An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms
description
Transcript of An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms
![Page 1: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics
of scalar terms
N. Katsos & R. BrehenyUniversity of Cambridge
![Page 2: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overview…Overview…• The semantics/pragmatics of Scalar terms
Study 1: Off-line evidence on the psychologicalreality of defeasibility scale dependency
• Competing linguistic accounts:Context Sensitive vs Default Generation Studies 2a-c: On-line evidence on the processing of scalar terms
• Pragmatic accounts of numerals• Study 3: On-line processing differences
disjunction vs the numerals
• Architecture of the pragmatic system• From philosophical to psychological validity
![Page 3: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Standard assumptionsStandard assumptions
• Linguistically encoded meaning underdetermines Speaker meaning
A: Was the food good? B: John or Bill got sick.>> The food wasn’t good.
• Grice 1989: The constraints that guide inferencing from linguistic meaning to speaker meaning are pragmatic. We have to infer an implicature, in order to assume that the speaker is not violating conversational principles.
![Page 4: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Implicatures of Scalar termsImplicatures of Scalar terms
A: Was the food good? B: John or Bill got sick.>> The food wasn’t good.>> either John or Bill got sick, but not both
A: Did they enjoy the bull-fights?B: John or Bill got sick.>>They did not have a good time.>> either John or Bill got sick, but not both
Particularised ImplicaturesScalar Implicature
![Page 5: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
On the properties of scalar setsOn the properties of scalar sets
• a. <or, and>• b. <some, many, most, all>• c. <zero, one, two, three>• d. <like, love, adore>
• Asymmetric entailment relations.Terms on the right of the scale are more informative, i.e. true in a narrower set of circumstances
![Page 6: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
On the properties of scalar setsOn the properties of scalar sets• Asserting a weaker term of the scale implies that the
stronger ones are not applicable.
A: Who got sick?B: John or Bill got sick>>It is not the case that John and Bill got sick
![Page 7: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Pragmatics/semantics of scalarsPragmatics/semantics of scalars
• Are such aspects of meaning really ‘pragmatic’?
Unlike other types of inferences, Scalar Implicatures (SI) are:
1. Explicitly defeasible2. Defeasible due to discourse goals 3. Scale dependent
![Page 8: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Pragmatics/semantics of scalarsPragmatics/semantics of scalars
• Explicitly defeasible
• Can be explicitly cancelled without giving rise to contradictions:
A: Who brought a cake?B: John or Bill brought a cake. In fact, both of them did.
![Page 9: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Pragmatics/semantics of scalarsPragmatics/semantics of scalars
• Defeasible due to discourse goals
• Scalar Implicatures (SI) will not arise, if the discourse goal can be satisfied without them:
A: Who could give me a ride to the patisserie?B: John or Bill both.
(either John or Bill or both. Inclusive “or”)
![Page 10: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Pragmatics/semantics of scalarsPragmatics/semantics of scalars
• Scale dependency
• SIs do not (usually) arise in a Downward Entailment (DE) context where the scale of informativeness is reversed:
If John or Bill remember to bring the cake, our birth-day party will be saved!
(if either John or Bill or both. Inclusive “or”)
![Page 11: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Pragmatics/semantics of scalarsPragmatics/semantics of scalars
• Scalar expressions have been standardly (Horn 1982) assumed to involve:
• lower-bound semantics ‘X or Y’: either X or Y and possibly both (inclusive ‘or’)
• upper-bound pragmatics through an SI ‘X or Y’: either X or Y but not both (exclusive ‘or’)
![Page 12: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Psychological reality of the Psychological reality of the properties of Scalar termsproperties of Scalar terms
• Are interlocutors implicitly sensitive to the fact that SIs are Defeasible and Scale Dependent?
• Disjunction ‘X or Y G-ed’
• Create Upper Bound contexts where it is required to know precisely ‘Who G-ed’
• Create Lower Bound contexts where discourse goals will be satisfied ‘if at least one of the X, Y can G’
• Create Downward Entailment contexts where the inclusive interpretation of the disjunction is more informative.
![Page 13: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Study 1: ItemsStudy 1: Items
• UB: Jane asked Mary: Which colleague has used my photocopying card without my permission? Mary replied: George or Andrew from the next office ...
• LB: Jane asked Mary: Who has a photocopying card to lend me? Mary replied: George or Andrew from the next office ...
• DE: Jane told Mary: I urgently need a photocopying card. Mary replied: I think that if George or Andrew from the next office ... one, you should ask for it.
![Page 14: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Study 1: MethodologyStudy 1: Methodology
• Participants were asked to fill in a missing verb either in singular or plural: is, are, has, have, does, do
• Assumption: singular exclusive interpretation plural inclusive
• 43 participants native speakers of British English • 24 items rotated in 3 lists
![Page 15: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Study 1: ResultsStudy 1: Results
0102030405060708090
100
U B L B D E
SingularPlural
![Page 16: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Fundamental issuesFundamental issues• Off-line evidence that implicatures are indeed
defeasible and scale dependent:Their computation is sensitive to context (discourse goals) and grammar (direction of entailment)
• Given that SIs can be defeated, how are they computed?
Competing linguistic approaches: • Computation by Default vs. Context Sensitive
![Page 17: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Default SIsDefault SIs
• SIs are attached to linguistic expressions• When a trigger is processed, the grammar (or a
specialized pragmatic system) generates the strongest interpretation
• At the stage where contextual assumptions are taken into consideration, the interpretation may have to be cancelled
SIs are default defeasible inferences
![Page 18: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Context Sensitive ApproachesContext Sensitive Approaches
• Emphasis on the importance of contextual assumptions:– SIs are only computed if there is some specific
inferential benefit.– SIs are Context Sensitive inferences (will not be
computed unless there is a relevant discourse goal)
Interactive Approaches
Both sources provide activation (predicts equivocal behaviour when the sources conflict)
![Page 19: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
In an Upward Entailing Context
Context Sensitive Check whether there is a relevant inferential benefit• If yes, then the SI is computed
Architecture: single system sensitive to context
Default The SI is always computed• If then it becomes evident that it is not warranted
(discourse goals), the SI will be cancelled
Architecture: two stage system1st Stage: default operations (impenetrable to
contextual assumptions)2nd Stage: contextual assumptions are considered
![Page 20: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Context Grammar
Strong Interactive Strong Default Contextualist
Gazdar Recanati Hobbs
Levinson Sperber & Wilson
Chierchia Carston
![Page 21: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Calls for experimental investigationCalls for experimental investigation
• From pragmatics to cognition and from philosophical to psychological validity
• Levinson 2000: ‘GCI Theory clearly ought to make predictions about processing... There is very little psycholinguistic work directly addressed to implicature and still less of this concerns on-line processing, but one may hope for rapid progress here’ (ibid:370) Also reasoning and acquisition.
• Similarly Relevance theory, Chierchia (2005)
![Page 22: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Study 2a: On-line ProcessingStudy 2a: On-line ProcessingAssumption: all inferencing processes require a certain
amount of time (potentially reflected in behavioural tasks like reading time and response time)
Default approach:Upper Bound ≤ Lower Bound S + I ≤ S + I + Cancellation
In the L B the SI must be generated AND THEN cancelled
Context Sensitive:Upper Bound > Lower Bound S + I > S
In the L B the SI is simply NOT generated in the first place
![Page 23: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Study 2a: ItemsStudy 2a: ItemsDisjunction: X or Y
• Upper Bound:Jane asked Mary:/ Which colleague/ has used my photocopying card/ without my permission?/ Mary replied:/ George or Andrew/ from the next office/ has.
• Lower Bound:Jane asked Mary:/ Who has/ a photocopying card/ to lend me?/ Mary replied:/ George or Andrew/ from the next office/ has.
![Page 24: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Study 2a: MethodologyStudy 2a: Methodology
• timed self-paced, segment-by-segment reading experiment, with comprehension motivated by questions after some of the sentences
• 16 critical items rotated in 2 conditions• 42 fillers – 25 comprehension questions• items were presented in English• 40 participants, adult native speakers of British English
![Page 25: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Study 2a: ResultsStudy 2a: Results
660
685
710
735
760
785
810
835
1 2 3 4
Marie replied: George or Andrew from the next office has.
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
![Page 26: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Study 2b: ItemsStudy 2b: ItemsDisjunction: X or Y
• Upper Bound context:John was taking/ a university course/ and working at the same time./ For the exams/ he had to study/ from short and comprehensive sources./ Depending/ on the course,/ he decided/ to read/ the class notes or the summary./
• Lower Bound contextJohn heard that/ the textbook for Geophysics/ was very advanced./ No-one of his friends/ understood it properly./ He heard that/ to pass the course/ he had/ to read/ the class notes or the summary./
![Page 27: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Study 2b: MethodologyStudy 2b: Methodology
• timed self-paced, segment-by-segment reading experiment, with comprehension motivated by questions after some of the sentences
• 12 critical items rotated in 2 conditions• 40 fillers – 25 comprehension questions• items were presented in Greek • 32 participants, adult native speakers of Greek
![Page 28: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Study 2b: ResultsStudy 2b: Results
1140
1160
1180
1200
1220
1240
1260
1280
Reading Time Mean
Upper BoundLower Bound
![Page 29: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Study 2c: Non logical scaleStudy 2c: Non logical scale
• Scales based on world knowledge
A: Did you paint the house?B: I painted the roof.
A: Did you meet her parents?B: I met her sister.
Contextualists: Discourse introduces an object or a set. Asserting one part of it implies that “the rest” is not the case.
It is difficult to see how the grammar or a default system could generate these inferences
![Page 30: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Study 2c: ItemsStudy 2c: Items
UB: George went to pick up Mary from the station. He was covered in paint. Mary asked him: Were you painting the house? George replied:/ I was painting/ the roof/ with an insulating paint./
LB: George went to pick up Mary from the station. He was covered in paint. Mary asked him: What were you painting? George replied:/ I was painting/ the roof/ with an insulating paint./
![Page 31: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Study 2c: MethodologyStudy 2c: Methodology
• timed self-paced, segment-by-segment reading experiment, with comprehension motivated by questions after some of the sentences
• 12 critical items rotated in 2 conditions• 40 fillers – 25 comprehension questions• items were presented in English • 20 participants, adult native speakers of British
English
![Page 32: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
2c: PCIs Results2c: PCIs Results
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1 2 3 4
George replied: I was painting the roof with an insulating paint.
UB Context
LB Contex
![Page 33: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Study 2a-c: ConclusionsStudy 2a-c: Conclusions
• It is suggested: SIs are generated only where context warrants them.
• The fact that it takes a significant amount of time to generate SI corroborates the findings of Noveck & Posada (2003), Bott & Noveck (in press) (reasoning).
• There is a single pragmatic system sensitive to contextual assumptions
![Page 34: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
The pragmatics of NumberThe pragmatics of Number
• Numerals form a scalar set.<zero, one, two, three>
• Asymmetric entailment relations Terms on the right of the scale are more
informative, i.e. true in a narrower set of circumstances
• Horn 1989, Levinson 2000,
Numerals have an ‘at least N’ semantics and an ‘at most N’ implicature.
![Page 35: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Similarities with SIsSimilarities with SIs
• The ‘at most N’ inference exhibits all three properties of implicature
1 defeasibility2 sensitivity to discourse goals3 scale dependency
![Page 36: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Similarities with SIsSimilarities with SIs
• Defeasibility:Mary has three children. In fact, she has four.
• Sensitivity to discourse goals:A: Families with three children can apply for tax exemption.B: Mary’s family can apply for it. She has three children.
• Scale dependency: If a family has three children, they can apply for family
benefits.
![Page 37: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Differences with SIsDifferences with SIs Carston, 1998, Geurts 1998, Horn 1992 i.a. have
pinpointed several differences between numerals and other scalar sets.
• Different distribution with modifiers:Bill is hosting less than {?a few/ ?some / three} relativesBill is hosting exactly {?a few / ?some / ?many/ three} relatives
• Mathematical statements:(!) 3 + 3 = at least 6
![Page 38: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Differences with SIsDifferences with SIs
Approximation in numerals seems to affect the ‘at least’ interpretations:
• Bill is carrying £100 in his wallet. vs.• Bill is carrying £101.5 in his wallet.
• Everyday conversation:(!) I took six cigarettes with me, gave one to Fred and two to Ed, so I still have three (Sadock 1984)
![Page 39: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Differences with SIsDifferences with SIs
• Evidence from acquisition: numerals are processed differently from other scalar sets.
Papafragou & Musolino (2003) found that children at the age of 5 accept ‘some of the Fs G-ed’ when the case is that ‘all the Fs G-ed’ but they do not accept that ‘4 of the Fs G-ed’ when the case is that ‘5 of the Fs G-ed’.
