Loading…

Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences

When Tarzan asks Jane Do you like my friends? and Jane answers Some of them, her underinformative reply implicates Not all of them. This scalar inference arises when a less-than-maximally informative utterance implies the denial of a more informative proposition. Default Inference accounts (e.g., Le...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of memory and language 2004-10, Vol.51 (3), p.437-457
Main Authors: Bott, Lewis, Noveck, Ira A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-4e1569bfcad68efcf99fd5dd469dbf0ed01da192ece071cafcbfdd566df61f223
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-4e1569bfcad68efcf99fd5dd469dbf0ed01da192ece071cafcbfdd566df61f223
container_end_page 457
container_issue 3
container_start_page 437
container_title Journal of memory and language
container_volume 51
creator Bott, Lewis
Noveck, Ira A.
description When Tarzan asks Jane Do you like my friends? and Jane answers Some of them, her underinformative reply implicates Not all of them. This scalar inference arises when a less-than-maximally informative utterance implies the denial of a more informative proposition. Default Inference accounts (e.g., Levinson, 1983, 2000) argue that this inference is linked to lexical items (e.g., some) and is generated automatically and largely independently of context. Alternatively, Relevance theory ( Sperber & Wilson, 1985/1995) treats such inferences as contextual and as arriving effortfully with deeper processing of utterances. We compare these accounts in four experiments that employ a sentence verification paradigm. We focus on underinformative sentences, such as Some elephants are mammals, because these are false with a scalar inference and true without it. Experiment 1 shows that participants are less accurate and take significantly longer to answer correctly when instructions call for a Some but not all interpretation rather than a Some and possibly all interpretation. Experiment 2, which modified the paradigm of Experiment 1 so that correct responses to both interpretations resulted in the same overt response, reports results that confirm those of the first Experiment. Experiment 3, which imposed no interpretations, reveals that those who employed a Some but not all reading to the underinformative items took longest to respond. Experiment 4 shows that the rate of scalar inferences increased as permitted response time did. These results argue against a Neo-Gricean account and in favor of Relevance theory.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85610867</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ731356</ericid><els_id>S0749596X04000609</els_id><sourcerecordid>85610867</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-4e1569bfcad68efcf99fd5dd469dbf0ed01da192ece071cafcbfdd566df61f223</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEURYMoWKs_QHAxG93N-DIzyTS6klK_KLiwgruQJi-YMh-azBT892Zo0Z2rkLx7Dy-HkHMKGQXKrzfZpqmzHKDMgGUA_IBMKAiewiynh2QCVSlSJvj7MTkJYQNAKavyCVm9dg0mQ9-jV63GkCgfr61B71rb-Ub1bos3yeoDk64N2CeqNUnvYkd3gw_x1SZBq1r5JBbQ4wg5JUdW1QHP9ueUvN0vVvPHdPny8DS_W6a6qKo-LZEyLtZWK8NnaLUVwhpmTMmFWVtAA9QoKnLUCBXVyuq1NYZxbiynNs-LKbnacT999zVg6GXjgsa6Vi12Q5AzxinMeBWDdBfUvgvBo5Wf3jXKf0sKcvQnNzL6k6M_CUxGf7FzuYer8YN29OPCXzGiSyGKmLvY5aIy_TtePFcFLdiIud2Po4itQy-DdqMl4zzqXprO_bPEDyovkT8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>85610867</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>ERIC</source><source>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</source><creator>Bott, Lewis ; Noveck, Ira A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bott, Lewis ; Noveck, Ira A.</creatorcontrib><description>When Tarzan asks Jane Do you like my friends? and Jane answers Some of them, her underinformative reply implicates Not all of them. This scalar inference arises when a less-than-maximally informative utterance implies the denial of a more informative proposition. Default Inference accounts (e.g., Levinson, 1983, 2000) argue that this inference is linked to lexical items (e.g., some) and is generated automatically and largely independently of context. Alternatively, Relevance theory ( Sperber &amp; Wilson, 1985/1995) treats such inferences as contextual and as arriving effortfully with deeper processing of utterances. We compare these accounts in four experiments that employ a sentence verification paradigm. We focus on underinformative sentences, such as Some elephants are mammals, because these are false with a scalar inference and true without it. Experiment 1 shows that participants are less accurate and take significantly longer to answer correctly when instructions call for a Some but not all interpretation rather than a Some and possibly all interpretation. Experiment 2, which modified the paradigm of Experiment 1 so that correct responses to both interpretations resulted in the same overt response, reports results that confirm those of the first Experiment. Experiment 3, which imposed no interpretations, reveals that those who employed a Some but not all reading to the underinformative items took longest to respond. Experiment 4 shows that the rate of scalar inferences increased as permitted response time did. These results argue against a Neo-Gricean account and in favor of Relevance theory.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-596X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-0821</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JMLAE6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Diego, CA: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Foreign Countries ; France ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Inferences ; Language ; Linguistic Theory ; Miscellaneous ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Sentences ; Verification</subject><ispartof>Journal of memory and language, 2004-10, Vol.51 (3), p.437-457</ispartof><rights>2004 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2004 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-4e1569bfcad68efcf99fd5dd469dbf0ed01da192ece071cafcbfdd566df61f223</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-4e1569bfcad68efcf99fd5dd469dbf0ed01da192ece071cafcbfdd566df61f223</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,31270</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ731356$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=16104993$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bott, Lewis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noveck, Ira A.