Utilitarian relevance and face management in the interpretation of ambiguous question/request statements

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 873-881

  Demeure, Virginie ^a   Bonnefon, Jean François ^a   Raufaste, Éric ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMBIGUITY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GAME; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; SOCIAL STATUS; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

ADULT; COGNITION; FACE; FACIAL EXPRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SEMANTICS;

EID: 46449125992     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.4.873     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. BLUM-KULKA, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.
2. BONNEFON, J. F., & VILLEJOUBERT, G. (2006). Tactful or doubtful? Expectations of politeness explain the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases. Psychological Science, 17, 747-751.
3. BROWN, P., & LEVINSON, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1978)
4. CLARK, H., & LUCY, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behaviour, 14, 56-72.
5. CLARK, H., & SCHUNK, D. (1980). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8, 111-143.
6. COHEN, P. R., & PERRAULT, C. R. (1979). Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3, 177-212.
7. GIBBS, R. (1983). Do people always process the literal meaning of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 9, 524-533.
8. GOFFMAN, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
9. GRICE, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
10. HILTON, D. J., KEMMELMEIER, M., & BONNEFON, J. F. (2005). Putting ifs to work: Goal-based relevance in conditional directives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 388-405.
11. HILTON, D. J., VILLEJOUBERT, G., & BONNEFON, J. F. (2005). How to do things with logical expressions: Creating collective value through co-ordination. Interaction Studies, 6, 103-117.
12. HOLTGRAVES, T. (1994). Communication in context: Effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 1205-1218.
13. HOLTGRAVES, T. (1998). Interpreting indirect replies. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 1-27.
14. HOLTGRAVES, T. (1999). Comprehending indirect replies: When and how are their conveyed meanings activated? Journal of Memory & Language, 41, 519-540.
15. HOLTGRAVES, T., & YANG, J. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 719-729.
16. HOLTGRAVES, T., & YANG, J. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 62, 246-256.
17. OVER, D., MANKTELOW, K., & HADJICHRISTIDIS, C. (2004). Condition for the acceptance of deontic conditionals. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 96-105.
18. RAUFASTE, E., LONGIN, D., & BONNEFON, J. F. (2006). Utilitarisme pragmatique et reconnaissance d'intention dans les actes de langage indirects. Psychologie de l'Interaction, 21/22, 189-209.
19. SLUGOSKI, B. (1995). Mindless processing of requests? Don't ask twice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 335-350.
20. SPERBER, D., & WILSON, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1986)
21. STONE, M. (2004). Communicative intentions and conversational processes in human-human and human-computer dialogue. In J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use (pp. 39-70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. VAN DER HENST, J.-B., CARLES, L., & SPERBER, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance in telling the time. Mind & Language, 17, 457-466.
23. VAN DER HENST, J.-B., & SPERBER, D. (2004). Testing the principle of relevance. In I. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp. 229-280). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
24. VAN ROOY, R. (2001). Relevance of communicative acts. In J. van Benthem (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK-2001) (pp. 83-96). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
25. VAN ROOY, R. (2003). Being polite is a handicap: Towards a game theoretical analysis of polite linguistic behavior. In J. Y. Halpern & M. Tennenholtz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK-2003) (pp. 45-58). New York: ACM Press.
26. WILSON, D., & SPERBER, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111, 583-632.
27. WILSON, D., & SPERBER, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In G. Ward & L. Horn (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Oxford: Blackwell.