Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps
► We investigated why scalar implicatures are costly. ► We tested two-step and one-step processing models. ► We compared mouse trajectories across interpretations. ► Mouse trajectories initially deviated towards literal meanings. ► Scalar implicatures involve two processing steps. Scalar implicature...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of memory and language 2013-07, Vol.69 (1), p.18-35 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 35 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 18 |
container_title | Journal of memory and language |
container_volume | 69 |
creator | Tomlinson, John M. Bailey, Todd M. Bott, Lewis |
description | ► We investigated why scalar implicatures are costly. ► We tested two-step and one-step processing models. ► We compared mouse trajectories across interpretations. ► Mouse trajectories initially deviated towards literal meanings. ► Scalar implicatures involve two processing steps.
Scalar implicatures often incur a processing cost in sentence comprehension tasks. We used a novel mouse-tracking technique in a sentence verification paradigm to test different accounts of this effect. We compared a two-step account, in which people access a basic meaning and then enrich the basic meaning to form the scalar implicature, against a one-step account, in which the scalar implicature is directly incorporated into the sentence representation. Participants read sentences and used a computer mouse to indicate whether each sentence was true or false. Three experiments found that when verifying sentences like “some elephants are mammals”, average mouse paths initially moved towards the true target and then changed direction mid-flight to select the false target. This supports the two-step account of implicatures. We discuss the results in relation to previous findings on scalar implicatures and theoretical accounts of pragmatic inference. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jml.2013.02.003 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1449083051</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1005707</ericid><els_id>S0749596X13000132</els_id><sourcerecordid>1449083051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-3fe2ce9bf9cba880790159e6525ed9c184926dffef6b81b784dfd4cb68ea4b3a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE2LFDEQhhtRcFz9AR6EgAheurcq6Y9ET8uyfiwLu7AK3kI6XcE03Z0x6Vb235thhj148FQF7_MWxVMUrxEqBGzPx2qcp4oDigp4BSCeFDsE1ZYgOT4tdtDVqmxU--N58SKlEQCx6fiuuL8LKfl-emBmmlhwbP1pVmaWIS-0sBRm-sDurZlMZH7eT96adYuUmInEtmWgmNYQBuYXtv4JLK20Ty-LZ85MiV6d5lnx_dPVt8sv5c3t56-XFzelrRu5lsIRt6R6p2xvpIROATaK2oY3NCiLsla8HZwj1_YS-07Wgxtq27eSTN0LI86K98e7-xh-bZRWPftkaZrMQmFLGutagRTQYEbf_oOOYYtL_k6j4LIRqLjIFB4pG7OVSE7vo59NfNAI-qBZjzpr1gfNGrjOmnPn3emySVmTi2axPj0WeSew7dSBe3PkKHr7GF9dI0DTQZfzj6c8G_vtKepkPS2WBh_JrnoI_j9f_AVQmJuW</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1328531923</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Tomlinson, John M. ; Bailey, Todd M. ; Bott, Lewis</creator><creatorcontrib>Tomlinson, John M. ; Bailey, Todd M. ; Bott, Lewis</creatorcontrib><description>► We investigated why scalar implicatures are costly. ► We tested two-step and one-step processing models. ► We compared mouse trajectories across interpretations. ► Mouse trajectories initially deviated towards literal meanings. ► Scalar implicatures involve two processing steps.
Scalar implicatures often incur a processing cost in sentence comprehension tasks. We used a novel mouse-tracking technique in a sentence verification paradigm to test different accounts of this effect. We compared a two-step account, in which people access a basic meaning and then enrich the basic meaning to form the scalar implicature, against a one-step account, in which the scalar implicature is directly incorporated into the sentence representation. Participants read sentences and used a computer mouse to indicate whether each sentence was true or false. Three experiments found that when verifying sentences like “some elephants are mammals”, average mouse paths initially moved towards the true target and then changed direction mid-flight to select the false target. This supports the two-step account of implicatures. We discuss the results in relation to previous findings on scalar implicatures and theoretical accounts of pragmatic inference.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-596X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-0821</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.02.003</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JMLAE6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Comprehension ; Computer Peripherals ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Inference ; Language ; Language Processing ; Measurement Techniques ; Memory ; Mouse-tracking ; Pragmatics ; Production and perception of written language ; Psycholinguistics ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Reading Comprehension ; Scalar implicatures ; Sentences</subject><ispartof>Journal of memory and language, 2013-07, Vol.69 (1), p.18-35</ispartof><rights>2013 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-3fe2ce9bf9cba880790159e6525ed9c184926dffef6b81b784dfd4cb68ea4b3a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-3fe2ce9bf9cba880790159e6525ed9c184926dffef6b81b784dfd4cb68ea4b3a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.02.003$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1005707$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27316793$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tomlinson, John M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Todd M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bott, Lewis</creatorcontrib><title>Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps</title><title>Journal of memory and language</title><description>► We investigated why scalar implicatures are costly. ► We tested two-step and one-step processing models. ► We compared mouse trajectories across interpretations. ► Mouse trajectories initially deviated towards literal meanings. ► Scalar implicatures involve two processing steps.
Scalar implicatures often incur a processing cost in sentence comprehension tasks. We used a novel mouse-tracking technique in a sentence verification paradigm to test different accounts of this effect. We compared a two-step account, in which people access a basic meaning and then enrich the basic meaning to form the scalar implicature, against a one-step account, in which the scalar implicature is directly incorporated into the sentence representation. Participants read sentences and used a computer mouse to indicate whether each sentence was true or false. Three experiments found that when verifying sentences like “some elephants are mammals”, average mouse paths initially moved towards the true target and then changed direction mid-flight to select the false target. This supports the two-step account of implicatures. We discuss the results in relation to previous findings on scalar implicatures and theoretical accounts of pragmatic inference.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>Computer Peripherals</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Inference</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Language Processing</subject><subject>Measurement Techniques</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Mouse-tracking</subject><subject>Pragmatics</subject><subject>Production and perception of written language</subject><subject>Psycholinguistics</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Reading Comprehension</subject><subject>Scalar implicatures</subject><subject>Sentences</subject><issn>0749-596X</issn><issn>1096-0821</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE2LFDEQhhtRcFz9AR6EgAheurcq6Y9ET8uyfiwLu7AK3kI6XcE03Z0x6Vb235thhj148FQF7_MWxVMUrxEqBGzPx2qcp4oDigp4BSCeFDsE1ZYgOT4tdtDVqmxU--N58SKlEQCx6fiuuL8LKfl-emBmmlhwbP1pVmaWIS-0sBRm-sDurZlMZH7eT96adYuUmInEtmWgmNYQBuYXtv4JLK20Ty-LZ85MiV6d5lnx_dPVt8sv5c3t56-XFzelrRu5lsIRt6R6p2xvpIROATaK2oY3NCiLsla8HZwj1_YS-07Wgxtq27eSTN0LI86K98e7-xh-bZRWPftkaZrMQmFLGutagRTQYEbf_oOOYYtL_k6j4LIRqLjIFB4pG7OVSE7vo59NfNAI-qBZjzpr1gfNGrjOmnPn3emySVmTi2axPj0WeSew7dSBe3PkKHr7GF9dI0DTQZfzj6c8G_vtKepkPS2WBh_JrnoI_j9f_AVQmJuW</recordid><startdate>20130701</startdate><enddate>20130701</enddate><creator>Tomlinson, John M.</creator><creator>Bailey, Todd M.</creator><creator>Bott, Lewis</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130701</creationdate><title>Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps</title><author>Tomlinson, John M. ; Bailey, Todd M. ; Bott, Lewis</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-3fe2ce9bf9cba880790159e6525ed9c184926dffef6b81b784dfd4cb68ea4b3a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>Computer Peripherals</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Inference</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Language Processing</topic><topic>Measurement Techniques</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Mouse-tracking</topic><topic>Pragmatics</topic><topic>Production and perception of written language</topic><topic>Psycholinguistics</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Reading Comprehension</topic><topic>Scalar implicatures</topic><topic>Sentences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tomlinson, John M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Todd M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bott, Lewis</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tomlinson, John M.</au><au>Bailey, Todd M.</au><au>Bott, Lewis</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1005707</ericid><atitle>Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps</atitle><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle><date>2013-07-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>18</spage><epage>35</epage><pages>18-35</pages><issn>0749-596X</issn><eissn>1096-0821</eissn><coden>JMLAE6</coden><abstract>► We investigated why scalar implicatures are costly. ► We tested two-step and one-step processing models. ► We compared mouse trajectories across interpretations. ► Mouse trajectories initially deviated towards literal meanings. ► Scalar implicatures involve two processing steps.
Scalar implicatures often incur a processing cost in sentence comprehension tasks. We used a novel mouse-tracking technique in a sentence verification paradigm to test different accounts of this effect. We compared a two-step account, in which people access a basic meaning and then enrich the basic meaning to form the scalar implicature, against a one-step account, in which the scalar implicature is directly incorporated into the sentence representation. Participants read sentences and used a computer mouse to indicate whether each sentence was true or false. Three experiments found that when verifying sentences like “some elephants are mammals”, average mouse paths initially moved towards the true target and then changed direction mid-flight to select the false target. This supports the two-step account of implicatures. We discuss the results in relation to previous findings on scalar implicatures and theoretical accounts of pragmatic inference.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jml.2013.02.003</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0749-596X |
ispartof | Journal of memory and language, 2013-07, Vol.69 (1), p.18-35 |
issn | 0749-596X 1096-0821 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1449083051 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Comprehension Computer Peripherals Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Inference Language Language Processing Measurement Techniques Memory Mouse-tracking Pragmatics Production and perception of written language Psycholinguistics Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Reading Comprehension Scalar implicatures Sentences |
title | Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T13%3A58%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Possibly%20all%20of%20that%20and%20then%20some:%20Scalar%20implicatures%20are%20understood%20in%20two%20steps&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20memory%20and%20language&rft.au=Tomlinson,%20John%20M.&rft.date=2013-07-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=18&rft.epage=35&rft.pages=18-35&rft.issn=0749-596X&rft.eissn=1096-0821&rft.coden=JMLAE6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jml.2013.02.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1449083051%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1328531923&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1005707&rft_els_id=S0749596X13000132&rfr_iscdi=true |