"Some," and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment

Cognition

Volumn 116, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 42-55

  Grodner, Daniel J ^a   Klein, Natalie M ^b   Carbary, Kathleen M ^b   Tanenhaus, Michael K ^b  

^a SWARTHMORE COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Eye movements; Pragmatics; Scalar implicature; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

AMBIGUITY; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; RESPONSE TIME; SENSORIMOTOR INTEGRATION; VERBAL COMMUNICATION; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUOMOTOR COORDINATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MENTAL PROCESSES; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77952888860     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. 2nd ed. (2002), John Wiley and Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey
2. 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
3. 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
4. Breheny, R. (2008). The costs of implicatures. In Paper presented at the workshop on experimental pragmati, Leuven, Belgium
5. 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
6. Calvert D. Descriptive phonetics. 2nd ed. (1992), Thieme Medical Publishers, New York
7. 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
8. Chambers C.G., Tanenhaus M.K., and Magnuson J.S. Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30 (2004) 687-696
9. Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond.
10. Chierchia G. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the logicality of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37 4 (2006) 535-590
11. Chierchia G., Fox D., and Spector B. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. Handbook of semantics (2009), Mouton de Gruyter, New York
12. Cooper R.M. The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language. A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology 6 (1974) 84-107
13. Dahan D., Magnuson J.S., and Tanenhaus M.K. Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology 42 (2001) 317-367
14. Dahan D., Magnuson J.S., Tanenhaus M.K., and Hogan E.M. Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition. Language and Cognitive Processes 16 (2001) 507-534
15. Degen, J. & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2010). When contrast is salient, pragmatic some precedes logical some. In Poster presented at the 23 annual sentence processing conference, New York, NY.
16. Degen, J., Reeder, P., Carbary, K, & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2009). Using a novel experimental paradigm to investigate the processing of scalar implicatures. In Paper presented at the 3rd biennial meeting of experimental pragmatics. Lyon, France.
17. Gallistel C.R. The importance of proving the null. Psychological Review 116 2 (2009) 439-453
18. Geurts B. Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and language 24 (2009) 51-79
19. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58).
20. Grice H.P. Studies in the way of words (1989), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
21. Grodner D., Gibson E., and Watson D. The influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing: Evidence for strong interaction in sentence comprehension. Cognition 95 3 (2005) 276-296
22. Hirschberg J. A theory of scalar implicature (1991), Garland Press, New York
23. Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
24. Horn L.R. A natural history of negation (1989), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill
25. Horn L. The border wars. In: von Heusinger K., and Turner K.P. (Eds). Where semantics meets pragmatics (2006), Elsevier, Oxford 21-48
26. Huang Y.T., and Snedeker J. On-line interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantic-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology 58 3 (2009) 376-415
27. Jaeger T.F. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language 59 (2008) 434-446
28. Kanan C.M., Tong M.H., Zhang L., and Cottrell G.W. SUN: Top-down saliency using natural statistics. Visual Cognition 17 6 and 7 (2009) 979-1003
29. Kass R.E., and Raftery A.E. Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90 (1995) 773-795
30. Ladusaw, W. A. (1994). Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In M. Harvey, L. Santelmann (Eds.). In Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory IV. Cornell University, Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics.
31. Levinson S.C. Presumptive meanings (2000), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass
32. Longhurst, E. (2006). ExBuilder. Computer program.
33. Magnuson J.S., Dixon J.A., Tanenhaus M.K., and Aslin R.N. The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science 31 (2007) 133-156
34. 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
35. Murphy G.L. Establishing and accessing referents in discourse. Memory & Cognition 12 (1984) 489-497
36. Noveck I., and Posada A. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85 (2003) 203-210
37. Noveck I., and Sperber D. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of 'scalar inferences. In: Roberts N. (Ed). Advances in pragmatics (2007), Palgrave
38. Pickering M.J., McElree B., Frisson S., Chin L., and Traxler M. Aspectual coercion and underspecification. Discourse Processes 42 (2006) 131-155
39. Pollack I., and Ficks L. Information of elementary multidimensional auditory displays. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 26 (1954) 155-158
40. Postal P. Limitations of phrase structure description. In: Fodor J.K.A.J. (Ed). Readings in the philosophy of language (1964), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
41. Rips L.J. Quantification and semantic memory. Cognitive Psychology 7 3 (1975) 307-340
42. Russell B. Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23 4 (2006) 361-382
43. Sadock J.M. On testing for conversational implicature. Syntax and semantics. In: Cole P. (Ed). Pragmatics Vol. 9 (1978), Academic Press, New York 281-297
44. Salverda A.P., Dahan D., and McQueen J.M. The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition 90 (2003) 51-89
45. Salverda A.P., Dahan D., Tanenhaus M.K., Crosswhite K., Masharov M., and McDonough J. Effects of prosodically modulated sub-phonetic variation on lexical comprehension. Cognition 105 (2007) 466-476
46. Sauerland U. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (2004) 367-391
47. Schlenker, P. (2006). Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA and Institut Jean-Nicod.
48. Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P., Pierrehumbert, J. & Hirschberg, J. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English Prosody. In Proceedings of the 1992 international conference on spoken language processing (pp. 867-870).
49. Soames S. How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13 (1982) 483-545
50. Sperber D., and Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and cognition (1995), Blackwell, Oxford
51. Swinney D. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18 (1979) 645-660
52. Swinney D., Love T., Walenski M., and Smith E.E. Conceptual combination during sentence comprehension: Evidence for compositional processes. Psychological Science 18 (2007) 397-400
53. Tanenhaus M.K., Leiman J.M., and Seidenberg M.S. Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18 (1979) 427-441
54. Tanenhaus M.K., Spivey-Knowlton M., Eberhard K., and Sedivy J. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268 (1995) 1632-1634