Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:11:30.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Novel Experimental Paradigm for Distinguishing Between what is said and what is Implicated

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Ryan Doran,
Gregory Ward,
Meredith Larson,
Yaron McNabb and
Rachel E. Baker
Ryan Doran
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Gregory Ward*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Meredith Larson
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Yaron McNabb
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Rachel E. Baker
Affiliation:
EF Education First
*
Ward, Department of Linguistics Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60208, [gw@northwestern.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

That there is a theoretical distinction between context-dependent and context-independent aspects of utterance interpretation has become a standard assumption in current theories of meaning; however, how and where to draw this distinction has been the subject of considerable debate. In the current study, we investigate whether speakers can systematically distinguish between what is said and what is implicated (Grice 1989 [1967]) using a novel truth-value judgment paradigm across a wide range of implicature types. We found that, by providing participants with a clear set of judgment criteria, including the adoption of an objective third-person perspective, we were able to enhance their ability to distinguish conversational implicature from truth-conditional meaning. In addition, we found that none of the implicature types we investigated was either consistently incorporated into or consistently excluded from what is said. Instead, our findings revealed considerable variation in frequency of incorporation across implicature types in ways that do not correspond straightforwardly to the various taxonomies of implicature types proposed in the literature.

Keywords

semantics/pragmatics boundarygeneralized conversational implicatureGricescalar implicatureexperimental pragmatics

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 88 , Issue 1 , March 2012, pp. 124 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bach, Kent. 1994. Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 9.2.124–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne L., and Cutting, J. Cooper. 2002. Literal meaning, minimal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics 34.4.433–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bott, Lewis, and Noveck, Ira A.. 2004. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 51.3.437–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breheny, Richard, Katsos, Napoleon; and Williams, John. 2006. Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100.3.434–63.Google ScholarPubMed
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevallier, Coralie, Noveck, Ira A., Nazir, Tatjana, Bott, Lewis, Lanzetti, Valentina; and Sperber, Dan. 2008. Making disjunctions exclusive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61.11.1741–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. Structures and beyond, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, Stephen, and Thornton, Rosalind. 1998. Investigations in universal grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Neys, Wim, and Schaeken, Walter. 2007. When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology 54.2.128–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dias, Maria, Roazzi, Antonio; and Harris, Paul L.. 2005. Reasoning from unfamiliar premises: A study with unschooled adults. Psychological Science 16.7.550–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doran, Ryan, Baker, Rachel E., McNabb, Yaron, Larson, Meredith; and Ward, Gregory. 2009. On the non-unified nature of scalar implicature: An empirical investigation. International Review of Pragmatics 1. 211–48.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane, Grabowski, Joachim; and Landes, Shari. 1998. Performance and confidence in a semantics annotation task. WordNet: An electronic lexical database, ed. by Fellbaum, Christiane, 217–38. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., and Moise, Jessica F.. 1997. Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition 62.1.51–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, H. Paul. 1989 [1967]. Logic and conversation. Studies in the way of words, 22–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Originally presented as William James lecture, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. First published in Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press, 1975.]Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa, Chierchia, Gennaro, Crain, Stephen, Foppolo, Francesca, Gualmini, Andrea; and Meroni, Luisa. 2005. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes 20.5.667–96.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia. 1991. A theory of scalar implicature. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature. Meaning, form, and use in context, ed. by Schiffrin, Deborah, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1993. Economy and redundancy in a dualistic model of natural language. SKY: Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland 1993. 33–72.Google Scholar
Huang, Yi Ting, and Snedeker, Jesse. 2009. Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology 58.3.376–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Yi Ting, and Snedeker, Jesse. 2011. ‘Logic and conversation’ revisited: Evidence for the division between semantic and pragmatic content in real time language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26.8.1161–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yi Ting, Spelke, Elizabeth; and Snedeker, Jesse. 2004. What exactly do numbers mean? Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by Forbus, Ken, Gentner, Dedre, and Regier, Terry, 1570. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Huang, Yi Ting, Spelke, Elizabeth; and Snedeker, Jesse. 2010. When is four far more than three? Children's generalization of newly acquired number words. Psychological Science 21.4.600–606.Google ScholarPubMed
Katsos, Napoleon, and Bishop, Dorothy V. M.. 2011. Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition 120.1.67–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of the generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve, and Clark, Billy. 1999. Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A reply to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition 69.3.337–54.Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira A. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: Investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78.2.165–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noveck, Ira A., Chevallier, Coralie, Chevaux, Florelle, Musolino, Julien; and Bott, Lewis. 2009. Children's enrichments of conjunctive sentences in context. Utterance interpretation and cognitive models (Current research in the semantic/pragmatics interface 20), ed. by Brabanter, Philippe De and Kissine, Mikhail, 211–34. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira A., and Chevaux, Florelle. 2002. The pragmatic development of and. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 26. 453–63.Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira A., and Posada, Andres. 2003. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85. 203–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panizza, Daniele, Huang, Yi Ting, Chierchia, Gennaro; and Snedeker, Jesse. 2011. Relevance of polarity for the online interpretation of scalar terms. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19. 360–78.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna, and Musolino, Julien. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition 86.3.253–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papafragou, Anna, and Tantalou, Niki. 2004. Children's computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition 12.1.71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouscoulous, Nausicaa, Noveck, Ira A., Politzer, Guy; and Bastide, Anne. 2007. A development investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition 14.4.347–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Récanati, Francois. 1993. Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar