Attention and Intention

Author	Title	Year	Journal/Proceedings	Reftype	DOI/URL
Abrusán, M.	Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 34(6), pp. 491-535	article	DOI
Abstract: The central idea behind this paper is that presuppositions of soft triggers arise from the way our attention structures the informational content of a sentence. Some aspects of the information conveyed are such that we pay attention to them by default, even in the absence of contextual information. On the other hand, contextual cues or conversational goals can divert attention to types of information that we would not pay attention to by default. Either way, whatever we do not pay attention to, be it by default, or in context, is what ends up presupposed by soft triggers. This paper attempts to predict what information in the sentence is likely to end up being the main point (i.e. what we pay attention to) and what information is independent from this, and therefore likely presupposed. It is proposed that this can be calculated by making reference to event times. The notion of aboutness used to calculate independence is based on that of Demolombe and Fariñas del Cerro (In: Holdobler S (ed) Intellectics and computational logic: papers in honor of Wolfgang Bibel, 2000).
BibTeX: @article{Abrusan2011, author = {Márta Abrusán}, title = {Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2011}, volume = {34}, number = {6}, pages = {491--535}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9108-y} }
Amaral, P., Cummins, C. and Katsos, N.	Experimental Evidence on the Distinction Between Foregrounded and Backgrounded Meaning [BibTeX]	2011	Talk	misc	URL
BibTeX: @misc{Amaral2011, author = {Patricia Amaral and Chris Cummins and Napoleon Katsos}, title = {Experimental Evidence on the Distinction Between Foregrounded and Backgrounded Meaning}, year = {2011}, note = {Presented at ESSLLI 2011}, url = {https://crcummins.com/Amaral_Cummins_Katsos_ESSLLI.pdf} }
Antomo, M., Müller, S., Paul, K., Paluch, M. and Thalmann, M.	When children aren't more logical than adults: An empirical investigation of lying by falsely implicating [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 138, pp. 135-148	article	DOI
Abstract: Studies on whether lying, as opposed to merely deceiving, is possible with untruthful implicatures have found conflicting evidence. Here, we present two experiments in which we investigated whether untruthful implicatures are judged as lies and the alleged difference between untruthful generalized and particularized conversational implicatures. Furthermore, we investigated untruthful implicatures in language acquisition. Our results show first that false implicatures are categorized as lies, but also that participants differentiate between false asserted content and false implicatures. Second, there is no contrast between PCIs and GCIs in either truthful or untruthful usage. Third, our results reveal an overall similar performance across all three tested age groups (5–6 years, 8–9 years, adults), showing that inferred content is accessible earlier than originally thought. We argue that these results are due to the child-oriented material as well as the high relevance of the implicatures in our experiment, and that previous findings in conflict with our own are caused by children's pragmatic tolerance.
BibTeX: @article{Antomo2018, author = {Mailin Antomo and Susanne Müller and Katharina Paul and Markus Paluch and Maik Thalmann}, title = {When children aren't more logical than adults: An empirical investigation of lying by falsely implicating}, journal = {Journal of Pragmatics}, publisher = {Elsevier BV}, year = {2018}, volume = {138}, pages = {135--148}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.010} }
Aravind, A., Hackl, M. and Wexler, K.	Syntactic and Pragmatic Factors in Children's Comprehension of Cleft Constructions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	Language Acquisition Vol. 25(3), pp. 284-314	article	DOI
Abstract: We present a series of experiments investigating English-speaking children’s comprehension of it-clefts and wh-pseudoclefts. Previous developmental work has found children to have asymmetric difficulties interpreting object clefts. We show that these difficulties disappear when clefts are presented in felicitous contexts, where children behave adultlike both in their evaluation of the truth of cleft sentences and in their response-time patterns. When the pragmatic requirements on cleft use were not satisfied, children succeeded only on some types of clefts. However, they did not uniformly show difficulties with infelicitous object clefts; rather, success correlated with the amenability of the structure to a word-order-based parsing strategy. We argue that children fail to build an adultlike representation for infelicitous clefts across the board, but pressures to carry out the task lead them to adopt interpretive means outside of what is licensed in adult grammar.
BibTeX: @article{Aravind2018, author = {Athulya Aravind and Martin Hackl and Ken Wexler}, title = {Syntactic and Pragmatic Factors in Children's Comprehension of Cleft Constructions}, journal = {Language Acquisition}, publisher = {Informa UK Limited}, year = {2018}, volume = {25}, number = {3}, pages = {284--314}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2017.1316725} }
Bajaj, V., Deprez, V. and Musolino, J.	The Question Under Discussion and its Role in Scopal Ambiguity Resolution [BibTeX]	2014	Proceedings from the 48th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society	inproceedings	URL
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Bajaj2014, author = {Vandana Bajaj and Viviane Deprez and Julien Musolino}, title = {The Question Under Discussion and its Role in Scopal Ambiguity Resolution}, booktitle = {Proceedings from the 48th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society}, year = {2014}, url = {https://www.academia.edu/download/33016891/CLS48_BajajDeprezMusolino.pdf} }
Barlew, J.	Salience and uniqueness and the definite determiner -tè in Bulu [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Proceedings of SALT 24	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: Analyses of the meanings of definite determiners both in English (Kadmon 1990; Roberts 2003; Elbourne 2013, among others) and crosslinguistically (Schwarz 2013; Arkoh & Matthewson 2013) have been framed in terms of two dimensions of meaning: familiarity and uniqueness. This paper presents an analysis of the Bulu (Bantu, Cameroon) definite determiner -tè. I argue that the antecedent of an NP with -tè is required to be salient and unique. Thus, salience is an additional dimension along which there is crosslinguistic variation in the meanings of definite determiners.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Barlew2014, author = {Jefferson Barlew}, title = {Salience and uniqueness and the definite determiner -tè in Bulu}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 24}, year = {2014}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v24i0.2992} }
Benz, A. and van Rooij, R.	Optimal Assertions and what they implicate, A uniform game theoretic approach [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2007	Topoi Vol. 26, pp. 63-78	article	DOI
Abstract: To determine what the speaker in a cooperative dialog meant with his assertion, on top of what he explicitly said, it is crucial that we assume that the assertion he gave was optimal. In determining optimal assertions we assume that dialogs are embedded in decision problems (van Rooij 2003) and use backwards induction for calculating them (Benz 2006). In this paper, we show that in terms of our framework we can account for several types of implicatures in a uniform way, suggesting that there is no need for an independent linguistic theory of generalized implicatures. In the final section, we show how we can embed our theory in the framework of signaling games, and how it relates with other game theoretic analyses of implicatures.
BibTeX: @article{Benz2007, author = {Anton Benz and Rober van Rooij}, title = {Optimal Assertions and what they implicate, A uniform game theoretic approach}, journal = {Topoi}, year = {2007}, volume = {26}, pages = {63-78}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-006-9007-3} }
Bill, C., Romoli, J., Schwarz, F. and Crain, S.	Scalar Implicatures Versus Presuppositions: The View from Acquisition [BibTeX]	2016	Topoi Vol. 35(1), pp. 57-71	article	DOI
BibTeX: @article{Bill2016, author = {Cory Bill and Jacopo Romoli and Florian Schwarz and Stephen Crain}, title = {Scalar Implicatures Versus Presuppositions: The View from Acquisition}, journal = {Topoi}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2016}, volume = {35}, number = {1}, pages = {57--71}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9276-1} }
Bledin, J. and Rawlins, K.	Epistemic resistance moves [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2016	Proceedings of SALT	inproceedings
Abstract: This paper introduces and analyzes a new kind of non-acceptance, non-disagreeing move: resistance. We focus in particular on attention-targeted resistance facilitated by epistemic possibility claims. In this response type, we suggest, an agent draws attention to some subsidiary issue that they think might cause an interlocutor to withdraw a previous commitment. We develop a granularity model of attention where drawing attention in discourse can refine the space of possibilities under consideration and consequently lead to changes in view.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Bledin2016, author = {Justin Bledin and Kyle Rawlins}, title = {Epistemic resistance moves}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT}, year = {2016} }
Bledin, J. and Rawlins, K.	Resistance and Resolution: Attentional Dynamics in Discourse [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	Journal Of Semantics Vol. 37(1), pp. 43-82	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper centers on discourses where instead of accepting or rejecting an assertion, a hearer uses an epistemic possibility claim to bring a new subject matter to the original speaker’s attention and consequently leads this speaker to change her mind and retract the initial claim. To analyze such resistance moves, we develop a new theory of attention-shift-induced belief change in which attention is modeled using granularity-levels or resolutions of logical space and refining a speaker’s attention can allow her to combine more of her resolution-sensitive information and potentially change her beliefs. We integrate this theory into pre-existing machinery from the literature on formal models of discourse to account for both the informational and attentional dynamics in epistemic resistance discourses, and to lay out some of the formal prerequisites for a more comprehensive theory of resistance moves in general. Along the way, we introduce the new concept of a subject matter under public attention (SUP) and compare this with the more familiar concept of a question under discussion (QUD).
BibTeX: @article{Bledin2020, author = {Justin Bledin and Kyle Rawlins}, title = {Resistance and Resolution: Attentional Dynamics in Discourse}, journal = {Journal Of Semantics}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2020}, volume = {37}, number = {1}, pages = {43-82}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffz015} }
Carlson, L.	Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1983		book
Abstract: This essay constitutes yet another approach to the fields of inquiry variously known as discourse analysis, discourse grammar, text grammar, functional 1 syntax, or text linguistics. An attempt is made to develop a fairly abstract unified theoretical frame work for the description of discourse which actually helps explain concrete facts of the discourse grammar of a naturallanguage.2 This plan is reflected in the division of the study into two parts. In the first part, a semiformal framework for describing conversational discourse is developed in some detail. In the second part, this framework is applied to the functional syntax of English. The relation of the discourse grammar of Part II to the descriptive frame work of Part I can be instructively compared to the relation of Tarskian semantics to model theory. Tarski's semantics defmes a concept of truth of a sentence in a model, an independently identified construct. Analogously, my rules of discourse grammar defme a concept of appropriateness of a sentence to a given context. The task of the first Part of the essay is to characterize the relevant notion of context. Although my original statement of the problem was linguistic - how to describe the meaning, or function, of certain aspects of word order and intonation - Part I is largely an application of various methods and results of philosophical logic. The justification of the interdisciplinary approach is the simplicity and naturalness of the eventual answers to specific linguistic problems in Part II.
BibTeX: @book{Carlson1983, author = {Lauri Carlson}, title = {Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis}, publisher = {Springer Netherlands}, year = {1983} }
Di Bacco, F., Tieu, L., Moscati, V., Folli, R., Sevdali, C. and Romoli, J.	Testing the QUD Approach: Children’s Comprehension of Scopally Ambiguous Questions [BibTeX]	2017	Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 177-186	inproceedings	URL
BibTeX: @inproceedings{DiBacco2017, author = {Federica Di Bacco and Lyn Tieu and Vincenzo Moscati and Raffaella Folli and Christina Sevdali and Jacopo Romoli}, title = {Testing the QUD Approach: Children’s Comprehension of Scopally Ambiguous Questions}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics}, year = {2017}, pages = {177-186}, url = {http://lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/34/paper3310.pdf} }
Di Bacco, F.	Ambiguous questions and perfectible conditionals: the perspective from language acquisition [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	School: Ulster University	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: This thesis investigates two phenomena - scope ambiguity resolution and conditional perfection, from the point of view of language acquisition. An empirical study was conducted to determine how scopally ambiguous sentences and perfectible conditionals are interpreted by children and adults, and if there are any differences between the two groups. In relation to the first, two experiments conducted on children’s and adults’ interpretation of scopally ambiguous declarative sentences and questions have shown that children are adult-like in their ability to access inverse scope. This is in contrast with the view that sees children as unable to obtain inverse scope, and it is instead compatible with the QUD approach. I propose an extension of the QUD approach to include questions. In the case of conditionals, two experiments were conducted to test the theory that conditional perfection is a scalar implicature: if it is so, children should obtain this inference less often than adults. However, the results show that both children and adults obtain a conjunctive-like reading for these kind of statements. This reading is widely reported in children, and one theory attributes it to their inability to construct the meaning of a conditional in their mind. The conjunctive-like reading is less frequent in adults, but it is possible that pragmatic factors have been reported for the high rate of occurrence observed in this study, as adults’ interpretation of conditionals is reported to be influenced by the task. I also sketch another explanation of the results, based on the idea that both the conjunctive inference and conditional perfection can be derived as scalar implicatures.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{DiBacco2018, author = {Federica Di Bacco}, title = {Ambiguous questions and perfectible conditionals: the perspective from language acquisition}, school = {Ulster University}, year = {2018}, url = {https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/ambiguous-questions-and-perfectible-conditionals} }
Dillon, B., Clifton, C. and Frazier, L.	Pushed aside: parentheticals, memory and processing [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Language, Cognition and Neuroscience Vol. 29(4), pp. 483-498	article	DOI
Abstract: In the current work, we test the hypothesis that ‘at-issue’ and ‘not-at-issue’ contents are processed semi-independently. In a written rating study comparing restrictive relative clauses and parentheticals in interrogatives and declaratives, we observe a significantly larger length penalty for restrictive relative clauses than for parentheticals. This difference cannot be attributed to differences in how listeners allocate attention across a sentence; a second study confirms that readers are equally sensitive to agreement violations in at-issue and not-at-issue contents. A third rating experiment shows that the results do not depend on the restrictive relative clause intervening on the subject-verb dependency. A final experiment shows that the observed effects obtain with definite determiners and demonstratives alike. Taken jointly, the results suggest that the parenthetical structures are processed independently of their embedding utterance, which in turn suggests that syntactic memory may be more differentiated than is typically assumed.
