DOCSLIB.ORG

Information to Users

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Information to Users INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI film*; the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margin»; and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletioiL Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overly. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photogr^hs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information C om pany 300North Zeeb Roac. Ann ArOor, Ml 48106-13A6USA 313.'761-4700 800.521-0600 Order Number 9517096 Plans in the common ground: Toward a generative account of conversational implicature Welker, Katherine Alice, Ph.D. The Ohiu State University, 1994 UMI 300 N. Zceh Rcl. Ann Arbor. MI 48106 PLANS IN THE COMMON GROUND: TOWARD A GENERATIVE ACCOUNT OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Katherine Alice Welker, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1994 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Craige Roberts Michael Geis Julie Boland wl viser Department of Linguistics To Alice L. Welker and Kathryn L. Welker ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Craige Roberts, not just for her guidance in the subject matter of this dissertation, but also for her encouragement and support throughout this endeavor. The ideas developed here were inspired and developed through our extended conversations. I would also like to thank the other members of my dissertation committee, Drs. Michael Geis and Julie Boland, for their suggestions and comments. I have also benefitted from discussions with Terry Patten, Rich Thomason, Martha Pollack, and Barbara Di Eugenio. In addition to those whose insights have contributed to the work contained in this dissertation. I’d like to thank my family, friends, and co-workers for their support. Special thanks go to Katherine Barton, Susanna Welker, Ned Welker, Liana Wheatley, Nicholas Brawne, Carol Dawson, Cindy Heselov, Ruth Friscoe, Shelley Evenson, John Rheinfrank, Tim Best, Wendie Wulff, and Alex Subrizi. Ill VITA October 7,1959 ............................................ Bom—Columbus, Ohio 1982 ............................................................... B.A., Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 1988 ............................................................... M.A., Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1986—Present .............................................. Writer, Researcher, Interface Designer, Fitch Inc., Worthington, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Linguistics Studies in Pragmatics, with Dr. Craige Roberts IV TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION..................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................iü VITA..................................................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ ix INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 0.0. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 0.1. Conversational Implicature ................................................................................ 1 0.2. Approach.............................................................................................................. 6 0.2.1. A Representation of Context ................................................................6 0.2.2. Plans and their Role in Communication ........................................... 8 0.2.3. Goals and Unique Features of this Approach ................................... 10 0.3. Overview of the Dissertation .............................................................................12 Chapter Page I. CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE: LITERATURE REVIEW..............14 1.0. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 14 1.1. Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Maxims of Conversation ........................15 1.1.1. Grice’s General Approach.................................................................. 15 1.1.2. Calculating Implicatures through the Maxims ..................................19 1.1.3. Generalized and Particularized Conversational Implicature 21 1.1.4. Implicature and Other Varieties of Meaning .................................... 23 1.1.5. Conclusion ...........................................................................................25 1.2. Formalization of the Maxims ...........................................................................26 1.2.1. The Maxims of Quality.......................................................................26 1.2.2. The First Maxim of Quantity........................................................... 28 1.2.2.1. Horn (1972) ......................................................................... 32 1.2.2.2. Gazdar (1979) ..................................................................... 35 1.2.2.3. Hirschberg (1986)............................................................... 37 1.2.3. The Second Maxim of Quantity ..........................................................49 1.2.3.1. Implicatures on the Gricean Interpretation ......................... 50 1.2.3.2. Enrichments (Atlas and Levinson 1981) .............................52 1.2.3.3. Conclusion.............................................................................57 1.2.4. The Maxim of Relation ........................................................................57 1.2.5. The Maxims of Manner ....................................................................... 58 1.3. Reformulating the Maxims ..............................................................................60 1.3.1. Hamish (1976)......................................................................................60 1.3.2. Horn (1985) ......................................................................................... 