2004), new research objects are introduced, such as conditional, referring, irony and pragmatic abilities among people with autism, which expands the scope and improves the explanatory power of EP. Third, experiments verify or falsify the hypotheses held by philosophers and theoretical linguists and they also generate results that current theories cannot explain (i.e. the phenomenon that much more time is taken in processing the minor promise of Affirmation of the Consequent than that of Modus Ponens), which in turn prompts the development of pragmatics theories. Fourth, if there are results in EP that do not agree with previous hypotheses, for example, little behavioural difference is seen between neurotypicals and people with autism in pragmatic inference, where is the way out? The answer is either to revise theoretical assumptions, or to refine the experiment. In any event, EP advances the study of pragmatics. Fifth, Noveck’s experiments on people with autism are preliminarily tentative, yet they provide valuable data support for doctors to deal with the disorder. Furthermore, EP might help to diagnose (and even treat) other disorders. Nonetheless, the book has some imperfections. In Chapter 1, Noveck’s discussion about gap is inconsistent. Noveck indeed plans to distinguish linguistically encoded meaning and speaker’s (intended) meaning, while his use of ‘sentence/meaning gap’ (p. 9) and ‘sentence/utterance gap’ (p. 13) may confuse readers. Although scalar implicature in embedded structure is mentioned, the book would have been more comprehensive if Simons’s (2014) local pragmatics, which is different from the approaches Noveck has presented, had been considered. In addition, since one of two sources of EP is the (Post-) Gricean programme, how does EP deal with the paradigms of Imagination and Convention (Lepore and Stone, 2015) claiming a rejection of Grice? Could the techniques in EP still hold? Of course, this last point is more an interesting question than an imperfection. Overall, despite the quibbles, the book is thought-provoking and it is an illuminating guide for scholars who have keen interest in pragmatics, EP and cognitive science. Readers will gain a better understanding of experiment and the relation between theory and experiment, increasing their awareness of pragmatics itself.

中文翻译：

---

书评：María de los Ángeles Gómez González 和 J Lachlan Mackenzie (eds)，作为言语互动的话语构建

2004)，引入了新的研究对象，如自闭症患者的条件、指称、反讽和语用能力，扩大了EP的范围，提高了解释力。第三，实验验证或证伪了哲学家和理论语言学家所持有的假设，它们也产生了当前理论无法解释的结果（即处理结果肯定的次要承诺比 Modus Ponens 花费更多时间的现象） ，这反过来又促进了语用学理论的发展。第四，如果EP中存在与先前假设不一致的结果，例如神经典型和自闭症患者在语用推理中几乎没有行为差异，那么出路在哪里？答案是要么修改理论假设，或改进实验。无论如何，EP 推进了语用学的研究。第五，Noveck 对自闭症患者的实验是初步的，但它们为医生应对这种疾病提供了宝贵的数据支持。此外，EP 可能有助于诊断（甚至治疗）其他疾病。尽管如此，这本书还是有一些不完善的地方。在第 1 章中，Noveck 关于间隙的讨论是不一致的。Noveck 确实计划区分语言编码的含义和说话者的（预期）含义，而他使用的“句子/含义差距”（第 9 页）和“句子/话语差距”（第 13 页）可能会使读者感到困惑。尽管提到了嵌入结构中的标量含义，但如果考虑到与 Noveck 提出的方法不同的 Simons (2014) 局部语用学，这本书会更加全面。此外，由于 EP 的两个来源之一是（后）格赖斯计划，EP 如何处理声称拒绝格赖斯的想象和公约范式（Lepore 和 Stone，2015 年）？EP中的技术还能保持吗？当然，最后一点与其说是缺陷，不如说是一个有趣的问题。总体而言，尽管有一些狡辩，但这本书发人深省，对于对语用学、EP 和认知科学有浓厚兴趣的学者来说，它是一本有启发性的指南。读者将更好地理解实验以及理论与实验之间的关系，提高他们对语用学本身的认识。2015）声称拒绝格莱斯？EP中的技术还能保持吗？当然，最后一点与其说是缺陷，不如说是一个有趣的问题。总体而言，尽管有一些狡辩，但这本书发人深省，对于对语用学、EP 和认知科学有浓厚兴趣的学者来说，它是一本有启发性的指南。读者将更好地理解实验以及理论与实验之间的关系，提高他们对语用学本身的认识。2015）声称拒绝格莱斯？EP中的技术还能保持吗？当然，最后一点与其说是缺陷，不如说是一个有趣的问题。总体而言，尽管有一些狡辩，但这本书发人深省，对于对语用学、EP 和认知科学有浓厚兴趣的学者来说，它是一本有启发性的指南。读者将更好地理解实验以及理论与实验之间的关系，提高他们对语用学本身的认识。