Logic and conversation revisited: Evidence for a division between semantic and pragmatic content in real-time language comprehension

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 26, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1161-1172

  Huang, Yi Ting ^a   Snedeker, Jesse ^b  

^a The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Pragmatics; Quantifiers; Scalar implicature; Semantics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; EYE TRACKING; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; LOGIC; PRAGMATICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84862907989     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.508641     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Altmann, G. M. (2001). The language machine: Psycholinguistics in review. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 129-170.
2. Altmann, G. M., & Kamide, Y. (2004). Now you see it, now you don't: Mediating the mapping between language and the visual world. In J. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The integration of language, vision and action (pp. 347-386). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
3. Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 437-457.
4. Breheny, R. (2009, April). How pragmatic reasoning affects incremental utterance interpretation. Paper presented at the 2009 Experimental Pragmatics Conference, April 23-25, 2009, Lyon, France.
5. Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and implications (pp. 179-236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
6. Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Belletti structures and beyond (pp. 39-103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Degen, J., Reeder, P., Carbary, K., & Tanenhaus, M. (2009, April). Using a novel experimental paradigm to investigate the processing of scalar implicatures. Paper presented at the 2009 Experimental Pragmatics Conference, April 23-25, 2009, Lyon, France.
8. De Neys, W., & Schaeken, W. (2007). When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology, 54, 128-133.
9. Gadzar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.
10. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
11. Grodner, D., Klein, N., Carbary, K., & Tanenhaus, M. (2010). Experimental evidence for rapid interpretation of pragmatic 'some.' Cognition, 116, 42-55.
12. Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. Huang, Y., & Snedeker, J. (2009a). On-line interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 376-415.
14. Huang, Y., & Snedeker, J. (2009b). Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in five-year olds: Evidence from real time spoken language comprehension. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1723-1739.
15. Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Matin, E., Shao, K. C., & Boff, K. R. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53(4), 372-380.
17. Noveck, I. A., & Posada, A. (2003). Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language, 85, 203-210.
18. Noveck, I. A., & Sperber, D. (2007). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of 'scalar inferences'. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in pragmatics (pp. 184-212). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
19. Sedivy, J., Tanenhaus, M., Chambers, C., & Carlson, G. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretations through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109-147.
20. Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 238-299.
21. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
22. Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-660.
23. Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J., & Seidenberg, M. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427-440.
24. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.
25. Trueswell, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton & L. Frazier (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Tyler, L. K., & Wessels, J. (1983). Quantifying contextual contributions to word recognition processes. Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 409-420.