Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The semantics/pragmatics interface from an experimental perspective: the case of scalar implicature

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper I discuss some of the criteria that are widely used in the linguistic and philosophical literature to classify an aspect of meaning as either semantic or pragmatic. With regards to the case of scalar implicature (e.g. some Fs are G implying that not all Fs are G), these criteria are not ultimately conclusive, either in the results of their application, or in the interpretation of the results with regards to the semantics/pragmatics distinction (or in both). I propose a psychologically relevant criterion, that of the primary or secondary role of context. This criterion applies to sub-personal processes that derive the interpretation of a scalar term rather than to the eventual interpretation of the term, and there exist well-established experimental paradigms that can generate quantitative data. I present recent studies on scalar implicature which employ such off-line and real-time paradigms, aiming to demonstrate how research on the semantics/pragmatics distinction can benefit from experimental investigation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atlas, J. (2005). Logic, meaning, and conversation: Semantical underdeterminacy, implicature, and their interface. Oxford University Press.

  • Bach K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language 9, 124–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bard E., Robertson D., Sorace A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72, 32–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezuidenhout A., Cutting J.C. (2002). Literal meaning, minimal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 433–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezuidenhout A., Morris R.K. (2004). Implicature, relevance and default pragmatic inference. In Noveck I.A., Sperber D. (eds) Experimental pragmatics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 257–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Bott L., Noveck I.A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 51:437–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breheny, R. (2005). Experimental pragmatics. Lectures 2 and 3, EALing 2005, the Third Paris Fall School in Linguistic and Cognitive Science.

  • Breheny R., Katsos N., Williams J. (2006). Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100(3):434–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borg E. (2004). Minimal semantics. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen H., Lepore E. (2005). Insensitive semantics. Oxford, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In: Carston R., Uchida S. (eds) Relevance theory: Applications and implications. Amsterdam, John Benjamins

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. (2004a). Truth-conditional content and conversational implicature . In: C. Bianchi (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics distinction. CSLI Publications.

  • Carston R. (2004b). Review of Stephen C. Levinson presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Journal of Linguistics 40:181–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatic interface. In A. Beletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. Oxford University Press.

  • Chierchia, G. (2005). Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the logicality of language. Ms LSA Summer school workshop on Formal Pragmatics.

  • Coulson S. (2004). Electrophysiology and pragmatic language comprehension. In: Noveck I.A., Sperber D. (eds) Experimental pragmatics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 187–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducrot O. (1973). La preuve et le dire. Paris, Mame

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier G. (1976). Remarques sur la théorie des phénomènes scalaires. Semantikos 1(3):13–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Foppolo, F., Guasti, M.-T., & Chierchia, G. (submitted). Scalar implicatures in child language: Failure, strategies and lexical factors.

  • Fox D. (2007). Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures. In: Sauerland U., Stateva P. (eds) Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics. New York, Palgrave McMillan, pp. 71–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (2006) The big fish in a small pond: Accommodation and the processing of novel definites. Paper presented at the ‘Workshop on Presupposition Accommodation’, October 13th – 15th, Columbus, Ohio.

  • Gazdar G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York, AP

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts B. (1998). Scalars. In: Ludewig P., Geurts B. (eds) Lexikalische Semantik aus kognitiver Sicht. Tübingen, Gunter Narr, pp. 95–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts B. (2006). Take “five”: The meaning and use of a number word. In: Tasmowski L., Vogeleer S. (eds) Indefiniteness and plurality. Amsterdam, Benjamins, pp. 311–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs R., Moise J. (1997). Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition 62: 51–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs R., Tendahl M. (2006). Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language 21(3):379–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glucksberg S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Science 7:92–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green M. (1998). Direct reference and implicature. Philosophical Studies 91: 61–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & and J. L. Morgan, (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3, speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in P. Grice: Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989.

  • Grodner, D., & Sedivy, J. (forthcoming). The effect of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences. In N. Pearlmutter & E. Gibson (Eds.), The processing and acquisition of reference. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

  • Grodner D., Gibson E., Watson D. (2005). The influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing: evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension. Cognition 95: 275–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1994). Questions. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press, pp. 1055–1124

    Google Scholar 

  • Guasti M.T., Chierchia G., Crain S., Foppolo F., Gualmini A., Meroni L. (2005). Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(5):667–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harnish R.M. (2005). Folk psychology and literal meaning. Pragmatics & Cognition 13(2):383–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg J. (1991). A theory of scalar implicature. New York, Garland

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in english. UCLA dissertation, distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976.

  • Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications, proceedings of GURT ‘84 (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

  • Horn L. (2004). Implicature. In: Horn L.R., Ward. L.R. (eds) The handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishers, pp. 3–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. (2005). The Border Wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In K. Turner & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Where semantics meets pragmatics. Elsevier.

  • Jaszczolt K. (2005). Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsos, N. (2007). Structural and contextual constraints on processing scalar implicatures. Manuscript, University of Cambridge.

  • Katsos, N., Breheny, R., & Williams, J. (2005a). The interaction of structural and contextual constraints during the on-line generation of scalar inferences. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1108–1113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Katsos, N., Breheny, R., & Williams, J. (2005b). On the semantics and pragmatics of scalar inferences. Paper presented at GLOW 28, University of Geneva.

  • King J., Stanley J. (2006). Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In: Szabo Z. (eds) Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 111–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka M. (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman F. (2000). Events and plurality. Dordrecht, Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson S. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicole S., Clark B. (1999). Experimental pragmatics and what is said. Cognition 69: 337–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck I.A., Posada A. (2003). Characterising the time course of an implicature. Brain and Language 85:203–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papafragou A., Musolino J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics/pragmatics interface. Cognition 86, 253–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I., Politzer, G., & Bastide, C. (in press). A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition.

  • Recanati F. (2003a). Embedded implicatures. Philosophical Perspectives 17: 299–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (2003b). Literal meaning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell B. (2006). Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23:361–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij R., Schulz K. (2006). Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadock, J. (1978). On testing for conversational implicature. In Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 281–297). NY: AP.

  • Sauerland U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saul J. (2002). What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 347–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D., Noveck I.A. (2004). Introduction to experimental pragmatics. In: Noveck I.A., Sperber D. (eds) Experimental pragmatics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D., Wilson D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Storto G., Tanenhaus M.K. (2005). Are scalar implicatures computed online?. In: Maier E., Bary C., Huitink J. (eds) Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9. Nijmegen, Nijmegen Centre for Semantics, pp. 431–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasow T., Arnold J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua 115:1481–1496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson D., Sperber D. (2003). Relevance theory. In: Horn L., Ward G. (eds) Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 607–632

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge, 9 West Road, CB3 9DP, Cambridge, UK

    Napoleon Katsos

Authors
  1. Napoleon Katsos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Napoleon Katsos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Katsos, N. The semantics/pragmatics interface from an experimental perspective: the case of scalar implicature. Synthese 165, 385–401 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9187-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9187-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation