Advertisement

Preliminaries

  • Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 21)

Abstract

This chapter briefly introduces the concept of ‘indirect report’, starting with a discussion on Frege’s notion of ‘sense’ and the follow-up elaborations in this regard. The main objective of this chapter is to provide a general picture of the complexities revolving around indirect reports. To set the scene for a more elaborate coverage on the issue of indirect reporting, this chapter prepares the readers for a better understanding of philosophical, social, and cognitive issues revolving around the topic. This chapter also manifests the outline of the whole book. On this account, this chapter opens the window for a wider outlook into the book. This chapter also guides the readers to be more selective in their readings. That said, for fully grasping the brief discussions made in this chapter, the reader can refer to the next chapters to find out more elaborations and examples on relevant issues.

Keywords

Cognition Dialogue Indirect reports Pragmeme Semantics-pragmatics interface Sense 

References

  1. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. (2016). When reporting others backfires. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 253–264). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Sommers, S. R. (2015). Social psychology (9th ed.). London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  4. Barba, J. (2007). Formal semantics in the age of pragmatics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 637–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauman, K. P., & Geher, G. (2002). We think you agree: The detrimental impact of the false consensus effect on behavior. Current Psychology, 21(4), 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borg, E. (2004). Minimal semantics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Candlin, C. N., Crichton, J., & Moore, S. H. (2017). Research and practice in applied linguistics: Exploring discourse in context and in action. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Capone, A. (2010). The social practice of indirect reports. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capone, A. (2012). Indirect reports as language games. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20(3), 593–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Capone, A., García-Carpintero, M., & Falzone, A. (Eds.). (2018). Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages (Vol. 19). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Capone, A., Kiefer, F., & Piparo, F. L. (Eds.). (2016). Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005[2012]). Quotation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quotation/.
  14. Carl, W. (1994). Frege’s theory of sense and reference: Its origin and scope. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Celce-Murcia, M., & Hawkins, B. (1985). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and interlanguage analysis. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Beyond basics: Issues and research in TESOL (pp. 60–77). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, N. (2004). Biolinguistics and the human capacity. https://chomsky.info/20040517/.
  18. Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H. M. Gärtner (Eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (pp. 1–29). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coulmas, F. (Ed.). (1986). Direct and indirect speech (Vol. 31). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Davidson, D. (1967). Truth and meaning. Synthese, 17, 304–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and Decision, 11, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Brabanter, P. (2010). The semantics and pragmatics of hybrid quotations. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(2), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dummett, M. (1996). The seas of language. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eckman, F. R. (1981). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning, 31(1), 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garcia-Carpintero, M. (1994). Ostensive signs: Against the identity theory of quotation. Journal of Philosophy, 91, 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geach, P. (1970). Quotation and quantification. In his logic matters. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Gibney, E. (2012). Evolutionary philosophy. Morrisville, NC: Lulu Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gilovich, T. (1990). Differential construal and the false consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 623–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gochet, P., & Gribomont, P. (2006). Epistemic logic. In D. M. Gabby & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the history of logic (Vol. 7, pp. 99–196). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  32. Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  33. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper Row.Google Scholar
  34. Güldemann, T., & Von Roncador, M. (Eds.). (2002). Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Hall, J. K. (1995). “Aw, man, where you goin?” Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 37–62.Google Scholar
  36. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hurford, J. (2007). The origins of meaning: Language in the light of evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kanterian, E. (2007). Ludwig Wittgenstein. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  39. Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1), 72–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In W. Bublitz & N. Norrick (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (pp. 77–106). Berlin, UK: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  43. Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. Mey, J. L. (2002). Pragmatics. An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. Mey, J. L. (Ed.). (2009). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  46. Mey, J. L. (2013). Across the abyss: The pragmatics-semantics interface revisited [Review of the book Pragmatics: An introduction, by B. Birner and Truth-conditional pragmatics, by F. Récanati]. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(3), 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morady Moghaddam, M. (2018). Review of the book The pragmatics of indirect reports: Sociophilosophical considerations, by A. Capone. Lingua, 204, 134–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morady Moghaddam, M. (in press). Appraising and reappraising of compliments and the provision of responses: Automatic and non-automatic reactions. Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  49. Parson, T. (1982). What do quotation marks name? Frege’s theories of quotations and that-clauses. Philosophical Studies, 42, 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Quine, W. V. O. (1940). Mathematical logic. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Robert, H. (2009). Completing the picture of Kant’s metaphysics of judgment. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-judgment/supplement5.html.
  53. Rule, N. O., Krendl, A. C., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2013). Accuracy and consensus in judgments of trustworthiness from faces: Behavioral and neural correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saka, P. (2017). Blah, blah, blah: Quasi-quotation and unquotation. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 35–64). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sampson, G. (2005). The ‘language instinct’ debate: Revised edition. London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  56. Seymour, M. (1994). Indirect discourse and quotation. Philosophical Studies, 74, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Slepian, M. L., Bogart, K. B., & Ambady, N. (2014). Thin-slice judgments in the clinical context. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sowa, J. F. (2007). Language games, a foundation for semantics and ontology. Game Theory and Linguistic Meaning, 18, 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Strawson, P. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  61. Taguchi, N. (2009). Comprehension of indirect opinions and refusals in Japanese as a foreign language. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 249–274). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tarski, A. (1933). The concept of truth in formalized languages. In A. Tarski (Ed.), Logic, semantics, metamathematics (2nd ed., pp. 152–278). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  63. Terkourafi, M. (2014). The importance of being indirect: A new nomenclature for indirect speech. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vasilescu, A. (2016). Towards a “theory of everything” in human communication. In K. Allan, A. Capone, & I. Kecskes (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use: Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 305–322). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Washington, C. (1992). The identity theory of quotation. Journal of Philosophy, 89, 582–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weigand, E. (2010). Dialogue: The mixed game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weitzl, W. (2017). Measuring electronic word-of-mouth effectiveness. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111, 583–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
    • 1
  1. 1.Shahrood University of TechnologyShahroodIran

Personalised recommendations