← Back to Volume 16

From “Talking at Cross Purposes” to “Tacit Understanding”: The Psycholinguistic Mechanisms of Pragmatic Inference

Shuning Wang
pp.114-124 DOI: 10.62051/fqawnz71 July 2, 2026
Download PDF
Abstract: This study develops an integrative framework for pragmatic inference—the capacity to infer speaker intentions beyond literal meaning. Integrating the Cooperative Principle, Relevance Theory, Theory of Mind, and executive functions, it conceptualizes inference as a dynamic, resource-dependent process. Success depends on contextual alignment, accurate intention attribution, and cognitive resources. Incorporating repair mechanisms from Conversation Analysis, the framework reveals how interactants achieve understanding through iterative strategies such as reformulation and clarification. The paper elucidates the pathway from “talking at cross purposes” to “tacit understanding,” providing theoretical synthesis and practical guidance for communicative success.
Keywords: pragmatic inference; Relevance Theory; Theory of Mind; executive functions; repair mechanism.
APA Citation: Shuning Wang (2026). From “Talking at Cross Purposes” to “Tacit Understanding”: The Psycholinguistic Mechanisms of Pragmatic Inference. Transactions on Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 16(1), 114-124. https://doi.org/10.62051/fqawnz71

References

  1. Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66(3), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440
  2. 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.
  3. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell.
  4. Healey, P. G. T., de Ruiter, J. P., & Mills, G. J. (2018). Editors’ introduction: Miscommunication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(2), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12340
  5. Gabbatore, I., Hilviu, D., Merlini, A., & Bosco, F. M. (2025). Pragmatic comprehension and inferential ability: Interplay with executive functions and Theory of Mind. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 380(1932), 20230491. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0491
  6. Bohn, M., & Frank, M. C. (2025). Pragmatics as social inference about intentional action. Open Mind, 9, 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00191
  7. Dindar, K., Loukusa, S., Helminen, T. M., Mäkinen, L., Siipo, A., Laukka, S., Rantanen, A., Mattila, M. L., Hurtig, T., & Ebeling, H. (2022). Social-pragmatic inferencing, visual social attention and physiological reactivity to complex social scenes in autistic young adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(7), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05182-3
  8. Jiang, W. (2017). A socio-cognitive approach to pragmatic inference. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(3), 421. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0017
  9. Elder, C.-H., & Haugh, M. (2024). The role of inference and inferencing in pragmatic models of communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 229, 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.06.002
  10. Song, L., & Licoppe, C. (2024). Noticing-based actions and the pragmatics of attention in expository live streams. Noticing ‘effervescence’ and noticing-based sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 226, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.04.001
  11. Kelly, L., & Miller-Ott, A. E. (2018). Perceived miscommunication in friends’ and romantic partners’ texted conversations. Southern Communication Journal, 83(4), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2018.1488271
  12. Ronai, E., Sun, Y., Yu, A. C. L., & Xiang, M. (2019). Integration of contextual-pragmatic and phonetic information in speech perception: An eye-tracking study. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 10(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.186
  13. Carneiro, P., Lapa, A., Reis, J., & Ramos, T. (2020). Testing pragmatic inferences: The impact of language and culture. Psicológica, 41(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2478/psicolj-2020-0001
  14. Filipović, L. (2022). The good, the bad and the ugly: Miscommunication in UK police interviews and US police interrogations. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 37(2), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-022-09495-w
  15. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
  16. Purver, M., Ginzburg, J., & Healey, P. G. T. (2003). On the means for clarification in dialogue. In R. Smith & J. van Kuppevelt (Eds.), Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue (pp. 235–256). Kluwer Academic Publishers.