Our field of research is cognitive pragmatics, that is, the theoretical and empirical study of the mental events involved in human communication. Communication is a form of social activity; more precisely, it is an agent’s intentional and overt attempt to affect a partner’s mental states (Airenti, Bara, & Colombetti, 1993a, 1993b; Tirassa, 1997). While, historically, this area used to have no specific relationship with the neurosciences, our work is aimed at a convergence that seems to us capable of yielding valuable results. Theories in pragmatics are typically analytical and developed on autonomous grounds; the neurosciences, and in particular the neuropsychology of mind/brain impairments, provide them with a natural empirical test bed. While, of course, the pathology of a cognitive function may always shed an interesting light on its physiology, in the case of communication this research strategy is made almost necessary by the intricacies of doing experimental pragmatics in the normal, healthy adult. Different neuropsychological diseases will affect communicative performance in different ways, depending on what relevant cognitive subsystems are damaged and how. Competing theories of communication make different statements as to the nature of these subsystems and of their interconnections and therefore yield different predictions as to the patterns of their decay. It thus becomes possible to compare and to possibly falsify them. The same line of reasoning, transferred to normal development, also suggests to study the acquisition of communicative abilities in the child. Neuroscience and pragmatics have quite distinct roles in this enterprise, the former being somewhat ancillary to the latter: given a powerful theory
[1]
B. Bara,et al.
A mentalist framework for linguistic and extralinguistic communication
,
1999
.
[2]
B. Bara,et al.
Simple and Complex Speech Acts: What Makes the Difference within a Developmental Perspective
,
2020,
Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
[3]
Maurizio Tirassa,et al.
Sharedness as an innate basis for communication in the infant
,
1998
.
[4]
M Bucciarelli,et al.
Development and decay of extra-linguistic communication.
,
2000,
Brain and cognition.
[5]
M. Colombetti,et al.
Failures, exploitations and deceits in communication
,
1993
.
[6]
M. Colombetti,et al.
Conversation and behavior games in the pragmatics of dialogue
,
1993
.
[7]
B. Bara,et al.
Developmental Pragmatics in Normal and Abnormal Children
,
1999,
Brain and Language.
[8]
Maurizio Tirassa,et al.
Neuropragmatics: Neuropsychological Constraints on Formal Theories of Dialogue
,
1997,
Brain and Language.
[9]
A. Kasher,et al.
Effects of Right- and Left-Hemisphere Damage on Understanding Conversational Implicatures
,
1999,
Brain and Language.
[10]
Maurizio Tirassa,et al.
Communicative Competence and the Architecture of the Mind/Brain
,
1999,
Brain and Language.
[11]
Mental states in communication
,
1997
.
[12]
D. Zaidel,et al.
The Interpretation of Sentence Ambiguity in Patients with Unilateral Focal Brain Surgery
,
1995,
Brain and Language.