VIGILANCE MECHANISMS IN INTERPRETATION: HERMENEUTICAL VIGILANCE
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEWybierz format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEVIGILANCE MECHANISMS IN INTERPRETATION: HERMENEUTICAL VIGILANCE
Data publikacji: 15.06.2016
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2016, Volume 133, Issue 1, s. 21 - 29
https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.15.001.4890Autorzy
VIGILANCE MECHANISMS IN INTERPRETATION: HERMENEUTICAL VIGILANCE
The mind has developed vigilance mechanisms that protect individuals from deception and misinformation (Sperber et al. 2010). They make up a module that checks the reliability and believability of informers and information. Vigilance mechanisms may also comprise a sub-set of specialised mechanisms safeguarding hearers from interpretative mistakes conducive to misunderstanding by triggering an attitude of hermeneutical vigilance (Padilla Cruz 2014). This causes individuals to check the plausibility and acceptability of interpretative hypotheses appearing optimally relevant. Relying on empirical evidence, this paper characterises this sub-set of mechanisms and suggests some avenues for future research.
Alvarado Ortega B., Ruiz Gurillo L. (eds.). 2012. Humor, ironía y géneros textuales. Alicante.
Attardo S. 1993. Violation of conversational maxims and cooperation: The case of jokes. –
Journal of Pragmatics 19.6: 537–558.
Attardo S. (ed.). 2014. Encyclopedia of humor studies. Los Angeles.
Attardo S., Pickering L., Baker A. 2011. Prosodic and multimodal markers of humor
in conversation. – Pragmatics and Cognition 19.2: 224–247.
Carruthers P. 2006. Simple heuristics meet massive modularity. – Carruthers P., Laurence S.,
Stich P. (eds.). The innate mind: Culture and cognition. Oxford: 181–198.
Carston R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford.
Choi Y., Trueswell J.C. 2010. Children’s ability to recover from garden paths in a verbfinal language:
Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. – Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology 106: 41–61.
Clément F., Koenig M., Harris P. 2004. The ontogeny of trust. – Mind & Language 19.4: 360–379.
Corriveau K., Harris P. 2009. Preschoolers continue to trust a more accurate informant
1 week after exposure to accuracy information. – Developmental Science 12.1: 188–193.
Engelen, J.A.A., Bouwmeester S., de Bruin A.B.H., Zwaan R.A. 2014. Eye movements reveal
differences in children’s referential processing during narrative comprehension. – Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 118: 57–77.
Ferreira F. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. – Cognitive Psychology 47:
164–203.
Ferreira F., Bailey K.G.D, Ferraro V. 2002. Goodenough representations in language comprehension. – Current Directions in Psychological Science 11.1: 11–15.
Fricker M. 2006. Powerlessness and social interpretation. – Episteme, a Journal of Social
Epistemology 3.1–2: 96–108.
Fricker M. 2007. Epistemic injustice. Power & the ethics of knowing. Oxford.
Ifantidou E. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam.
Khanna M.M., Boland J.E. 2010. Children’s use of language context in lexical ambiguity
resolution. – Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63: 160–193.
Koenig M., Harris P. 2007. The basis of epistemic truth: Reliable testimony or reliable
sources? – Episteme 4.3: 264–284.
Lorsbach T.C., Katz G.A., Cupak A.J. 1998. Developmental differences in the ability to inhibit
the initial misinterpretation of garden path passages. – Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology 71: 275–296.
Mascaro O., Sperber D. 2009. The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components
of children’s vigilance towards deception. – Cognition 112.3: 367–380.
Mazzarella D. 2013. ‘Optimal relevance’ as a pragmatic criterion: The role of epistemic
vigilance. – UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 20–45.
Mercier H., Sperber D. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative
theory. – Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34.2: 57–111.
Michaelian K. 2013. The evolution of testimony: Receiver vigilance, speaker honesty
and the reliability of communication. – Episteme 10.1: 37–59.
Milham M.P. et al. 2001. The relative involvement of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex
in attentional control depends on nature of conflict. – Cognitive Brain Research 12: 467–473.
Mustajoki A. 2012. A speakeroriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes
of miscommunication. – Language and Dialogue 2.2: 216–243.
Norris D., McQueen J.M., Cutler A. 2003. Perceptual learning in speech. – Cognitive Psychology 47:
204–238.
Origgi G. 2013. Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust. – Social Epistemology: A Journal
of Knowledge, Culture and Policy 26.2: 221–235.
Oswald S. 2011. From interpretation to consent: Arguments, beliefs and meaning. – Discourse
Studies 13.6: 806–814.
Padilla Cruz M. 2013a. Understanding and overcoming pragmatic failure in intercultural
communication: From focus on speakers to focus on hearers. – IRAL 51.1: 23–54.
Padilla Cruz M. 2013b. Metapsychological awareness of comprehension and epistemic
vigilance of L2 communication in interlanguage pragmatic development. – Journal
of Pragmatics 59.A: 117–135.
Padilla Cruz M. 2014. Pragmatic failure, epistemic injustice and epistemic vigilance. – Language & Communication 39: 34–50.
Padilla Cruz M. [forthcoming]. Evidential participles and epistemic vigilance.
Parault S.J., Schwanenflugel P.J., Haverback H.R. 2005. The development of interpretations
for novel noun-noun conceptual combinations during the early school years. – Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 91: 67–87.
Sperber D. 1994. Understanding verbal understanding. – Khalfa J. (ed.). What is intelligence?
Cambridge: 179–198.
Sperber D. 2001. In defense of massive modularity. – Dupoux E. (ed.). Language, brain
and cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jacques Mehler. Cambridge (MA): 47–57.
Sperber D. 2005. Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible
and context-sensitive? – Carruthers P., Laurence S., Stich S. (eds.).
The innate mind: Structure and content. Oxford: 53–68.
Sperber D. 2013. Speakers are honest because hearers are vigilant. Reply to Kourken
Michaelian. – Episteme 10.1: 61–71.
Sperber D., Mercier H. 2012. Reasoning as a social competence. – Landemore H., Elster J. (eds.).
Collective wisdom: Principles and mechanisms. Cambridge: 368–392.
Sperber D., Wilson D. 1995. Relevance. Communication and cognition. [2nd edition]. Oxford.
Sperber D., Clément F., Heintz C., Mascaro O., Mercier H., Origgi G., Wilson D. 2010.
Epistemic vigilance. – Mind & Language 25.4: 359–393.
Unger C. 2012. Epistemic vigilance and the function of procedural indicators in communication
and comprehension. – Wałaszewska E., Piskorska A. (eds.). Relevance theory: More than understanding. Newcastle: 45–73.
Weighall A.R. 2008. The kindergarten path effect revisited: Children’s use of context
in processing structural ambiguities. – Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 99: 75–95.
Wharton T. 2009. Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge.
Wilson D. 1999. Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. – UCL Working Papers
in Linguistics 11: 127–161.
Wilson D. 2012. Modality and the conceptual-procedural distinction. – Wałaszewska E.,
Piskorska A. (eds.). Relevance theory: More than understanding. Newcastle: 23–44.
Wilson D. 2013. Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. – Journal
of Pragmatics 59.A: 40–56.
Wilson D., Sperber D. 2004. Relevance theory. – Horn L., Ward G. (eds.).
The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: 607–632.
Woodard K., Pozzan L., Trueswell J.C. 2016. Taking your own path: individual differences
in executive function and language processing skills in child learners. – Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology 141: 187–209.
Ye Z., Zhou X. 2009. Conflict control during sentence comprehension: f MRI
evidence. – NeuroImage 48: 280–290.
Yus Ramos F. 2008. A relevance-theoretic classification of jokes. – Lodz Papers
in Pragmatics 4.1: 131–157.
Informacje: Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2016, Volume 133, Issue 1, s. 21 - 29
Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Tytuły:
VIGILANCE MECHANISMS IN INTERPRETATION: HERMENEUTICAL VIGILANCE
VIGILANCE MECHANISMS IN INTERPRETATION: HERMENEUTICAL VIGILANCE
University of Seville
Publikacja: 15.06.2016
Status artykułu: Otwarte
Licencja: Żadna
Udział procentowy autorów:
Korekty artykułu:
-Języki publikacji:
AngielskiLiczba wyświetleń: 2975
Liczba pobrań: 1870