Volume 24, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In previous research comparing the with the of meaning processing, the former was preferred. It predicts that contexts play an exclusively decisive role in meaning processing, whereas the latter holds that the inference of literal meaning generally goes through, unless it is subsequently defaulted or cancelled by the context it is associated with. The , which we added to our experiments, highlights that implicatures are figured out from standardized forms typically based on the mutual background belief and speaker’s intention. We tested whether Chinese people’s processing of the gradable adjective scale <hot, burning> conformed more to the , the , or the . The results demonstrated that the is the most acceptable among the three. The findings of this study, which is the first study using the experimental paradigm on Chinese gradable adjectives, highlighted a need for further studies to investigate the same questions with different languages and cultures.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bach, Kent
    1994 Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language9(2). 124–162. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1994.tb00220.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.x [Google Scholar]
  2. 2012 Context dependence (such as it is). InManuel Garcia-Carpintero & Max Kölbel (eds.), The continuum companion to the philosophy of language, 153–184. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach, Kent & Robert M. Harnish
    1979Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bezuidenhout, Anne & John Cooper Cutting
    2002 Literal meaning, minimal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics34(4). 433–456. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00042‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00042-X [Google Scholar]
  5. Bezuidenhout, Anne & Robin Morris
    2004 Implicature, relevance and default pragmatic inference. InDan Sperber & Ira Noveck (eds.), Experimental pragmatics, 257–282. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Press. 10.1057/9780230524125_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125_12 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bott, Lewis & Ira 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]
  7. Breheny, Richard, Napoleon Katsos & John Williams
    2006 Are generalized SIs generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition100(3). 434–463. 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chemla, Emmanuel & Lewis Bott
    2014 Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition130(3). 380–396. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.013 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chevallier, Coralie, Ira Noveck, Tatjana Nazir, Lewis Bott, Valentina Lanzetti & Dan Sperber
    2008 Making disjunctions exclusive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology61(11). 1741–1760. 10.1080/17470210701712960
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701712960 [Google Scholar]
  11. Doran, Ryan, Rachel Baker, Yaron McNabb, Meredith Larson & Gregory Ward
    2009 On the non-unified nature of SI: An empirical investigation. International Review of Pragmatics1. 211–248. 10.1163/187730909X12538045489854
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12538045489854 [Google Scholar]
  12. Doran, Ryan, Gregory Ward, Meredith Larson & Yaron McNabb
    2012 A novel experimental paradigm for distinguishing between what is said and what is implicated. Language88(1). 124–154. 10.1353/lan.2012.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0008 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dorjee, Dusana, Merrill Garret & Robert Harnish
    2013 Mandatory processing of implied content: Lessons from context effects on implicitures. International Review of Pragmatics5(2). 217–232. 10.1163/18773109‑13050204
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-13050204 [Google Scholar]
  14. Frazier, Lyn, Charles Clifton Jr. & Britta Stolterfoht
    2008 Scale structure: Processing minimum standard and maximum standard scalar adjectives. Cognition106(1). 299–324. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  15. Garret, Merrill & Robert Harnish
    2007 Experimental pragmatics: Testing for implicitures. Pragmatics and Cognition15(1). 65–90. 10.1075/pc.15.1.07gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.07gar [Google Scholar]
  16. Geurts, Bart
    2010Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975158
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975158 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibbs, Raymond & Jessica Moise
    1997 Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition62(1). 51–74. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(96)00724‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00724-X [Google Scholar]
  18. Grano, Thomas
    2011 Mandarin hen and universal markedness in gradable adjectives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory30. 513–565. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9161‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9161-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Grice, Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoeksema, Jack
    2011 Discourse scalarity: The case of Dutch helemaal. Journal of Pragmatics43(7). 2810–2825. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  21. Horn, Laurence R.
    1972 On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. University of California, LA: UCLA dissertation.
  22. Horn, Laurence
    1984 Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature. InDeborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Huang, Yi Ting & Jesse Snedecker
    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]
  24. Kamoen, Naomi, Bregje Holleman, Rick Nouwen, Ted Sanders & Huub van den Bergh
    2011 Absolutely relative or relatively absolute? The linguistic behavior of gradable adjectives and degree modifiers. Journal of Pragmatics43(13). 3139–3151. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.017 [Google Scholar]
  25. Katsos, Napoleon & Chris Cummins
    2010 Pragmatics: From theory to experiment and back again. Language and Linguistics Compass4(5): 282–295. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00203.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00203.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, Stephen
    1987 Implicature explicated?Behavioral and Brain Sciences10(4). 722–723. 10.1017/S0140525X00055473
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00055473 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1995 Three levels of meaning. InFrank R. Palmer (ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, 90–115. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620638.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620638.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2000Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: A Bradford Book. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther
    2010a The positive morpheme in Chinese and the adjectival structure. Lingua120(4). 1010–1056. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2010b The Chinese geng clausal comparative. Lingua120(6). 1579–1606. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, Si
    2008 An overview of experimental pragmatics studies. Contemporary Linguistics10. 246–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Liu, Si, Merrill Garret & Robert M. Harnish
    2012Theories and research in experimental pragmatics. Beijing, China: China Social Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Meibauer, Jörg
    2012 Pragmatic evidence, context, and story design: An essay on recent developments in experimental pragmatics. Language Sciences34(6). 768–776. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.014 [Google Scholar]
  34. Neys, Wim de & Walter Schaeken
    2007 When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicatures. Experimental Psychology54(2). 128–133. 10.1027/1618‑3169.54.2.128
    https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.128 [Google Scholar]
  35. Nicolle, Steven & Billy Clark
    1999 Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A reply to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition69. 337–354.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Noveck, Ira & Andres Posada
    2003 Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language85. 3–10. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00053‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Panizza, Daniele, Genarro Chierchia & Charles Clifton Jr.
    2009 On the role of entailment patterns and SIs in the processing of numerals. Journal of Memory and Language61. 503–518. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    2001Relevance: Communication and cognition. Beijing, China: Foreign Languages and Research Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Toledo, Assaf & Galit Sassoon
    2011 Absolute vs. relative adjectives – Variance within vs. between individuals. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT)21. 135–154. 10.3765/salt.v21i0.2587
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2587 [Google Scholar]
  40. Verbuk, Anna
    2012 Developmental evidence against the theoretical distinction between Horn and pragmatic scales. Journal of Pragmatics44(12). 1680–1700. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  41. Yule, George
    1996Pragmatics. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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