BibTeX: @article{Dillon2014, author = {Brian Dillon and Charles Clifton and Lyn Frazier}, title = {Pushed aside: parentheticals, memory and processing}, journal = {Language, Cognition and Neuroscience}, publisher = {Informa}, year = {2014}, volume = {29}, number = {4}, pages = {483--498}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.866684} }
Djalali, A., Clausen, D., Lauer, S., Schultz, K. and Potts, C.	Modeling Expert and Effects and Common and Ground Using and Questions Under and Discussion [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Building Representations of Common Ground with Intelligent Agents: Papers from the 2011 AAAI Fall Symposium (FS-11-02)	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: We present a graph-theoretic model of discourse based on the Questions Under Discussion (QUD) framework. Questions and assertions are treated as edges connecting discourse states in a rooted graph, modeling the introduction and resolution of various QUDs as paths through this graph. The amount of common ground presupposed by interlocutors at any given point in a discourse corresponds to graphical depth. We introduce a new task-oriented dialogue corpus and show that experts, presuming a richer common ground, initiate discourse at a deeper level than novices. The QUD-graph model thus enables us to quantify the experthood of a speaker relative to a fixed domain and to characterize the ways in which rich common ground facilitates more efficient communication.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Djalali2011, author = {Alex Djalali and David Clausen and Sven Lauer and Karl Schultz and Christopher Potts}, title = {Modeling Expert and Effects and Common and Ground Using and Questions Under and Discussion}, booktitle = {Building Representations of Common Ground with Intelligent Agents: Papers from the 2011 AAAI Fall Symposium (FS-11-02)}, year = {2011}, url = {https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/FSS/FSS11/paper/view/4186/4502} }
Franke, M., de Jager, T. and van Rooij, R.	Relevance in Cooperation and Conflict [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Journal of Logic and Computation Vol. 22(1), pp. 23-54	article	DOI
Abstract: Linguistic pragmatics assumes that conversation is a by-and-large cooperative endeavour. Although clearly reasonable and helpful, this is an idealization and it pays to ask what happens to natural language interpretation if the presumption of cooperativity is dropped, be that entirely or only to some degree. Game theory suggests itself as a formal tool for modelling the different degrees in which speaker and hearer may or may not have common interests, and it is in this game-theoretic light that this article investigates in particular a notion of speaker-relevance and its impact on the question why we communicate cooperatively in most cases and what happens to pragmatic phenomena such as conversational implicatures if full cooperation cannot be assumed.
BibTeX: @article{Franke2012, author = {Michael Franke and Tikitu de Jager and Robert van Rooij}, title = {Relevance in Cooperation and Conflict}, journal = {Journal of Logic and Computation}, year = {2012}, volume = {22}, number = {1}, pages = {23-54}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exp070} }
García-Carpintero, M.	Contexts as Shared Commitments [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 6	article	DOI
Abstract: Contemporary semantics assumes two influential notions of context: one coming from Kaplan (1989), on which contexts are sets of predetermined parameters, and another originating in Stalnaker (1978), on which contexts are sets of propositions that are “common ground.” The latter is deservedly more popular, given its flexibility in accounting for context-dependent aspects of language beyond manifest indexicals, such as epistemic modals, predicates of taste, and so on and so forth; in fact, properly dealing with demonstratives (perhaps ultimately all indexicals) requires that further flexibility. Even if we acknowledge Lewis (1980)'s point that, in a sense, Kaplanian contexts already include common ground contexts, it is better to be clear and explicit about what contexts constitutively are. Now, Stalnaker (1978, 2002, 2014) defines context-as-common-ground as a set of propositions, but recent work shows that this is not an accurate conception. The paper explains why, and provides an alternative. The main reason is that several phenomena (presuppositional treatments of pejoratives and predicates of taste, forces other than assertion) require that the common ground includes non-doxastic attitudes such as appraisals, emotions, etc. Hence the common ground should not be taken to include merely contents (propositions), but those together with attitudes concerning them: shared commitments, as I will defend.
BibTeX: @article{GarciaCarpintero2015, author = {Manuel García-Carpintero}, title = {Contexts as Shared Commitments}, journal = {Frontiers in Psychology}, year = {2015}, volume = {6}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01932} }
Ginzburg, J. and Kolliakou, D.	Answers without questions: The emergence of fragments in child language [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2009	Journal of Linguistics Vol. 45(3), pp. 641-673	article	DOI
Abstract: Non-sentential utterances (NSUs), utterances that lack an overt verbal (more generally predicative) constituent, are common in adult speech. This paper presents the results of a corpus study of the emergence of certain classes of NSUs in child language, based primarily on data from the Manchester Corpus from CHILDES. Our principal finding is the late short query effect: the main classes of non-sentential queries (NSQs) are acquired much later than non-sentential answers (NSAs). At a stage when the child has productive use of sentential queries, and has mastered elliptical declaratives and the polar lexemes 'yes' and 'no', non-sentential questions are virtually absent. This happens despite the fact that such questions are common in the speech of the child's caregivers and that the contexts are ones which should facilitate the production of such NSUs. We argue that these results are intrinsically problematic for analyses of NSUs in terms of a single, generalized mechanism of phonological reduction, as standard in generative grammar. We show how to model this effect within an approach of dialogue-oriented constructionism, wherein NSUs are grammatical words or constructions whose main predicate is a contextual parameter resolved in a manner akin to indexical terms, the relevant aspect of context being the discourse topic. We sketch an explanation for the order of acquisition of NSUs, based on a notion which combines accessibility of contextual parameters and complexity of content construction.
BibTeX: @article{Ginzburg2009a, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Dimitra Kolliakou}, title = {Answers without questions: The emergence of fragments in child language}, journal = {Journal of Linguistics}, year = {2009}, volume = {45}, number = {3}, pages = {641-673}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990053} }
Ginzburg, J. and Moradlou, S.	The Earliest Utterances in Dialogue: Towards a Formal Theory of Parent/Child Talk in Interaction [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Proceedings of SemDial 2013 (DialDam)	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: Early, initial utterances by children have received relatively little attention from researchers on language acquisition and almost no attempts to describe them using a formal grammar. In this paper we develop a taxonomy for such utterances, inspired by a study of the Providence corpus from CHILDES and driven by the need to describe how the contents of early child utterances arise from an interaction of form and dialogical context. The results of our corpus study demonstrate that even at this early stage quite intricate semantic mechanisms are in play, including non-referential meaning, akin to non–specific readings of quantifiers. We sketch a formal framework for describing the dialogue context and grammar that underlies such utterances. We consider very briefly and informally how some such utterances emerge from parent/child interaction.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Ginzburg2013a, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Sara Moradlou}, title = {The Earliest Utterances in Dialogue: Towards a Formal Theory of Parent/Child Talk in Interaction}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SemDial 2013 (DialDam)}, year = {2013}, url = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/semdial/dialdam/papers/GinzburgMoradlou_dialdam.pdf} }
Green, M.S.	Illocutionary Force and Semantic Content [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2000	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 23(5), pp. 435-473	article	URL
Abstract: Illocutionary force and semantic content are widely held to occupy utterly different categories in at least two ways: (1) any expression serving as an indicator of illocutionary force must be without semantic content, and (2) no such expression can embed. A refined account of the force/content distinction is offered here that (a) does the explanatory work that the standard distinction does, while, in accounting for the behavior of a range of parenthetical expressions, (b) shows neither (1) nor (2) to be compulsory. The refined account also motivates a development of the "scorekeeping model" of conversation, helps to isolate a distinction between illocutionary force and illocutionary commitment, and reveals one precise respect in which meaning is only explicable in terms of use.
BibTeX: @article{Green2000, author = {Mitchell S. Green}, title = {Illocutionary Force and Semantic Content}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {2000}, volume = {23}, number = {5}, pages = {435-473}, url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/25001787} }
Gualmini, A., Hulsey, S., Hacquard, V. and Fox, D.	The Question-Answer Requirement for scope assignment [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2008	Natural Language Semantics Vol. 16, pp. 205-237	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper focuses on children’s interpretation of sentences containing negation and a quantifier (e.g., The detective didn’t find some guys). Recent studies suggest that, although children are capable of accessing inverse scope interpretations of such sentences, they resort to surface scope to a larger extent than adults. To account for children’s behavioral pattern, we propose a new factor at play in Truth Value Judgment tasks: the Question–Answer Requirement (QAR). According to the QAR, children (and adults) must interpret the target sentence that they evaluate as an answer to a question that is made salient by the discourse.
