Beyond the Implicit/Explicit Dichotomy: The Pragmatics of Plausible Deniability

In everyday conversation, messages are often communicated indirectly, implicitly. Why do we seem to communicate so inefficiently? How speakers choose to express a message (modulating confidence, using less explicit formulations) has been proposed to impact how committed they will appear to be to its...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Review of philosophy and psychology 2024, Vol.15 (4), p.1399-1421
Main Authors: Bonalumi, Francesca, Mahr, Johannes B., Marie, Pauline, Pouscoulous, Nausicaa
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accountability
Cognitive Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Education
Epistemology
Neurosciences
Philosophy
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Science
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In everyday conversation, messages are often communicated indirectly, implicitly. Why do we seem to communicate so inefficiently? How speakers choose to express a message (modulating confidence, using less explicit formulations) has been proposed to impact how committed they will appear to be to its content. This commitment can be assessed in terms of accountability – is the speaker held accountable for what they communicated? – and deniability – can the speaker plausibly deny they intended to communicate it? We investigated two factors that may influence commitment to implicitly conveyed messages. In a preregistered online study, we tested the hypothesis that the degree of meaning strength (strongly or weakly communicated) and the level of meaning used by the speaker (an enrichment or a conversational implicature) modulate accountability and plausible deniability. Our results show that both meaning strength and level of meaning influence speaker accountability and plausible deniability. Participants perceived enrichments to be harder to deny than conversational implicatures, and strongly implied content as more difficult to deny than weakly implied content. Furthermore, participants held the speaker more accountable to content conveyed via an enrichment than to content conveyed via an implicature. These results corroborate previously found differences between levels of meaning (enrichment vs. implicature). They also highlight the largely understudied role of meaning strength as a cue to speaker commitment in communication.
ISSN:1878-5158
1878-5166
DOI:10.1007/s13164-023-00699-5