1887
Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Binary judgement on under-informative utterances (e.g. , when all horses did) is the most widely used methodology to test children’s ability to generate implicatures. Accepting under-informative utterances is considered a failure to generate implicatures. We present off-line and reaction time evidence for the , according to which some children who accept under-informative utterances are in fact competent with implicature but do not consider pragmatic violations grave enough to reject the critical utterance. Seventy-five Dutch-speaking four to nine-year-olds completed a binary (Experiment A) and a ternary judgement task (Experiment B). Half of the children who accepted an utterance in Experiment A penalised it in Experiment B. Reaction times revealed that these children experienced a slow-down in the critical utterances in Experiment A, suggesting that they detected the pragmatic violation even though they did not reject it. We propose that binary judgement tasks systematically underestimate children’s competence with pragmatics.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00003.vee
2018-10-19
2019-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barner, David, Neon Brooks & Alan Bale
    2011 Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition118(1). 84–93. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bott, Lewis & Ira A. Noveck
    2004 Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language51(3). 437–457. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  3. Clark, Eve V.
    1990 On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language17(2). 417–431. 10.1017/S0305000900013842
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900013842 [Google Scholar]
  4. Davies, Catherine & Napoleon Katsos
    2010 Over-informative children: Production/comprehension asymmetry or tolerance to pragmatic violations?Lingua120(8). 1956–1972. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. Feeney, Aidan, Susan Scrafton, Amber Duckworth & Simon J. Handley
    2004 The story of some: Everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology58(2). 121. 10.1037/h0085792
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085792 [Google Scholar]
  6. Foppolo, Francesca, Maria Teresa Guasti & Gennaro Chierchia
    2012 Scalar implicatures in child language: Give children a chance. Language Learning and Development8(4). 365–394. 10.1080/15475441.2011.626386
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.626386 [Google Scholar]
  7. Geurts, Bart
    2010Quantity implicature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975158
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975158 [Google Scholar]
  8. Guasti, Maria Teresa, Gennaro Chierchia, Stephen Crain, Francesca Foppolo, Andrea Gualmini & Luisa Meroni
    2005 Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes20(5). 667–696. 10.1080/01690960444000250
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000250 [Google Scholar]
  9. Grice, Herbert Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol.3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press (Reprinted inGrice, Herbert Paul 1989 Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Huang, Yi Ting & Jesse Snedeker
    2009 Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology58(3). 376–415. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Katsos, Napoleon
    2014 Scalar implicature. InDanielle Matthews (ed), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition, 183–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Katsos, Napoleon & Dorothy V. Bishop
    2008 Pragmatic Tolerance. Paper presented at theXI International Congress for the Study of Child Language (IASCL), Edinburgh, UK, 28 July–1 August.
  13. 2011 Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition120(1). 67–81. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015 [Google Scholar]
  14. Katsos, Napoleon & Nafsika Smith
    2010 Pragmatic Tolerance and speaker-comprehender asymmetries. InKatie Franich, Kate M. Iserman & Lauren L. Keil (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Boston University Conference in Language Development, 221–232. Cascadilla Press, MA, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Marchena, Ashley de, Inge-Marie Eigsti, Amanda Worek, Kim Emiko Ono & Jesse Snedeker
    2011 Mutual exclusivity in autism spectrum disorders: Testing the pragmatic hypothesis. Cognition119(1). 96–113. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.011 [Google Scholar]
  16. Neys, Wim De & Walter Schaeken
    2007 When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology54(2). 128–133. 10.1027/1618‑3169.54.2.128
    https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.128 [Google Scholar]
  17. Noveck, Ira A.
    2001 When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition78(2). 165–188. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00114‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Noveck, Ira A. & Andres Posada
    2003 Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language85(2). 203–210. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00053‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Noveck, Ira A. & Anne Reboul
    2008 Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences12(11). 425–431. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  20. Papafragou, Anna & Julien Musolino
    2003 Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition86(3). 253–282. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00179‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8 [Google Scholar]
  21. Papafragou, Anna & Niki Tantalou
    2004 Children’s computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition12(1). 71–82. 10.1207/s15327817la1201_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1201_3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Pouscoulous, Nausicaa, Ira A. Noveck, Guy Politzer & Anne Bastide
    2007 A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition14(4). 347–375. 10.1080/10489220701600457
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220701600457 [Google Scholar]
  23. Skordos, Dimitrios & Anna Papafragou
    2016 Children’s derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance. Cognition153. 6–18.10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.006 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00003.vee
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00003.vee
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): implicature , pragmatic development , reaction times and under-informative utterances
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error