Testing the Cognitive Processing Model of Chinese Scalar Implicatures

Authors

  • Si Liu Lanzhou University; Mingdao Bulding,199 W Donggang Rd, School of FLL, Lanzhou University
  • Chunmei Wang Shaanxi Zhongtian Rocket Technology Co.，Ltd., Academy of Aerospace Propulsion Technology; Xiangyang Road, Tianhong Street, Baqiao District, Xi'an, Shaanxi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24297/jal.v6i3.4675

Keywords:

experimental pragmatics, scalar implicature, Default model, Context-Driven model, generalized conversational implicature

Abstract

This paper reports our experimental study of the cognitive processing of scalar implicature in the Chinese language. Our experiments tested the two processing models: the Default model proposed by the neo-Gricean theorists and the Context-Driven model supported by the post-Gricean, which has long been debated in the pragmatic research field. Our Experiment 1 investigated whether scalar implicature might be generated in neutral contexts (neither enabling nor canceling the processing of scalar implicature). By manipulating the scalar trigger yixie (some) in sentence-initial and sentence-final conditions, the reading times on the target phrase qiyude/qitade (the rest/the others) showed facilitation in the sentence-initial. In Experiment 2, a picture-sentence verification of under-informative utterance was performed in order to test the cost of generating scalar implicature. The results showed the significant effects of the two factors (Quantifiers <all, some> and Picture-Match/NoMatch). The yes/no responses showed that native speakers of Chinese were sensitive to scalar implicature. However, the role of context in processing scalar implicature was not supported. Experiment 3 was designed to test the processing of scalar implicature in Upper-Bound (enabling the processing) and Lower-Bound (canceling the processing) contexts. The result of this online experiment was slightly in favor of the Context-Driven model. The findings of the three experiments were significantly in agreement with neither the CM nor the DM. We presumed that the processing of scalar implicature might be accounted for with an alternative model. This was the first study to use this experimental paradigm in the Chinese language, whose findings were expected to highlight a need for further studies in order to investigate the meaning processing models with various languages and cultures.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Liu, S. 2008. A Review on Experimental Pragmatics. Journal of Modern Linguistic, 10(3), 246-256. [2] Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [3] Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Blackwell. [4] Carston, R. 2004. Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 633–656). Oxford: Blackwell. [5] Carston, R. 1991. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In S. Davis, (Eds), Pragmatics:A reader (pp. 33-51). New York: Oxford University Press. [6] Carston, R. 1998. Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp. 179-236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [7] Breheny, R., Katsos, N., & Williams, J. 2006. Are generalized scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100(3), 434-463. [8] Bezuidenhout, A., & Morris, R. 2004. Implicature, relevance and default inferences. In I. Noveck, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. p.257-282 [9] Chierchia, G. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatic interface. In A. Belletti (Eds), Belletti structures and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.[10] Katsos, N., Breheny, R., & Williams, J. 2005. Interaction of structural and contextual constraints during the on-line generation of scalar inferences. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [11] Garrett, M., & Harnish, R. M. 2009. Q-phenomena, I-phenomena and impliciture: some experimental pragmatics. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1), 84-117. [12] Noveck, I. A., & Posada, A. 2003. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language, 85(2), 203-210. [13] Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. 2004. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 437-457. [14] Bezuidenhout, A., & Cutting, J. C. 2002. Literal meaning, minimal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 433-456. [15] Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics- pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86(3), 253-282. [16] Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. 2009. Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in 5-year-olds: Evidence from real-time spoken language comprehension. Developmental psychology, 45(6), 1723. [17] Katsos, N. 2007. The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from an Experimental Perspective: the Case of Scalar Implicature, Synthese , 165 (3), 385 - 401. [18] Katsos, N. 2009, Evaluating under-informative utterances with context-dependent and contextindependent scales: experimental and theoretical implications, In Sauerland, U. & Yatsushiro, K., Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics. 51-73. [19] Katsos, N. & Bishop, D. V. M. 2011. Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature, Cognition,2011. [20] Tavano, E. M. 2010. The Balance of Scalar Implicature. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California . [21] Noveck, I. A. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigation of scalar implicatures. Cognition, 78(2), 165-188.
[22] Huang Yan. 2001. Reflections on theoretical pragmatics. Journal of Foreign Languages, 131 (1) 2-14.
JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN LINGUISTICS

Downloads

Published

2016-03-16

How to Cite

Liu, S., & Wang, C. (2016). Testing the Cognitive Processing Model of Chinese Scalar Implicatures. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN LINGUISTICS, 6(3), 1074–1087. https://doi.org/10.24297/jal.v6i3.4675

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 3

Section

Articles

License

Creative Commons License All articles published in Journal of Advances in Linguistics are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.