FAQ
T_LOGIN Log in

Don't have an account on our website?

T_REGISTER Register

VIGILANCE MECHANISMS IN INTERPRETATION: HERMENEUTICAL VIGILANCE

Publication date: 15.06.2016

Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2016, Volume 133, Issue 1, pp. 21-29

https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.15.001.4890

Authors

Manuel Padilla Cruz
University of Seville
All publications →

Titles

VIGILANCE MECHANISMS IN INTERPRETATION: HERMENEUTICAL VIGILANCE

Abstract

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.

References

Download references

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.

Information

Information: Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2016, Volume 133, Issue 1, pp. 21-29

Article type: Original article

Authors

University of Seville

Published at: 15.06.2016

Article status: Open

Licence: None

Percentage share of authors:

Manuel Padilla Cruz (Author) - 100%

Article corrections:

-

Publication languages:

English

VIGILANCE MECHANISMS IN INTERPRETATION: HERMENEUTICAL VIGILANCE

quote

download files

RIS BIB ENDNOTE