Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature

Cognition

Volumn 120, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 67-81

  Katsos, Napoleon ^a,b   Bishop, Dorothy V M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Acquisition; Ambiguity; Implicature; Informativeness; Pragmatics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; INFANT; INFORMATION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE ABILITY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPEECH ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LANGUAGE; LOGIC; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79955895646     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Ackerman B.P. Performative bias in children's interpretations of ambiguous referential communications. Child Development 1981, 52:1224-1230.
2. Asher S.R. Referential communication. The functions of language and cognition 1979, Academic Press, New York. G.J. Whitehurst, P.J. Zimmerman (Eds.).
3. Barner D., Brooks N., Bale A. Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children's pragmatic inference. Cognition 2011, 118:87-96.
4. Beal C.R., Flavell J.H. The effect of increasing the salience of message ambiguities on kindergartners' evaluations of communicative success and message adequacy. Developmental Psychology 1982, 18:43-48.
5. Bearison D.J., Levey L.M. Children's comprehension of referential communication: Decoding ambiguous messages. Child Development 1977, 48:716-720.
6. Beck S.R., Robinson E.J., Freeth M. Can children resist making interpretations when uncertain? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2008, 99:252-270.
7. Bonnefon J.F., Feeney A., Villejoubert G. When some is actually all: Scalar inferences in face-threatening contexts. Cognition 2009, 112:249-258.
8. Bott L., Noveck I.A. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 2004, 51:437-457.
9. Brédart S. Children's interpretation of referential ambiguities and pragmatic inference. Journal of Child Language 1984, 11:665-672.
10. Breheny R., Katsos N., Williams J. Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 2006, 100(3):434-463.
11. Carston R. Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. Relevance theory: Applications and implications 1998, 179-236. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. R. Carston, S. Uchida (Eds.).
12. Chierchia G. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. Structures and beyond 2004, 39-103. Oxford University Press. A. Belletti (Ed.).
13. Clark E.V. First language acquisition 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Crain S., Thornton R. Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments in the acquisition of syntax and semantics 1998, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
15. Csibra G., Gergely G. Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2009, 13:148-153.
16. Cummins C., Katsos N. Comparative and superlative quantifiers: Pragmatic effects of comparison type. Journal of Semantics 2010, 27:271-305.
17. Davies C., Katsos N. Over-informative children: Production/comprehension asymmetry or tolerant of pragmatic violations?. Lingua 2010, 120(8):1956-1972.
18. Feeney A., Scrafton S., Duckworth A., Handley S.J. The story of some: Everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 2004, 58(2):121-132.
19. Flavell J.H., Speer J.R., Green F.L., August D.L. The development of comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 1981, 46(5):1-65.
20. Foppolo, F., Guasti, M-T., Chierchia, G. (submitted for publication). Scalar implicatures in child language: Failure, strategies and lexical factors.
21. Geurts B. Quantity implicature 2010, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
22. Grice H.P. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics 1975, Vol. 3:41-58. Academic Press, New York, (Reprinted in Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA).
23. Guasti M.T., Chierchia G., Crain S., Foppolo F., Gualmini A., Meroni L. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes 2005, 20(5):667-696.
24. Hirschberg J. A theory of scalar implicature 1991, Garland, New York.
25. Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in english. UCLA dissertation, distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976.
26. Horn L. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications, proceedings of GURT '84 1984, 11-42. Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C. D. Schiffrin (Ed.).
27. Huang Y., Snedeker J. On-line interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology 2009, 58:376-415.
28. Huang Y., Snedeker J. Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in five-year-olds: Evidence from real time spoken language comprehension. Developmental Psychology 2009, 45:1723-1739.
29. Hurewitz F., Papafragou A., Gleitman L., Gelman R. Asymmetries in the acquisition of numbers and quantifiers. Language Learning and Development 2006, 2:77-96.
30. Jackson S., Jacobs S. Ambiguity and implicature in children's discourse comprehension. Journal of Child Language 1982, 9:209-216.
31. Katsos, N. (2007). Experimental investigations on the effects of structure and context on the generation of scalar implicatures. PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge.
32. Katsos N. The semantics/pragmatics interface from an experimental perspective: The case of scalar implicature. Synthese 2008, 165:358-401.
33. Katsos, N. (2009). Neither default nor particularised: Scalar implicature from a developmental perspective. In U. Sauerland, K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Experimental semantics and pragmatics, Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language & cognition (pp. 51-73).
34. Katsos N., Andrés Roqueta C., Estevan R.A.C., Cummins C. Are children with Specific Language Impairment Competent with the Pragmatics and Logic of Quantification?. Cognition 2010, 119:43-57.
35. Katsos N., Breheny R., Williams J. The interaction of structural and contextual constraints during the on-line generation of scalar inferences. Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society 2005, 1108-1113. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. B. Bara, L. Barsalou, M. Bucciarelli (Eds.).
36. Katsos N., Smith N. Pragmatic tolerance and speaker-comprehender asymmetries. Proceedings of the 34th annual boston conference in language development 2010, 221-232. Cascadilla Press, MA, USA. K. Franich, K.M. Iserman, L.L. Keil (Eds.).
37. Korkman M., Kirk U., Kemp S. NEPSY: A developmental neuropsychological assessment 1999, The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX.
38. Levinson S. Pragmatics 1983, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
39. Levinson S. Presumptive meanings 2000, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
40. Nadig A., Sedivy J. Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children's on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science 2002, 13:329-336.
41. Nieuwland M.S., Ditman T., Kuperberg G.R. On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language 2010, 63:324-346.
42. Nilsen E.S., Graham S.A. The relations between children's communicative perspective-taking and executive functioning. Cognitive Psychology 2009, 58(2):220-249.
43. Noveck I.A. When children are more logical than adults. Cognition 2001, 86:253-282.
44. Noveck I.A., Reboul A. Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2009, 12(11):425-431.
45. Papafragou A., Musolino J. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics/pragmatics interface. Cognition 2003, 86:253-282.
46. Papafragou A., Tantalou N. Children's computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition 2004, 12(1):71-82.
47. Paterson K.B., Liversedge L.P., White D., Filik R., Jaz K. Children's interpretation of ambiguous focus in sentences with " only" Language Acquisition 2005, 13(3):253-284.
48. Patterson C.J., Cosgrove J.M., O'Brien R.G. Non-verbal indicants of comprehension and noncomprehension in children. Developmental Psychology 1980, 16:38-48.
49. Plumert J.M. Young children's ability to detect ambiguity in descriptions of location. Cognitive Development 1996, 11:375-396.
50. Pouscoulous N., Noveck I.A., Politzer G., Bastide A. A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition 2007, 14:347-376.
51. Raven J., Raven J.C., Court J.H. Raven manual: Section 3. Standard progressive matrices 1998, Oxford Psychologists Press, Oxford, England.
52. Reinhart T. The processing cost of reference-set computation: Acquisition of stress shift and focus. Language Acquisition. 2004, 12(2):109-155.
53. Robinson E.J., Robinson W.P. The young child's understanding of communication. Developmental Psychology 1976, 12:328-333.
54. Robinson E.J., Robinson W.P. Development in the understanding of causes of success and failure in verbal communication. Cognition 1977, 5:363-378.
55. Robinson E.J., Robinson W.P. Knowing when you don't know enough: Children's judgments about ambiguous information. Cognition 1982, 12:267-280.
56. Robinson E.J., Whittaker S.J. Children's responses to ambiguous messages and their understanding of ambiguity. Developmental Psychology 1985, 21:446-454.
57. Sadock J. On testing for conversational implicature. Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics 1978, 281-297. Academic Press, New York. P. Cole (Ed.).
58. Sperber D., Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and cognition 1995, Blackwell, Oxford.
59. Tomasello M. The social bases of language development. Social Development 1992, 1:67-87.