Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 24:3 (2017) ► pp.373–403

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Cognitive processing of scalar implicatures with Chinese gradable adjectives

 | Lanzhou University, China
 | Lanzhou University, China
Published online: 28 February 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17036.liu
Abstract
In previous research comparing the Context-driven Model with the Default Model of meaning processing, the former was preferred. It predicts that contexts play an exclusively decisive role in meaning processing, whereas the latter holds that the inference of literal meaning generally goes through, unless it is subsequently defaulted or cancelled by the context it is associated with. The Standardization Model, which we added to our experiments, highlights that implicatures are figured out from standardized forms typically based on the mutual background belief and speaker’s intention. We tested whether Chinese people’s processing of the gradable adjective scale <hot, burning> conformed more to the Context-driven Model, the Default Model, or the Standardization Model. The results demonstrated that the Standardization Model is the most acceptable among the three. The findings of this study, which is the first study using the experimental paradigm on Chinese gradable adjectives, highlighted a need for further studies to investigate the same questions with different languages and cultures.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background to the three processing models
    • 2.1Theories for DM and CM with context dependency in focus
    • 2.2Theories and assumptions for SM
    • 2.3Assumptions to the three models in a neutral context
  • 3.Noted studies testing the three models
    • 3.1Studies on the Context-driven Model vs. the Default Model
    • 3.2A study of the Standardization Model vs. the Default Model
  • 4.Test materials of scalar implicature
  • 5.Gradable adjectives under test
  • 6.Method
    • 6.1Experiment 1
      • 6.1.1Participants
      • 6.1.2Design
        • Selection of gradable adjectives
        • Context settings
        • Test items
      • 6.1.3Procedures
        • Information registration
        • Instruction
        • Screen display
        • Training items
        • In-test monitoring
        • Post-test interview
        • Scalar implicature interpretation rate (SIIR)
        • Response time (RT)
        • Predictions
      • 6.1.4Post-test interview and questionnaire
      • 6.1.5Results
        • Scalar implicature interpretation rate
        • Response time
        • Post-test interview
      • 6.1.6Discussion
        • Scalar implicature interpretation rate
        • Response time
        • Post-test interview
    • 6.2Experiment 2
      • 6.2.1Predictions
      • 6.2.2Design
        • Item changes
        • Post-test questionnaire
      • 6.2.3Participants
      • 6.2.4Procedures
      • 6.2.5Results
        • Scalar implicature interpretation rate
        • Response time
        • Post-test questionnaire
      • 6.2.6Discussion
        • Scalar implicature interpretation rate
        • Response times
        • Post-test questionnaire
    • 6.3Experiment 3
      • 6.3.1Participants
      • 6.3.2Design and procedure
      • 6.3.3Results
        • Scalar implicature interpretation rate
        • Response time
        • Post-test questionnaire
      • 6.3.4Discussion
        • Scalar implicature interpretation rate
        • Response times
        • Post-test questionnaire
  • 7.General discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (41)
References
Bach, Kent. 1994. Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 9(2). 124–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Context dependence (such as it is). In Manuel Garcia-Carpintero & Max Kölbel (eds.), The continuum companion to the philosophy of language, 153–184. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bach, Kent & Robert M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne & John Cooper Cutting. 2002. Literal meaning, minimal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics 34(4). 433–456. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne & Robin Morris. 2004. Implicature, relevance and default pragmatic inference. In Dan Sperber & Ira Noveck (eds.), Experimental pragmatics, 257–282. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bott, Lewis & Ira Noveck. 2004. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 51(3). 437–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breheny, Richard, Napoleon Katsos & John Williams. 2006. Are generalized SIs generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100(3). 434–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chemla, Emmanuel & Lewis Bott. 2014. Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition 130(3). 380–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chevallier, Coralie, Ira Noveck, Tatjana Nazir, Lewis Bott, Valentina Lanzetti & Dan Sperber. 2008. Making disjunctions exclusive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(11). 1741–1760. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doran, Ryan, Rachel Baker, Yaron McNabb, Meredith Larson & Gregory Ward. 2009. On the non-unified nature of SI: An empirical investigation. International Review of Pragmatics 11. 211–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doran, Ryan, Gregory Ward, Meredith Larson & Yaron McNabb. 2012. A novel experimental paradigm for distinguishing between what is said and what is implicated. Language 88(1). 124–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dorjee, Dusana, Merrill Garret & Robert Harnish. 2013. Mandatory processing of implied content: Lessons from context effects on implicitures. International Review of Pragmatics 5(2). 217–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Charles Clifton Jr. & Britta Stolterfoht. 2008. Scale structure: Processing minimum standard and maximum standard scalar adjectives. Cognition 106(1). 299–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garret, Merrill & Robert Harnish. 2007. Experimental pragmatics: Testing for implicitures. Pragmatics and Cognition 15(1). 65–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2010. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond & Jessica Moise. 1997. Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition 62(1). 51–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2011. Mandarin hen and universal markedness in gradable adjectives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 301. 513–565. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2011. Discourse scalarity: The case of Dutch helemaal. Journal of Pragmatics 43(7). 2810–2825. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. University of California, LA: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Yi Ting & Jesse Snedecker. 2009. Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology 58(3). 376–415. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamoen, Naomi, Bregje Holleman, Rick Nouwen, Ted Sanders & Huub van den Bergh. 2011. Absolutely relative or relatively absolute? The linguistic behavior of gradable adjectives and degree modifiers. Journal of Pragmatics 43(13). 3139–3151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katsos, Napoleon & Chris Cummins. 2010. Pragmatics: From theory to experiment and back again. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(5): 282–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Implicature explicated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10(4). 722–723. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Frank R. Palmer (ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, 90–115. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: A Bradford Book. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 2010a. The positive morpheme in Chinese and the adjectival structure. Lingua 120(4). 1010–1056. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010b. The Chinese geng clausal comparative. Lingua 120(6). 1579–1606. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Si. 2008. An overview of experimental pragmatics studies. Contemporary Linguistics 101. 246–256.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Si, Merrill Garret & Robert M. Harnish. 2012. Theories and research in experimental pragmatics. Beijing, China: China Social Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2012. Pragmatic evidence, context, and story design: An essay on recent developments in experimental pragmatics. Language Sciences 34(6). 768–776. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neys, Wim de & Walter Schaeken. 2007. When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicatures. Experimental Psychology 54(2). 128–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steven & Billy Clark. 1999. Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A reply to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition 691. 337–354.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira & Andres Posada. 2003. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 851. 3–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panizza, Daniele, Genarro Chierchia & Charles Clifton Jr. 2009. On the role of entailment patterns and SIs in the processing of numerals. Journal of Memory and Language 611. 503–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 2001. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Beijing, China: Foreign Languages and Research Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toledo, Assaf & Galit Sassoon. 2011. Absolute vs. relative adjectives – Variance within vs. between individuals. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 211. 135–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verbuk, Anna. 2012. Developmental evidence against the theoretical distinction between Horn and pragmatic scales. Journal of Pragmatics 44(12). 1680–1700. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Yu, Anwei, Huichen S. Hsiao & Hsuan-Yun Lin
2025. Modeling scalar implicature processing in Mandarin. Chinese Language and Discourse. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue