Cover not available
Part of
Implicitness: From lexis to discourse
Edited by Piotr Cap and Marta Dynel
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 276] 2017
► pp. 259–280

Chapter 12
Why don’t you tell it explicitly?

Personal/subpersonal accounts of implicitness

| University of Catania
Why do we use implicitness as a communicative strategy? In this chapter I suggest that the reason has to do – among other things – with the structure of memory, on the one hand, and the human ability to construct contextually shared chains of goals, on the other. I also propose that by framing the issue of implicitness in these terms we may both gain a vantage point for the evaluation of pragmatic theories and have important insights about practical reasoning and its relation with utterance understanding.
Implicitness phenomena may be approached at personal and sub-personal levels. On the one hand, they are explained by communicative predispositions anchored in the structure of human memory, on the other they reflect human ability to construct contextually shared chains of goals. These two research paths are not incompatible: personal and sub-personal components work together to explain cooperation between automatic and controlled associative processes.
Keywords: motives for implicitness, levels of implicitness, personal level, subpersonal level, politeness, relevance
Article outline
  • 1.Overview
  • 2.Personal/subpersonal explanations of implicitness and politeness
  • 3.An automatic/controlled continuum of processing
  • 4.Motives for implicitness
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Author queries
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.12maz
References (44)
References
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1982. “Context-independent and Context-dependent Information in Concepts.” Memory & Cognition 10: 82–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Situated Conceptualization.” In Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science, ed. by Henry Cohen, and Claire Lefebvre, 619–650. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brumark, Åsa. 2006. “Non-observance of Gricean Maxims in Family Dinner Table Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1206–1238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2000. “The Relationship between Generative Grammar and (Relevance-theoretic) Pragmatics.” Language & Communication 20: 87–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “How Many Pragmatic Systems Are There?” In Saying, Meaning, Referring. Essays on the Philosophy of François Recanati, ed. by Maria Frapolli, 1–17. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas. 2014. Consciousness and the Brain. Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas, Jean-Pierre Changeux, Lionel Naccache, Jérôme Sackur, and Claire Sergent. 2006. “Conscious, Preconscious, and Subliminal Processing: A Testable Taxonomy.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 204–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 1998. “Politeness. A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 45–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. “Perspectives on Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts Bart, and Paula Rubio-Fernández. 2015. “Pragmatics and Processing.” Ratio 28: 446–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goody, Esther (ed.). 1978. Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1957. “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66: 377–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hommel, Bernhard. 2003. “Planning and Representing Intentional action.” The Scientific World Journal 3: 593–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hommel, Bernhard, Jochen Müsseler, Gisa Aschersleben, and Wolfgang Prinz. 2001. “The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A Framework for Perception and Action Planning.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 849–937. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jary, Mark. 1998. “Relevance Theory and the Communication of Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. 1990. “Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 193–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. “The Logic of Politeness: Or Minding Your p’s and q’s.” In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society , 292–305. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. “Activity Types and Language.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mazzone, Marco. 2009. “Pragmatics and Cognition: Intentions and Pattern Recognition in Context.” International Review of Pragmatics 1: 321–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Schemata and Associative Processes in Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2148–2159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. “Automatic and Controlled Processes in Pragmatics.” In Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics, ed. by Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, and Marco Carapezza, 443–467. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. “Attention to the Speaker. The Conscious Assessment of Utterance Interpretations in Working Memory.” Language & Communication 33: 106–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014a. “Crossing the Associative/Inferential Divide: ad hoc Concepts and the Inferential Power of Schemata.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5: 583–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. “The Continuum Problem: Modified Occam’s Razor and the Conventionalisation of Meaning.” International Review of Pragmatics 6: 29–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015a. “Constructing the Context through Goals and Schemata: Top-down Processes in Comprehension and Beyond.” Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. “Pragmatics and Mindreading. Forward and Backward Inferences in Shared Intentional Contexts.” Intercultural Pragmatics 12: 289–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “What Kind of Associative and Inferential Processes? A Response to Rubio-Fernández (2013).” International Review of Pragmatics 8: 143–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzone, Marco, and Emanuela Campisi. 2013. “Distributed Intentionality: A Model of Intentional Behaviour in Humans.” Philosophical Psychology 26: 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1978. “Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts..” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9, Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 261–280. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rundquist, Suellen. 1990. “Indirectness in Conversation: Flouting Grice’s Maxims at Dinner.” Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 22–46. Linguistic Society of America.
Satpute, Ayai B., and Matthew D. Lieberman. 2006. “Integrating Automatic and Controlled Processing into Neurocognitive Models of Social Cognition.” Brain Research 107: 86–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1987. “Precis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10: 697–754. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” In Language and Thought, ed. by P. Carruthers and J. Boucher, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Jenny. 1995/1998. Meaning in Interaction. An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2009. Why We Cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2004. “Relevance and Lexical Pragmatics.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 343–360.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2007. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and ad hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–260. New York: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar