Implicature

Author	Title	Year	Journal/Proceedings	Reftype	DOI/URL
Alatawi, H.	Empirical evidence on scalar implicature processing at the behavioural and neural levels: A review [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	International Review of Pragmatics Vol. 11(1), pp. 1 - 21	article	DOI URL
Abstract: The Default hypothesis on implicature processing suggests that a rapid, automatic mechanism is used to process utterances such as “some of his family are attending the wedding” to infer that “not all of them are attending”, an inference subject to cancellation if additional contextual information is provided (e.g. “actually, they are all attending”). In contrast, the Relevance hypothesis suggests that only context-dependent inferences are computed and this process is cognitively effortful. This article reviews findings on behavioural and neural processing of scalar implicatures to clarify the cognitive effort involved.
BibTeX: @article{Alatawi2019, author = {Haifa Alatawi}, title = {Empirical evidence on scalar implicature processing at the behavioural and neural levels: A review}, journal = {International Review of Pragmatics}, publisher = {Brill}, year = {2019}, volume = {11}, number = {1}, pages = {1 - 21}, url = {https://brill.com/view/journals/irp/11/1/article-p1_1.xml}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-201810011} }
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} }
Asher, N.	Implicatures in Discourse [BibTeX]	2012	Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories	incollection	DOI
BibTeX: @incollection{Asher2012, author = {Nicholas Asher}, title = {Implicatures in Discourse}, booktitle = {Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories}, publisher = {De Gruyter Mouton}, year = {2012}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511601.11} }
Asher, N.	Implicatures and discourse structure [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Lingua Vol. 132, pp. 13-28	article	DOI
Abstract: One of the characteristic marks of Gricean implicatures in general, and scalar implicatures in particular, examples of which are given in (1), is that they are the result of a defeasible inference. (1a) John had some of the cookies (1b) John had some of the cookies. In fact he had them all. (1a) invites the inference that John didn’t have all the cookies, an inference that can be defeated by additional information, as in (1b). Scalar inferences like that in (1a) thus depend upon some sort of nonmonotonic reasoning over semantic contents. They share this characteristic of defeasiblility with inferences that result in the presence of discourse relations that link discourse segments together into a discourse structure for a coherent text or dialogue—call these inferences discourse or D inferences. I have studied these inferences about discourse structure, their effects on content and how they are computed in the theory known as Segmented Discourse Representation Theory or SDRT. In this paper I investigate how the tools used to infer discourse relations apply to what Griceans and others call scalar or quantity implicatures. The benefits of this investigation are three fold: at the theoretical level, we have a unified and relatively simple framework for computing defeasible inferences both of the quantity and discourse structure varieties; further, we can capture what's right about the intuitions of so called “localist” views about scalar implicatures; finally, this framework permits us to investigate how D-inferences and scalar inferences might interact, in particular how discourse structure might trigger scalar inferences, thus explaining the variability (Chemla, 2008) or even non-existence of embedded implicatures noted recently (e.g., Geurts and Pouscoulous, 2009), and their occasional noncancellability. The view of scalar inferences that emerges from this study is also rather different from the way both localists and Neo- Griceans conceive of them. Both localists and Neo-Griceans view implicatures as emerging from pragmatic reasoning processes that are strictly separated from the calculation of semantic values; where they differ is at what level the pragmatic implicatures are calculated. Localists take them to be calculated in parallel with semantic composition, whereas Neo-Griceans take them to have as input the complete semantic content of the assertion. My view is that scalar inferences depend on discourse structure and large view of semantic content in which semantics and pragmatics interact in a complex way to produce an interpretation of an utterance or a discourse.
BibTeX: @article{Asher2013, author = {Nicholas Asher}, title = {Implicatures and discourse structure}, journal = {Lingua}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2013}, volume = {132}, pages = {13--28}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.001} }
Bade, N.	Obligatory implicatures and the presupposition of ''too'' [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Vol. 18Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, pp. 42-59	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: The paper provides an analysis for the obligatory occurence of the presupposition triggers “too”, “again” and “know”. The claim is that these triggers are inserted to avoid a mandatory exhaustivity implicature that contradicts the context. Two main empirical arguments for why this account is to be preferred over analyses of these obligatory triggers that make use of a principle Maximize Presupposition will be presented.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Bade2014, author = {Nadine Bade}, title = {Obligatory implicatures and the presupposition of ''too''}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung}, year = {2014}, volume = {18}, pages = {42-59}, url = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/303} }
Barbet, C. and Thierry, G.	When some triggers a scalar inference out of the blue. An electrophysiological study of a Stroop-like conflict elicited by single words [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	Cognition Vol. 177, pp. 58-68	article	DOI
Abstract: Some studies in experimental pragmatics have concluded that scalar inferences (e.g., ‘some X are Y’ implicates ‘not all X are Y’) are context-dependent pragmatic computations delayed relative to semantic computations. However, it remains unclear whether strong contextual support is necessary to trigger such inferences. Here we tested if the scalar inference ‘not all’ triggered by some can be evoked in a maximally neutral context. We investigated event-related potential (ERP) amplitude modulations elicited by Stroop-like conflicts in participants instructed to indicate whether strings of letters were printed with all their letters in upper case or otherwise. In a randomized stream of non-words and distractor words, the words all, some and case were either presented in capitals or they featured at least one lower case letter. As expected, we found a significant conflict-related N450 modulation when comparing e.g., ‘aLl’ with ‘ALL’. Surprisingly, despite the fact that most responses from the same participants in a sentence-picture verification task were literal, we also found a similar modulation when comparing ‘SOME’ with e.g., ‘SoMe’, even though SOME could only elicit such a Stroop conflict when construed pragmatically. No such modulation was found for e.g., ‘CasE’ vs. ‘CASE’ (neutral contrast). These results suggest that some can appear incongruent with the concept of ‘all’ even when contextual support is minimal. Furthermore, there was no significant correlation between N450 effect magnitude (‘SOME’ minus e.g., ‘sOMe’) and pragmatic response rate recorded in the sentence-picture verification task. Overall, this study shows for the first time that the pragmatic meaning of some can be accessed in a maximally neutral context, and thus, that the scalar inference ‘not all’ triggered by some should be construed as context-sensitive rather than context-dependent, that is, more or less salient and relevant depending on the context rather than entirely contingent upon it.
BibTeX: @article{Barbet2018, author = {Cécile Barbet and Guillaume Thierry}, title = {When some triggers a scalar inference out of the blue. An electrophysiological study of a Stroop-like conflict elicited by single words}, journal = {Cognition}, publisher = {Elsevier BV}, year = {2018}, volume = {177}, pages = {58--68}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.013} }
Bassi, I., Pinal, G.D. and Sauerland, U.	Presuppositional exhaustification [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2021	Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 14(11)	article	DOI
Abstract: Grammatical theories of Scalar Implicatures make use of an exhaustivity operator exh, which asserts the conjunction of the prejacent with the negation of excludable alternatives. We present a new Grammatical theory of Scalar Implicatures according to which exh is replaced with pex, an operator that contributes its prejacent as asserted content, but the negation of scalar alternatives at a non-at-issue level of meaning. We show that by treating this non-at-issue level as a presupposition, this theory resolves a number of empirical challenges faced by the old formulation of exh (as well as by standard neo-Gricean theories). The empirical challenges include projection of scalar implicatures from certain embedded environments (‘some under some’ sentences, some under negative factives), their restricted distribution under negation, and the existence of common ground-mismatching and oddness-inducing implicatures. We argue that these puzzles have a uniform solution given a pex-based Grammatical theory of implicatures and some independently motivated principles concerning presupposition projection, cancellation and accommodation.
BibTeX: @article{Bassi2021, author = {Itai Bassi and Guillermo Del Pinal and Uli Sauerland}, title = {Presuppositional exhaustification}, journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2021}, volume = {14}, number = {11}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.11} }
Beck, S. and Rullmann, H.	A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1999	Natural Language Semantics Vol. 7(3), pp. 249-298	article	DOI
Abstract: A semantics for interrogatives is presented which is based on Karttunen's theory, but in a flexible manner incorporates both weak and strong exhaustivity. The paper starts out by considering degree questions, which often require an answer picking out the maximal degree from a certain set. However, in some cases, depending on the semantic properties of the question predicate, reference to the minimal degree is required, or neither specifying the maximum nor the minimum is sufficient. What is needed is an operation which defines the maximally informative answer on the basis of the Karttunen question denotation. Shifting attention to non-degree questions, two notions of answerhood are adopted from work by Heim. The first of these is weakly exhaustive and the second strongly exhaustive. The second notion of answerhood is proven to be equivalent to Groenendijk and Stokhof s interrogative semantics. On the basis of a wide range of empirical data showing that questions often are not interpreted exhaustively, it is argued that a fairly rich system of semantic objects associated with questions is needed to account for the various ways in which questions contribute to the semantics and pragmatics of the utterances in which they appear.