![Page 40: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
The pragmatics of Number Menu:The pragmatics of Number Menu:
• Neo-Gricean: – at least N semantics – exactly N through pragmatics
• Independently motivated mechanisms– Carston 1998, Underspecification [X[two]]– Guerts 1998, context dependent Polysemy
![Page 41: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Study 3: Disjunction vs NumeralsStudy 3: Disjunction vs Numerals
• In the case of SIs, extra pragmatic processing, i.e. implicature generation, reflects on extra processing time (studies 2a-c).
• Underspecification and polysemy are linguistically triggered processes that do not require extra processing time (Frisson & Pickering 1999).
![Page 42: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
PredictionsPredictionsNeo-Gricean Disjunctions Upper B < Lower B
Numerals Upper B < Lower B
Carston / Guerts Disjunctions Upper B > Lower B
Numerals Upper B = Lower B
![Page 43: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
The experimental approachThe experimental approachDisjunction: X or Y
• Upper Bound context:John was taking a university course and working at the same time. For the exams he had to study from short and comprehensive sources. Depending on the course, he decided to read the class notes or the summary at the end of the chapters.
• Lower Bound contextJohn heard that the textbook for Geophysics was very advanced. No-one of his friends understood it properly. He heard that to pass the course he had to read the class notes or the summary at the end of the chapters.
![Page 44: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Study 3: Disjunction vs NumeralsStudy 3: Disjunction vs NumeralsNumerals
• Upper Bound context Peter and a friend were taking part in a geography contest. Peter could not see the score clearly and so he asked his friend how the opposing team was doing. His friend told him that they had managed/ to answer/ two questions/ in total./
• Lower Bound context Peter took part in a geography contest to win a ticket to the World Cup. He looked at the rules to see how well he had to go to qualify for the next round. He saw that he had/ to answer/ two questions/ in total./
![Page 45: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Study 3: MethodologyStudy 3: Methodology
• timed self-paced, segment-by-segment reading experiment, with comprehension motivated by questions after some of the sentences
• 24 critical items, 12 for each expression (disjunction - numeral) rotated in 2 conditions (Upper bound – Lower bound)
• 42 fillers – 25 comprehension questions• items were presented in Greek • 40 participants, adult native speakers of Greek
![Page 46: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Reading Time on the Trigger
800
9001000
11001200
13001400
1500
Disjunction Numeral
Upper Bound Lower Bound
Significant Interaction: Inference Type x Upper/Lower Significant Interaction: Inference Type x Upper/Lower Bound Bound FF(1,39), 7.91, p< .001(1,39), 7.91, p< .001
![Page 47: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Study 3: ResultsStudy 3: Results
Neo-Gricean Disjunctions Upper B ≤ Lower B
Numerals Upper B ≤ Lower B
Carston / Guerts Disjunctions Upper B > Lower B
Numerals Upper B = Lower B
Numerals are processed different than standard scalar terms
![Page 48: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
ConclusionsConclusionsStudy 1: linguistic assumptions on defeasibility of
SIs enjoy psychological realityStudies 2a-c: SI processing is not compatible with
the Strong Default account on SI generationStudy 3: Processing data converge with data from
acquisition that the interpretation of numerals does not involve an SI
Studies 2 & 3: there is a single context sensitivepragmatic system
Overall: Relevance and feasibility of experimental investigations for traditional linguistic debates.
![Page 49: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Next steps…Next steps…• Further studies:
to investigate the DE conditions for SI and numeralsto manipulate the interaction of context and DE
the problem of neutral contexts
![Page 50: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
• C + G +: Jane asked Mary: Which colleague has used my photocopying card? Mary replied: George or Andrew from the next office ...
• C – G +: Jane asked Mary: Who has a photocopying card to lend me? Mary replied: George or Andrew from the next office ...
• C + G -: Jane asked Mary: Which colleague has used my photocopying card? Mary replied: I don’t. I don’t know whether George or Andrew from the next office ...
• C – G -: Jane asked Mary: Who has a photocopying card to lend me? Mary replied: I don’t. I don’t know whether George or Andrew from the next office ...
![Page 52: An experimental investigation on the semantics/pragmatics of scalar terms](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081515/5681449a550346895db14765/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Strong Interactive Strong Default Contextualist
Gazdar Recanati Hobbs
Levinson Sperber & Wilson
Chierchia Carston