BibTeX: @article{Gualmini2008, author = {Andrea Gualmini and Sarah Hulsey and Valentine Hacquard and Danny Fox}, title = {The Question-Answer Requirement for scope assignment}, journal = {Natural Language Semantics}, year = {2008}, volume = {16}, pages = {205-237}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9029-z} }
Gualmini, A. and Schwarz, B.	Solving learnability problems in the acquisition of semantics [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2009	Journal of Semantics Vol. 26, pp. 185-215	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper proposes solutions to two semantic learnability problems that have featured prominently in the literature on language acquisition. Both problems have often been deemed unsolvable for language learners as a matter of logic, and they have accordingly been taken to motivate principles making sure they will not actually arise in the course of language acquisition. One problem concerns the acquisition of ambiguous sentences whose readings are related by entailment. Crain et al.'s (1994) Semantic Subset Principle is intended to preempt the problem by preventing acquisition of the weaker reading before the stronger reading has been acquired. In contrast, we demonstrate that this very order of acquisition becomes feasible in principle if children can exploit non-truth-conditional evidence of various kinds or evidence from sentences containing downward entailing operators. The other learnability problem concerns the potential need for expunction of certain readings of ambiguous sentences from a child's grammar. It has often been assumed that, in the absence of negative evidence, such expunction is impossible, and Wexler and Manzini (1987) posit a Subset Principle to preempt the problematic learning scenario. We argue, however, that if the evidence available to the child includes dialogues, and if listeners are expected to interpret speakers' utterances charitably, then expunction of unavailable readings is possible in principle.
BibTeX: @article{Gualmini2009, author = {Andrea Gualmini and Bernhard Schwarz}, title = {Solving learnability problems in the acquisition of semantics}, journal = {Journal of Semantics}, year = {2009}, volume = {26}, pages = {185-215}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp002} }
Hawkins, R. and Goodman, N.	Why do you ask? The informational dynamics of questions and answers [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019		unpublished	URL
Abstract: Asking questions is one of our most efficient and reliable means of learning about the world. Yet we do not often pose these questions to an impartial oracle; we ask cooperative social partners, in dialogue. In this paper, we aim to reconcile formal models of optimal question asking and answering with classic effects of social context. We begin from the observation that question-answer dialogue is motivated by a two-sided asymmetry in beliefs: questioners have a private goal but lack goal-relevant information about the world, and answerers have private information but lack knowledge about the questioner's goal. We formalize this problem in a computational framework and derive pragmatic questioner and answerer behavior from recursive social reasoning. Critically, we predict that pragmatic answerers go beyond the literal meaning of the question to be informative with respect to inferred goals, and that pragmatic questioners may therefore select questions to more unambiguously signal their goals. We evaluate our pragmatic models against asocial models in two ways. First, we present computational simulations accounting for three classic answerer effects in psycholinguistics. We then introduce the Hidden Goal paradigm for experimentally eliciting questioner and answerer behavior in scenarios where there is uncertainty about the questioner's goal. We report data from three experiments in this paradigm and show how our core computational framework can be composed with more sophisticated question semantics, hierarchical goal spaces, and a persistent state over which extended dialogue can unfold. We find that social inference is needed to account for critical aspects of the data.
BibTeX: @unpublished{Hawkins2019, author = {Robert Hawkins and Noah Goodman}, title = {Why do you ask? The informational dynamics of questions and answers}, year = {2019}, note = {In the PsyArxiv Preprints}, url = {https://psyarxiv.com/j2cp6} }
Hintikka, J.	Logic, Language-Games, and Information [BibTeX]	1973		book
BibTeX: @book{Hintikka1973, author = {Jaakko Hintikka}, title = {Logic, Language-Games, and Information}, publisher = {Clarendon Press}, year = {1973} }
Hintikka, J. and Saarinen, E.	Information-seeking dialogues: Some of their logical properties [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1979	Studia Logica Vol. 32, pp. 355-363	article	DOI
Abstract: The dialogical games introduced in Jaakko Hintikka, “Information-Seeking Dialogues: A Model,” (Erkenntnis, vol. 14, 1979) are studied here to answer the question as to what the “natural logic” or the logic of natural language is. In a natural language certain epistemic elements are not explicitly indicated, but they determine which inference rules are valid. By means of dialogical games, the question is answered: all classical first-order rules have to be modified in the same way in which some of them are modified in the transition to intuitionistic logic. (Furthermore, in some cases quantificational rules have to be modified further.) The rules that are left unmodified by intuitionists are applicable only to the output of certain game rules, but not to others. In. this sense, neither classical nor yet intuitionistic logic is the logic of natural language. We need a new type of nonclassical logic, justified by our information-seeking dialogues.
BibTeX: @article{Hintikka1979, author = {Jaakko Hintikka and Esa Saarinen}, title = {Information-seeking dialogues: Some of their logical properties}, journal = {Studia Logica}, year = {1979}, volume = {32}, pages = {355-363}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00370473} }
Hintikka, J.	On the logic of an interrogative model of scientific inquiry [BibTeX]	1981	Synthese Vol. 47, pp. 69-83	article
BibTeX: @article{Hintikka1981, author = {Jaakko Hintikka}, title = {On the logic of an interrogative model of scientific inquiry}, journal = {Synthese}, year = {1981}, volume = {47}, pages = {69-83} }
Kehler, A.	Ellipsis and anaphora in a QUD model of discourse [BibTeX]	2009	Talk	misc	URL
BibTeX: @misc{Kehler2009, author = {Andrew Kehler}, title = {Ellipsis and anaphora in a QUD model of discourse}, year = {2009}, note = {Presented at U Michigan Workshop in Philosophy and Linguistics}, url = {http://web.eecs.umich.edu/ rthomaso/lpw09/kehler.pdf} }
Kurumada, C.	Contextual inferences over speakers pragmatic intentions Preschoolers and comprehension of and contrastive prosody [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	UC Merced Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: We investigate pre-schoolers’ ability in drawing pragmatic inferences based on prosodic information. Previous work has found that young children are generally oblivious to intonational meaning of utterances. In particular, the ability to comprehend contrastive prosody develops late during language acquisition (after the age of 6). In three experiments, we show that preschoolers can engage in prosody-based pragmatic inferences if the context provides supports for them. Furthermore, we find that preschoolers’ interpretation of prosody involves complex counter-factual reasoning (‘what the speaker would have said if she had intended another meaning’). The picture emerging from our studies contrasts with previous work: Through rich contextual inferences, four-year olds are able to bootstrap their interpretation of prosodic information, and achieve adult like performance in intonation interpretation.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Kurumada2013, author = {Kurumada, Chigusa}, title = {Contextual inferences over speakers pragmatic intentions Preschoolers and comprehension of and contrastive prosody}, booktitle = {UC Merced Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society}, year = {2013}, url = {https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0g77z5t8} }
Lacerda, R.	Information Structure in Child English: Contrastive Topicalization and the Dative Alternation [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2017	Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 387-400	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: This paper investigates the interface between syntax and discourse in first language acquisition and reports the results of an elicited production experiment designed to assess how four-to-five-year-old children acquiring English make use of the so-called dative alternation in contexts of contrastive topicalization. A number of authors (Gropen et al. 1989; Krifka 2003; Bresnan et al. 2007; Rappaport Hovav and Levin 2008, a.o.) have shown that the dative alternation, illustrated in (1), is not free, but rather it is subject to semantic and pragmatic conditions. In the specific case of the verb give, which is the prototypical verb of the dative alternation, the (near-)identical semantics of the two alternating constructions allows for the role of Information Structure to be highlighted.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Lacerda2017, author = {Renato Lacerda}, title = {Information Structure in Child English: Contrastive Topicalization and the Dative Alternation}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development}, year = {2017}, pages = {387-400}, url = {http://www.lingref.com/bucld/41/BUCLD41-31.pdf} }
Lewis, D.	Scorekeeping in a language game [BibTeX]	1979	Semantics from a Different Point of View	incollection	URL
BibTeX: @incollection{Lewis1979, author = {David Lewis}, title = {Scorekeeping in a language game}, booktitle = {Semantics from a Different Point of View}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {1979}, url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/30227173} }
Lewis, S., Hacquard, V. and Lidz, J.	"Think" Pragmatically: Children's Interpretation of Belief Reports [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2017	Language Learning and Development Vol. 13(4), pp. 395-417	article	DOI
Abstract: Children under 4 years of age often evaluate belief reports based on reality instead of beliefs. They tend to reject sentences like, “John thinks that giraffes have stripes” on the grounds that giraffes do not have stripes. Previous accounts have proposed that such judgments reflect immature Theory of Mind or immature syntactic/semantic representations. We argue that the difficulty is actually pragmatic. Adults frequently use belief reports to provide information about reality (e.g., “I think the stove is still hot”). Young children have difficulty determining when the main point is reality (the stove situation) vs. mental states (John’s ideas about giraffes). We show that if the context emphasizes beliefs, children are more able to evaluate belief reports appropriately (Experiment 1). The pattern of children’s truth value judgments demonstrates that they understand the literal meaning of think sentences, despite their pragmatic difficulty grasping the speaker’s intention (Experiment 2).
BibTeX: @article{Lewis2017, author = {Shevaun Lewis and Valentine Hacquard and Jeffrey Lidz}, title = {"Think" Pragmatically: Children's Interpretation of Belief Reports}, journal = {Language Learning and Development}, publisher = {Informa UK Limited}, year = {2017}, volume = {13}, number = {4}, pages = {395--417}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2017.1296768} }
Malamud, S.A. and Stephenson, T.	Three ways to avoid commitments: Declarative force modifiers in the conversational scoreboard [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Journal of Semantics Vol. 32(2), pp. 275-311	article	DOI
Abstract: We discuss three English markers that modify the force of declarative utterances: reverse-polarity tags (Tom's here, isn't he?), same-polarity tags (Tom's here, is he?), and rising intonation (Tom's here?). The three are similar in that they seem to render the assertion expressed by the attached declarative tentative in some way. The differences among them are brought out especially clearly in dialogues with taste predicates (tasty, attractive) and vague scalar predicates applied to borderline cases (red for an orange-red object). These differences have consequences for the correct model of conversation, common ground, and speech acts. Our proposal involves a conversational ‘scoreboard’ that allows speakers to make strong or tentative commitments, propose changes or raise expectations about the Common Ground, propose issues to be resolved, and hazard guesses about other participants' beliefs. This model allows for distinctions among speech acts that are subtle and fine-grained enough to account for the behavior of these three markers.
BibTeX: @article{Malamud2015, author = {Malamud, Sophia A and Stephenson, Tamina}, title = {Three ways to avoid commitments: Declarative force modifiers in the conversational scoreboard}, journal = {Journal of Semantics}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2015}, volume = {32}, number = {2}, pages = {275--311}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffu002} }
Meertens, E., Egger, S. and Romero, M.	Multiple accent in alternative questions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	Vol. 23(2)Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: Alternative Questions (AltQs) are typically characterized by two prosodic cues: a final falling boundary tone and a pitch accent on each disjunct. Recent accounts in the literature have taken the final fall as the central surface cue for AltQ interpretation or have assigned a vacuous semantic contribution to the multiple accent on the disjuncts. Based on data from English and Turkish, we argue that both cues are equally important and require modelling in a unified account of AltQs. Combining ingredients from the literature (Roberts, 1996; Biezma, 2009; Westera, 2017), we propose that, essentially, the multiple accent shapes the Question under Discussion (QUD) and that the final fall, or the lack thereof, indicates restrictions on the content of the QUD via (un)satisfaction of Attention Maxims.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Meertens2019, author = {Erlinde Meertens and Sophie Egger and Maribel Romero}, title = {Multiple accent in alternative questions}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung}, year = {2019}, volume = {23}, number = {2}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2019.v23i2.605} }
Meroni, L. and Gualmini, A.	Question under discussion triggers implicature calculation in young children [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Lingue e Linguaggio Vol. 12(1), pp. 121-139	article	DOI
Abstract: Many experimental studies have shown that children don't compute scalar implicatures (SIs) as much as adults, despite mastering the prerequisites to their computation (Chierchia et al. 2001). In addition, different tasks (e.g., picture-selection or act-out) have been shown to affect SIs computation in children, leading to the claim that the complexity of judgment-tasks is beyond children's limited cognitive resources. (Pouscoulous et al. 2007; Katsos & Bishop 2011). This paper presents experimental data showing that (i) children can in fact compute SIs to the same extent as adults when this is the only contextually available option (Gualmini et al. 2008) and that (ii) they do so in a typical Truth Value Judgment task (Crain & Thornton 1998).
BibTeX: @article{Meroni2013, author = {Luisa Meroni and Andrea Gualmini}, title = {Question under discussion triggers implicature calculation in young children}, journal = {Lingue e Linguaggio}, year = {2013}, volume = {12}, number = {1}, pages = {121-139}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1418/73679} }
Moradlou, S. and Ginzburg, J.	Learning to Understand Questions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Proceedings of SemDial 2014 (DialWatt)	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: Our aim in this paper is to characterise the learning process by means of which children get to understand questions. In contrast to the acquisition of production of questions, an area which has a long history, the emergence of question comprehension is largely uncharted territory. We limit our attention in this paper to wh–interrogatives, since generally there is overt evidence for their understanding before other types of questions such as polar questions. The general idea we follow is that the child learns to understand questions interactively, as there is a long period of “training” during which the carer asks questions and answers them himself. Since the answers can be understood by the child, given sufficient exposure the child deduces an association between the pre-answer utterance and a question. Nonetheless, the process as we describe it here assumes a number of very strong priors. In particular, we will be assuming for some stages of the process that the child is attuned to a very simple erotetic logic—a logic which given certain assumptions allows one to deduce questions. We provide evidence for our model based on classifying interactions between a child and her parents in the multimodal Providence corpus from CHILDES.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Moradlou2014, author = {Sara Moradlou and Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {Learning to Understand Questions}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SemDial 2014 (DialWatt)}, year = {2014}, url = {https://sites.google.com/site/jonathanginzburgswebsite/publications/semdial14-mg.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1} }
Murray, S.E.	Varieties of update [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 7	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper discusses three potential varieties of update: updates to the common ground, structuring updates, and updates that introduce discourse referents. These different types of update are used to model different aspects of natural language phenomena. Not-at-issue information directly updates the common ground. The illocutionary mood of a sentence structures the context. Other updates introduce discourse referents of various types, including propositional discourse referents for at-issue information. Distinguishing these types of update allows a unified treatment of a broad range of phenomena, including the grammatical evidentials found in Cheyenne (Algonquian) as well as English evidential parentheticals, appositives, and mood marking. An update semantics that can formalize all of these varieties of update is given, integrating the different kinds of semantic contributions into a single representation of meaning.