BibTeX: @article{Beck1999, author = {Sigrid Beck and Hotze Rullmann}, title = {A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions}, journal = {Natural Language Semantics}, year = {1999}, volume = {7}, number = {3}, pages = {249-298}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008373224343} }
Benz, A. and Salfner, F.	Discourse Structuring Questions and Scalar Implicatures [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Vol. 7758TbiLLC 2011: Logic, Language, and Computation	incollection	DOI
Abstract: In this paper we discuss the interdependence of scalar implicatures and discourse structuring questions. We show that even prototypical cases of scalar implicatures can depend on an explicitly or implicitly given Question under Discussion. Particularly, we argue against the idea that scalar implicatures are automatically generated by the logical form of an utterance. We distinguish between three types of discourse questions each having different effects on implicatures.
BibTeX: @incollection{Benz2013, author = {Anton Benz and Fabienne Salfner}, title = {Discourse Structuring Questions and Scalar Implicatures}, booktitle = {TbiLLC 2011: Logic, Language, and Computation}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2013}, volume = {7758}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36976-6_5} }
Biezma, M. and Rawlins, K.	Responding to alternative and polar questions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 35(5), pp. 361-406	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper gives an account of the differences between polar and alternative questions, as well as an account of the division of labor between compositional semantics and pragmatics in interpreting these types of questions. Alternative questions involve a strong exhaustivity presupposition for the mentioned alternatives. We derive this compositionally from the meaning of the final falling tone and its interaction with the pragmatics of questioning in discourse. Alternative questions are exhaustive in two ways: they exhaust the space of epistemic possibilities, as well as the space of discourse possibilities (the Question Under Discussion). In contrast, we propose that polar questions are the opposite: they present just one alternative that is necessarily non-exhaustive. The account explains a range of response patterns to alternative and polar questions, as well as differences and similarities between the two types of questions.
BibTeX: @article{Biezma2012, author = {María Biezma and Kyle Rawlins}, title = {Responding to alternative and polar questions}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2012}, volume = {35}, number = {5}, pages = {361--406}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9123-z} }
Breheny, R., Ferguson, H.J. and Katsos, N.	Investigating the timecourse of accessing conversational implicatures during incremental sentence interpretation [BibTeX]	2013	Language and Cognitive Processes Vol. 28(4), pp. 443-467	article	DOI
BibTeX: @article{Breheny2013, author = {Richard Breheny and Heather J. Ferguson and Napoleon Katsos}, title = {Investigating the timecourse of accessing conversational implicatures during incremental sentence interpretation}, journal = {Language and Cognitive Processes}, publisher = {Informa}, year = {2013}, volume = {28}, number = {4}, pages = {443--467}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.649040} }
Breheny, R.	Scalar Implicatures [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics	incollection	DOI
Abstract: This chapter reviews recent experimental research into questions about how language and other functions of the mind are integrated when humans communicate. It posits a Gricean system that serves this purpose and discusses how recent developmental and ethological research provides evidence for such a system’s existence. Subsequently it focuses on the much-studied phenomenon of scalar implicature. It first considers the phenomenon of scalar implicature in the broader context of pragmatic effects. A short review of theoretical debates as to the status of various sub-types of scalar phenomenon is followed by sections that discuss experimental research relevant to different interfaces in the Gricean system when it comes to scalars.
BibTeX: @incollection{Breheny2019, author = {Richard Breheny}, title = {Scalar Implicatures}, booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2019}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198791768.013.4} }
Chow, K.F.	Inferential patterns of generalized quantifiers and their applications to scalar reasoning [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	School: Hong Kong Polytechnic University	phdthesis
Abstract: This thesis studies the inferential patterns of generalized quantifiers (GQs) and their applications to scalar reasoning. In Chapter 1, I introduce the basic notions of Generalized Quantifier Theory (GQT) and survey the major types of right-oriented GQs traditionally studied under GQT (including both monadic and iterated GQs). I also expand the scope of this theory to the analysis of left-oriented GQs (including left conservative GQs such as "only" and left-iterated GQs manifested as quantified statements with relative clauses). In Chapter 2, I introduce the major aspects of scalar reasoning to be studied in this thesis and summarize the major findings in the literature. After reviewing different notions of scales, I introduce other essential concepts and review the various theories and schools on the two main types of scalar reasoning, i.e. scalar entailments (SEs) and scalar implicatures (SIs). I then introduce four types of scalar lexical items studied under the Scalar Model Theory and Chinese grammar and discuss how their semantics / pragmatics are related to SEs and/or SIs. These include scalar operators (SOs), climax construction connectives (CCCs), subjective quantity operators (SQOs) and lexical items denoting extreme values. In the final part of this chapter, some outstanding problems in the studies on scalar reasoning are identified. In Chapter 3, I study four main types of quantifier inferences. They are monotonicity inferences, argument structure inferences, opposition inferences and (non-classical) syllogistic inferences. The major findings are summarized in tables and theorems. Special emphasis is put on devising general principles and methods that enable us to derive valid inferential patterns of iterated GQs from the inferential properties of their constituent monadic GQs. In Chapter 4, I apply the major findings worked out in the previous chapter to resolve the outstanding problems identified in Chapter 2. I first develop a basic formal framework that is based on the notions of generalized fractions and I-function. This basic framework can deal with the various aspects of scalar reasoning in a uniform way. I then enrich the basic framework by adding specific ingredients to deal with the phenomena of SEs and SIs. To deal with SEs, I add a relation connecting the I-function and SEs to the basic framework, so that the derivation of SEs is reduced to comparison between the I-function values of propositions. Moreover, by capitalizing on a parallelism between SEs and monotonicity inferences, I combine findings of the two types of inferences and discover new inferential patterns, such as Proportionality Calculus and scalar syllogisms. To deal with SIs, I add the ingredients of question under discussion (QUD) foci, answer exhaustification and opposition inferences to the basic framework, so that it can account for the various types of SIs and related phenomena introduced in Chapter 2 in a uniform way. I then use the framework to conduct a cross-linguistic study on the English and Chinese scalar lexical items introduced in Chapter 2. The I-function is used to formulate the conditions of use for these lexical items. The association of SEs and SIs with different types of scalar lexical items is also explored. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the significance of the major findings of this thesis and possible extensions of the study.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Chow2012, author = {Ka Fat Chow}, title = {Inferential patterns of generalized quantifiers and their applications to scalar reasoning}, school = {Hong Kong Polytechnic University}, year = {2012} }
Coppock, E. and Brochhagen, T.	Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 6	article	DOI
Abstract: We argue that the superlative modifiers at least and at most quantify over a scale of answers to the current question under discussion (and in this sense, resolve issues), and that they draw attention to the individual possibilities along the scale (and in this sense, raise issues for discussion). The point of departure is a simple analysis on which at least denotes what only presupposes, and at most denotes what only contributes as its ordinary at-issue content. This analysis captures the truth conditions, focus-sensitivity, and distribution of superlative modifiers but leaves some pragmatic facts unexplained. We enrich the simple account with unrestricted inquisitive semantics in order to explain the fact that superlative modifiers give rise to ignorance implicatures while comparative modifiers like more and less do not, the fact that superlative modifiers do not give rise to scalar implicatures, and two puzzles concerning the interaction between superlative modifiers and deontic modals. We argue that this proposal provides the most empirically successful published account of superlative modifiers to date.
BibTeX: @article{Coppock2013a, author = {Elizabeth Coppock and Thomas Brochhagen}, title = {Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers}, journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2013}, volume = {6}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.3} }
Cummins, C.	Modelling implicatures from modified numerals [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Lingua Vol. 132, pp. 103-114	article	DOI
Abstract: It has been argued that comparative and superlative quantifiers (such as “more than” and “at least”) fail to yield scalar implicatures in unembedded declarative contexts (Krifka, 1999, Fox and Hackl, 2006). However, recent experimental work has shown that such implicatures are available, and that these are constrained by considerations of granularity or numeral salience (Cummins et al., 2012). That is, “more than n” triggers a pragmatic upper-bound, the value of which depends on the numeral n. However, Cummins et al. further show that this effect is weakened by prior mention of the numeral n, a finding that they interpret in terms of priming effects. In this paper I discuss a recent theoretical proposal that accommodates these findings by arguing for a model of numerical quantifier usage based on multiple constraint satisfaction. This approach provides a means of accounting for the influence of contextual factors on the speaker's choice of utterance. It also makes predictions as to how a rational hearer should use context in their interpretation of utterances. Here I explore how this can yield the diversity of interpretations exhibited by participants in Cummins et al. (2012). More generally I consider how such an account predicts that a hearer will infer context on the basis of an utterance, and examine how this offers a potential explanation for the previously observed failure of implicature in the domain of modified numerals. I discuss the implications of this for experimental semantic and pragmatic methodologies, with particular reference to the numeral domain.
BibTeX: @article{Cummins2013a, author = {Chris Cummins}, title = {Modelling implicatures from modified numerals}, journal = {Lingua}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2013}, volume = {132}, pages = {103--114}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.006} }
Cummins, C. and Rohde, H.	Evoking Context with Contrastive Stress: Effects on Pragmatic Enrichment [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 6	article	DOI
Abstract: Although it is widely acknowledged that context influences a variety of pragmatic phenomena, it is not clear how best to articulate this notion of context and thereby explain the nature of its influence. In this paper, we target contextual alternatives that are evoked via focus placement and test how the same contextual manipulation can influence three different phenomena that involve pragmatic enrichment: scalar implicature, presupposition, and coreference. We argue that focus placement influences these three phenomena indirectly by providing the listener with information about the likely question under discussion (QUD) that a particular utterance answers (Roberts, 1996/2012). In three listening experiments, we find that the predicted interpretations are indeed made more available when focus placement is added to the final element (to the scalar adjective, to an entity embedded under the negated presupposition trigger, and to the predicate of a pronoun). These findings bring together several distinct strands of work on the effect of focus placement on interpretation all in the domain of pragmatic enrichment. Together they advance our empirical understanding of the relation between focus placement and QUD and highlight commonalities between implicature, presupposition, and coreference.
BibTeX: @article{Cummins2015, author = {Chris Cummins and Hannah Rohde}, title = {Evoking Context with Contrastive Stress: Effects on Pragmatic Enrichment}, journal = {Frontiers in Psychology}, year = {2015}, volume = {6}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01779} }
Davidson, K.	Scalar implicatures in a signed language [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Sign Language and Linguistics Vol. 17(1), pp. 1-19	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper tests the calculation of scalar implicatures in American Sign Language (ASL) in one of the first experimental pragmatic studies in the manual/visual modality. Both native signers of ASL and native speakers of English participated in an automated Felicity Judgment Task to compare implicatures based on two traditional scales as well as “ad hoc” scales in their respective languages. Results show that native signers of ASL calculate scalar implicatures based on a prototypical scale in ASL in the same pattern as native speakers of English, within the same experimental paradigm. There are similarly high rates of exact interpretations of numbers in ASL as in English, despite the iconicity of the numerals in ASL. Finally, an ad hoc scale was tested showing fewer implicatures in English than on the conventionalized scales. In ASL, there was a trend toward increased implicatures on the ad hoc scale which made use of the unique ability of ASL to convey spatial information using the classifier system. Taken together, these results show that conventionalized scales in ASL have the same semantic/pragmatic scalar properties as in spoken languages, although in non-conventionalized scales the inclusion of additional information such as spatial location may affect pragmatic interpretation.
BibTeX: @article{Davidson2014, author = {Kathryn Davidson}, title = {Scalar implicatures in a signed language}, journal = {Sign Language and Linguistics}, year = {2014}, volume = {17}, number = {1}, pages = {1-19}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.17.1.01dav} }
Degen, J.	Alternatives in Pragmatic Reasoning [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	School: University of Rochester	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: In the face of underspecified utterances, listeners routinely and without much apparent effort make the right kinds of pragmatic inferences about a speaker's intended meaning. This dissertation investigates the processing of scalar implicatures as a way of addressing how listeners perform this remarkable feat. In particular, the role of context in the processing of scalar implicatures from "some" to "not all" is explored. Contrary to the widely held assumption that scalar implicatures are highly regularized, frequent, and relatively context-independent, this dissertation suggests that they are in fact relatively infrequent and highly context-dependent; both the robustness and the speed with which scalar implicatures from "some" to "not all" are computed are modulated by the probabilistic support that the implicature receives from multiple contextual cues. Scalar implicatures are found to be especially sensitive to the naturalness or expectedness of both scalar and non-scalar alternative utterances the speaker could have produced, but didn't. A novel contextualist account of scalar implicature processing that has roots in both constraint-based and information-theoretic accounts of language processing is proposed that provides a unifying explanation for a) the varying robustness of scalar implicatures across different contexts, b) the varying speed of scalar implicatures across different contexts, and c) the speed and efficiency of communication.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Degen2013, author = {Judith Degen}, title = {Alternatives in Pragmatic Reasoning}, school = {University of Rochester}, year = {2013}, url = {https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/alternatives-pragmatic-reasoning/docview/1465060224/se-2?accountid=9783} }
Degen, J. and Tanenhaus, M.K.	Processing Scalar Implicature: A Constraint-Based Approach [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Cognitive Science Vol. 39(4), pp. 667-710	article	DOI
Abstract: Three experiments investigated the processing of the implicature associated with some using a “gumball paradigm.” On each trial, participants saw an image of a gumball machine with an upper chamber with 13 gumballs and an empty lower chamber. Gumballs then dropped to the lower chamber and participants evaluated statements, such as “You got some of the gumballs.” Experiment 1 established that some is less natural for reference to small sets (1, 2, and 3 of the 13 gumballs) and unpartitioned sets (all 13 gumballs) compared to intermediate sets (6–8). Partitive some of was less natural than simple some when used with the unpartitioned set. In Experiment 2, including exact number descriptions lowered naturalness ratings for some with small sets but not for intermediate size sets and the unpartitioned set. In Experiment 3, the naturalness ratings from Experiment 2 predicted response times. The results are interpreted as evidence for a Constraint-Based account of scalar implicature processing and against both two-stage, Literal-First models and pragmatic Default models.
BibTeX: @article{Degen2015, author = {Judith Degen and Michael K. Tanenhaus}, title = {Processing Scalar Implicature: A Constraint-Based Approach}, journal = {Cognitive Science}, publisher = {Wiley}, year = {2015}, volume = {39}, number = {4}, pages = {667--710}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12171} }
Degen, J. and Tanenhaus, M.K.	Constraint-Based Pragmatic Processing [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics	incollection	DOI
Abstract: Processing language requires integrating information from multiple sources, including context, world knowledge, and the linguistic signal itself. How is this information integrated? A range of positions on the issue is possible, spanned by two extreme positions: extreme informational privilege—certain types of information are processed earlier in online processing and weighted most heavily in the resulting utterance interpretation; and extreme parallelism—all information is processed in parallel and weighted equally in the resulting interpretation. In reviewing the current empirical landscape on scalar implicature processing, the chapter argues for a constraint-based approach to pragmatic processing, which is closer in spirit to the parallelism account than the informational privilege account. The approach is also extended to other pragmatic phenomena.
BibTeX: @incollection{Degen2019, author = {Judith Degen and Michael K. Tanenhaus}, title = {Constraint-Based Pragmatic Processing}, booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2019}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198791768.013.8} }
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} }
Dulcinati, G.	Cooperation and pragmatic inferences [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	School: UCL (University College London)	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: This thesis investigates the role of cooperation for pragmatic inferences. The notion of cooperation that is proposed as relevant for discussing the relationship between cooperation and communication is that of joint action. Different theories of communication are reviewed together with the different roles that they assign to cooperation in the context of communication. The study of communication in non-cooperative contexts is used as a way to inform the role of cooperation in communication. Different predictions are derived from Grice’s (1989) account and Sperber and Wilson’s accounts (Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995; Sperber et al. 2010) regarding what happens to implicatures in non-cooperative contexts. A series of experimental studies investigates communication in non-cooperative contexts and tests the prediction derived from Grice’s account that hearers will not derive implicatures from the utterances of uncooperative speakers. Overall, the results of these studies are not in support of Grice’s prediction. They instead support the view that because of a dissociation between comprehension and epistemic acceptance of communicated content (Sperber et al., 2010; Mazzarella, 2015a) uncooperative contexts do not affect the inference of implicatures but only the acceptance of their content. Lastly, this thesis touches on the topic of the source of relevance for an utterance, which is treated as a theory neutral notion corresponding to what different theories formalise as the Question Under Discussion (Roberts, 1996/2012) or the shared purpose of interlocutors (Grice, 1989). The results of an experimental study on this topic suggest that the exhaustivity of an utterance as an answer to the possible QUDs in a context affects the choice of which QUDs the utterance will be taken to be addressing. Ultimately, this thesis provides initial experimental evidence on how cooperation (or lack thereof) affects pragmatic inferences and puts forward a novel experimental approach to this line of research.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Dulcinati2018, author = {Dulcinati, Giulio}, title = {Cooperation and pragmatic inferences}, school = {UCL (University College London)}, year = {2018}, url = {https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10053950} }
Faller, M.	Evidential scalar implicatures [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 35(4), pp. 285-312	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper develops an analysis of a scalar implicature that is induced by the use of reportative evidentials such as the Cuzco Quechua enclitic = si and the German modal sollen. Reportatives, in addition to specifying the speaker’s source of information for a statement as a report by someone else, also usually convey that the speaker does not have direct evidence for the proposition expressed. While this type of implicature can be calculated using the same kind of Gricean reasoning that underlies other scalar implicatures, it requires two departures from standard assumptions. First, evidential scalar implicatures differ from the more familiar scalar implicatures in that they do not turn on the notion of informativeness but on the notion of evidential strength. Second, the implicature arises on the illocutionary level of meaning. It is argued that a version of Grice’s maxim of quantity in terms of illocutionary strength can account for this evidential scalar implicature as well as for the more typical scalar implicatures. The account developed also proposes some revisions to the taxonomy of speech acts and suggests that the sincerity conditions of assertive speech acts contain an evidential sincerity condition in addition to the belief condition standardly assumed.
