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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of memory and language 2013-07, Vol.69 (1), p.18-35
Hauptverfasser: Tomlinson, John M., Bailey, Todd M., Bott, Lewis
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&amp;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