A Reply to McHoul and Rapley

We reject the claim advanced by McHoul and Rapley that our remarks implied any ironic attitude toward ‘lay usage’. We do not think that elucidating the grammar of use involves any sort of irony and argue that such a charge is based upon the misconception (interestingly shared by many cognitivist thi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Theory & psychology 2006-04, Vol.16 (2), p.281-286
Main Authors: Sharrock, Wes, Coulter, Jeff
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Attitudes
Cognition
Cognitive psychology
Conceptual analysis
Discourse
Grammar
Irony
Psychology
Regression analysis
Sociolinguistics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We reject the claim advanced by McHoul and Rapley that our remarks implied any ironic attitude toward ‘lay usage’. We do not think that elucidating the grammar of use involves any sort of irony and argue that such a charge is based upon the misconception (interestingly shared by many cognitivist thinkers) that ordinary use is a function of lay users’ beliefs.
ISSN:0959-3543
1461-7447
DOI:10.1177/0959354306062540