics 3. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58. Reprinted in Grice, 1989, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In: Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds). Syntax and Semantics 9. New York: Academic Press, pp. 113–27. Reprinted in Grice, 1989, pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Terkourafi, Marina. 2023. We need to talk about Hearer’s meaning! Journal of Pragmatics 208: 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.02.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Daniel W. 2019. Intention and commitment in speech acts. Theoretical Linguistics 45(1–2): 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2007. The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39(1): 84–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2008. The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In: Kecskes, Istvan and Mey, Jacob L. (eds). Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2011. Practices and defaults in interpreting disjunction. In: Jaszczolt, Kasia M. and Allan, Keith (eds). Salience and Defaults in Utterance Processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189–226. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110270679.189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2013. Implicature, inference and cancellability. In: Capone, Alessandro, Piparo, Franco Lo and Carapezza, Marco (eds). Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. New York: Springer, pp. 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2017. Prompting offers of assistance in interactions. Pragmatics and Society 8(2): 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.2.02hau.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, Wesley Raymond, Chase and Drew, Paul. 2019. Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses. Journal of Pragmatics 142: 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2004. Implicature. In: Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (eds). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2006. The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In: von Heusinger, Klaus and Turner, Ken (eds). Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: The Michigan Papers. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Scarlett. 2008. ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’! Right TV. https://web.archive.org/web/20120403120950/http://tv.rightcelebrity.com/rupauls-drag-race/201 [Accessed 25 January 2022].Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott and Jackson, Sally. 1983. Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs 50(4): 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758309390171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2009. Cancelability and the primary/secondary meaning distinction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(3): 259–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2010. Default Semantics. In: Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 193–221.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2012. Context: Gricean intentions vs. two-dimensional semantics. In: Finkbeiner, Rita, Meibauer, Jorg and Schumacher, Petra B. (eds). What Is A Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2023. Semantics, Pragmatics, and Philosophy: A Journey Through Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M., Savva, Eleni and Haugh, Michael. 2016. The individual and the social path of interpretation: The case of incomplete disjunctive questions. In: Capone, Alessandro and Mey, Jacob L. (eds). Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 251–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_9.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1987. On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In: Graham, Button and Lee, John R. E. (eds). Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2003. A note on resolving ambiguity. In Glenn, Phillip J., LeBaron, Curtis D. and Mandelbaum, Jenny (eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 221–40.Google Scholar
Jones, Taylor. 2016. Refining ‘microaggression’: A linguistic perspective. Language Jones blog. www.languagejones.com/blog-1/2016/9/8/oi6379payz9mb4diadulndc244gq1s [Accessed 6 March 2022].Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel and Tversky, Amos. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulka, Rebecca. 2014. Performative force, convention, and discursive injustice. Hypatia 29(2): 440–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01316.x.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 292–305.Google Scholar
Langton, Rae. 1993. Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs 22(4): 293–330.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 2004. Collaborative turn sequences. In: Lerner, Gene H. (ed). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 225–56. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.12ler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2023. Practical (un)cancellability. Journal of Pragmatics 215: 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, James Edwin. 2016. The definition of lying and deception. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/lying-definition/.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, Jenny. 2016. Delicate matters: Embedded self-correction as a method for adjusting possibly available inapposite hearings. In Robinson, Jeffrey D. (ed.). Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana. 2021. ‘I didn’t mean to suggest anything like that!’: Deniability and context reconstruction. Mind & Language 218–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana, Reinecke, Robert, Noveck, Ira and Mercier, Hugo. 2018. Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulates commitment. Journal of Pragmatics 133: 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzone, Marco. 2018. Cognitive Pragmatics: Mindreading, Inferences, Consciousness. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, Emma and Rini, Regina. 2020. Microaggression: Conceptual and scientific issues. Philosophy Compass 15(4): e12659. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jörg., Meibauer 2018. The Linguistics of Lying. Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 357–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045634.Google Scholar