</creatorcontrib><title>Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences</title><title>Journal of memory and language</title><description>When Tarzan asks Jane Do you like my friends? and Jane answers Some of them, her underinformative reply implicates Not all of them. This scalar inference arises when a less-than-maximally informative utterance implies the denial of a more informative proposition. Default Inference accounts (e.g., Levinson, 1983, 2000) argue that this inference is linked to lexical items (e.g., some) and is generated automatically and largely independently of context. Alternatively, Relevance theory ( Sperber &amp; Wilson, 1985/1995) treats such inferences as contextual and as arriving effortfully with deeper processing of utterances. We compare these accounts in four experiments that employ a sentence verification paradigm. We focus on underinformative sentences, such as Some elephants are mammals, because these are false with a scalar inference and true without it. Experiment 1 shows that participants are less accurate and take significantly longer to answer correctly when instructions call for a Some but not all interpretation rather than a Some and possibly all interpretation. Experiment 2, which modified the paradigm of Experiment 1 so that correct responses to both interpretations resulted in the same overt response, reports results that confirm those of the first Experiment. Experiment 3, which imposed no interpretations, reveals that those who employed a Some but not all reading to the underinformative items took longest to respond. Experiment 4 shows that the rate of scalar inferences increased as permitted response time did. These results argue against a Neo-Gricean account and in favor of Relevance theory.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>France</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Inferences</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Linguistic Theory</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Sentences</subject><subject>Verification</subject><issn>0749-596X</issn><issn>1096-0821</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><sourceid>7T9</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEURYMoWKs_QHAxG93N-DIzyTS6klK_KLiwgruQJi-YMh-azBT892Zo0Z2rkLx7Dy-HkHMKGQXKrzfZpqmzHKDMgGUA_IBMKAiewiynh2QCVSlSJvj7MTkJYQNAKavyCVm9dg0mQ9-jV63GkCgfr61B71rb-Ub1bos3yeoDk64N2CeqNUnvYkd3gw_x1SZBq1r5JBbQ4wg5JUdW1QHP9ueUvN0vVvPHdPny8DS_W6a6qKo-LZEyLtZWK8NnaLUVwhpmTMmFWVtAA9QoKnLUCBXVyuq1NYZxbiynNs-LKbnacT999zVg6GXjgsa6Vi12Q5AzxinMeBWDdBfUvgvBo5Wf3jXKf0sKcvQnNzL6k6M_CUxGf7FzuYer8YN29OPCXzGiSyGKmLvY5aIy_TtePFcFLdiIud2Po4itQy-DdqMl4zzqXprO_bPEDyovkT8</recordid><startdate>20041001</startdate><enddate>20041001</enddate><creator>Bott, Lewis</creator><creator>Noveck, Ira A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20041001</creationdate><title>Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences</title><author>Bott, Lewis ; Noveck, Ira A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-4e1569bfcad68efcf99fd5dd469dbf0ed01da192ece071cafcbfdd566df61f223</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>France</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Inferences</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Linguistic Theory</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Sentences</topic><topic>Verification</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bott, Lewis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noveck, Ira A.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bott, Lewis</au><au>Noveck, Ira A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ731356</ericid><atitle>Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences</atitle><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle><date>2004-10-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>437</spage><epage>457</epage><pages>437-457</pages><issn>0749-596X</issn><eissn>1096-0821</eissn><coden>JMLAE6</coden><abstract>When Tarzan asks Jane Do you like my friends? and Jane answers Some of them, her underinformative reply implicates Not all of them. This scalar inference arises when a less-than-maximally informative utterance implies the denial of a more informative proposition. Default Inference accounts (e.g., Levinson, 1983, 2000) argue that this inference is linked to lexical items (e.g., some) and is generated automatically and largely independently of context. Alternatively, Relevance theory ( Sperber &amp; Wilson, 1985/1995) treats such inferences as contextual and as arriving effortfully with deeper processing of utterances. We compare these accounts in four experiments that employ a sentence verification paradigm. We focus on underinformative sentences, such as Some elephants are mammals, because these are false with a scalar inference and true without it. Experiment 1 shows that participants are less accurate and take significantly longer to answer correctly when instructions call for a Some but not all interpretation rather than a Some and possibly all interpretation. Experiment 2, which modified the paradigm of Experiment 1 so that correct responses to both interpretations resulted in the same overt response, reports results that confirm those of the first Experiment. Experiment 3, which imposed no interpretations, reveals that those who employed a Some but not all reading to the underinformative items took longest to respond. Experiment 4 shows that the rate of scalar inferences increased as permitted response time did. These results argue against a Neo-Gricean account and in favor of Relevance theory.</abstract><cop>San Diego, CA</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0749-596X
ispartof Journal of memory and language, 2004-10, Vol.51 (3), p.437-457
issn 0749-596X
1096-0821
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85610867
source ScienceDirect Journals; ERIC; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Foreign Countries
France
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Inferences
Language
Linguistic Theory
Miscellaneous
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Sentences
Verification
title Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T14%3A03%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Some%20utterances%20are%20underinformative:%20The%20onset%20and%20time%20course%20of%20scalar%20inferences&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20memory%20and%20language&rft.au=Bott,%20Lewis&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=437&rft.epage=457&rft.pages=437-457&rft.issn=0749-596X&rft.eissn=1096-0821&rft.coden=JMLAE6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E85610867%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-4e1569bfcad68efcf99fd5dd469dbf0ed01da192ece071cafcbfdd566df61f223%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=85610867&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ731356&rfr_iscdi=true