Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Conditional advice and inducements

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Conditional advice and inducements: are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Conditional advice and inducements: are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension? / Haigh, Matthew; Stewart, Andrew J; Wood, Jeffrey S et al.
In: Acta Psychologica, Vol. 136, No. 3, 03.2011, p. 419-424.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Haigh, M, Stewart, AJ, Wood, JS & Connell, L 2011, 'Conditional advice and inducements: are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension?', Acta Psychologica, vol. 136, no. 3, pp. 419-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.009

APA

Haigh, M., Stewart, A. J., Wood, J. S., & Connell, L. (2011). Conditional advice and inducements: are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension? Acta Psychologica, 136(3), 419-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.009

Vancouver

Haigh M, Stewart AJ, Wood JS, Connell L. Conditional advice and inducements: are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension? Acta Psychologica. 2011 Mar;136(3):419-424. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.009

Author

Haigh, Matthew ; Stewart, Andrew J ; Wood, Jeffrey S et al. / Conditional advice and inducements : are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension?. In: Acta Psychologica. 2011 ; Vol. 136, No. 3. pp. 419-424.

Bibtex

@article{426669a3b9ac41828b0eefac5340d282,
title = "Conditional advice and inducements: are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension?",
abstract = "Conditionals can implicitly convey a range of speech acts including promises, tips, threats and warnings. These are traditionally divided into the broader categories of advice (tips and warnings) and inducements (promises and threats). One consequence of this distinction is that speech acts from within the same category should be harder to differentiate than those from different categories. We examined this in two self-paced reading experiments. Experiment 1 revealed a rapid processing penalty when inducements (promises) and advice (tips) were anaphorically referenced using a mismatching speech act. In Experiment 2 a delayed penalty was observed when a speech act (promise or threat) was referenced by a mismatching speech act from the same category of inducements. This suggests that speech acts from the same category are harder to discriminate than those from different categories. Our findings not only support a semantic distinction between speech act categories, but also reveal pragmatic differences within categories.",
keywords = "Conditionals, Comprehension , Promise , Tip, Threat",
author = "Matthew Haigh and Stewart, {Andrew J} and Wood, {Jeffrey S} and Louise Connell",
year = "2011",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.009",
language = "English",
volume = "136",
pages = "419--424",
journal = "Acta Psychologica",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conditional advice and inducements

T2 - are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension?

AU - Haigh, Matthew

AU - Stewart, Andrew J

AU - Wood, Jeffrey S

AU - Connell, Louise

PY - 2011/3

Y1 - 2011/3

N2 - Conditionals can implicitly convey a range of speech acts including promises, tips, threats and warnings. These are traditionally divided into the broader categories of advice (tips and warnings) and inducements (promises and threats). One consequence of this distinction is that speech acts from within the same category should be harder to differentiate than those from different categories. We examined this in two self-paced reading experiments. Experiment 1 revealed a rapid processing penalty when inducements (promises) and advice (tips) were anaphorically referenced using a mismatching speech act. In Experiment 2 a delayed penalty was observed when a speech act (promise or threat) was referenced by a mismatching speech act from the same category of inducements. This suggests that speech acts from the same category are harder to discriminate than those from different categories. Our findings not only support a semantic distinction between speech act categories, but also reveal pragmatic differences within categories.

AB - Conditionals can implicitly convey a range of speech acts including promises, tips, threats and warnings. These are traditionally divided into the broader categories of advice (tips and warnings) and inducements (promises and threats). One consequence of this distinction is that speech acts from within the same category should be harder to differentiate than those from different categories. We examined this in two self-paced reading experiments. Experiment 1 revealed a rapid processing penalty when inducements (promises) and advice (tips) were anaphorically referenced using a mismatching speech act. In Experiment 2 a delayed penalty was observed when a speech act (promise or threat) was referenced by a mismatching speech act from the same category of inducements. This suggests that speech acts from the same category are harder to discriminate than those from different categories. Our findings not only support a semantic distinction between speech act categories, but also reveal pragmatic differences within categories.

KW - Conditionals

KW - Comprehension

KW - Promise

KW - Tip

KW - Threat

U2 - 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.009

DO - 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.009

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 21334582

VL - 136

SP - 419

EP - 424

JO - Acta Psychologica

JF - Acta Psychologica

IS - 3

ER -