Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface

Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 58, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 376-415

  Huang, Yi Ting ^a   Snedeker, Jesse ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Pragmatics; Quantifiers; Scalar implicature; Semantics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; TASK PERFORMANCE; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

COGNITION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 63149193386     PISSN: 00100285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Allopenna P.D., Magnuson J.S., and Tanenhaus M.K. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language 38 (1998) 419-439
2. Altmann G., and Kamide Y. Now you see it, now you don't: Mediating the mapping between language and the visual world. In: Henderson J., and Ferreira F. (Eds). The interface of language, vision, and action (2004), Psychology Press, New York 347-386
3. Arnold J.E., Eisenband J.G., Brown-Schmidt S., and Trueswell J.C. The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eye-tracking. Cognition 76 (2000) B13-B26
4. Baumann, S. (2005). Degrees of givenness and their prosodic marking. In Paper presented at the international symposium on "Discourse and Prosody as a complex interface", September 2005, Aix-en-Provence.
5. Beckman M.E., and Hirschberg J. The ToBI annotation conventions (1994), Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
6. Berg J. Is semantics still possible?. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 349-359
7. Bezuidenhout A., and Cutting J.C. Literal meaning, minimal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 433-456
8. Bott L., and Noveck I.A. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 51 3 (2004) 437-457
9. Breheny, R. (2004). Some scalar implicatures aren't quantity implicatures-but some are. In Proceedings of the 9th annual meeting of the Gesellschaft fur Semantik (Sinn und Bedeutung VIIII), November 2004. University of Nijmegen.
10. Breheny R., Katsos N., and Williams J. Are generalized scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100 (2006) 434-463
11. Brugos, A., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Vielleux, N. (2006). Transcribing prosodic structure of spoken utterances with ToBI., MIT Open Courseware. Available from: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-Science/6-911January--IAP-2006.
12. Carston R. Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In: Carston R., and Uchida S. (Eds). Relevance theory: Applications and implications (1998), John Benjamins, Amsterdam 179-236
13. Chierchia G. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatic interface. In: Belletti A. (Ed). Belletti structures and beyond (2004), Oxford University Press, Oxford
14. Chierchia, G. (2004b). Numerals and formal vs. substantive features of mass and count. In Paper presented at Linguistic Perspectives on Numerical Expressions, Utrecht, 10-11 June 2004.
15. Dahan D., Magnuson J., and Tanenhaus M. Time course of frequency effects in spoken- word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology 42 (2001) 317-367
16. Dahan D., Tanenhaus M.K., and Chambers C.G. Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 47 (2002) 292-314
17. De Neys W., and Schaeken W. When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology 54 (2007) 128-133
18. Feeney A., Scafton S., Duckworth A., and Handley S.J. The story of some: Everyday pragmatic inferences by children and adults. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58 (2004) 121-132
19. Fernald A., Pinto J., Swingley D., Weinberg A., and McRoberts G.(. Rapid gains in speed of verbal processing by infants in the second year. Psychological Science 9 (1998) 228-231
20. Frisson S., and Pickering M. The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 25 (1999) 1366-1383
21. Gadzar G. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form (1979), Academic Press, New York
22. Gibbs R., and Moise J. Pragmatics is understanding what is said. Cognition 62 (1997) 51-74
23. Glucksberg S., Gildea P., and Bookin H. On understanding non-literal speech: Can people ignore metaphors?. Journal of Verbal Language and Verbal Behavior 1 (1982) 85-96
24. Grice H.P. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66 (1957) 377-388
25. Grice H.P. Logic and conversation. In: Cole P., and Morgan J.L. (Eds). Syntax and semantics Vol. 3 (1975), Academic Press, New York 41-58
26. Grodner, D., & Sedivy, J. (in press). The effect of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences. In N. Pearlmutter, & E. Gibson (Eds.), The processing and acquisition of reference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Hamilton W. Lectures on logic Vol. 1 (1860), Blackwood, Edinburgh
28. Hanna J.E., Tanenhaus M.K., and Trueswell J.C. The effects of common ground and perspective on referential domains. Journal of Memory and Language 49 (2003) 43-61
