Epistemicity and communicative strategies

IF 2.1 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Discourse Processes Pub Date : 2023-09-26 DOI:10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255494
Alexandra Lorson, Hannah Rohde, Chris Cummins
{"title":"Epistemicity and communicative strategies","authors":"Alexandra Lorson, Hannah Rohde, Chris Cummins","doi":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When communicating, interlocutors negotiate knowledge by proposing propositional content to be added to their shared common ground. The way in which speakers put forward propositional content – expressing more or less confidence in its truthfulness – may affect the way in which other interlocutors react to such content. This article examines speakers’ production choices and hearers’ interpretations of the formulations believe/know/bare assertion to test how (maximal) certainty is expressed and inferred, whether speakers adjust their production choices depending on their communicative goals and whether hearers are able to adjust their interpretations correspondingly. For this purpose, we created two scenarios – one with a cooperative interlocutor and one with a potentially uncooperative interlocutor. The results suggest that know is epistemically the most powerful formulation – stronger than the bare assertion – but that the bare assertion may still be preferred over know for expressing maximal certainty in cooperative scenarios. Our findings also suggest that believe is used to hedge the assertive strength of statements in cooperative settings. Whereas speakers and hearers agree in the relative epistemic ordering of the formulations (believe < bare assertion < know), when inferring the speakers’ degrees of belief hearers to not appear to consistently take into account that speakers’ communicative goals may shift as a function of context.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse Processes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2023.2255494","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When communicating, interlocutors negotiate knowledge by proposing propositional content to be added to their shared common ground. The way in which speakers put forward propositional content – expressing more or less confidence in its truthfulness – may affect the way in which other interlocutors react to such content. This article examines speakers’ production choices and hearers’ interpretations of the formulations believe/know/bare assertion to test how (maximal) certainty is expressed and inferred, whether speakers adjust their production choices depending on their communicative goals and whether hearers are able to adjust their interpretations correspondingly. For this purpose, we created two scenarios – one with a cooperative interlocutor and one with a potentially uncooperative interlocutor. The results suggest that know is epistemically the most powerful formulation – stronger than the bare assertion – but that the bare assertion may still be preferred over know for expressing maximal certainty in cooperative scenarios. Our findings also suggest that believe is used to hedge the assertive strength of statements in cooperative settings. Whereas speakers and hearers agree in the relative epistemic ordering of the formulations (believe < bare assertion < know), when inferring the speakers’ degrees of belief hearers to not appear to consistently take into account that speakers’ communicative goals may shift as a function of context.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认知与交际策略
在交流时,对话者通过提出要添加到他们共同基础上的命题内容来协商知识。说话者提出命题内容的方式——或多或少地表达对其真实性的信心——可能会影响其他对话者对该内容的反应。本文考察了说话人的生产选择和听者对believe/know/bare断言的解释,以检验(最大)确定性是如何表达和推断的,说话人是否会根据他们的交际目标调整他们的生产选择,听者是否能够相应地调整他们的解释。为此,我们创建了两个场景——一个具有合作的对话者,另一个具有潜在的不合作的对话者。结果表明,“知道”在认识论上是最有力的表述——比“赤裸裸的断言”更有力——但在合作场景中,“赤裸裸的断言”可能仍然比“知道”更能表达最大的确定性。我们的研究结果还表明,在合作环境中,信念被用来对冲陈述的自信强度。虽然说话者和听者在表述的相对认知顺序上是一致的(相信<断言<知道),但在推断说话者的信念程度时,听者似乎并没有始终考虑到说话者的交际目标可能会随着语境的变化而变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Discourse Processes is a multidisciplinary journal providing a forum for cross-fertilization of ideas from diverse disciplines sharing a common interest in discourse--prose comprehension and recall, dialogue analysis, text grammar construction, computer simulation of natural language, cross-cultural comparisons of communicative competence, or related topics. The problems posed by multisentence contexts and the methods required to investigate them, although not always unique to discourse, are sufficiently distinct so as to require an organized mode of scientific interaction made possible through the journal.
期刊最新文献
Children’s understanding of referential nominal metaphors: a path to the heart of text comprehension An interactional practice of registering expectation discrepancy: the use of the turn-initial token are in Japanese Does the gender asterisk (“Gendersternchen”) as a special form of gender-fair language impair comprehensibility? Russ Tomlin, attention, working memory, reference, and referential choice Introduction: special issue in honor of Walter Kintsch
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1