BibTeX: @article{Murray2014, author = {Sarah E. Murray}, title = {Varieties of update}, journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2014}, volume = {7}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.2} }
Onea, E. and Beaver, D.	Hungarian focus is not exhausted [BibTeX]	2010	Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XIX, 2009	inproceedings	DOI
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Onea2010, author = {Edgar Onea and David Beaver}, title = {Hungarian focus is not exhausted}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XIX, 2009}, publisher = {CLC Publications}, year = {2010}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v19i0.2524} }
Plebani, M. and Spolaore, G.	Subject Matter: A Modest Proposal [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 71(3), pp. 605-622	article	DOI URL
Abstract: The notion of subject matter is a key concern of contemporary philosophy of language and logic. A central task for a theory of subject matter is to characterise the notion of sentential subject matter, that is, to assign to each sentence of a given language a subject matter that may count as its subject matter. In this paper, we elaborate upon David Lewis’ account of subject matter. Lewis’ proposal is simple and elegant but lacks a satisfactory characterisation of sentential subject matter. Drawing on linguistic literature on focus and on the question under discussion, we offer a neo-Lewisian account of subject matter, which retains all the virtues of Lewis’ but also includes an attractive characterisation of sentential subject matter.
BibTeX: @article{Plebani2020, author = {Plebani, Matteo and Spolaore, Giuseppe}, title = {Subject Matter: A Modest Proposal}, journal = {The Philosophical Quarterly}, year = {2020}, volume = {71}, number = {3}, pages = {605-622}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqaa054}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqaa054} }
Roberts, C.	Speech acts in discourse context [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	New Work on Speech Acts, pp. 317-359	incollection
Abstract: There is evidence for the existence across all known languages of three basic clause types: declarative, interrogative, and imperative. Though this distinction in grammatical mood may be reflected in quite different ways (syntactic, morphological, lexical, etc.) in different languages, cross-linguistically we find a robust generalization: The choice of mood in a clausal utterance is reflected in a default correlation to one of the three basic types of move in a language game: making an assertion (declarative), posing a question (interrogative), or proposing to one’s addressee(s) the adoption of a goal (imperative). This is in striking contrast to the lack of regular correlation between the conventional content of constituents and speech act types in the tradition of Austin and Searle. This paper sketches an approach to speech acts in which mood does not semantically determine illocutionary force. In a clause, the conventional content of mood determines the semantic type of the clause, and, given the nature of discourse, that type most naturally lends itself to serving as a particular type of speech act, i.e. to serving as one of the three basic types of language game moves. The type of semantics for grammatical mood that I assume is illustrated here with the imperative. As in earlier work, I take discourse to be a certain type of language game, with felicity tightly constrained by the goals and intentions of the interlocutors and, in particular, by the question under discussion. This pragmatic framework, together with the proposed semantics of mood, permits us to explain the kinds of contextual factors that lead to the attested Searlean interpretations of particular speech acts, and is compatible with a simple account of performatives in which performativity is epiphenomenal on the semantics of the predicates in question when used with a 1st person subject.
BibTeX: @incollection{Roberts2018, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Speech acts in discourse context}, booktitle = {New Work on Speech Acts}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2018}, pages = {317-359} }
Romoli, J., Folli, R. and Sevdali, C.	Testing the QUD approach: Children’s comprehension of scopally ambiguous questions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2016	West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: Children and adults have been reported to differ in their interpretation of scopally ambiguous sen- tences such as Every horse didn’t jump over the fence (Musolino 1998; Gualmini 2004; Gualmini et al. 2008; Musolino & Lidz 2006; see also Lidz & Musolino 2002; Musolino et al. 2000; Musolino & Lidz 2006; Kra ̈mer 2000; Moscati & Crain 2014; Moscati et al. 2016, among many others). A recent approach in the literature treats this difference as fully pragmatic in nature. In particular, Gualmini et al. (2008) have proposed an explanation based on what they call the Question-Answer Requirement (QAR), which locates the source of the difference in the understood Question Under Discussion (QUD) in the context. The main idea behind the QAR is that any sentence is to be understood as an answer to a QUD. As a consequence, in the case of scopally ambiguous sentences, a given reading of the sentence is accessible (to adults and children) only if it constitutes a possible answer to the contextual QUD. Children and adults are then claimed to differ only in how they handle and accommodate QUDs. In particular, if the reading that would answer the salient QUD is false in the context, adults, but not children, are able to accommodate a new QUD in order to access the true interpretation of the ambiguous sentence.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Romoli2016, author = {Jacopo Romoli and Raffaella Folli and Christina Sevdali}, title = {Testing the QUD approach: Children’s comprehension of scopally ambiguous questions}, booktitle = {West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics}, year = {2016}, url = {https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/en/publications/testing-the-qud-approach-childrens-comprehension-of-scopally-ambi-3} }
van Rooij, R.	Quality and quantity of information exchange [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2003	Journal of Logic, Language and Information Vol. 12, pp. 423-451	article	DOI
Abstract: The paper deals with credible and relevantinformation flow in dialogs: How useful is it for areceiver to get some information, how useful is it fora sender to give this information, and how much credibleinformation can we expect to flow between sender andreceiver? What is the relation between semantics andpragmatics? These Gricean questions will be addressedfrom a decision and game-theoretical point of view.
BibTeX: @article{Rooij2003e, author = {Robert van Rooij}, title = {Quality and quantity of information exchange}, journal = {Journal of Logic, Language and Information}, year = {2003}, volume = {12}, pages = {423-451}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025054901745} }
van Rooij, R.	Game Theory and Quantity Implicatures [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2008	Journal of Economic Methodology Vol. 15, pp. 261-274	article	DOI
Abstract: In this paper we seek to account for scalar implicatures and Horn's division of pragmatic labor in game‐theoretical terms by making use mainly of refinements of the standard solution concept of signaling games. Scalar implicatures are accounted for in terms of Farrell's (1993) notion of a ‘neologism‐proof’ equilibrium together with Grice's maxim of Quality. Horn's division of pragmatic labor is accounted for in terms of Cho and Kreps’ (1987) notion of ‘equilibrium domination’ and their ‘Intuitive Criterion’.
BibTeX: @article{Rooij2008, author = {Robert van Rooij}, title = {Game Theory and Quantity Implicatures}, journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology}, year = {2008}, volume = {15}, pages = {261-274}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780802321376} }
van Rooij, R. and de Jager, T.	Explaining quantity implicatures [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Journal of Logic, Language and Information Vol. 21, pp. 461-477	article	DOI
Abstract: We give derivations of two formal models of Gricean Quantity implicature and strong exhaustivity in bidirectional optimality theory and in a signalling games framework. We show that, under a unifying model based on signalling games, these interpretative strategies are game-theoretic equilibria when the speaker is known to be respectively minimally and maximally expert in the matter at hand. That is, in this framework the optimal strategy for communication depends on the degree of knowledge the speaker is known to have concerning the question she is answering. In addition, and most importantly, we give a game-theoretic characterisation of the interpretation rule Grice (formalising Quantity implicature), showing that under natural conditions this interpretation rule occurs in the unique equilibrium play of the signalling game.