BibTeX: @article{Faller2012, author = {Martina Faller}, title = {Evidential scalar implicatures}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, year = {2012}, volume = {35}, number = {4}, pages = {285--312}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9119-8} }
Grant, M., Clifton, C. and Frazier, L.	The role of Non-Actuality Implicatures in processing elided constituents [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Journal of Memory and Language Vol. 66(1), pp. 326-343	article	DOI
Abstract: When an elided constituent and its antecedent do not match syntactically, the presence of a word implying the non-actuality of the state of affairs described in the antecedent seems to improve the example. (This information should be released but Gorbachev didn’t. vs. This information was released but Gorbachev didn’t.) We model this effect in terms of Non-Actuality Implicatures (NAIs) conveyed by non-epistemic modals like should and other words such as want to and be eager to that imply non-actuality. We report three studies. A rating and interpretation study showed that such implicatures are drawn and that they improve the acceptability of mismatch ellipsis examples. An interpretation study showed that adding a NAI trigger to ambiguous examples increases the likelihood of choosing an antecedent from the NAI clause. An eye movement study shows that a NAI trigger also speeds on-line reading of the ellipsis clause. By introducing alternatives (the desired state of affairs vs. the actual state of affairs), the NAI trigger introduces a potential Question Under Discussion (QUD). Processing an ellipsis clause is easier, the processor is more confident of its analysis, when the ellipsis clause comments on the QUD.
BibTeX: @article{Grant2012, author = {Margaret Grant and Charles Clifton and Lyn Frazier}, title = {The role of Non-Actuality Implicatures in processing elided constituents}, journal = {Journal of Memory and Language}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2012}, volume = {66}, number = {1}, pages = {326--343}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.003} }
Green, M.S.	Quantity, Volubility, and Some Varieties of Discourse [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1995	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 18(1), pp. 83-112	article	URL
Abstract: Grice's Quantity maxims have been widely misinterpreted as enjoining a speaker to make the strongest claim that she can, while respecting the other conversational maxims. Although many writers on the topic of conversational implicature interpret the Quantity maxims as enjoining such volubility, so construed the Quantity maxims are unreasonable norms for conversation. Appreciating this calls for attending more closely to the notion of what a conversation requires. When we do so, we see that eschewing an injunction to maximal informativeness need not deprive us of any ability to predict or explain genuine cases of implicature. Crucial to this explanation is an appreciation of how what a conversation, or a given stage of a conversation, requires, depends upon what kind of conversation is taking place. I close with an outline of this dependence relation that distinguishes among three importantly distinct types of conversation.
BibTeX: @article{Green1995, author = {Mitchell S. Green}, title = {Quantity, Volubility, and Some Varieties of Discourse}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {1995}, volume = {18}, number = {1}, pages = {83-112}, url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/25001579} }
Jasinkaja, E.	Pragmatics and Prosody of Implicit Discourse Relations [Comment] [BibTeX]	2007	School: University of Tübingen	phdthesis	URL
Comment: Jasinskaja proposes that we can derive rhetorical relations via mediation by the topical (QUD) structure of discourse. She investigates this idea in detail, considering a variety of cues to and defaults for this structure that determine the defaults in rhetorical relations, as well as constraining what the topical structure itself can felicitously be. The next paper presents an abbreviated version of this approach.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Jasinkaja2007, author = {Ekaterina Jasinkaja}, title = {Pragmatics and Prosody of Implicit Discourse Relations}, school = {University of Tübingen}, year = {2007}, url = {https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/46380/pdf/thesis_5.04.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y} }
Jasinkaja, E.	Modelling Discourse Relations by Topics and Implicatures: The Elaboration Default [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2010	Constraints in Discourse 2	incollection	DOI
Abstract: This paper develops a theoretical approach that derives the semantic effects of discourse relations from the general pragmatic default priciples of exhaustivity—a kind of Gricean Quantity implicature—and topic continuity. In particular, these defaults lead to the inference of relations such as Elaboration, while other discourse relations, e.g. Narration and List are predicted to be ‘non-default’ and must be signalled, which contrasts with common assumptions in discourse theory. The present paper discusses some observations on the use of connectives and intonation in spontaneous speech which suggest that at least intonational signalling of such relations is obligatory.
BibTeX: @incollection{Jasinkaja2010, author = {Ekaterina Jasinkaja}, title = {Modelling Discourse Relations by Topics and Implicatures: The Elaboration Default}, booktitle = {Constraints in Discourse 2}, publisher = {John Benjamins}, year = {2010}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.194.04jas} }
Jasinskaja, E.	Exhaustification and Semantic Relations in Discourse [BibTeX]	2004	Proceedings of the Workshop on Implicature and Conversational Meaning	inproceedings	URL
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Jasinskaja2004, author = {Ekaterina Jasinskaja}, title = {Exhaustification and Semantic Relations in Discourse}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Workshop on Implicature and Conversational Meaning}, year = {2004}, url = {http://www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/downloads/publications/A3_Jasinskaja_2004.pdf} }
Jasinskaja, E.	Nominal Restatement [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2007	Vol. 11Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, pp. 346-360	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: This paper identiﬁes, explores and provides a formal analysis to a phenomenon that I will call nominal restatement. Nominal restatement (NR) bears a certain similarity to nominal apposition (NA). However, whether an equality sign can be put between these notions depends largely on our assumptions about the range of facts pertaining to apposition, which is not a matter of perfect consensus. This paper shows that NR goes beyond the notion of NA developed by Potts (2005) and is not covered by his analysis. It also presents a purely pragmatic account of NR in terms of the discourse relation of restatement (Jasinskaja 2006b), which both explains the new observations concerning NR (e.g. quantiﬁcation and scope behaviour) and provides a better explanation to some old observations about NA that are also valid for NR (e.g. case). Finally, I address the question whether the notion of NA can ultimately be done away with by subsuming it under the more general notion of NR and discuss some related problems.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Jasinskaja2007, author = {Ekaterina Jasinskaja}, title = {Nominal Restatement}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung}, year = {2007}, volume = {11}, pages = {346-360}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2007.v11i0.650} }
Jasinskaja, E.	Correction by adversative and additive markers [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Lingua Vol. 122(15), pp. 1899-1918	article	DOI
Abstract: Corrective uses of adversative markers like but, as in John isn’t going to Paris, but to Berlin, have proved rather difficult to capture in a unified theory of adversative markers, whereas corrective uses of additive markers, as in John is going to Berlin, and not to Paris, have been almost entirely ignored in theoretical semantics and pragmatics. These uses are taken under closer consideration in this paper, with special focus on the phenomenon I will refer to as (a)symmetric correction. I propose the following generalisation. Adversative markers are asymmetric in their corrective uses (e.g. the English but). That is, the first conjunct of but must be negated, while the second is positive. If the order of the negative and the positive conjunct is reversed, the corrective reading is not available for but, though it can be recovered if but is replaced by and or left out altogether. In contrast, additive markers are symmetric in this function. If a language standardly employs an additive marker to express correction (e.g. the Russian a), the order of the negative and the positive conjunct does not affect its corrective interpretation. The present paper develops a unified account of the semantics of but which accommodates its corrective uses and explains the above mentioned asymmetry. The proposed solution has non-trivial consequences for a general theory of additivity and adversativity, in particular, for the ongoing debate which function of but is the most basic, ‘denial of expectation’ or ‘formal contrast’.
BibTeX: @article{Jasinskaja2012, author = {Ekaterina Jasinskaja}, title = {Correction by adversative and additive markers}, journal = {Lingua}, year = {2012}, volume = {122}, number = {15}, pages = {1899-1918}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.015} }
Kadmon, N.	Formal Pragmatics [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	2001		book
Abstract: Formal Pragmatics addresses issues that are on the borderline of semantics and pragmatics of natural language, from the point of view of a model-theoretic semanticist. This up-to-date resource covers a substantial body of formal work on linguistic phenomena, and presents the way the semantics-pragmatics interface has come to be viewed today.
Comment: Kadmon works through the basics of Heim’s File Change Semantics and Kamp’s Discourse Representation Theory, using them as the foundations of a general formal theory of pragmatics. She illustrates this approach with detailed discussions of scalar implicature, presupposition projection and the role of prosodic focus in interpretation.
BibTeX: @book{Kadmon2001, author = {Nirit Kadmon}, title = {Formal Pragmatics}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, year = {2001} }
Katzir, R. and Singh, R.	Economy of structure and information: Oddness, questions, and answers [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: We examine two conflicting perspectives on oddness: Magri (2009, 2011)’s theory, which derives oddness from blind inferences that clash with common knowledge, and Spector (2014)’s theory that derives oddness from trivial alternatives. Building on these works, we offer a third alternative, one that relies on a discourse condition that says that a good assertion is one that provides a good answer to a good question. A remaining difficulty is the persistence of oddness when the relevant sentences are embedded in environments that are predicted to satisfy the proposed appropriateness conditions.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Katzir2012, author = {Roni Katzir and Raj Singh}, title = {Economy of structure and information: Oddness, questions, and answers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19}, year = {2012}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2015.v19i0.236} }
Klinedinst, N. and Rothschild, D.	Exhaustivity in questions with non-factives [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 4, pp. 1-23	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper is concerned with the conditions under which a person can be said to have told someone or predicted (the answer to a question like) 'who sang'. It is standardly claimed that while (i) the true answer must be completely specified, it is not necessary that (ii) it be specified as being the complete answer. Here the non-factive verbs 'tell' and 'predict' are said to differ from the factive verb 'know', which typically does impose the strong exhaustivity requirement in (ii). We argue for an intermediate reading of 'tell' and 'predict' that requires more than (i) but less than (ii). To account for this reading we claim that the exhaustivity requirement (ii) imposed by 'know' is due to an operator than can apply non-locally. Applying the operator above a non-factive verb derives the intermediate reading, whereas doing so is vacuous in the case of factives. Thus, we derive the intermediate reading, and differences in the exhaustivity requirements imposed by factives and non-factives, without lexical stipulation.