61 1.3.3. Levinson (1987) ................................................................................. 64 1.4. Reductionists (Sperber and Wilson 1988) .................................................... 68 1.5. Plan-based Theories of Implicature ................................................................ 80 1.5.1. Thomason (1990) ................................................................................ 81 1.5.2. McCafferty (1987) ................................................................................84 1.5.3. Ginzburg (1990) ................................................................................. 88 1.6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................95 1.6.1. Review of the Data...............................................................................95 1.6.2. Summary of Previous Accounts ..........................................................96 1.6.3. Summary...............................................................................................98 n. TECHNICAL PRELIMINARIES................................................................... 99 2.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 99 2.1. A Representation of the Common Ground (DRT) .......................................100 2.1.1. Philosophical Background ................................................................. 100 2.1.2. The Contents of the Common Ground ..............................................104 2.1.3. Discourse Representation Theory......................................................105 2.2. A Representation for Plans ............................................................................ 108 2.2.1. The Data-Structure View of Plans .....................................................109 2.2.1.1. General AI Problem-Solving Structures ........................... 109 2.2.1.2. STRIPS, NOAH and their Derivatives..............................112 2.2.1.3. Allen and Perrault (1980) ................................................. 114 2.2.2. Mental Representation View of Plans ...............................................118 2.2.2.1. Generalizations from Philosophy of Mind and Action..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • POLITENESS: ALWAYS IMPLICATED? Manuel Padilla Cruz
    POLITENESS: ALWAYS IMPLICATED? Manuel Padilla Cruz Manuel Padilla Cruz holds a PhD in English Linguistics and is currently an Associate Professor at the Department of English Language (University of Seville). His research interests include cognitive, social, historical, interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics. He is a member of the Research Group “Intercultural Pragmatic Studies (English-Spanish): Pragmatic and Discourse Aspects” (P.A.I. HUM 640) and has co- edited the volumes Current Trends in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics (2004) and Studies in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics (in press). Contact information: Manuel Padilla Cruz Departamento de Filología Inglesa (Lengua Inglesa) FACULTAD DE FILOLOGÍA c/ Palos de la Frontera, s/n. 41004 Sevilla Tlfno. : 954 55 15 50 Fax: 954 55 15 16 e-mail: [email protected] POLITENESS: ALWAYS IMPLICATED? Manuel Padilla Cruz Abstract Based on the relevance-theoretic distinction between explicit and implicit communication, and the notion of explicature of an utterance and its different types (Sperber and Wilson, 1986, 1995; Wilson and Sperber, 1993, 2002), this paper argues that (im)politeness may also be communicated explicitly, and not only implicitly as has been normally claimed in the extant literature. The fact that certain linguistic expressions and paralinguistic features have a procedural meaning that does not affect the truth-conditional content of the utterance where they occur but leads the hearer to obtain a propositional-attitude description can be exploited by the speaker in order to communicate her (im)polite attitude explicitly, as part of the explicit content of that utterance. The hearer will in turn rely on such expressions and features so as to recover a description of the speaker’s attitude and, hence, information about (im)politeness.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Inferences: the Case of Scalar Implicature Processing Judith Degen ([email protected]) Michael K
    Making Inferences: The Case of Scalar Implicature Processing Judith Degen ([email protected]) Michael K. Tanenhaus ([email protected]) Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627-0268, USA Abstract ten). Under the assumption that a speaker is being as informa- tive as possible, a weak implicature, that the speaker doesn’t Scalar implicature has served as a test case for investigating the nature of inference processes in language comprehension. know whether all of the sections are written, is licensed. If Specifically, the question of whether or not scalar implicatures the hearer further assumes that the speaker is competent with are computed by default has been extensively investigated in respect to the truth of the stronger statement, the implicature recent years. We argue that the question of default is overly simplistic and propose instead to think of scalar implicature that the speaker believes that some, but not all of the sections computation as a problem of optimal cue combination within a are written, is licensed. constraint-based framework. We provide evidence from three In recent years the representation and processing of scalar experiments supporting the view that multiple constraints of differing strength operate in parallel to provide probabilistic implicatures has emerged as perhaps the defining problem in support for or against an implicature. experimental pragmatics – a subfield of cognitive science that Keywords: experimental pragmatics; scalar implicature; eye- seeks to combine theoretical proposals from linguistics, com- tracking; subitizing puter science and philosophy with state-of-the-art experimen- tal methods. Introduction Importantly for the experimental investigation of the phe- Successful communication requires comprehenders to infer a nomenon, scalar implicatures are cancelable, that is, they are speaker’s intended meaning from an underspecified utterance.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics
    Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics Cristina Grisot Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics Editor-in-Chief Jesús Romero-Trillo, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Reviews Editor Dawn Knight, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Advisory Editorial Board Karin Aijmer, University of Gothenburg, Sweden Belén Díez-Bedmar, Universidad de Jaén, Spain Ronald Geluykens, University of Oldenburg, Germany Anna Gladkova, University of Sussex and University of Brighton, UK Stefan Gries: University of California, Santa Barbara, USA Leo Francis Hoye, University of Hong Kong, China Jingyang Jiang, Zhejiang University, China Anne O’Keefe, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, Ireland Silvia Riesco-Bernier, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, University of Ghent, Belgium Esther Vázquez y del Árbol, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Anne Wichmann, University of Central Lancashire, UK More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11559 Cristina Grisot Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective Cristina Grisot Department of Linguistics University of Geneva Geneva 4, Switzerland Published with the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation ISSN 2213-6819 ISSN 2213-6827 (electronic) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics ISBN 978-3-319-96751-6 ISBN 978-3-319-96752-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96752-3 Library of Congress
    [Show full text]
  • Grice's Theory of Implicature and the Meaning of the Sentential
    Gergely Bottyán The operationality of Grice’s tests for implicature 1. Introduction In less than a decade after its first publication in 1975, Herbert Paul Grice’s paper Logic and conversation becomes one of the classic treatises of the linguistic subdiscipline now standardly referred to as pragmatics. There are at least two reasons for the paper’s success: (i) it can be regarded as the first truly serious attempt to clarify the intuitive difference between what is expressed literally in a sentence and what is merely suggested by an utterance of the same string of words, (ii) the components of the notional and inferential framework that Grice set up to characterize various kinds of utterance content are intuitively appealing (cf. Haberland & Mey 2002). The present paper has two related aims: (i) to give a comprehensive overview of Grice’s theory of implicature, and (ii) to investigate whether it is possible to test the presence of a conversational implicature on the basis of some or all of the properties that Grice attributes to this construct. It will be argued that of the six characteristics listed by Grice, only cancellability is a practical criterion. However, cancellability is not a sufficient condition of the presence of a conversational implicature. Therefore, additional criteria are needed to arrive at an adequate test. 2. Overview of Grice’s theory of implicature Most of the body of Grice 1975=1989a consists in an attempt to clarify the intuitive difference between what is expressed literally in a sentence and what is merely suggested or hinted at by an utterance of the same string of words.
    [Show full text]
  • Conditional Strengthening [A Case Study in Implicature]
    Draft • Version from 9/13/01 1:08 PM Conditional Strengthening [A Case Study in Implicature] Kai von Fintel MIT Introduction Hearers can extract from an asserted sentence a good amount of information that goes beyond the grammatically encoded truth-conditions of the sentence. There are inferences of at least two kinds: (i) Inferences from the (assumed) truth of the asserted sentence. Hearers may have conditional beliefs (if p, q) and upon hearing p asserted they can infer q by Modus Ponens (with suitable caveats about the reliability of their initial conditional belief and the new information that p). (ii) Inferences from the fact that the sentence was asserted. Hearers may have conditional beliefs of the following nature: if q were the case, p would not have been asserted. This together with the information that p was in fact asserted leads via Modus Tollens to the conclusion that q cannot have been the case. For both of these kinds of inferences, we can ask whether the speaker bears (some) responsibility for them. If the speaker is (or should be) well aware of the relevant conditional beliefs on the part of the hearer, he or she may be partly responsible for the inference. Many authors argue that such inferences are part of the utterance meaning if the underlying assumptions are mutual beliefs of speaker and hearer. It may often be much easier to decide whether speaker bears some responsibility for an inference than to decide whether the inference is part of the meaning of the utterance. I will not worry about these issues of responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction
    MICHELA IPPOLITO PRESUPPOSITIONS AND IMPLICATURES IN COUNTERFACTUALS In this article, I propose a pragmatic account of temporally mismatched subjunctive past counterfactuals. The proposal consists of the following parts. First, I show that in cases of temporal mismatch, Past cannot be interpreted inside the proposition where it occurs at surface structure. Instead, it must be interpreted as constraining the time variable of the accessibility relation. This has the effect of shifting the time of the evaluation of the conditional to some contextually salient past time. Second, I will propose specific Felicity Conditions (presuppositions) for subjunctive conditionals and I will argue that there is a strict correspondence between the time of evaluation in the truth-conditions of a conditional and the time relevant for the felicity conditions. In other words, if the time relevant for the accessibility relation has been shifted to the past, then the conditional’s presupposition will make reference to the speaker’s past epistemic states. On the other hand, if no past is constraining the time argument of the accessibility relation, the conditional’s felicity will make reference to the speaker’s epistemic state at the time of the utterance. Third, I will argue that the intuition that the antecedent of mismatched counterfactuals is not true is a scalar implicature arising not from a competition between assertions but between presuppositions. Finally, I will investigate the general repercussions of my proposal on the problem of presupposition projection. 1. Introduction Past subjunctive conditionals do not always talk about the past. Sometimes they may talk about the future, despite the overt past verbal morphology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Acquisition of Scalar Implicatures
    Wer bei „scalar implicatures“ an eine exotische Zierfischart denkt und vor seinem geistigen Auge bunte Segelflosser majestätisch zwischen Steinen und Grünpflanzen dahinschweben sieht, der irrt sich sehr: Stefanie Röhrig Scalar implicatures bezeichnen keine Buntbarschart, sondern gehören in den Bereich der Pragmatik. Diese Disziplin der Linguistik untersucht sprachliches Handeln, also sprachliche Äußerungen und die Entstehung von Bedeutung. Insbesondere logische Schlussfolgerungen sind von wissenschaftlichem The Acquisition of Interesse. Wer auf die Frage „Have you read Shakespeare‘s works?“ mit „I have read some of them“ antwortet, der bejaht einerseits die Frage, schränkt aber - ohne dies ausdrücklich zu sagen - zugleich die Zustimmung ein: some of them heißt nicht all of them. Implikaturen müssen ‚zwischen den Zeilen‘ Scalar Implicatures verstanden werden. Gewöhnlich wird davon ausgegangen, dass Kinder erst mit etwa 6 Jahren Implikaturen wirklich verstehen und für sich nutzen können. Stefanie Röhrig zeigt in ihrer als Feldstudie angelegten Göttinger Schriften zur Englischen Philologie Staatsarbeit, dass diese Lehrmeinung dringend der Überarbeitung bedarf. Denn Kinder, so decken ihre Untersuchungen auf, verfügen sogar über eine ihnen eigene Art der Implikatur. Band 3 2010 Stefanie Röhrig The Acquisition of Scalar Implicatures Scalar of Acquisition The Röhrig Stefanie ISBN: 978-3-941875-49-4 ISSN: 1868-3878 Universitätsdrucke Göttingen Universitätsdrucke Göttingen Stefanie Röhrig The Acquisition of Scalar Implicatures This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License 3.0 “by-nd”, allowing you to download, distribute and print the document in a few copies for private or educational use, given that the document stays unchanged and the creator is mentioned. You are not allowed to sell copies of the free version.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversational Implicatures (And How to Spot Them)
    Conversational Implicatures (and How to Spot Them) Michael Blome-Tillmann McGill University Abstract In everyday conversations we often convey information that goes above and beyond what we strictly speaking say: exaggeration and irony are obvious examples. H.P. Grice intro- duced the technical notion of a conversational implicature in systematizing the phenom- enon of meaning one thing by saying something else. In introducing the notion, Grice drew a line between what is said, which he understood as being closely related to the conventional meaning of the words uttered, and what is conversationally implicated, which can be inferred from the fact that an utterance has been made in context. Since Grice’s seminal work, conversational implicatures have become one of the major re- search areas in pragmatics. This article introduces the notion of a conversational implica- ture, discusses some of the key issues that lie at the heart of the recent debate, and expli- cates tests that allow us to reliably distinguish between semantic entailments and conven- tional implicatures on the one hand and conversational implicatures on the other.1 Conversational Implicatures and their Cancellability In everyday conversations our utterances often convey information that goes above and beyond the contents that we explicitly assert or—as Grice puts it—beyond what is said by our utterances. Consider the following examples:2 (1) A: Can I get petrol somewhere around here? B: There’s a garage around the corner. [A can get petrol at the garage around the corner.] (2) A: Is Karl a good philosopher? B: He’s got a beautiful handwriting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Phrasal Implicature Theory of Metaphors and Slurs
    THE PHRASAL IMPLICATURE THEORY OF METAPHORS AND SLURS Alper Yavuz A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2018 Full metadata for this thesis is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this thesis: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/13189 This item is protected by original copyright This item is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence The Phrasal Implicature Theory of Metaphors and Slurs Alper Yavuz This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) at the University of St Andrews March 2018 Abstract This thesis develops a pragmatic theory of metaphors and slurs. In the pragmatic literature, theorists mostly hold the view that the framework developed by Grice is only applicable to the sentence-level pragmatic phenomena, whereas the subsenten- tial pragmatic phenomena require a different approach. In this thesis, I argue against this view and claim that the Gricean framework, after some plausible revisions, can explain subsentential pragmatic phenomena, such as metaphors and slurs. In the first chapter, I introduce three basic theses I will defend and give an outline of the argument I will develop. The second chapter discusses three claims on metaphor that are widely discussed in the literature. There I state my aim to present a theory of metaphor which can accommodate these three claims. Chapter3 introduces the notion of \phrasal implicature", which will be used to explain phrase- level pragmatic phenomena with a Gricean approach. In Chapter4, I present my theory of metaphor, which I call \phrasal implicature theory of metaphor" and discuss certain aspects of the theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Bare Numerals and Scalar Implicatures
