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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of memory and language 2004-10, Vol.51 (3), p.437-457 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
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 & 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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=16104993$$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 & 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 & 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 |