BibTeX: @article{Rooij2012, author = {Robert van Rooij and Tikitu de Jager}, title = {Explaining quantity implicatures}, journal = {Journal of Logic, Language and Information}, year = {2012}, volume = {21}, pages = {461-477}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-012-9163-3} }
van Rooij, R. and Franke, M.	Game Theoretic and Optimality Theoretic Approaches to Implicatures and Optimality [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	2021	Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy	incollection	URL
Abstract: Linguistic pragmatics studies the context-dependent use and interpretation of expressions. Perhaps the most important notion in pragmatics is Grice’s (1967) conversational implicature. It is based on the insight that by means of general principles of rational cooperative behavior we can communicate more with the use of a sentence than the conventional semantic meaning associated with it. Grice has argued, for instance, that the exclusive interpretation of ‘or’—according to which we infer from ‘John or Mary came’ that John and Mary didn’t come both—is not due to the semantic meaning of ‘or’ but should be accounted for by a theory of conversational implicature. In this particular example,—a typical example of a so-called Quantity implicature—the hearer’s implication is taken to follow from the fact that the speaker could have used a contrasting, and informatively stronger expression, but chose not to. Other implicatures may follow from what the hearer thinks that the speaker takes to be normal states of affairs, i.e., stereotypical interpretations. For both types of implicatures, the hearer’s (pragmatic) interpretation of an expression involves what he takes to be the speaker’s reason for using this expression. But obviously, this speaker’s reason must involve assumptions about the hearer’s reasoning as well. In this entry we will discuss formal accounts of conversational implicatures that explicitly take into account the interactive reasoning of speaker and hearer (e.g., what speaker and hearer believe about each other, the relevant aspects of the context of utterance etc.) and that aim to reductively explain conversational implicature as the result of goal-oriented, economically optimised language use. For this entry, just as in traditional analyses of implicatures, we will assume that sentences have a pre-existing semantic meaning and will mostly focus on generalised conversational implicatures.
Comment: First published in 2006 by van Rooij. Substantive revisions in 2021.
BibTeX: @incollection{Rooij2021, author = {Robert van Rooij and Michael Franke}, title = {Game Theoretic and Optimality Theoretic Approaches to Implicatures and Optimality}, booktitle = {Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}, year = {2021}, url = {https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/implicature-optimality-games/} }
Savinelli, K., Scontras, G. and Pearl, L.	Modeling scope ambiguity resolution as pragmatic inference: Formalizing differences in child and adult behavior. [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2017	CogSci	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: Investigations of scope ambiguity resolution suggest that child behavior differs from adult behavior, with children struggling to access inverse scope interpretations. For example, children often fail to accept Every horse didn’t succeed to mean not all the horses succeeded. Current accounts of children’s scope behavior involve both pragmatic and processing factors. Inspired by these accounts, we use the Rational Speech Act framework to articulate a formal model that yields a more precise, explanatory, and predictive description of the observed developmental behavior.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Savinelli2017, author = {Savinelli, KJ and Scontras, Gregory and Pearl, Lisa}, title = {Modeling scope ambiguity resolution as pragmatic inference: Formalizing differences in child and adult behavior.}, booktitle = {CogSci}, year = {2017}, url = {https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2017/papers/0579/index.html} }
Singh, R., Wexler, K., Astle-Rahim, A., Kamawar, D. and Fox, D.	Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Consequences for theories of implicature and child development [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2016	Natural Language Semantics Vol. 24(4), pp. 305-352	article	DOI
Abstract: We present evidence that preschool children oftentimes understand disjunctive sentences as if they were conjunctive. The result holds for matrix disjunctions as well as disjunctions embedded under every. At the same time, there is evidence in the literature that children understand or as inclusive disjunction in downward-entailing contexts. We propose to explain this seemingly conflicting pattern of results by assuming that the child knows the inclusive disjunction semantics of or, and that the conjunctive inference is a scalar implicature. We make two assumptions about implicature computation in the child: (i) that children access only a proper subset of the adult alternatives (specifically, they do not access the lexicon when generating alternatives), and (ii) that children possess the adult capacity to strengthen sentences with implicatures. As a consequence, children are expected to sometimes not compute any implicatures at all, but in other cases they are expected to compute an implicature that is different from the adult implicature. We argue that the child’s conjunctive strengthening of disjunctive sentences realizes the latter possibility: the adult infers that the conjunction is false but the child infers that the conjunction is true. This behaviour is predicted when our assumptions about child development are coupled with the assumption that a covert exhaustive operator is responsible for strengthening in both the child and the adult. Specifically, children’s conjunctive strengthening is predicted to follow from the same mechanism used by adults to compute conjunctive free choice implicatures in response to disjunctive permission sentences (recursive exhaustification). We furthermore argue that this parallel between the child and the adult extends to disambiguation preferences. In particular, we present evidence that children prefer to strengthen disjunctions to conjunctions, in matrix and embedded positions (under every); this result mirrors previous findings that adults prefer to compute free choice, at the root and under every. We propose a disambiguation strategy that explains the preference for conjunctive strengthening – by both the child and the adult – even though there is no general preference for exhaustification. Specifically, we propose that the preference for a conjunctive strengthening follows from a pragmatic preference for a complete answer to the Question Under Discussion.
BibTeX: @article{Singh2016, author = {Raj Singh and Ken Wexler and Andrea Astle-Rahim and Deepthi Kamawar and Danny Fox}, title = {Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Consequences for theories of implicature and child development}, journal = {Natural Language Semantics}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2016}, volume = {24}, number = {4}, pages = {305--352}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9126-3} }
Skordos, D. and Papafragou, A.	Children's derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2016	Cognition Vol. 153, pp. 6-18	article	DOI
Abstract: Utterances such as “Megan ate some of the cupcakes” are often interpreted as “Megan ate some but not all of the cupcakes”. Such an interpretation is thought to arise from a pragmatic inference called scalar implicature (SI). Preschoolers typically fail to spontaneously generate SIs without the assistance of training or context that make the stronger alternative salient. However, the exact role of alternatives in generating SIs remains contested. Specifically, it is not clear whether children have difficulty with spontaneously generating possible informationally stronger scalemates, or with considering how alternatives might be relevant. We present three studies with English-speaking 5-year-olds and adults designed to address these questions. We show that (a) the accessibility of the stronger alternative is important for children’s SI generation (Experiment 1); (b) the explicit presence of the stronger alternative leads children to generate SIs only when the stronger scalar term can easily be seen as relevant (Experiment 2); and (c) in contexts that establish relevant alternatives, the explicit presence of the stronger alternative is not necessary (Experiment 3). We conclude that children’s considerations of lexical alternatives during SI-computation include an important role for conversational relevance. We also show that this more nuanced approach to the role of lexical alternatives in pragmatic inference unifies previously unconnected findings about children’s early pragmatic development and bears on major accounts proposed to date for children’s problems with SIs.
BibTeX: @article{Skordos2016, author = {Dimitrios Skordos and Anna Papafragou}, title = {Children's derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance}, journal = {Cognition}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2016}, volume = {153}, pages = {6--18}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.006} }
Skordos, D. and Barner, D.	Language Comprehension, Inference, and Alternatives [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics	incollection	DOI
Abstract: This chapter discusses the importance of pragmatic inference involving alternatives for language comprehension, reviewing the problem of restricting the inferential hypothesis space. It presents a brief overview of theoretical and empirical work on adults and then turns to developmental evidence from two characteristic case studies: scalar implicature and quantifier spreading, where children struggle when interpreting sentences including quantifiers. The authors argue that in both cases, children’s problems are closely linked to difficulties in reducing the inferential hypothesis space, while matching what is said to what is meant. Children are argued to misidentify the Question Under Discussion (QUD), which leads them to consider irrelevant alternatives and make non-adult-like inferences. When relevant alternatives are made salient and the QUD is appropriately identified, children make inferences in an adult-like manner.