29. Hirschberg J. (1985). A theory of scalar implicature. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
30. Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. Distributed by IULC, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
31. Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 11-42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
32. Horn L. A natural history of negation (1989), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
33. Horn, L. (1992). The said and the unsaid. In C. Barker, & D. Dowty (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory II (pp. 163-192). Columbus, OH: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.
34. Ito, K., Speer, S. R., & Beckman, M. (2004). Informational status and pitch accent distribution in spontaneous dialogues in English. In Proceedings of the international conference on speech prosody, Nara, Japan.
35. Ito K., and Speer S. Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 58 2 (2008) 541-573
36. Kjelgaard M., and Speer S. Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language 40 (1999) 153-194
37. Koenig, J. (1991). Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and interval interpretations. In Chicago Linguistic Society 27, part 2: Parasession on negation (pp. 140-155).
38. Ladd, D. R. (2008). Can gradient phonetic distinctions carry categorical pragmatic ones? In Paper presented at the experimental and theoretical advances in prosody conference, April 2008, Ithaca, NY.
39. Levinson S. Pragmatics (1983), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
40. Levinson S. Presumptive meanings (2000), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
41. Matin E., Shao K.C., and Boff K.R. Saccadic overhead: Information processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics 53 4 (1993) 372-380
42. Mirman, D., Magnuson, J. S, Strauss, T. J., & Dixon, J. A. (2008). Effects of global context on homophone ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, July 2008, Washington, DC.
43. Nadig A., and Sedivy J. Evidence of perspective taking constraints in children's on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science 13 (2002) 329-336
44. Nicolle S., and Clark B. Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition 69 (1999) 337-354
45. Noveck I.A. When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigation of scalar implicatures. Cognition 78 (2001) 165-188
46. Noveck I.A., and Posada A. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85 (2003) 203-210
47. Papafragou A., and Musolino J. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics- pragmatics interface. Cognition 86 (2003) 253-282
48. Papafragou A., and Tantalou N. Children's computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition 12 (2004) 71-82
49. Pierrehumbert J.B., and Hirschberg J. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In: Cohen P.R., Morgan J., and Pollack M.E. (Eds). Intentions in communication and discourse (1990), Cambridge, MIT Press 271-311
50. Rayner K., and Duffy S. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition 14 (1986) 191-201
51. Recanati F. Literal meaning (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
52. Rips L.J. Quantification and semantic memory. Cognitive Psychology 7 3 (1975) 307-340
53. Sedivy J.C. Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: Evidence for effect of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32 1 (2003) 3-23
54. Sedivy J., Tanenhaus M., Chambers C., and Carlson G. Achieving incremental semantic interpretations through contextual representation. Cognition 71 (1999) 109-147
55. Snedeker J., and Trueswell J.C. The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology 49 (2004) 238-299
56. Sperber D., and Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and cognition (1986/1995), Blackwell, Oxford
57. Swingley D., and Fernald A. Recognition of words referring to present and absent objects by 24-month-olds. Journal of Memory and Language 46 (2002) 39-56
58. Swinney D. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18 (1979) 645-660
59. Swinney D., and Prather P. On the comprehension of lexical ambiguity by young children: Investigations into the development of mental modularity. In: Gorfein D. (Ed). Resolving semantic ambiguity (1989), Springer-Verlag, New York
60. Tanenhaus M.K., Spivey-Knowlton M., Eberhard K., and Sedivy J. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268 (1995) 1632
61. The British National Corpus, version 3. (2007). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Available from: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.
62. Watson, D. (2008). The role of production factors in acoustic prominence. In Paper presented at the experimental and theoretical advances in prosody conference, April 2008, Ithaca, NY.
63. *. Cognitive Science.