Processing Scalar Inferences in Face-Threatening Contexts

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 3389-3394

  Bonnefon, Jean François ^a   De Neys, Wim ^a   Feeney, Aidan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cognitive load; politeness; processing; response time; Scalar inference

Indexed keywords

'CURRENT; COGNITIVE LOADS; COGNITIVE THEORY; POLITENESS; RESPONSE TIME; SCALAR INFERENCE;

EID: 85139482417     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Bonnefon, J. F., Feeney, A., & Villejoubert, G. (2009). When some is actually all: Scalar inferences in face-threatening contexts. Cognition, 112, 249–258.
2. Bonnefon, J. F., & Villejoubert, G. (2006). Tactful or doubtful? Expectations of politeness explain the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases. Psychological Science, 17, 747–751.
3. Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Cognition, 51, 437–457.
4. Breheny, R., Katsos, N., & Williams, J. (2006). Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100, 434–463.
5. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1978)
6. De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17, 428–433.
7. De Neys, W., & Schaeken, W. (2007). When people are more logical under cognitive load –Dual task impact on scalar implicatures. Experimental Psychology, 54, 128–133.
8. Demeure, V., Bonnefon, J. F., & Raufaste, E. (2008). Utilitarian relevance and face management in the interpretation of ambiguous question/request statements. Memory and Cognition, 36, 873–881.
9. Feeney, A., Scrafton, S., Duckworth, A., & Handley, S. J. (2004). The story of some: Everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 121–132.
10. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Grodner, D. J., Klein, N. M., Carbary, K. M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). “Some”, and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116, 42–55.
12. Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
13. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 621–640.
15. Noveck, I. A., & Posada, A. (2003). Characterising the time course of an implicature. Brain and Language, 85, 203–210.
16. Noveck, I. A., & Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: a Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 425–431.
17. Pighin, S., & Bonnefon, J. F. (in press). Facework and uncertain reasoning in health communication. Patient Education and Counseling.
18. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance, communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1986)
19. Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 268–280.