The Manipulative Disguise of Truth

Tricks and threats of implicit communication

| University of Roma Tre & University of Rome “La Sapienza”
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027208705 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027259882 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
Becoming effective hunters of manipulative communicative moves is far from an easy capacity to develop. This book aims at offering a guide to the most dangerous traps of deceptive language as triggered by implicit communication strategies such as presupposition, implicature, topicalization and vague expressions. A look at different contexts of language use highlights some of the most remarkable implications of using indirect speech and of how it affects the correct comprehension of a message. Within the remit of communication and pragmatics studies, this work marks an advancement in the direction of delving into the linguistic manifestations of manipulative discourse, its most common contexts of use and the educational paths that can be undertaken to master it in everyday interactions.
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 322]  2021.  xvi, 220 pp. + index
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
List of tables
xi–xii
List of figures
xiii–xiv
Acknowledgments
xv–xvi
Introduction
1–4
Chapter 1. Features and functions of implicitness in verbal communication
5–38
Chapter 2. Quantitative and experimental approaches to implicit and manipulative communication
39–70
Chapter 3. The manipulative evidentiality of implicit communication
71–96
Chapter 4. Manipulation in news discourse: The function of presuppositions in the language of journalism
97–120
Chapter 5. Manipulating translations
121–146
Chapter 6. Teaching how to detect manipulative language
147–202
Conclusion
203–208
References
209–222
Index
223–226
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015 “Evidentials: Their Links with Other Grammatical Categories”. Linguistic Typology 19(2): 239–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Amaral, Patricia, and Chris Cummins
2015 “A Cross-linguistic Study on Information Backgrounding and Presupposition Projection”. In Experimental perspectives on presuppositions, ed. by Florian Schwarz, 157–172. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Attardo, Salvatore
1997 “Locutionary and Perlocutionary Cooperation: The Perlocutionary Cooperative Principle”. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 753–779. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L.
1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Nancy D., and Patricia Greenfield
1988 “The Developement of New and Old Information in Young Children’s Early Language”. Language Sciences 10(1): 3–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Stefan, and Petra B. Schumacher
2011 “(De-)Accentuation and the Processing of Information Status: Evidence from Event-related Brain Potentials”. Language & Speech 55(3): 361–381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bambini, Valentina
2010 “Neuropragmatics. A Forward”. Italian Journal of Linguistics 22(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Bambini, Valentina, Donatella Resta, and Mirko Grimaldi
2014 “A Dataset of Metaphors from the Italian Literature: Exploring Psycholinguistic Variables and the Role of Context”. PLoS One 9(9): e105634. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baixauli, Inmaculada, Ana Miranda, Carmen Berenguer, and Belén Rosello
2017 “Pragmatic Competence of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Impact of Theory of Mind, Verbal Working Memory, ADHD Symptoms, and Structural Language”. Applied Neurophysiology 8(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2006Evaluation in Media Discourse. Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. New York/London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bekalu, Mesfin A.
2006 “Presupposition in News Discourse.” Discourse & Society 17(2): 147–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano
1976La semantica. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Claudia
2003Pragmatica del linguaggio. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Billig, Michael
2008 “The Language of Critical Discourse Analysis: The Case of Nominalization”. Discourse and Society 19(6): 783–800. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Paul
2000How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz
1900 “Sketch of the Kwakiutl language”. American Anthropologist 2: 708–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1910Kwakiutl. An Illustrative Sketch. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Bonini, Nicolao, Daniel Osherson, Riccardo Viale, and Timothy Williamson
1999 “On the Psychology of Vague Predicates”. Mind & Language 14(4): 377–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booth, Wayne C.