BibTeX: @incollection{Skordos2019, author = {Dimitrios Skordos and David Barner}, title = {Language Comprehension, Inference, and Alternatives}, booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2019}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198791768.013.1} }
Skordos, D., Feiman, R., Bale, A. and Barner, D.	Do Children Interpret `or' Conjunctively? [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	Journal of Semantics Vol. 37(2), pp. 247-267	article	DOI
Abstract: Preschoolers often struggle to compute scalar implicatures involving disjunction (or), in which they are required to strengthen an utterance by negating stronger alternatives, e.g. to infer that, ‘The girl has an apple or an orange’ likely means she does not have both. However, recent reports surprisingly find that a substantial subset of children interpret disjunction as conjunction, concluding instead that the girl must have both fruits. According to these studies, children arrive at conjunctive readings not because they have a non-adult-like semantics, but because they lack access to the stronger scalar alternative and, and employ doubly exhaustified disjuncts when computing implicatures. Using stimuli modelled on previous studies, we test English-speaking preschoolers and replicate the finding that many children interpret or conjunctively. However, we speculate that conditions which replicate this finding may be pragmatically infelicitous, such that results do not offer a valid test of children’s semantic competence. We show that when disjunctive statements are uttered in contexts that render the speaker’s intended question more transparent, conjunctive readings disappear almost entirely.
BibTeX: @article{Skordos2020, author = {Dimitrios Skordos and Roman Feiman and Alan Bale and David Barner}, title = {Do Children Interpret `or' Conjunctively?}, journal = {Journal of Semantics}, publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)}, year = {2020}, volume = {37}, number = {2}, pages = {247--267}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffz022} }
Smith, E.A. and Hall, K.	Projection Diversity: Experimental Evidence [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 Workshop on Projective Meaning	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: This paper presents the results of an experiment that tests a number of assumptions and predictions about projection behavior. We find that meanings hypothesized to be projective do in fact project, including projective meanings other than presuppositions. We also find that projective meanings display a great deal of heterogeneity, with some projecting much more than others and very few showing entailment behavior that is as robust as the entailment of assertions in a basic context. The degree of projection found with various triggers in this study is not consistent with many of the past theories of projective meanings, as discussed in section 4. The first section presents the relevant theories and background information, the second section presents the experimental method, and the third section presents the results.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Smith2011, author = {E. Allyn Smith and Kathleen Hall}, title = {Projection Diversity: Experimental Evidence}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 Workshop on Projective Meaning}, year = {2011}, url = {https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.646.290&rep=rep1&type=pdf} }
Tian, Y., Breheny, R. and Ferguson, H.J.	Why we simulate negated information: A dynamic pragmatic account [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2010	Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Vol. 63, pp. 2305-2312	article	DOI
Abstract: A well-established finding in the simulation literature is that participants simulate the positive argument of negation soon after reading a negative sentence, prior to simulating a scene consistent with the negated sentence (Kaup, Ludtke, & Zwaan, 2006; Kaup, Yaxley, Madden, Zwaan, & Ludtke, 2007). One interpretation of this finding is that negation requires two steps to process: first represent what is being negated then "reject" that in favour of a representation of a negation-consistent state of affairs (Kaup et al., 2007). In this paper we argue that this finding with negative sentences could be a by-product of the dynamic way that language is interpreted relative to a common ground and not the way that negation is represented. We present a study based on Kaup et al. (2007) that tests the competing accounts. Our results suggest that some negative sentences are not processed in two steps, but provide support for the alternative, dynamic account.
BibTeX: @article{Tian2010, author = {Ye Tian and Richard Breheny and Heather J. Ferguson}, title = {Why we simulate negated information: A dynamic pragmatic account}, journal = {Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology}, year = {2010}, volume = {63}, pages = {2305-2312}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.525712} }
Verbuck, A.	Developmental evidence against the theoretical distinction between Horn and pragmatic scales [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 44(12), pp. 1680-1700	article	DOI
Abstract: A theoretical distinction between Horn and pragmatic scales that are instrumental in generating scalar implicatures (SIs) is widely accepted in neo-Gricean pragmatics; at the same time, this distinction has been questioned in some neo-Gricean and post-Gricean accounts of SIs. In order to explore whether or not this distinction has a reflex on the way in which children acquire SIs, I tested 40 children (4;3-7;7) on computing SIs based on Horn and pragmatic scales. If this distinction is postulated, children are predicted to perform better on computing SIs based on Horn scales. In my experiment, children did significantly better on computing SIs based on pragmatic scales. Moreover, children performed worse on certain Horn scales than on the pragmatic scales, and better on other Horn scales than on the pragmatic scales. I provide theoretical reasons against distinguishing between Horn and pragmatic scales, and propose my own Context-based QUD account of SIs on which children's performance on computing SIs is a function of challenges presented by individual scales. I identify three major linguistic and cognitive acquisitional challenges presented by scales, and how these predict the timeline of SI acquisition.
BibTeX: @article{Verbuck2012, author = {Anna Verbuck}, title = {Developmental evidence against the theoretical distinction between Horn and pragmatic scales}, journal = {Journal of Pragmatics}, year = {2012}, volume = {44}, number = {12}, pages = {1680-1700}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.007} }
Wilson, E.A.	Children’s development of Quantity, Relevance and Manner implicature understanding and the role of the speaker’s epistemic state [BibTeX]	2017	School: University of Cambridge	phdthesis	DOI
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Wilson2017, author = {Wilson, Elspeth Amabel}, title = {Children’s development of Quantity, Relevance and Manner implicature understanding and the role of the speaker’s epistemic state}, school = {University of Cambridge}, year = {2017}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.17152} }
Wilson, E. and Katsos, N.	Acquiring implicatures [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	Developmental and Clinical Pragmatics	incollection	DOI
Abstract: Children begin to acquire the ability to make inferences based on expectations of speaker co-operativity – implicatures – from the fourth year of life, but gaining adultlike proficiency in more complex communicative situations seems to take several more years. In this chapter we review what is known about children’s developing ability to derive quantity, relevance and manner implicatures, and identify some key ingredients of this development: acquiring knowledge about communication, the world, and vocabulary and grammar; learning the inferencing process itself; and developing social cognition. We suggest that integrating these skills and types of knowledge in conversation is a key challenge faced by children, and outline directions for future research.
BibTeX: @incollection{Wilson2020, author = {Elspeth Wilson and Napoleon Katsos}, title = {Acquiring implicatures}, booktitle = {Developmental and Clinical Pragmatics}, publisher = {de Gruyter Mouton}, year = {2020}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431056-007} }
Xue, J. and Onea, E.	Correlation between presupposition projection and at-issueness: An empirical study [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 Workshop on Projective Meaning	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: In this paper we first experimentally show that presuppositions triggered by different triggers come with different probabilities to project. We argue that this variation is related with the distinction between atissue and not-at-issue content (cf. Simons et al. 2010). We support this claim with a follow-up experiment showing that the not-at-issueness of a presupposition correlates with the projection probability observed in the first experiment.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Xue2011, author = {Jingyang Xue and Edgar Onea}, title = {Correlation between presupposition projection and at-issueness: An empirical study}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 Workshop on Projective Meaning}, year = {2011}, url = {https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.646.290&rep=rep1&type=pdf} }