Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics– pragmatics interface
| Abstract | In this article we present two sets of experiments designed to investigate the acquisition of scalar implicatures. Scalar implicatures arise in examples like Some professors are famous where the speaker’s use of some typically indicates that s/he had reasons not to use a more informative term, e.g. all. Some professors are famous therefore gives rise to the implicature that not all professors are famous. Recent studies on the development of pragmatics suggest that preschool children are often insensitive to such implicatures when they interpret scalar terms (Cognition 78 (2001) 165; Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M.T., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2001). The acquisition of disjunction: evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In A.H.-J. Do, L. Dominguez, & A. Johansen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 157–168). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press; Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2002). Preschool logic: truth and felicity in the acquisition of quantification. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish, & A.H.-J. Do, Proceedings of the 26th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 406–416). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press). This conclusion raises two important questions: (a) are all scalar terms treated in the same way by young children?, and (b) does the child’s difficulty reflect a genuine inability to derive scalar implicatures or is it due to demands imposed by the experimental task on an otherwise pragmatically savvy child? Experiment 1 addresses the first question by testing a group of 30 5-year-olds and 30 adults (all native speakers of Greek) on three different scales, koli, merikil (kall, somel), ktris, diol (kthree, twol) and kteliono, arxizol (kfinish, startl). In each case, subjects were presented with contexts which satisfied the semantic content of the stronger (i.e. more informative) terms on each scale (i.e. all, three and finish) but were described using the weaker terms of the scales (i.e.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesOwen Greenhall (2008). Against Chierchia's Computational Account of Scalar Implicatures. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108 (1pt3):373-384.
Martina Faller (2012). Evidential Scalar Implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (4):285-312.
Chris Cummins, Uli Sauerland & Stephanie Solt (2012). Granularity and Scalar Implicature in Numerical Expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (2):135-169.
Jon Gajewski & Yael Sharvit (2012). In Defense of the Grammatical Approach to Local Implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 20 (1):31-57.
Bart Geurts (2009). Scalar Implicature and Local Pragmatics. Mind and Language 24 (1):51-79.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-12-22Total downloads3 ( #203,919 of 556,895 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
