1897-1059 VIGILANCE MECHANISMS IN INTERPRETATION: HERMENEUTICAL VIGILANCE Cruz Manuel Padilla author University of Seville Correspondence to: Manuel Padilla Cruz 15 06 2016 Volume 133, Issue 1 2016 21 29 Copyright © 2016 2016 <p>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 <em>hermeneutical vigilance </em>(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.</p> 1 Alvarado Ortega B., Ruiz Gurillo L. (eds.). 2012. Humor, ironía y géneros textuales. Alicante.  2 Attardo S. 1993. Violation of conversational maxims and cooperation: The case of jokes. – Journal of Pragmatics 19.6: 537–558. 3 Attardo S. (ed.). 2014. Encyclopedia of humor studies. Los Angeles. 4 Attardo S., Pickering L., Baker A. 2011. Prosodic and multimodal markers of humor in conversation. – Pragmatics and Cognition 19.2: 224–247. 5 Carruthers P. 2006. Simple heuristics meet massive modularity. – Carruthers P., Laurence S., Stich P. (eds.). The innate mind: Culture and cognition. Oxford: 181–198. 6 Carston R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford.  7 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. 8 Clément F., Koenig M., Harris P. 2004. The ontogeny of trust. – Mind &amp; Language 19.4: 360–379. 9 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. 10 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. 11 Ferreira F. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. – Cognitive Psychology 47: 164–203. 12 Ferreira F., Bailey K.G.D, Ferraro V. 2002. Goodenough representations in language comprehension. – Current Directions in Psychological Science 11.1: 11–15. 13 Fricker M. 2006. Powerlessness and social interpretation. – Episteme, a Journal of Social Epistemology 3.1–2: 96–108. 14 Fricker M. 2007. Epistemic injustice. Power &amp; the ethics of knowing. Oxford. 15 Ifantidou E. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam. 16 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. 17 Koenig M., Harris P. 2007. The basis of epistemic truth: Reliable testimony or reliable sources? – Episteme 4.3: 264–284. 18 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. 19 Mascaro O., Sperber D. 2009. The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception. – Cognition 112.3: 367–380. 20 Mazzarella D. 2013. ‘Optimal relevance’ as a pragmatic criterion: The role of epistemic vigilance. – UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 20–45. 21 Mercier H., Sperber D. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. – Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34.2: 57–111. 22 Michaelian K. 2013. The evolution of testimony: Receiver vigilance, speaker honesty and the reliability of communication. – Episteme 10.1: 37–59. 23 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. 24 Mustajoki A. 2012. A speakeroriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication. – Language and Dialogue 2.2: 216–243. 25 Norris D., McQueen J.M., Cutler A. 2003. Perceptual learning in speech. – Cognitive Psychology 47: 204–238. 26 Origgi G. 2013. Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust. – Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy 26.2: 221–235. 27 Oswald S. 2011. From interpretation to consent: Arguments, beliefs and meaning. – Discourse Studies 13.6: 806–814. 28 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. 29 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. 30 Padilla Cruz M. 2014. Pragmatic failure, epistemic injustice and epistemic vigilance. – Language &amp; Communication 39: 34–50. 31 Padilla Cruz M. [forthcoming]. Evidential participles and epistemic vigilance. 32 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. 33 Sperber D. 1994. Understanding verbal understanding. – Khalfa J. (ed.). What is intelligence? Cambridge: 179–198. 34 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. 35 Sperber D. 2005. Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? – Carruthers P., Laurence S., Stich S. (eds.).  36 The innate mind: Structure and content. Oxford: 53–68. 37 Sperber D. 2013. Speakers are honest because hearers are vigilant. Reply to Kourken Michaelian. – Episteme 10.1: 61–71. 38 Sperber D., Mercier H. 2012. Reasoning as a social competence. – Landemore H., Elster J. (eds.). Collective wisdom: Principles and mechanisms. Cambridge: 368–392. 39 Sperber D., Wilson D. 1995. Relevance. Communication and cognition. [2nd edition]. Oxford. 40 Sperber D., Clément F., Heintz C., Mascaro O., Mercier H., Origgi G., Wilson D. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. – Mind &amp; Language 25.4: 359–393. 41 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. 42 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. 43 Wharton T. 2009. Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge. 44 Wilson D. 1999. Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. – UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 127–161. 45 Wilson D. 2012. Modality and the conceptual-procedural distinction. – Wałaszewska E., Piskorska A. (eds.). Relevance theory: More than understanding. Newcastle: 23–44. 46 Wilson D. 2013. Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. – Journal of Pragmatics 59.A: 40–56. 47 Wilson D., Sperber D. 2004. Relevance theory. – Horn L., Ward G. (eds.). The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: 607–632. 48 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. 49 Ye Z., Zhou X. 2009. Conflict control during sentence comprehension: f MRI evidence. – NeuroImage 48: 280–290. 50 Yus Ramos F. 2008. A relevance-theoretic classification of jokes. – Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4.1: 131–157.