Epistemicity and communicative strategies

References

• Beltrama, A., & Papafragou, A. (2023). Pragmatic violations affect social inferences about the speaker. Glossa Psycholinguistics, 2(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.5070/G601197
   Google Scholar
• 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(9), 747–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01776.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness. strategies in social interactions (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bürkner, P.-C. (2018). Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the r package brms. The R Journal, 10(1), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-017
   Google Scholar
• Crismore, A., & Kopple, W. J. V. (1997). Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes and learning. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse (pp. 83–114). De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Franke, M., Dulcinati, G., & Pouscoulous, N. (2020). Strategies of deception: Under-informativity, uninformativity, and lies—Misleading with different kinds of implicature. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(2), 583–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12456
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged performatives. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 187–210). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(3), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701645181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne, J., Rothschild, D., & Spectre, L. (2016). Belief is weak. Philos Stud, 173(5), 1393–1404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0553-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. (2013). The no-u-turn sampler: Adaptively setting path lengths in hamiltonian monte carlo. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1), 1593–1623.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, J. 1982. Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13(2), 9–28. 1982-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202.
   Google Scholar
• Hosman, L. A. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifies powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15(3), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1989.tb00190.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juanchich, M., & Sirota, M. (2015). A direct and comprehensive test of two postulates of politeness theory applied to uncertainty communication. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(3), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500004642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruschke, J. K., Aguinis, H., & Joo, H. (2012). The time has come: Bayesian methods for data analysis in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 722–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112457829
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lackey, J. (2007). Norms of assertion. Nous, 41(4), 594–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00664.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. In R. Bäuerle, U. Egli, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Semantics from different points of view (pp. 172–187). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lorson, A., Cummins, C., & Rohde, H. (2021). Strategic use of (un)certainty expressions. Frontiers in Communication, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.635156
   Google Scholar
• Luke, T. J. (2021). A meta-analytic review of experimental tests of the interrogation technique of hanns joachim scharff. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandelkern, M., & Dorst, K. (2022). Assertion is weak. Philosophers’ Imprint, 22. https://doi.org/10.3998/phimp.1076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meibauer, J. (2014). Lying at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, G. E. (1942). A reply to my critics (P. Schilipp.). Northwestern University.
   Google Scholar
• Ochs, E. (1976). The universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society, 5(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [computer software manual]. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, F. (2019). Presuppositions, projection and accommodation. In C. Cummins & N. Katsos (Eds.), Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics (pp. 83–113). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smithson, M., & Verkuilen, J. (2006). Better lemon squeezer? maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychological Methods, 11(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorensen, T., Hohenstein, S., & Vasishth, S. (2016). Bayesian linear mixed models using stan: A tutorial for psychologists, linguists, and cognitive scientists. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(3), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sóskuthy, M., & Roettger, T. B. (2020, 9). When the tune shapes morphology: The origins of vocatives. Journal of Language Evolution, 5(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzaa007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In R. Stalnaker (Ed.), Context and content (pp. 47–62). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stan Development Team. (2017). Stan modeling language users guide and reference manual, version 2.17.0 [Computer software manual]. http://mc-stan.org/
   Google Scholar
• Unger, P. 1978. Ignorance: A case of skepticism. The Philosophical Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/2184366
   Google Scholar
• van der Sandt, R. A. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9(4), 333–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.333
   Google Scholar
• von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1), 137–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar