语用学作为意向行为的社会推论。

Q1 Social Sciences Open Mind Pub Date : 2025-02-08 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1162/opmi_a_00191
Manuel Bohn, Michael C Frank
{"title":"语用学作为意向行为的社会推论。","authors":"Manuel Bohn, Michael C Frank","doi":"10.1162/opmi_a_00191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pragmatic inferences are based on assumptions about how speakers communicate: speakers are taken to be cooperative and rational; they consider alternatives and make intentional choices to produce maximally informative utterances. In principle, this analysis applies to linguistic but also non-linguistic communicative actions, but this prediction is typically only tested in children and not in more systematic implicature contexts. We test key implications of this view across six online experiments with American English speaking adults (total <i>N</i> = 231). Experiments 1A and 1B showed that participants made pragmatic inferences based on different types of communicative actions, some being non-linguistic. In Experiment 2, pragmatic inferences were found to be conditional on the speaker's epistemic states. Finally, Experiments 3A to 3C showed that pragmatic inferences were more likely to be made when the communicative action was produced intentionally. Taken together, these results strengthen the view that pragmatics includes social inference about cooperative communication over intentional actions, even non-linguistic actions.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"290-304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11850021/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pragmatics as Social Inference About Intentional Action.\",\"authors\":\"Manuel Bohn, Michael C Frank\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/opmi_a_00191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Pragmatic inferences are based on assumptions about how speakers communicate: speakers are taken to be cooperative and rational; they consider alternatives and make intentional choices to produce maximally informative utterances. In principle, this analysis applies to linguistic but also non-linguistic communicative actions, but this prediction is typically only tested in children and not in more systematic implicature contexts. We test key implications of this view across six online experiments with American English speaking adults (total <i>N</i> = 231). Experiments 1A and 1B showed that participants made pragmatic inferences based on different types of communicative actions, some being non-linguistic. In Experiment 2, pragmatic inferences were found to be conditional on the speaker's epistemic states. Finally, Experiments 3A to 3C showed that pragmatic inferences were more likely to be made when the communicative action was produced intentionally. Taken together, these results strengthen the view that pragmatics includes social inference about cooperative communication over intentional actions, even non-linguistic actions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Mind\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"290-304\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11850021/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Mind\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

语用推断是基于对说话者如何沟通的假设:说话者被认为是合作的和理性的;他们会考虑各种选择,并有意识地做出选择,以最大限度地提供信息。原则上,这种分析既适用于语言交际行为,也适用于非语言交际行为,但这种预测通常只在儿童中进行测试,而不是在更系统的含意语境中进行测试。我们通过六个以美国英语为母语的成年人(总N = 231)为对象的在线实验来检验这一观点的关键含义。实验1A和1B显示,参与者根据不同类型的交际行为做出语用推断,其中一些是非语言的。在实验2中,语用推理以说话人的认知状态为条件。最后,实验3A至3C表明,交际行为是有意为之时,语用推理更容易产生。综上所述,这些结果加强了这样一种观点,即语用学包括对合作交际的社会推断,而不是有意行为,甚至是非语言行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Pragmatics as Social Inference About Intentional Action.

Pragmatic inferences are based on assumptions about how speakers communicate: speakers are taken to be cooperative and rational; they consider alternatives and make intentional choices to produce maximally informative utterances. In principle, this analysis applies to linguistic but also non-linguistic communicative actions, but this prediction is typically only tested in children and not in more systematic implicature contexts. We test key implications of this view across six online experiments with American English speaking adults (total N = 231). Experiments 1A and 1B showed that participants made pragmatic inferences based on different types of communicative actions, some being non-linguistic. In Experiment 2, pragmatic inferences were found to be conditional on the speaker's epistemic states. Finally, Experiments 3A to 3C showed that pragmatic inferences were more likely to be made when the communicative action was produced intentionally. Taken together, these results strengthen the view that pragmatics includes social inference about cooperative communication over intentional actions, even non-linguistic actions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Mind
Open Mind Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Word Trigram Frequency Predicts Failure to Detect Word Transpositions: Implications for Rational Inference in Reading. Do Language Models Know Who Did What to Whom? Experience Alone Can Generate Human Face Specialization: Evidence From Deep Learning Models. Luck and Intentional Action: A Causal Account. Tracking Visual Statistical Learning with Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials: Effects of Exemplar and Category Information.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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