Miss AlexisMateo, . 2021. The Queens Review (RuPauls Drag Race) season 13 Ruveal. YouTube video. https://youtu.be/Opdv7Qv9ZzM [Accessed 7 March 2022].Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 2013. Is a speaker-based pragmatics possible? Or how can a hearer infer a speaker’s commitment? Journal of Pragmatics 48: 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morency, Patrick, Oswald, Steve and de Saussure, Louis. 2008. Explicitness, implicitness and commitment attribution: A cognitive pragmatic perspective. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.10mor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirly, Orr, Ariel, Mira and Peleg, Orna. 2017. The case of literally true propositions with false implicatures. In: Chiluwa, Innocent (ed). Deception and Deceptive Communication: Motivations, Recognition Techniques and Behavioral Control. New York: Nova Science, pp. 67–108.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2007. The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(4): 437–61. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steven, Pinker, Nowak, Martin A. and Lee, James J.. 2008. The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(3): 833–8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707192105.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2002. Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind & Language 17(1–2): 105–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reins, Louisa M. and Wiegmann, Alex. 2021. Is lying bound to commitment? Empirically investigating deceptive presuppositions, implicatures, and actions. Cognitive Science 45(2): 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drag Race, RuPaul’s. 2020. Meet the queens of season 13! YouTube video. https://youtu.be/ZJRlvMURe_0 [Accessed 7 March 2022].Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emmanuel A. and Jefferson, Gail, 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Robert E. 1987. Cognitive Foundations of Calculated Speech. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert E. 2013. The duality of speaker meaning: What makes self repair, insincerity, and sarcasm possible. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1): 112–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Robert E. 2015. A tale of two intentions: Intending what an utterance means and intending what an utterance achieves. Pragmatics and Society 6(4): 475–501. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.4.01san.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saul, Jennifer Mather. 2012. Lying, Misleading, and What Is Said: An Exploration in Philosophy of Language and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savva, Eleni. 2017. Subsentential Speech from a Contextualist Perspective. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70: 1075-95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1981. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of uh huh and other things that come between sentences. In: Tannen, Deborah (ed). Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1997. Third turn repair. In: Guy, Gregory R., Feagin, Crawford, Schiffrin, Deborah and Baugh, John (eds). Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honour of William Labov. Volume 2: Social Interaction and Discourse Structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–40.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey, Sacks. 1973. Opening up Closings. Semiotica 8: 289–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre, Wilson. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind‐reading. Mind & Language 17 (1–2): 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 2015. Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15(44): 117–49. https://doi.org/10.5840/croatjphil20151528.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005599312747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Jason and Gendler Szabó, Zoltán. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15(2–3): 219–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternau, Marit, Ariel, Mira, Giora, Rachel and Fein, Ofer. 2015. Levels of interpretation: New tools for characterizing intended meanings. Journal of Pragmatics 84: 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternau, Marit, Ariel, Mira, Giora, Rachel and Fein, Ofer. 2017. Deniability and explicatures. In: Giora, Rachel and Haugh, Michael (eds). Doing Intercultural Pragmatics: Cognitive, Linguistic, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives on Language Use. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokke, Andreas. 2013. Lying, deceiving, and misleading. Philosophy Compass 8(4): 348–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokke, Andreas. 2018. Lying and Insincerity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sue, Derald Wing. 2010. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2014. The importance of being indirect: A new nomenclature for indirect speech. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 28: 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.28.03ter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2021. Inference and implicature. In Haugh, Michael, Kádár, Dániel Z., Terkourafi, Marina (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, Leanne and Wallace, Claire. 2016. Social media research: A guide to ethics. www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_487729_en.pdf [Accessed 7 March 2022].Google Scholar
Viebahn, Emanuel. 2021. The lying-misleading distinction: A commitment-based approach. The Journal of Philosophy 118(6): 289–319. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2021118621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissman, Benjamin and Terkourafi, Marina. 2018. Are false implicatures lies? An empirical investigation. Mind & Language 34(2): 221–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12212.Google Scholar
Wiegmann, Alex, Willemsen, Pascale and Meibauer, Jörg. 2021. Lying, deceptive implicatures, and commitment. Ergo 8(50): 709–40. https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.2251.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 2002. Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2018. Relevance theory and literary interpretation. In: Cave, Terence and Wilson, Deirdre (eds). Reading beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794776.003.0011.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111(443): 583–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance Theory. In: Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (eds). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 607-632.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Carston, Robyn. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language 21(3): 404–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Wen and Lyu, Siqi. 2022. Speech act matters: Commitment to what’s said or what’s implicated differs in the case of assertion and promise. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 128–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4
- Cited by