1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics and Society
  4. Volume 16, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Scalar implicature is a very interesting topic in linguistic pragmatics. This study is intended to argue that, based on the Cognitive Grammar paradigm, scalar implicature is contextually activated by schematic networks. From a hierarchical perspective, those linguistic units sharing the same schema can be compared; from a horizontal perspective, these units are distributed from the stronger to the weaker in terms of semantic inclusion. The encyclopedic nature of context determines that using a weaker lexical item to implicate the denial of a stronger statement has become a cognitive routine which is presumed to be shared by the speaker and hearer. The study concludes that scalar implicature lies in between semantics and pragmatics.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.22090.zha
2024-01-18
2025-06-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ps.22090.zha
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bott, Lewis, and Ira Noveck
    2004 “Some Utterances are Underinformative: The Onset and Time Course of Scalar Implicatures.” Journal of Memory and Language511: 437–457. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bultinck, Bert
    2005 Numerous Meanings: The Meaning of English Cardinals and the Legacy of Paul Grice. Oxford: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Carston, Robyn
    1998 “Informativeness, Relevance and Scalar Implicature.” InRelevance Theory: Applications and Implications, ed. byRobyn Carston, and Seiji Uchida, 179–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.37.11car
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.11car [Google Scholar]
  4. 2002 Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470754603
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2004 “Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLaurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, 633–656. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2005 “Relevance Theory, Grice and the Neo-Griceans: A Response to Laurence Horn’s ‘Current Issues in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics’.” Intercultural Pragmatics2 (3): 303–309. 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.303
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.303 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2009 “The Explicit/Implicit Distinction in Pragmatics and the Limits of Explicit Communication.” International Review of Pragmatics11: 35–62. 10.1163/187731009X455839
     https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455839 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cummins, Chris
    2015 Constraints on Numerical Expressions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199687909.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199687909.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green
    2006 Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Fischer, Kerstin
    2017 “Cognitive Linguistics and Pragmatics.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, 330–346. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.021
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.021 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gazdar, Gerald
    1979 Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Geurts, Bart
    2010 Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975158
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975158 [Google Scholar]
  13. Haiman, John
    1980 “Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.” Lingua50 (4): 329–357. 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90089‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90089-3 [Google Scholar]
  14. Haugh, Michael
    2015 Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110240078
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240078 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hirschberg, Julia
    1991 A Theory of Scalar Implicature. New York: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Horn, Laurence
    1972 “On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English.” Dissertation, UCLA.
  17. 1984 “Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q- and R- based Implicature.” InMeaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, ed. byDeborah Shiffrin, 11–42. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2004 “Implicature”. InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLaurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2005 “Current Issues in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics.” Intercultural Pragmatics2 (2): 191–204. 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.2.191
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.2.191 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2009 “WJ-40: Implicature, Truth, and Meaning.” International Review of Pragmatics11: 3–34. 10.1163/187731009X455820
     https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455820 [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang, Yan
    2017 “Implicature.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byYan Huang, 155–179. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Jaszczolt, Katarzyna
    2005 Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kecskes, Istvan
    2012 “Encyclopedic Knowledge and Cultural Models.” InCognitive Pragmatics, ed. byHans-Jörg Schmid, 175–197. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214215.175
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.175 [Google Scholar]
  24. Langacker, Ronald
    1986 “An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Sciences101: 1–40. 10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 1988a “A View of Linguistic Semantics.” InTopic in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byBrygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 49–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/cilt.50.04lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.04lan [Google Scholar]
  27. 1988b “A Usage-based Model.” InTopic in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byBrygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 127–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  28. 1991 Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 1999 Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2001 “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics12 (2): 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2012 “Interactive Cognition: Toward a Unified Account of Structure, Processing, and Discourse.” International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics31: 95–125.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 2017 “Cognitive Grammar.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, 262–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.018 [Google Scholar]
  35. Levinson, Stephen
    2000 Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mey, Jacob
    2001 Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Noveck, Ira
    2018 Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316027073
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316027073 [Google Scholar]
  38. Noveck, Ira., and Dan Sperber
    2007 “The Why and How of Experimental Pragmatics: The Case of Scalar Inference.” InPragmatics, ed. byNoel Burton-Roberts, 184–212. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_10
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_10 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sauerland, Uli
    2004 “Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentences.” Linguistics and Philosophy271: 367–391. 10.1023/B:LING.0000023378.71748.db
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000023378.71748.db [Google Scholar]
  40. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2012 “Generalizing the Apparently Ungeneralizable. Basic Ingredients of a Cognitive-pragmatic Approach to the Construal of Meaning-in-context.” InCognitive Pragmatics, ed. byHans-Jörg Schmid, 3–22. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214215.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.3 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Taylor, John
    1995 “Approaches to Word Meaning: The Network Model (Langacker) and the Two-level Model (Bierwisch) in Comparison.” InCurrent Approaches to the Lexicon, ed. byRené Dirven, and Johan Vanparys, 3–26. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2017 “Lexical Semantics.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, 246–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.017 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2018 Ten Lectures on Applied Cognitive Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. 10.1515/9783110572186
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110572186 [Google Scholar]
  46. Terejko, Przemysław
    2016 “Cognitive Grammar as a Manifestation of the Pragmatic Turn in Linguistics.” Acta Humana71: 33–45. 10.17951/ah.2016.7.33
     https://doi.org/10.17951/ah.2016.7.33 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tuggy, David
    2007 “Schematicity.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byDirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens, 82–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    2004 “Relevance Theory.” The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLaurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang, Yanfei, and Shaojie Zhang
    2017 “Explicature versus Default Meaning: A Response to Alessandro Capone’s Default Semantics and the Architecture of the Mind.” Journal of Pragmatics1171: 264–272. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2020 “A Cognitive-Pragmatic Study of Non-scalar Implicatures.” Pragmatics and Society11(1): 149–163. 10.1075/ps.18062.zha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18062.zha [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.22090.zha
Loading
Scalar implicature
Pragmatics and Society 16, 46 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.22090.zha
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.22090.zha
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.22090.zha
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): context; convention; encyclopedic semantics; scalar implicature; schematic network

Most Cited

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