Title : Processing
Conversational Implicatures: Alternatives and Counterfactual Reasoning
Researchers : Bob van Tiel and Walter
Schaeken
Year
of Publication : 2016
Source : Cognitive Science: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 41, Pages 1119–1154.
DOI:10.1111/cogs.12362
DOI:10.1111/cogs.12362
Objectives : 1. To describe the four
kinds of inferences (Bott and Noveck: 2004) in more detail which are scalar
inferences, free choice inferences, conditional perfection, and exhaustivity in
“it”-clefts.
2. To spell out how these inferences are
predicted to behave.
Method : The method used in this
research is quantitative approach. The results were analyzed by fitting linear
or binomial mixed models predicting reading times, decision times, and choice
proportions. These models were constructed in R, a programming language and
environment for statistical computing (R Development Core Team, 2006) using the
lme4 package (Bates & Maechler, 2009). The corresponding p-values were
calculated by approximating denominator degrees of freedom using the
Satterthwaite procedure as implemented in the lmertest package (Kuznetsova,
Bruun Brockhoff, & Haubo Bojensen Christensen, 2013).
Results : The computation of scalar inferences was associated with an
increase in decision times. The results for the other three types of inferences
differed significantly from the pattern for scalar inferences in that their
computation facilitated decision times. In addition, there was a significant
difference in the processing profiles of conditional perfection and
exhaustivity in “it”-clefts, with the former having a greater facilitation
effect than the latter.
Following
that, however, it would be an exegetical and conceptual mistake to interpret
Grice’s approach as an account of utterance processing.
Grice’s
approach is situated at the computational level, explaining what inferences
listeners are licensed to draw and why. It should not be confused for an
algorithmic account of how these inferences are computed. The results of this
study indicate that such an algorithmic account should allow for parallel
processing of enriched meanings (e.g., Chierchia, 2004; Geurts, 2010; Levinson,
2000; Recanati, 1995).
The
finding also warns us against using presence of a processing cost as a
diagnostic for conversational implicatures. More broadly, our findings indicate
that sometimes pragmatic inferencing is not associated with a processing cost.
Comments : For me, this journal article
has a comprehensive explanation which every point is explained clearly and
deeply. I think this journal article could be one of reference to help the
reader understand more about conversational implicature because it provides
lots of information about conversational implicature, utterance, and
inferences. As we know that utterance and inference are tied with conversational
implicature.
Komentar
Posting Komentar