1974A Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bredart, Stacy, and Karin Modolo
1988 “Moses Strikes Again: Focalization Effect on a Semantic Illusion”. Acta Psychologica 67: 135–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brocca, Nicola, Davide Garassino, and Viviana Masia
2016 “Politici nella rete o nella rete dei politici? L’implicito nella comunicazione politica italiana su Twitter”. PhiN-Beiheft 11: 66–79.Google Scholar
Brocca, Nicola, Ewa A. Borowiec, and Viviana Masia
2020 “Didactics of Pragmatics as a Way to Improve Social Media Literacy. An Experiment Proposal with Polish and Italian Students in L1”. heiEDUCATION Journal 5: 81–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall
2005 “Identity and Interaction. A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach”. Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 585–614. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burmester, Juliane, Katharina Spalek, and Isabell Wartenburger
2014 “Context Updating During Sentence Comprehension: The Effect of Aboutness Topic”. Brain and Language 137: 62–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cap, Piotr
2016The Language of Fear. Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. UK: Palgrave Millan.Google Scholar
Cerezuela-Pastor, Gemma, Juan C. Yllescas Tordera, Francisco González-Sala, Maite Montagut-Asunción, and María-Inmaculada Fernández-Andrés
2018 “Comprehension of Generalized Conversational Implicatures by Children with or without Autism Spectrum Disorder”. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976 “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of view”. In Subject and topic, ed. by Charles Li, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994Discourse, Consciousness and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace, and Joanna Nichols
1986 (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chemla, Emmanuel
2009 “Similarity: Towards a Unified Account of Scalar Implicatures, Free Choice Permission and Presupposition Projection”. Under revision for Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar
Christianson, Kiel, Andrew Hollingworth, John F. Halliwell, and Fernanda Ferreira
2001 “Themaic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger”. Cognitive Psychology 42: 368–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1977 “The Movement Nature of Left Dislocation”. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2): 397–423.Google Scholar
Coolidge, Frederick L., and Thomas Wynn
2012 “Cognitive Prerequisites for the Evolution of Indirect Speech”. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution, ed. by Kathleen R. Gibson, and Maggie Tallerman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coppola, Claudia
2018Analisi etnopragmatica dell’agentività in discorsi istituzionali di politici italiani e della sua interpretazione in tedesco. MA Thesis, Università degli Studi Internazionali di Roma.Google Scholar
Cory, Bill, Jacopo Romoli, Florian Schwarz, and Stephen Crain
2014 “Scalar Implicatures vs. Presuppositions: The View from Acquisition.” Topoi 35(1): 57–71.Google Scholar
Cotter, Colleen
2010News Talk: Investigating the Language of Journalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowles, Heidi W., Robert Kluender, Marta Kutas, and Maria Polinsky
2007 “Violations of Information Structure: An Electrophysiological Study of Answers to Wh-questions.” Brain and Language 102(3): 228–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela
2000Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
2018 “The Illocution-Prosody Relationship and the Information Pattern in Spontaneous Speech According to the Language into Act Theory (L-AcT).” Linguistik Online 88: 33–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daneš, František
1974 “Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text.” In Papers on functional sentence perspective, ed. by František Daneš, 106–128. Prague: Academia/The Hague. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danler, Paul
2005 “Morpho-Syntactic and Textual Realizations as Deliberate Pragmatic Argumentative Linguistic Tools?” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Discourse, language, mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure, and Peter Schulz, 45–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dayter, Daria
2014 “Self-Praise in Micro-Blogging.” Journal of Pragmatics 61: 91–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio
1982Minisemantica dei linguaggi non verbali e delle lingue. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Derrick, Deirdre J.
2017 “Is Comprehending Text the Same as Learning from Text?Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching 24: 52–76.Google Scholar
Domaneschi, Filippo, Paolo Canal, Viviana Masia, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, and Valentina Bambini
2018 “N400 and P600 Modulation in Presupposition Accommodation: The Effect of Different Trigger Types.” Journal of Neurolinguistics 45: 13–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drai, Nathanaël, and Louis de Saussure
2016 “When the Implicit Becomes Explicit: From Experimental Accident to Pilot Study.” Syntaxe et Sémantique 17(1): 115–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degen, Judith, and Michael K. Tanenhaus
2015 “Processing Scalar Implicature: A Constraint-Based Approach.” Cognitive Science 39: 667–710. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald
1972Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Erickson, Thomas D., and Matthew E. Mattson
1981 “From Words to Meaning. A Semantic Illusion.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20(5): 540–551. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Ash
2016 “Stance and Identity in Twitter Hashtags.” Language at Internet urn:nbn:de:0009-0-54947.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
2003Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Faller, Martina T.
