Katsos Napoleon, Kissine Mikhail
Section of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Trinity College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
ULB Neuroscience Institute, LaDisco, ACTE, Université libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2025 Aug 14;380(1932):20230501. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2023.0501.
In this article, we argue that the growth of research in cognitively and experimentally oriented pragmatics in the last two decades has rested on two epistemological assumptions: that theoretical-pragmatic notions such as 'implicature', 'metaphor' and 'irony' correspond to distinct types of pragmatic inferences, and that each theoretical-pragmatic characterization of a certain type of inference corresponds to one and only one cognitive model of processing in the mind. We review the foundations of these assumptions and we problematize them based on (i) a conceptual argument that notions such as 'implicature' and 'irony' are originally meant as relations between propositions rather than types of inferences, and (ii) on recent experimental evidence which suggests that whether mentalizing is employed in pragmatic processing or not is not a function of the type of pragmatic relation, but rather it depends on situation-specific considerations and characteristics of the interlocutor, such as age and neurotype. These considerations call for a new understanding of the role of experimental evidence in the evaluation of pragmatic theories.This article is part of the theme issue 'At the heart of human communication: new views on the complex relationship between pragmatics and Theory of Mind'.
在本文中，我们认为，过去二十年来，认知和实验导向的语用学研究的发展基于两个认识论假设：一是诸如“含义”“隐喻”和“反讽”等理论语用概念对应于不同类型的语用推理；二是对某类推理的每个理论语用特征都对应于大脑中唯一的一种认知加工模型。我们回顾了这些假设的基础，并基于以下两点对其提出质疑：其一，从概念角度论证，“含义”和“反讽”等概念最初指的是命题之间的关系，而非推理类型；其二，基于最近的实验证据，该证据表明在语用加工中是否运用心理理论并非语用关系类型的函数，而是取决于具体情境因素以及对话者的特征，如年龄和神经类型。这些考量促使我们对实验证据在语用理论评估中的作用形成新的理解。本文是主题为“人类交流的核心：语用学与心理理论复杂关系的新视角”的一部分。
