Abstract
Experimental pragmatics asks how people construct contextualized meaning in communication. So what does it mean for this field to add neuro as a prefix to its name? After analyzing the options for any subfield of cognitive science, I argue that neuropragmatics can and occasionally should go beyond the instrumental use of EEG or fMRI and beyond mapping classic theoretical distinctions onto Brodmann areas. In particular, if experimental pragmatics ‘goes neuro’, it should take into account that the brain evolved as a control system that helps its bearer negotiate a highly complex, rapidly changing and often not so friendly environment. In this context, the ability to predict current unknowns, and to rapidly tell good from bad, are essential ingredients of processing. Using insights from non-linguistic areas of cognitive neuroscience as well as from EEG research on utterance comprehension, I argue that for a balanced development of experimental pragmatics, these two characteristics of the brain cannot be ignored.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 181-208 |
Number of pages | 28 |
Journal | Italian Journal of Linguistics |
Volume | 22 |
Publication status | Published - 2010 |