2002Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Department of Linguistics: University of Stanford, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Farahzad, F. and Allameh, T.
(1999) A Gestalt Approach to Manipulation. Museum Tusculanum Press University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda, Karl G. D. Bailey, and Vittoria Ferraro
2002 “Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 11(1): 11–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Matthew W. Lowder
2016 “Prediction, Information Structure, and Good-Enough Language Processing.” Psychology of Learning and Motivation 65: 217–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fintel von, Kai
2008What is Presupposition Accommodation, Again? Philosophical Perspectives 22(1): 137–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frith, Chris D., and Uta Frith
2005 “Theory of Mind.” Advances in Clinical Neuroscience and Rehabilitation 15: R644–6.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger
1991Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.
2001 “Evidentiality, Authority, Responsibility and Entitlement in English Conversation.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2): 167–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Franke, Michael, and Robert van Rooij
2015 “Strategies of Persuasion, Manipulation and Propaganda. Psychological and Social Aspects.” Models of Strategic Reasoning: Logics, Games, and Communities, 255–291. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara, and Roland Hinterhölzl
2007 “Types of Topics in German and Italian.” On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: 87–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
1892 “Über Sinn und Bedeutung.” Zeitschrift für Philosophie un philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor A.
1986 “Evidentiality in the Balkans. Macedonian and Albanian.” In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace Chafe, and Joanna Nichols, 168–187. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Frith, Chris D., and Uta Frith
2005 “Theory of Mind.” Advances in Clinical Neuroscience & Rehabilitation 15: R644–6.Google Scholar
Gaio, Silvia
2010Vaghezza. APhEx. Portale Italiano di Filosofia Analitica 1: 75–88.Google Scholar
Garassino, Davide, Viviana Masia, and Nicola Brocca
2018 “Implicit Communication in Twitter. Analysis of the Pragmatic Functions of Politicians’ Use of Implicatures and Presuppositions.” Talk presented at the ARGAGE (Argumentation and Language) conference, 7–9 October, 2018.
2019 “Tweet as You Speak. The Role of Implicit Strategies and Pragmatic Functions in Political Communication: Data From a Diamesic Comparison.” Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 2–3: 187–208.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1982 “Evidentiality and Epistemic Space.” Studies in Language 6(1): 23–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1983Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. [Typological Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Bio-linguistics. The Santa Barbara Lectures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Gotzner, Nicole
2019 “The Role of Focus Intonation in Implicature Computation: a Comparison With Only and Also.” Natural Language Semantics 27: 189–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephen J., and Elisabeth S. Vrba
1982 “Exaptation. A Missing Term in the Science of Form.” Paleobiology 8(1): 4–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gouvea, Ana C., Colin Phillips, Nina Kazanina, and David Poeppel
2010 “The Linguistic Processes Underlying the P600.” Language and Cognitive Processes 25(2): 149–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, William
2009Reading in a Second Language. Moving from Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, Todd, Marcel Broersma, Karin Hazelhoff, and Guido van t’Haar
2013 “Between Broadcasting Political Messages and Interacting with Voters: The Use of Twitter During the 2010 UK General Election Campaign.” Information, Communication & Society 16(5): 692–716. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1978 “Further Notes on Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 9. Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 113–128. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grottanelli Vinigi, Lorenzo
1966Ethnologica. L’uomo e la civiltà. Vol. III. Milano: Edizioni Labor.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-A.
1991Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hagoort, Peter, Colin Brown, and Jolanda Groothusen
1993 “The Syntactic Positive Shift (SPS) as an ERP Measure of Syntactic Processing.” Language and Cognitive Processes 8(4): 439–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, Peter, and Stephen C. Levinson
2014 “Neuropragmatics.” In The Cognitive Neurosciences, ed. by Michael S. Gazzaniga, and George R. Mangun, 667–674. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael K.
1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles
1970Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Haro, Juan, Josep Demestre, Roger Boada, and Pilar Ferré
2017 “ERP and Behavioral Effects of Semantic Ambiguity in a Lexical Decision Task.” Journal of Neurolinguistics 44: 190–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene
1982The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. University of Massachussetts: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Hintz, Daniel J., and Diane M. Hintz
2017 “The Evidential Category of Mutual Knowledge in Quechua.” Lingua (186–187): 88–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Michael
1999 “Persuasive Rhetoric in Linguistics: A Styilistic Study of Some Features of the Language of Noam Chomsky.” In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston, and Geoff Thompson, 28–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hornby, Peter A.
1974 “Surface Structure and Presupposition.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13(5): 530–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hruska, Claudia, and Kai Alter
2004 “Prosody in Dialogues and Single Sentences. How Prosody Can Influence Speech Perception.” In Language, Context and Cognition. Information Structure: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects, ed. by Anita Steube, 211–223. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan, and Geoff Thompson
1999Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Thompson, Geoff
(2001) Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutcheon, Linda
1995Irony’s Edge. The Theory and Politics of Irony. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, Peter E., and Chik Collins
2006 “Political Analysis versus Critical Discourse Analysis in the Treatment of Ideology: Some Implications for the Study of Communication.” Atlantic Journal of Communication 14 (1–2): 28–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jorgensen, Julia, George A. Miller, and Dan Sperber
1984 “Test of the Mention Theory of Irony.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 113: 112–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kamio, Akio
1997Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kapogianni, Eleni
2016 “The Ironic Operation: Revisiting the Components of Ironic Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 91: 16–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kappenman, Emily S., and Steven J. Luck
2012The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1973 “Presupposition of Compound Sentences.” Linguistic Inquiry 4(2): 169–193.Google Scholar
1974 “Presupposition and Linguistic Context.” Theoretical Linguistics 1(1): 181–194.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa, Gila Batori, Nachum Soroker, David Graves, and Eran Zaidel
1999 “Effects of Right- and Left-Hemisphere Damage on Understanding Conversational Implicatures.” Brain and Language 68: 566–590. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katan, David
1999Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Keefe, Rosanna
2000Theories of Vagueness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L.
1978 “Some Logical Problems in Translation.” In Meaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches, ed. by Franz Guenthner, and Reutter M. Guenthner, 157–89. Duckworth.Google Scholar
Kierkegaard, Søren
1972 [1944]Training in Christianity. And the Edifying Discourse that Accompanied it [translated by Walter D. D. Lowrie]. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Carol, and Paul Kiparsky
1971 “Fact.” In Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader, ed. by Danny D. Steinberg, and Leon A. Jakobovitz, 345–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kramina, Aiga
2004 “Translation as Manipulation: Causes and Consequences, Opinions and Attitudes.” Studies about Languages 6: 37–41.Google Scholar
Krebs, John R., and Richard Dawkins
1984 “Animal Signals: Mind-reading and Manipulation.” In Behavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, ed. by John R. Krebs, and Nicholas B. Davies, 380–402. Sunderland: MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Kutas, Marta, and Steven A. Hillyard
1980 “Reading Senseless Sentences: Brain Potentials Reflect Semantic Incongruity.” Science 207: 203–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, Marta, and Kara D. Federmeier
2000 “Electrophysiology Reveals Semantic Memory Use in Language Comprehension.” Trends in Cognitive Science 4(12): 463–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Thirty Years and Counting: Finding Meaning in the N400 Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential (ERP).” Annual Review of Psychology 62: 621–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, Marta, Katherine A. De Long, and Nathaniel J. Smith
2011 “A Look Around at What Lies Ahead: Prediction and Predictability in Language Processing.” In Predictions in the Brain. Using Our Past to Generate a Future, ed. by Moshe Bar, 190–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langford, John, and Virginia M. Holmes
1979 “Syntactic Presupposition in Sentence Comprehension.” Cognition 7: 363–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
La Rocca, Daria, Viviana Masia, Emanuele Maiorana, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, and Patrizio Campisi
2016 “Brain Response to Information Structure Misalignments in Linguistic Contexts.” Neurocomputing 199: 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lazer, David, Matthew Baum, Yochai Benkler, Adam Berinsky, Kelly Greenhill, Filippo Menczer, Miriam Metzger, Brendan Nyhan, Gordon Pennycook, David Rothschild, Michael Schudson, Steven Sloman, Cass Sunstein, Emily Thorson, Duncan Watts, and Jonathan Zittrain
2018 “The Science of Fake News. Addressig Fake News Requires a Multidisciplinary Effort.” Science 359 (6380): 2–4.Google Scholar
Lee, Jayeon, and Weiai Xu
2018 “The More Attacks, the More Retweets: Trump’s and Clinton’s Agenda Setting on Twitter.” Public Relations Review 44(2): 201–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia
2015How to do Linguistics with R. Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roger
2008 “Expectation-Based Syntactic Comprehension.” Cognition 106(3): 1126–1177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David
1979 “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(3): 339–359.Google Scholar
Lewis, Fiona M., Gail C. Woodyatt, and Bruce E. Murdoch
2008 “Linguistic and Pragmatic Language Skills in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Pilot Study.” Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 2(1): 176–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles, and Sandra A. Thompson
1976 “Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language.” In Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles Li, 455–488. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Libert, Alan R.
2016 “Adpositions and Presuppositions.” SpringerPlus 5: 858. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, Elizabeth F.
1975 “Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report.” Cognitive Psychology 7: 560–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
2009La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
2016 “Implicits as Evolved Persuaders.” In Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use, ed. by Keith Allan, Alessandro Capone, and Istvan Kecskes, 725–748. Springer: Springer International Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 “Topics are (Implicit) Indirect Reports.” In Indirect Reports and Pragmatics in the World Languages. Perspectives in Pragmatics vol. 19, Philosophy & Psychology, ed. by Alessandro Capone, Manuel García-Carpintero, and Alessandra Falzone, 149–170. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, and Viviana Masia
2014 “Implicitness Impact: Measuring Texts.” Journal of Pragmatics 61: 161–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016a “Misurare l’informazione implicita nella propaganda politica italiana.” In Proceedings of XI° ASLI Congress – Associazione per la Storia della Lingua Italiana, L’italiano della politica e la politica per l’italiano, 539–557. Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
2016bSpecificità della lingua persuasiva: l’implicito discutibile. In Proceedings of XIII° SILFI Congress, La lingua variabile nei testi letterari, artistici e funzionali contemporanei (1915–2014): analisi, interpretazione, traduzione, 637–654. Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
2018 “Context and Information Structure constraints on factivity: the case of “know”. Language Sciences 66: 103–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020 “La comunicazione implicita come dimensione di variazione tra tipi testuali.” In Linguaggi settoriali e specialistici. Sincronia, diacronia, traduzione, variazione, ed. by Jaqueline Visconti, Manuela Manfredini, and Lorenzo Coveri, 113–120. Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
Lucisano, Pietro, and Maria Emanuela Piemontese
1988 “GULPEASE: una formula per la predizione della difficoltà dei testi in lingua italiana.” Scuola e città 3(31): 110–124.Google Scholar
Machetti, Sabrina
2011 “La vaghezza linguistica come problema della pragmatica. Questioni teoriche e dati a confronto.” Esercizi Filosofici 6: 195–213.Google Scholar
Maclellan, Effie
1997 “Reading to Learn.” Studies in Higher Education 22(3): 277–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maillat, Didier, and Steve Oswald
2009 “Defining Manipulative Discourse: The Pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions.” International Review of Pragmatics 1: 348–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marwick, Alice, and Danah boyd
2011 “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masia, Viviana
(2017) Sociobiological Bases of Information Structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017aSociobiological Bases of Information Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017b “On the Evidential Status of Presupposition and Assertion.” International Journal of Linguistics 9(4): 134–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017c “A Sociobiological Account of Indirect Speech.” Interaction Studies 18(1): 142–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masia, Viviana, Paolo Canal, Irene Ricci, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, and Valentina Bambini
2017 “Presupposition of New Information as a Pragmatic Garden Path: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials.” Journal of Neurolinguistics 42: 31–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masia, Viviana
2020 “(Re-)assessing the Status of Second Occurrence Focus in Information Structure: Evidence from Phonological, Processing and Micropragmatic Perspectives.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 32(2).Google Scholar
2020 “Presupposition, Assertion and the Encoding of Evidentiality in Political Discourse.” Linguistik Online 102(2): 129–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masini, Francesca, Caterina Mauri, and Paola Pietrandrea
2018 “List Constructions: Towards a Unified Account.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 30(1): 49–94.Google Scholar
Mathesius, Vilèm
1939 “On the So-Called Topic/Comment articulation of the sentence.” SaS 5: 171–174.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan
2014 “Deriving Information Structure from Field Data.” In Methodological Issues in the Study of Information Structure, ed. by Dina El Zarka, and Steffen Heidinger, 25–42. Graz: Universität Graz.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana, Robert Reinecke, Ira Noveck, and Hugo Mercier
2018 “Saying, Presupposing and Implicating: How Pragmatics Modulates Commitment.” Journal of Pragmatics 133: 15–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg
2014 “A Truth That’s Told with Bad Intent. Lying and Implicit Content.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 28(1): 97–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morency, Patrick, Steve Oswald and Louis de Saussure
2008 “Explicitness, Implicitness and Commitment Attribution: A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 197–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Sarah E.
2017The Semantics of Evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana
2001Evidentiality and Epistemological stance. Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Shaun, and Stephen P. Stich
2003Mindreading. An Integrated Account of Pretence, Self-Awareness, and Understanding Other Minds. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, Ira A.
2001 “Why Children are More Logical than Adults: Experimental Investigations of Scalar Implicatures.” Cognition 78: 165–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, Ira A., and Andres Posada
2003 “Characterizing the Time Course of an Implicature. An Evoked Potentials Study.” Brain and Language 85: 203–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oesch, Nathan
2016 “Deception as a Derived Function of Language.” Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohta, Amy S.
1991Evidentiality and Politeness in Japanese. Issues in Applied Linguistics 2(2): 211–238.Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve, Didier Maillat, and Louis de Saussure
2016 “Deceptive and Uncooperative Communication.” In Verbal Communication (Handbooks of Communicative Science 3), ed. by Louis de Saussure, and Andrea Rocci, 509–534. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paganini, Elisa
2011 “Vague Objects Without Onticate Indeterminate Identity.” Erkenntnis 74: 351–362. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parvaresh, Vahid, and Mohammad Ahmadian Javad
2016 “The Impact of Task Structure on the Use of Vague Expressions by EFL Learners.” The Language Learning Journal 44(4): 436–450. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pfurtscheller, Gert, and Fernando Lopes da Silva
1999 “Event-Related EEG/MEG Synchronization and Desynchronization: Basic Principles.” Clinical Neurophysiology 110: 1842–1857. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo
1995L’arte di persuadere. Come impararla, come esercitarla, come difendersene. Milano: Mondadori.Google Scholar
Piciucco, Emanuela, Viviana Masia, Emanuele Maiorana, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, and Patrizio Campisi
under review. “Information Structure Effects on the Processing of Nouns and Verbs: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials.”