BibTeX: @article{Klinedinst2011, author = {Nathan Klinedinst and Daniel Rothschild}, title = {Exhaustivity in questions with non-factives}, journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics}, year = {2011}, volume = {4}, pages = {1-23}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.4.2} }
van Kuppevelt, J.	Discourse Structure, Topicality and Questioning [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1995	Journal of Linguistics Vol. 31(1), pp. 109-147	article	DOI
Abstract: In this paper we present an alternative approach to discourse structure according to which topicality is the general organizing principle in discourse. This approach accounts for the fact that the segmentation structure of discourse is in correspondence with the hierarchy of topics defined for the discourse units. Fundamental to the proposed analysis is the relation it assumes between the notion of topic and that of explicit and implicit questioning in discourse. This relation implies that (1) the topic associated with a discourse unit is provided by the explicit or implicit question it answers and (2) the relation between discourse units is determined by the relation between these topic-providing questions.
BibTeX: @article{Kuppevelt1995, author = {Jan van Kuppevelt}, title = {Discourse Structure, Topicality and Questioning}, journal = {Journal of Linguistics}, year = {1995}, volume = {31}, number = {1}, pages = {109-147}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670000058X} }
van Kuppevelt, J.	Inferring from Topics: Implicatures as Topic-Dependent Inferences [BibTeX]	1996	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 19(4), pp. 393-443	article	DOI
BibTeX: @article{Kuppevelt1996, author = {Jan van Kuppevelt}, title = {Inferring from Topics: Implicatures as Topic-Dependent Inferences}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {1996}, volume = {19}, number = {4}, pages = {393-443}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630897} }
Liu, M.	Multidimensional Semantics of Evaluative Adverbs [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012		book
Abstract: Multidimensional Semantics of Evaluative Adverbs provides a multidimensional analysis for the lexical semantics of evaluative adverbs: nonfactive evaluative adverbs trigger a conventional implicature, whereas factive evaluative adverbs not only trigger a conventional implicature but also a conventional presupposition. This analysis proves to be more advantageous than existing analysis in terms of empirical coverage and explanatory power. With the case of evaluative adverbs, the book demonstrates how secondary meanings (e.g. conventional presuppositions, conventional implicatures) interact with primary meanings (i.e. main assertion, or at-issue content). For the first time, a three-dimensional formal language of conventional implicatures and conventional presuppositions is implemented and applied to derive the right truth conditions of sentences with evaluative adverbs and predict their projection behaviors. With a cross-linguistic perspective (focusing on German, English and Mandarin Chinese) and using corpus- and psycholinguistic methods, the book also offers new perspectives on the syntax/semantics/pragmatics of adverbials.
BibTeX: @book{Liu2012, author = {Mingya Liu}, title = {Multidimensional Semantics of Evaluative Adverbs}, publisher = {Brill}, year = {2012} }
de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine. and Tonhauser, J.	Inferring Meaning from Indirect Answers to Polar Questions: the Contribution of the Rise-Fall-Rise Contour [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	Questions in Discourse, pp. 132-163	incollection	DOI
Abstract: Polar questions can be given direct answers (e.g., Do you want to eat? – No) and indirect answers (e.g., Do you want to eat? – I’m not hungry). Listeners infer positive or negative responses from indirect answers to polar questions with varying degrees of confidence (e.g., Clark 1979, Hirschberg 1985, Green & Carberry 1992, 1994, de Marneffe et al. 2009). For spoken language, the prosodic realization of the indirect answer has been speculated to provide a cue to the intended meaning of the indirect answer (Green & Carberry 1999, fn. 34). This paper presents an experiment designed to identify whether and how the prosodic realization of an indirect answer to a polar question influences the response that listeners infer from the indirect answer. The experiment explored American English listeners’ interpretations of indirect answers with scalar adjectives (e.g., She’s attractive) realized with a neutral contour (H* L-L%) or the rise-fall-rise contour (L*+H L-H%) in response to polar questions with semantically stronger adjectives (e.g., Is your sister beautiful?). Listeners inferred significantly more negative responses to the polar questions when the indirect answer was realized with the rise-fall-rise contour than with the neutral contour. These findings show that the prosodic realization of an indirect answer can provide a cue to the speaker’s intended meaning. The paper also discusses implications of our findings for scalar implicature generation and the meaning of the rise-fall-rise contour.
BibTeX: @incollection{Marneffe2019, author = {Marie-Catherine de Marneffe and Judith Tonhauser}, title = {Inferring Meaning from Indirect Answers to Polar Questions: the Contribution of the Rise-Fall-Rise Contour}, booktitle = {Questions in Discourse}, publisher = {Brill}, year = {2019}, pages = {132-163}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378322_006} }
Mayol, L. and Castroviejo, E.	How to cancel an implicature [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 50(1), pp. 84-104	article	DOI
Abstract: Cancelability is one of the main tests to identify conversational implicatures in general, and scalar implicatures in particular. Despite this fact, cancelability itself is a phenomenon rarely looked at. This paper presents an account of when the cancellation of a scalar implicature is an acceptable discourse move and provides experimental evidence to support our proposal. Our main claim is that the felicity of a scalar implicature cancellation depends on the discourse structure. More specifically, cancellation is acceptable only if it addresses a Question Under Discussion that differs from the previous one. As will be shown, this proposal has the additional benefit of permitting us to tease apart cancellations from self-repairs.
BibTeX: @article{Mayol2013, author = {Laia Mayol and Elena Castroviejo}, title = {How to cancel an implicature}, journal = {Journal of Pragmatics}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2013}, volume = {50}, number = {1}, pages = {84--104}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.002} }
Mayol, L. and Castroviejo, E.	Contrastive topics and implicature cancellation [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	19th ICL Papers	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: This paper is concerned with the so-called ‘Problem of the Last Answer’, which arises in the context of the research on the semantics of Contrastive Topic, on the one hand, and on the distribution of the presupposition trigger too, on the other hand. Our goal is to argue that we can find a simple and elegant answer to this problem if we take into consideration more general constraints on implicature cancellation.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Mayol2013a, author = {Laia Mayol and Elena Castroviejo}, title = {Contrastive topics and implicature cancellation}, booktitle = {19th ICL Papers}, year = {2013}, url = {https://www.cil19.org/uploads/documents/Contrastive_topics_and_implicature_cancellation.pdf} }
McCafferty, A.	Reasoning about Implicature [BibTeX]	1987	School: University of Pittsburgh	phdthesis
BibTeX: @phdthesis{McCafferty1987, author = {Andrew McCafferty}, title = {Reasoning about Implicature}, school = {University of Pittsburgh}, year = {1987} }
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} }
Westera, M.	Exhaustivity Through the Maxim of Relation [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence.	incollection	DOI
Abstract: I show that the exhaustive interpretation of answers can be explained as a conversational implicature through the Maxim of Relation, dealing with the problematic epistemic step (Sauerland 2004). I assume a fairly standard Maxim of Relation, that captures the same intuition as Roberts’ (1996) contextual entailment. I show that if a richer notion of meaning is adopted, in particular that of attentive semantics (Roelofsen 2011), this Maxim of Relation automatically becomes strong enough to enable exhaustivity implicatures. The results suggest that pragmatic reasoning is sensitive not only to the information an utterance provides, but also to the possibilities it draws attention to. Foremost, it shows that exhaustivity implicatures can be genuine conversational implicatures.
BibTeX: @incollection{Nakano2014, author = {Matthjis Westera}, title = {Exhaustivity Through the Maxim of Relation}, booktitle = {New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence.}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2014}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10061-6} }
Pankratz, E. and Van Tiel, B.	The role of relevance for scalar diversity: a usage-based approach [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2021	Language and Cognition	article	DOI
Abstract: Scalar inferences occur when a weaker statement like It’s warm is used when a stronger one like It’s hot could have been used instead, resulting in the inference that whoever produced the weaker statement believes that the stronger statement does not hold. The rate at which this inference is drawn varies across scalar words, a result termed ‘scalar diversity’. Here, we study scalar diversity in adjectival scalar words from a usage-based perspective. We introduce novel operationalisations of several previously observed predictors of scalar diversity using computational tools based on usage data, allowing us to move away from existing judgment-based methods. In addition, we show in two experiments that, above and beyond these previously observed predictors, scalar diversity is predicted in part by the relevance of the scalar inference at hand. We introduce a corpus-based measure of relevance based on the idea that scalar inferences that are more relevant are more likely to occur in scalar constructions that draw an explicit contrast between scalar words (e.g., It’s warm but not hot). We conclude that usage has an important role to play in the establishment of common ground, a requirement for pragmatic inferencing.
BibTeX: @article{Pankratz2021, author = {Elizabeth Pankratz and Bob Van Tiel}, title = {The role of relevance for scalar diversity: a usage-based approach}, journal = {Language and Cognition}, year = {2021}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2021.13} }
Roberts, C.	Information Structure, Plans, and Implicature [BibTeX]	1996	Proceedings of the 1996 AAAI Symposium on Implicature	inproceedings
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Roberts1996a, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Information Structure, Plans, and Implicature}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 1996 AAAI Symposium on Implicature}, year = {1996} }
Romoli, J.	Soft but Strong. Neg-raising, Soft triggers, and Exhaustification [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	School: Harvard University	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: In this thesis, I focus on scalar implicatures, presuppositions and their connections. In chapter 2, I propose a scalar implicature-based account of neg-raising inferences, standardly analyzed as a presuppositional phenomenon (Gajewski 2005, 2007). I show that an approach based on scalar implicatures can straightforwardly account for the differences and similarities between neg-raising predicates and presuppositional triggers. In chapters 3 and 4, I extend this account to "soft" presuppositions, a class of presuppositions that are easily suspendable (Abusch 2002, 2010). I show how such account can explain the differences and similarities between this class of presuppositions and other presuppositions on one hand, and scalar implicatures on the other. Furthermore, I discuss various consequences that it has with respect to the behavior of soft presuppositions in quantificational sentences, their interactions with scalar implicatures, and their effects on the licensing of negative polarity items. In chapter 5, I show that by looking at the interaction between presuppositions and scalar implicatures we can solve a notorious problem which arises with conditional sentences like (1) (Soames 1982, Karttunen and Peters 1979). The main issue with (1) is that it is intuitively not presuppositional and this is not predicted by any major theory of presupposition projection. (1) I'll go, if you go too. Finally, I explore in more detail the question of which alternatives should we consider in the computation of scalar implicatures (chapter 6). Traditionally, the answer has been to consider the subset of logically stronger alternatives than the assertion. Recently, however, arguments have been put forward in the literature for including also logically independent alternatives. I support this move by presenting some novel arguments in its favor and I show that while allowing new alternatives makes the right predictions in various cases, it also causes an under- and an over-generation problem. I propose a solution to each problem, based on a novel recursive algorithm for checking which alternatives are to be considered in the computation of scalar implicatures and the role of focus (Rooth 1992, Fox and Katzir 2011).
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Romoli2012, author = {Jacopo Romoli}, title = {Soft but Strong. Neg-raising, Soft triggers, and Exhaustification}, school = {Harvard University}, year = {2012}, url = {https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/soft-strong-neg-raising-triggers-exhaustification/docview/1175223796/se-2?accountid=9783} }
Romoli, J.	A scalar implicature-based approach to neg-raising [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 36(4), pp. 291-353	article	DOI
Abstract: In this paper, I give an analysis of neg-raising inferences as scalar implicatures. The main motivation for this account as opposed to a presupposition-based approach like Gajewski (Linguist Philos 30(3):289–328, 2007) comes from the differences between presuppositions and neg-raising inferences. In response to this issue, Gajewski (2007) argues that neg-raising predicates are soft presuppositional triggers and adopts the account of how their presuppositions arise by Abusch (J Semantics 27(1):1–44, 2010). However, I argue that there is a difference between soft triggers and neg-raising predicates in their behavior in embeddings; a difference that is straightforwardly accounted for in the present approach. Furthermore, by adopting Abusch’s (2010) account of soft triggers, Gajewski (2007) inherits the assumptions of a pragmatic principle of disjunctive closure and of a non-standard interaction between semantics and pragmatics—assumptions that are not needed by the present proposal, which is just based on a regular theory of scalar implicatures. I also show that the arguments that Gajewski (2007) presents in favor of the presuppositional account can be explained also by the scalar implicatures-based approach proposed here. Finally, while the main point of the paper is a comparison with the presuppositional account, I sketch a preliminary comparison with more syntactic approaches to neg-raising.
BibTeX: @article{Romoli2013, author = {Jacopo Romoli}, title = {A scalar implicature-based approach to neg-raising}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2013}, volume = {36}, number = {4}, pages = {291--353}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9136-2} }
Ronai, E. and Xiang, M.	Pragmatic inferences are QUD-sensitive: an experimental study [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	Journal of Linguistics	article	DOI
Abstract: Implicatures serve as an important testing ground for examining the process of integrating semantic and pragmatic information. Starting with Bott & Noveck (2004), several studies have found that implicature computation is costly. More recently, attention has shifted toward identifying contextual cues that modulate this processing cost. Specifically, it has been hypothesized that calculation rate and processing cost are a function of whether the Question Under Discussion (QUD) supports generating the implicature (Degen 2013; Degen & Tanenhaus 2015). In this paper, we present a novel elicitation task establishing what the relevant QUDs are for a given context (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, a sentence-picture verification study, we extend earlier findings about the effect of QUDs on scalar inference to a different kind of pragmatic inference: it-cleft exhaustivity. For both inferences, we find that under QUDs that bias toward calculation, there is no increase in reaction times, but under QUDs that bias against calculating the inference we observe longer reaction times. These results are most compatible with a constraint-based account of implicature, where QUD is one of many cues. Additionally, we explore whether our findings can be informative in narrowing down precisely what aspect of the inferential process incurs a cost.
BibTeX: @article{Ronai2020, author = {Eszter Ronai and Ming Xiang}, title = {Pragmatic inferences are QUD-sensitive: an experimental study}, journal = {Journal of Linguistics}, year = {2020}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000389} }
van Rooij, R.	Conversational Implicatures and Communication Theory [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2003	Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 283-303	incollection	DOI
Abstract: According to standard pragmatics, we should account for conversational implicatures in terms of (1975) maxims of conversation. Neo-Griceans like (1981) and (1984) seek to reduce those maxims to the so-called Q and I-principles. In this paper I want to argue that (i) there are major problems for reducing Gricean pragmatics to these two principles, and (ii) that, in fact, we’d better account for implicatures in terms of the principles of (a) optimal relevance and (b) optimal coding. To formulate both, I will make use of (1948) mathematical theory of communication.
BibTeX: @incollection{Rooij2003d, author = {Robert van Rooij}, title = {Conversational Implicatures and Communication Theory}, booktitle = {Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue}, publisher = {Springer Netherlands}, year = {2003}, pages = {283-303}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0019-2_13} }
van Rooij, R. and Schulz, K.	Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2004	Journal of Logic, Language, and Information Vol. 13, pp. 491-519	article	DOI
Abstract: In terms of Groenendijk and Stokhof’s (1984) formalization of exhaustive interpretation, many conversational implicatures can be accounted for. In this paper we justify and generalize this approach. Our justification proceeds by relating their account via Halpern and Moses’ (1984) non-monotonic theory of ‘only knowing’ to the Gricean maxims of Quality and the first sub-maxim of Quantity. The approach of Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984) is generalized such that it can also account for implicatures that are triggered in subclauses not entailed by the whole complex sentence.
BibTeX: @article{Rooij2004a, author = {Robert van Rooij and Katrin Schulz}, title = {Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences}, journal = {Journal of Logic, Language, and Information}, year = {2004}, volume = {13}, pages = {491-519}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-004-2118-6} }
van Rooij, R.	Conjunctive Interpretation of Disjunction [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2010	Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 3	article	DOI
Abstract: In this extended commentary I discuss the problem of how to account for “conjunctive” readings of some sentences with embedded disjunctions for globalist analyses of conversational implicatures. Following Franke (2010, 2009), I suggest that earlier proposals failed, because they did not take into account the interactive reasoning of what else the speaker could have said, and how else the hearer could have interpreted the (alternative) sentence(s). I show how Franke’s idea relates to more traditional pragmatic interpretation strategies.
BibTeX: @article{Rooij2010, author = {Robert van Rooij}, title = {Conjunctive Interpretation of Disjunction}, journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics}, year = {2010}, volume = {3}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.11} }
Rudin, D.	Deriving a Variable-Strength Might [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2016	Vol. 20Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung	inproceedings
Abstract: This paper combines an empirical argument about the lexical semantics of might with a preliminary description and theoretical account of a novel variety of implicatures. Empirically, I introduce the DISMISSIVE AGREEMENT paradigm, which shows that might semantically encodes nothing stronger than nonzero probability. Theoretically, I derive the fact that might often seems to suggest something stronger from the pragmatic norm that cooperative speakers will make claims that are strong enough to be relevant to the Question Under Discussion, which gives rise to LOWER BOUND IMPLICATURES.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Rudin2016, author = {Deniz Rudin}, title = {Deriving a Variable-Strength Might}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung}, year = {2016}, volume = {20} }
Schulz, K. and van Rooij, R.	Pragmatic Meaning and Non-monotonic Reasoning: The Case of Exhaustive Interpretation [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2006	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 29, pp. 205-250	article	DOI
Abstract: In this paper an approach to the exhaustive interpretation of answers is developed. It builds on a proposal brought forward by Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984). We will use the close connection between their approach and McCarthy’s (1980, 1986) predicate circumscription and describe exhaustive interpretation as an instance of interpretation in minimal models, well-known from work on counterfactuals (see for instance Lewis (1973)). It is shown that by combining this approach with independent developments in semantics/pragmatics one can overcome certain limitations of Groenenedijk and Stokhof’s (1984) proposal. In the last part of the paper we will provide a Gricean motivation for exhaustive interpretation building on work of Schulz (to appear) and van Rooij and Schulz (2004).
BibTeX: @article{Schulz2006, author = {Katrin Schulz and Robert van Rooij}, title = {Pragmatic Meaning and Non-monotonic Reasoning: The Case of Exhaustive Interpretation}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {2006}, volume = {29}, pages = {205-250}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-3760-4} }
Siegel, M.	In your Dreams: Flouting Quality II [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 87Journal of Pragmatics	article	DOI
Abstract: Responses like in your dreams or on some other planet have a prominent reading (SDR) that strongly denies a Given proposition p. Since speakers have no evidence about the truth of p in inaccessible places like other peoples’ dreams, an SDR speaker provides an answer (‘p in your dreams’) to the Question Under Discussion (‘?p’) that is relatively weak in the conversational context. Assuming the SDR speaker's competence, such a weak response predictably gives rise to a conversational implicature that p is false, and focus-marking makes this negative implicature more salient. This article gives a unified pragmatic account of the previously unstudied syntactic/semantic and discourse-function properties that distinguish SDRs from other utterances with similar negative implicatures and focus: the peculiar strength of their denials, their obligatory focus-marking, their resistance to clefting, only, but, definite reference and embedding, and the displacement, by the denial implicature they engender, of their propositional content. This leaves the propositional content to contribute only Relevance implicatures. It is argued that SDRs speakers’ flouting of the second, evidence part of Grice's Quality Maxim is responsible for all these properties, even though such Quality II flouting is unusual because evidenceless claims are predominantly also irrelevant ones.
BibTeX: @article{ScienceDirect2015, author = {Muffy Siegel}, title = {In your Dreams: Flouting Quality II}, booktitle = {Journal of Pragmatics}, journal = {Journal of Pragmatics}, year = {2015}, volume = {87}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.008} }
Simons, M.	Dynamic Pragmatics, or, why we shouldn't be afraid of embedded implicatures [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Proceedings of SALT 21	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: This paper examines a particular case of embedded pragmatic effect, here dubbed local pragmatic enrichment. I argue that local enrichment is fairly easily accommodated within semantic theories which take content to be structured. Two standard approaches to dynamic semantics, DRT and Heimian CCS, are discussed as candidates. Focusing on cases of local enrichment of disjuncts in clausal disjunctions, I point out that in these cases, local enrichment is driven by global felicity requirements, demonstrating that the local/global distinction is not a simple dichotomy.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Simons2011, author = {Mandy Simons}, title = {Dynamic Pragmatics, or, why we shouldn't be afraid of embedded implicatures}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 21}, year = {2011}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2593} }
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} }
Smeets, L. and Meroni, L.	Stress or Context for the Computation of Scalar Implicatures [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, pp. 313-331	incollection	DOI
Abstract: Since the work of Chierchia et al. (2001) and Noveck (2001), children’s ability to compute scalar implicatures (SIs) has been widely studied. The results of many studies showed that while children master the prerequisites to compute SIs, they are not as proficient as adults in computing them (a.o., Papafragou and Musolino 2003; Napoleon and Bishop 2011). Other studies (i.e., Meroni and Gualmini 2013), on the other hand, showed that even four-year-old children can compute SIs on the scale at adult-like levels when the context is made pragmatically felicitous. Specifically, they show that the implicature is computed when an explicit Question Under Discussion (QUD) is added, as this reading constitutes the only felicitous answer to that question (Gualmini et al. 2008). Under the most natural intonation, when some is presented after a QUD that contains the stronger alternative all it receives stress, but it is destressed when the QUD contains some, which does not trigger a SI. Interestingly, only the former condition led children to compute SIs. As a consequence, it could well be the case that children in the study by Meroni and Gualmini (2013) compute SIs when the scalar item is stressed (Miller et al. 2005), independently of the QUD. In this study we aim to disentangle the relative contribution of stress and the explicit QUD to children’s (un)successful SI computation. To test the relative contribution of stress and the QUD, a Truth Value Judgment task (TVJt) was designed in which the target sentences exhibited the opposite stress pattern than in the original study. We conclude that prosody also plays a role in helping children to recognize the set of contextual alternatives which lead them to SI derivation. This study strengthens the claim that young children use and need both contextual and prosodic information to make pragmatic inferences.
BibTeX: @incollection{Smeets2020, author = {Liz Smeets and Luisa Meroni}, title = {Stress or Context for the Computation of Scalar Implicatures}, booktitle = {Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics}, publisher = {Springer Netherlands}, year = {2020}, pages = {313--331}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1932-0_13} }
Thomason, R.	Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics [BibTeX]	1990	Intentions in Communication	incollection
BibTeX: @incollection{Thomason1990, author = {Richmond Thomason}, title = {Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics}, booktitle = {Intentions in Communication}, publisher = {MIT Press}, year = {1990} }
Degen, J. and Goodman, N.	Lost your marbles The and puzzle of dependent measures in experimental pragmatics [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	UC Merced Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: A rarely discussed but important issue in research on pragmatic inference is the choice of dependent measure for estimating the robustness of pragmatic inferences and their sensitivity to contextual manipulations. Here we present the results from three studies exploring the effect of contextual manipulations on scalar implicature. In all three studies we manipulate the salient question under discussion and the perceptual availability of relevant set sizes. The studies differ only in the dependent measure used: Exp. 1 uses truth judgements, Exp. 2 uses word probability ratings, and Exp. 3 uses a direct measure of sentence interpretation. We argue that the first two are effectively measures of production, and find they are sensitive to our contextual manipulations. In contrast the interpretation measure shows no effect of context. We argue that this methodologically troubling finding can be understood and predicted by using the framework of probabilistic pragmatics.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Title2014, author = {Judith Degen and Noah Goodman}, title = {Lost your marbles The and puzzle of dependent measures in experimental pragmatics}, booktitle = {UC Merced Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society}, year = {2014}, url = {https://escholarship.org/uc/item/97t2w1f3} }
Toosarvandani, M.	Contrast and the structure of discourse [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 7	article	DOI
Abstract: The semantics of the coordinator but does not fit neatly into the traditional distinction between entailments and conversational implicatures. In its counterexpectational use, but can convey an implication relating its two conjuncts, which Grice (1975) classifies as a conventional implicature because its behavior diverges from both entailments and conversational implicatures. I propose that this meaning component arises from but’s interaction with the discourse context – specifically, how it makes conventional reference to the question under discussion (QUD) in the sense of Roberts (1996/2012, 2004). This derives the variable interpretation of the implication in the counterexpectational use, as well as its absence in the corrective and semantic opposition uses of but. This account provides a new perspective on the relationship between the different uses of but as a type of modal polysemy (Kratzer 1981, 1991), and it suggests that other expressions that have been argued to have conventional implicatures might also make conventional reference to the QUD.
BibTeX: @article{Toosarvandani2014, author = {Maziar Toosarvandani}, title = {Contrast and the structure of discourse}, journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2014}, volume = {7}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.4} }
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} }
Welker, K.	Plans in the Common Ground: Toward a Generative Account of Implicature [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1994	School: The Ohio State University	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: The focus of this dissertation is the development of a general framework which can serve as the basis for a formal pragmatic (as opposed to computational or processing) theory of one variety of pragmatic data: conversational implicature. From a larger perspective, this framework may also be seen as contributing toward a theory of conversational competence: a theory of the rules and mechanisms necessary to model what people know that allows them to use language in conversation. A fully developed theory of conversational competence will account for a variety of pragmatic data, such as conversational implicature, indirect speecch acts, accommodation of linguistic presuppositions, and processing/disambiguation. In this dissertation, I will primarily be concerned with its capacity to account for conversational implicature only, and will not attempt to show how the framework can be used to account for other kinds of data as well.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Welker1994, author = {Katherine Welker}, title = {Plans in the Common Ground: Toward a Generative Account of Implicature}, school = {The Ohio State University}, year = {1994}, url = {https://linguistics.osu.edu/sites/linguistics.osu.edu/files/Welker_dissertation_1994.pdf} }
Westera, M.	‘Attention, I’m violating a maxim!’ A unifying account of the final rise [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	17th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (DialDam)	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: Declarative sentences that end with a rising pitch in English (among other languages) have many uses. I single out several prominent uses that the literature so far has treated mostly independently. I present a compositional, unifying analysis, where the final rising pitch marks the violation of a conversational maxim, and its steepness indicates the speaker’s emotional activation. Existing theories are reproduced from these basic assumptions. I believe it contributes to a solid theoretical foundation for future work on the semantics and pragmatics of intonation.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Westera2013, author = {Matthijs Westera}, title = {‘Attention, I’m violating a maxim!’ A unifying account of the final rise}, booktitle = {17th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (DialDam)}, year = {2013}, url = {http://semdial.org/anthology/Z13-Westera_semdial_0019.pdf} }
Westera, M.	A pragmatic approach to Hurford disjunctions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018		unpublished	URL
Abstract: Hurford disjunctions are disjunctions where one disjunct entails another. Some of these are fine while others seem infelicitous. The predominant approach to this phenomenon relies on Hurford’s Constraint, which states that such disjunctions are generally bad, together with grammatical exhaustification, which can rescue some of them by exhaustifying the weaker disjunct to break the entailment. This paper explores an alternative, based on a non-grammatical, pragmatic approach to exhaustivity. Instead of adopting Hurford’s Constraint it takes the felicitous examples as basic, and aims to explain the infelicitous ones by means of a frequently made assumption about the pragmatics of disjunction. A detailed comparison shows that the two approaches divide the empirical landscape in sometimes surprisingly different ways. Moreover, it shows that several theoretical choices in the field are deeply connected: whether or not to assume the general validity of Hurford’s constraint, whether to adopt a pragmatic or grammatical approach to exhaustivity, and which type of semantics to use as the backbone.