    Language and Linguistics Compass 7/5 (2013): 273–294, 10.1111/lnc3.12018 Bare Numerals and Scalar Implicatures Benjamin Spector* CNRS-ENS-EHESS, Institut Jean Nicod, École Normale Supérieure Abstract Bare numerals present an interesting challenge to formal semantics and pragmatics: they seem to be compatible between various readings (‘at least’, ‘exactly’, and ‘at most’ readings), and the choice of a particular reading seems to depend on complex interactions between contextual factors and linguistic structure. The goal of this article is to present and discuss some of the current approaches to the interpretation of bare numerals in formal semantics and pragmatics. It discusses four approaches to the interpretation of bare numerals, which can be summarized as follows: 1. In the neo-Gricean view, the basic, literal meaning of numerals amounts to an ‘at least interpreta- tion’, and the ‘exactly n’ reading results from a pragmatic enrichment of the literal reading, i.e. it is accounted for in terms of scalar implicatures. 2. In the underspecification view, the interpretation of numerals is ‘underspecified’, with the result that they can freely receive the ‘at least’, ‘exactly’,or‘at most’ reading, depending on which of these three construals is contextually the most relevant. 3. In the ‘exactly’-only view, the numerals’ basic, literal meaning corresponds to the ‘exactly’ reading, and the ‘at least’ and ‘fewer than n’ readings result from the interaction of this literal meaning with background, non-linguistic knowledge. 4. In the ambiguity view, numerals are ambiguous between two readings, the ‘at least’ and ‘exactly’ readings.The article argues that in order to account for all the relevant data, one needs to adopt a certain version of the ambiguity view.
    [Show full text]
  • Relevance Implicatures
    Relevance Implicatures Robert van Rooy∗ ILLC/University of Amsterdam [email protected] Abstract According to standard pragmatics, we should account for conversational implicatures in terms of Grice’s (1967) maxims of conversation. Neo-Griceans like Atlas & Levinson (1981) and Horn (1984) seek to reduce those maxims to the so-called Q and I-principles. In this paper I want to argue that (i) there are major problems for reducing Gricean pragmatics to these two principles, and (ii) in fact, we can better account for implicatures by means of an exhaustivity operator defined in terms of a relevance-based ordering relation. 1 Introduction In most circumstances we infer from the fact that the (a) sentences of the following examples are uttered that the (b) sentences are true: (1) a. John ate some of the cookies. b. John didn’t eat all of the cookies (2) a. John is coming or Mary is going. b. John is coming or Mary is going, but not both. (3) a. John is walking, if Mary is talking. b. John is walking if and only if Mary is talking. ∗This note reports on work in progress on the use of relevance for the semantic analysis of natural language. Parts of this paper was presented at the second workshop on Optimality Theoretic Semantics at OTS in Utrecht (2000) and at the Formal Pragmatics conference in Berlin (2001). I would like to thank the participants of those events for their comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers, Reinhard Blutner and expecially Katrin Schulz.
    [Show full text]
  • Scalar Implicatures Vs. Presuppositions – the View from Acquisition
    Scalar Implicatures vs. Presuppositions – The view from Acquisition Cory Bill, Jacopo Romoli, Florian Schwarz, and Stephen Crain To appear in TOPOI, special issue “Presuppositions: Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology.” This paper reports an experimental investigation of presuppositions and scalar implicatures in language acquisition. Recent proposals (Chemla 2009; Romoli 2012, 2014) posit the same mechanisms for generating both types of inferences, in contrast to the traditional view. We used a Covered Box picture selection task to compare the interpretations assigned by two groups of children (4/5 and 7 year olds) and by adults, in response to sentences with presuppositions and ones with either ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ scalar implicatures. The main finding was that the behavior of children and adults differed across inference types. This asymmetry is consistent with the traditional perspective, but poses a challenge for the more recent uniform accounts. We discuss how the latter could be amended to account for these findings, and also relate the findings to previous results on presupposition processing. Finally, we discuss an unexpected difference found between direct and indirect scalar implicatures. Keywords: Presuppositions, Scalar Implicatures, Pragmatics, Child Language Acquisition. 1 Introduction As the sentences in (1a)-(3a) illustrate, scalar implicatures like those in (1b) and (2b), and presuppositions such as (3b) are central features of the overall meaning that is conveyed when speakers make certain utterances. (1) a. Some of the giraffes have scarves b. Not all of the giraffes have scarves (2) a. Not all of the giraffes have scarves b. Some of the giraffes have scarves (3) a. The bear didn’t win the race b.
    [Show full text]