Pijnaker, Judith, Peter Hagoort, Jan Buitelaar, Jan-Pieter Teunisse, and Bart Geurts
2009 “Pragmatic Inferences in High-Functioning Adults with Austism and Asperger Syndrome.” Journal of Autism Development and Disorder 39: 607–618. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven
2007 “The Evolutionary Social Psychology of Off-Record Indirect Speech Acts.” Intercultural Pragmatics 4–4: 437–461.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, Martin A. Nowak, and James J. Lee
2008 “The Logic of Indirect Speech.” PNAS 105(3): 833–838. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Politzer-Ahles, Stephen, and Laura Gwilliams Laura
2015 “Involvement of Prefrontal Cortex in Scalar Implicatures: Evidence from Magnetoencephalography.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(7): 853–866. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Popa-Wyatt, Mihaela
2019 “Embedding Irony and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction.” Inquiry 62(6): 674–699. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rabassa, G.
(1984) The Silk Purse Business: A Translator’s Conflicting Responsibilities. In Frawley, W. (ed.) Translation: Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives. Newark: University of Delaware Press. pp. 35–40Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne
2011 “A Relevance-Theoretic Account of the Evolution of Implicit Communication.” Studies in Pragmatics 13(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Récanati, François
1987Meaning and Force. The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Regel, Stefanie, Thomas C. Gunter, and Angela D. Friederici
2011 “Isn’t it Ironic? An Electrophysiological Exploration of Figurative Language Processing.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23(2): 277–293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1982 “Pragmatics and Linguistics. An Analysis of Sentence Topics.” Philosophica 27(1): 53–94.Google Scholar
Renvoisé, Patrick, and Christophe Morin
2007Neuromarketing. Understanding the “Buy Botton” in Your Customer’s Brain. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo
2005 “Towards a Typology of Manipulative Processes.” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Discourse, language and mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure, and Peter Schulz, 61–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1978 “Principles of Categorization.” In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara B. Lloyd, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand
1905 “On denoting.” Mind 14(56): 479–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanatifar, Mohammad S.
2016 “How to Treat Implicatures in the Translation of Political Speech: A Relevance-theory Perspective.” Journal of Translator Education and Translation Studies 1(2): 97–114.Google Scholar
Santos, Diana
1998 “The Relevance of Vagueness for Translation: Examples from English to Portuguese.” TradTerm 5(1): 71–98.Google Scholar
Saussure de, Louis
2005 “Manipulation and Cognitive Pragmatics: Preliminary Hypotheses.” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure, and Peter Schulz, 113–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Discourse Analysis, Cognition and Evidentials.” Discourse Studies 13(6): 781–788. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saussure de, Louis, and Peter Schulz
(eds.) 2005Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saussure de, Louis
2018 “The Strawman Fallacy as a Prestige-Gaining Device.” In Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discourse Explorations. Argumentation Library 32, ed. by Steve Oswald et al., 171–190. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 “Des présuppositions stricto sensu aux présuppositions discursives.” La Présupposition entre théorisation et mise en discours: 35–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina
1999 “Ideology and the Persuasive Use of Presupposition.” In Language and Ideology. Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatic Conference Vol. 1, ed. by Jef Verschueren, 492–509. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
2007Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Scarpa, Federica
2008La traduzione specializzata. Milano: Hoepli.Google Scholar
Schaeken, Walter, Marie Van Haeren, and Valentina Bambini
2018 “The Understanding of Scalar Implicatures in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Dichotomized Responses to Violations of Informativeness.” Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, Petra B.
2012 “Context in Neurolinguistics: Time-Course Data From Electrophysiology.” In What is a context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges, ed. by Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer, and Petra B. Schumacher, 33–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, Petra B., and Yu-Chen Hung
2012 “Positional Influences on Information Packaging: Insights From Topological Fields in German.” Journal of Memory and Language 67(2): 295–310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian, and Sonja Tiemann
2015 “Presupposition Projection in Online Processing.” Available at: http://​florianschwarz​.net​/wp​-content​/uploads​/papers​/PresupProjectionProcessing​.pdf
Searle, John R.