BibTeX: @unpublished{Westera2018, author = {Matthijs Westera}, title = {A pragmatic approach to Hurford disjunctions}, year = {2018}, url = {http://mwestera.humanities.uva.nl/downloads/Westera2018-ms-Hurford.pdf} }
Westera, M.	Rise-Fall-Rise as a Marker of Secondary QUD s [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	Secondary Content, pp. 376 - 404	incollection	DOI URL
Abstract: In the literature, English rise-fall-rise (RFR) intonation is known both as a marker of secondary information and as a marker of topics. This paper aims to make plausible that these two uses can be derived from a common core, which in turn can be derived from a recent theory of intonational meaning more generally, according to which rises and falls indicate (non-)compliance with the maxims (Westera 2013, 2014, 2017). The core meaning of RFR, I propose, is that the main question under discussion (Qud) is not compliantly addressed, while some secondary Qud is. Several more concrete predictions are derived from this core meaning, pertaining to secondary information, topic marking, exhaustivity, and discourse strategies. The resulting account is shown to generate certain ingredients of existing accounts, while also doing some things differently in ways that may be empirically accurate. If the proposed account is on the right track, it provides an important new intonational window on Quds.
BibTeX: @incollection{Westera2019, author = {Matthijs Westera}, title = {Rise-Fall-Rise as a Marker of Secondary QUD s}, booktitle = {Secondary Content}, publisher = {Brill}, year = {2019}, pages = {376 - 404}, url = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004393127/BP000014.xml}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004393127_015} }
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} }
Yang, X., Minai, U. and Fiorentino, R.	Context-Sensitivity and Individual Differences in the Derivation of Scalar Implicature [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 9	article	DOI
Abstract: The derivation of scalar implicatures for the quantifier some has been widely studied to investigate the computation of pragmatically enriched meanings. For example, the sentence “I found some books” carries the semantic interpretation that at least one book was found, but its interpretation is often enriched to include the implicature that not all the books were found. The implicature is argued to be more likely to arise when it is relevant for addressing a question under discussion (QUD) in the context, e.g., when “I found some books” is uttered in response to “Did you find all the books?” as opposed to “Did you find any books?”. However, most experimental studies have not examined the influence of context on some, instead testing some sentences in isolation. Moreover, no study to our knowledge has examined individual differences in the ability to utilize context in interpreting some, whereas individual variation in deriving implicatures for some sentences in isolation is widely attested, with alternative proposals attributing this variation to individual differences in cognitive resources (e.g., working memory) or personality-based pragmatic abilities (e.g., as assessed by the Autism-Spectrum Quotient). The current study examined how context influences the interpretation of some in a story-sentence matching task, where participants rated some statements (“I cut some steaks”) uttered by one character, in response to another character’s question (QUD) that established the implicature as relevant (“Did you cut all the steaks?”) or irrelevant (“Did you cut any steaks?”). We also examined to what extent individuals’ sensitivity to QUD is modulated by individual differences via a battery of measures assessing cognitive resources, personality-based pragmatic abilities, and language abilities (which have been argued to modulate comprehension in other domains). Our results demonstrate that QUD affects the interpretation of some, and reveal that individual differences in sensitivity to QUD are modulated by both cognitive resources and personality-based pragmatic abilities. While previous studies have argued alternatively for cognitive resources or personality-based pragmatic abilities as important for deriving implicatures for some in isolation, we argue that arriving at a context-sensitive interpretation for some depends on both cognitive and personality-based properties of the individual.
BibTeX: @article{Yang2018, author = {Xiao Yang and Utako Minai and Robert Fiorentino}, title = {Context-Sensitivity and Individual Differences in the Derivation of Scalar Implicature}, journal = {Frontiers in Psychology}, publisher = {Frontiers Media SA}, year = {2018}, volume = {9}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01720} }
Zeevat, H.	Exhaustivity, questions and plurals in update semantics [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2007	Questions in Dynamic Semantics, pp. 159-192	incollection	DOI
Abstract: This chapter presents an exhaustification operator in update semantics and discusses a series of applications of this operator. The exhaustification operator takes an open formula and assigns values to the free variables such that the formula is true as a result and entails all versions of the formula that can be obtained from the formula by assigning other values to the free variables for which the formula is true. Update semantics is a general name for any theory of language that explains the semantic properties of its expressions in terms of the information change that they bring about on information states. Exhaustive updates are updates with a formula whose discourse markers in the update are exhaustified with respect to the formula. A logical representation of questions needs to have a question operator and a way for marking Wh-elements. Scalar implicatures is area in which exhaustification does provide a direct explanation.
BibTeX: @incollection{Zeevat2007, author = {Henk Zeevat}, title = {Exhaustivity, questions and plurals in update semantics}, booktitle = {Questions in Dynamic Semantics}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2007}, pages = {159-192}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080470993_009} }
Zondervan, A.	Effects of question under discussion and focus on scalar implicatures [BibTeX]	2007	Proceedings of the Fifth Semantics in theNetherlands Day, pp. 39-52	inproceedings
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Zondervan2007, author = {Arjen Zondervan}, title = {Effects of question under discussion and focus on scalar implicatures}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Fifth Semantics in theNetherlands Day}, year = {2007}, pages = {39-52} }
Zondervan, A., Meroni, L. and Gualmini, A.	Experiments on the role of the question under discussion for ambiguity resolution and implicature computation in adults [BibTeX]	2008	Proceedings of SALT 18	inproceedings	DOI
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Zondervan2008a, author = {Arjen Zondervan and Luisa Meroni and Andrea Gualmini}, title = {Experiments on the role of the question under discussion for ambiguity resolution and implicature computation in adults}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 18}, year = {2008}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v18i0.2486} }
Zondervan, A.	Experiments on QUD and focus as a contextualconstraint on scalar implicature calculation [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2009	Semantics and Pragmatics, From Experiment toTheory	incollection
Abstract: This paper presents experimental support from four experiments for the claim that more scalar implicatures (SIs) are calculated when the scalar term is in a focused constituent, i.e. the constituent that was questioned by the Question Under Discussion (QUD) of the context. In Experiment 1 and 2, the QUD was explicitly given, while in Experiment 3 and 4, it was implicit in the context. In each case, participants calculated more SIs when the scalar term was in a focused constituent. Implications of these results are discussed, both for the experimental paradigm, especially the Truth Value Judgment Task, as for the theoretical framework of exhaustivity-based accounts of scalar implicature calculation.
BibTeX: @incollection{Zondervan2009, author = {Arjen Zondervan}, title = {Experiments on QUD and focus as a contextualconstraint on scalar implicature calculation}, booktitle = {Semantics and Pragmatics, From Experiment toTheory}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, year = {2009} }
Zondervan, A.	Scalar Implicatures or Focus: An Experimental Approach [BibTeX]	2010	School: Utrecht University	phdthesis	URL
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Zondervan2010, author = {Arjen Zondervan}, title = {Scalar Implicatures or Focus: An Experimental Approach}, school = {Utrecht University}, year = {2010}, url = {https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/43820/zondervan.pdf?sequence=2} }
Zondervan, A.	The role of QUD and focus on the scalar implicature of most [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics	incollection
Abstract: Where previous studies supported the effect of the contextual property of Question Under Discussion (QUD) and focus on the scalar implicature of or, this paper presents two experiments that replicate this effect with the scalar term most. Both experiments show that, while story and target sentence are kept constant, more scalar implicatures are calculated when the scalar term is in the focus (new information) part of the sentence. In the experiments, the focus is manipulated by an explicit QUD. It is shown that the effect also holds for sentential answers to yes/no-questions, and might even extend to scalar implicatures in questions themselves.
BibTeX: @incollection{Zondervan2011, author = {Arjen Zondervan}, title = {The role of QUD and focus on the scalar implicature of most}, booktitle = {Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics}, publisher = {John Benjamins}, year = {2011} }