1969Speech Acts. An Essay on the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
1985 “Intonation, Stress and Meaning.” Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 491–504.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stewart, and Eric Snyder
2016 “Vagueness and Context.” Inquiry. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 59(4): 343–381.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, Richard M., and Walter Schneider
1984 “Theoretical Note: Automatic and Controlled Processing Revisited.” Psychological Review 91(2): 269–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simone, Raffaele, and Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri
2011 “Natural Constraints on Language: The Ergonomics of the Software.” Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 64: 119–141.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy
2001 “On the Conversational Basis of Some Presuppositions.” In Proceedings of SALT XI, ed. by Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson, and Zsofia Zvolensky, 431–448. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, Ines Fiedler, Sam Hellmuth, Anne Schwarz, Ruben Stoel, Ginsbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, and Manfred Krifka
2006Questionnaire on Information Structure (ISIS, Vol. 4), Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Sorensen, Roy A.
(1991) Fictional Incompleteness as Vagueness. Erkenntnis, 34, 55–72.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson
2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language 25: 359–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spychalska, Maria, Jarmo Kontinen, and Markus Werning
2014 “Electrophysiology of Pragmatic Processing: Exploring the Processing Cost of the Scalar Implicature in the Truth-Value Judgment Task.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 36(36): 1497–1502.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C.
1973 “Presuppositions.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 447–457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1974 “Pragmatic Presuppositions.” In Semantics and Philosophy, ed. by Munitz K. Milton, and Unger K. Peter, 471–482. New York: University Press.Google Scholar
1999Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Common Ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Surian, Luca, and Michael Siegal
2008 “Language and Communication in Autism and Asperger Syndrome.” In Handbook of Neuroscience of Language, ed. by Brigitte Stemmer, and Harry A. Whitaker, 377–385. Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, John
2003 “Evolution of Human Cognitive Architecture.” Psychology of Learning and Motivation 43: 215–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tavano, Erin, and Elsi Kaiser
2010 “Processing Scalar Implicature: What Can Individual Differences Tell Us?Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium 16(1): 215–225.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
1985 “Grammar and Written Discourse: Initial vs. Final Purpose Clauses in English.” Text 5(1/2): 55–84.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2008Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A.
(1988) News as discourse. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A.
1988aNews Analysis: Case Studies of International and National News in the Press. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1988bNews as Discourse. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van der Sandt, Rob A.
1992 “Presupposition Projection as Anaphora.” Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun
1997 “What is Political Discourse Analysis?Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11(1): 11–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Discourse and Manipulation.” Discourse & Society 17(2): 359–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A.
2009 “News, Discourse and Ideology.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies, ed. by Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, and Thomas Hanitzsch, 191–204. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Tiel, Bob, and Walter Schaeken
2017 “Processing Conversational Implicature: Alternatives and Counterfactual Reasoning.” Cognitive Science 41: 1119–1154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Varzi, Achille C.
2001Parole, oggetti, eventi ed altri argomenti di metafisica. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
2003 “Higher-Order Vagueness and the Vagueness of “Vague”. Mind 112: 295–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vleugel, Thijs
2014 “Meaning Irony: The Ethics of Irony.” Frame 16/2: 1–15.Google Scholar
Wang, Luming, and Petra B. Schumacher
2013 “New is Not Always Costly: Evidence from Online Processing of Topic and Contrast in Japanese.” Frontiers in Psychology 4: 363. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willett, Thomas
1988A Cross-linguistic Survey of Grammaticalization of Evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 57–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy
1994Vagueness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
2006 “The Pragmatics of Verbal Irony: Echo or Pretence?Lingua 116: 1722–1743. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winner, Ellen
1988The Point of Words. Children’s Understanding of Metaphor and Irony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zurawicki, Leon
2010Neuromarketing. Exploring the Brain of the Consumer. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects & Metadata

Communication Studies

Communication Studies

Psychology

Psychology
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2021009608 | Marc record