Mind & Society

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 73–93 | Cite as

Reasoning and pragmatics

  • Guy Politzer
  • Laura Macchi


Language pragmatics is applied to analyse problem statements and instructions used in a few influential experimental tasks in the psychology of reasoning. This analysis aims to determine the interpretation of the task which the participant is likely to construct. It is applied to studies of deduction (where the interpretation of quantifiers and connectives is crucial) and to studies of inclusion judgment and probabilistic judgment. It is shown that the interpretation of the problem statements or even the representation of the task as a whole often turn out to differ from the experimenter's assumptions. This has serious consequences for the validity of these experimental results and therefore for the claims about human irrationality based on them.


pragmatics reasoning deduction conditional reasoning judgment probabilistic reasoning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agnoli, F. & De Zuani, E. (1990) Fraintendimenti nel ragionamento probabilistico e implicazioni educative,Età evolutiva, 35, pp. 15–25.Google Scholar
  2. Anscombre, J.C. & Ducrot, O. (1983)L'argumentation dans la langue (Bruxelles, Mardaga).Google Scholar
  3. Bar-Hillel, M. (1990) Back to base rates, in R.M. Hogarth (Ed.)Insights in Decision Making (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  4. Begg, I. & Harris, G. (1982) On the interpretation of syllogisms,Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, pp. 595–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brainerd, C.J. & Reyna, V.F. (1991) Inclusion fallacy: fuzzy trace theory and perceptual salience effects in cognitive development,Developmental Review, 10, pp. 365–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrne, R.M.J. (1989) Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals,Cognition, 31, pp. 61–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan, D. & Chua, F. (1994) Suppression of valid inferences: Syntactic views, mental models, and relative salience,Cognition, 53, pp. 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cummins, D.D., Lubart, T., Alkinis, O. & Rist, R. (1991) Conditional reasoning and causation,Memory and Cognition, 19, pp. 274–282.Google Scholar
  9. Casscells, W., Schoenberger, A. & Graboys, T.B. (1987) Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results,New England Journal Of Medicine, 229, pp. 999–1001.Google Scholar
  10. Ducrot, O. (1984)Le dire et le dit (Paris, Editions de Minuit).Google Scholar
  11. Dulany, D.E. & Hilton, D.J. (1991) Conversational implicature, conscious representation, and the conjunction fallacy,Social Cognition, 9(1), pp. 85–110.Google Scholar
  12. Fiedler, K. (1988) The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors,Psychological Research, 50, pp. 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gigerenzer, G. (1991) On cognitive illusion and rationality, in E. Eells & T. Maruszewski (Eds.)Reasoning and Rationality. Essays in honour of L. J. Cohen (Amsterdam: Rodopi).Google Scholar
  14. Gigerenzer, G. (1995) Why the distinction between single-event probabilities and frequencies is important for psychology (and vice versa), in G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.)Subjective probability (Chichester, John Wiley & Sons).Google Scholar
  15. Gigerenzer, G., Hell, W. & Blank, H. (1988) Presentation and content: the use of base rates as a continuous variable,Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perceptions and Performance, 14(3), pp. 513–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995) How to improve bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats,Psychological Review, 102, pp. 684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ginossar, Z. & Trope, Y. (1987) Problem solving in judgment under uncertainty,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, pp. 464–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Girotto, V. & Politzer, G. (1990) Conversational and world knowledge constraints on deductive reasoning, in J.P. Caverni, J.M. Fabre & M. Gonzales (Eds.)Cognitive biases (Amsterdam, North-Holland).Google Scholar
  19. Goffman, E. (1974)Frame analysis (New York, Harper & Row).Google Scholar
  20. Goffman, E. (1981)Forms of talk (Oxford, Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
  21. Grice, H.P. (1975) Logic and conversation, in P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.)Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3: Speech acts (New York, Academic Press).Google Scholar
  22. Grice, P. (1989)Studies in the way of words (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  23. Hertwig, R. & Gigerenzer, G. (1997) The “conjunction fallacy” revisited: how intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors,Mimeo.Google Scholar
  24. Hilton, D.J. (1995) The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment,Psychological Bulletin, 118, pp. 248–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hilton, D.J., Jaspars, J.M.F. & Clarke, D.D. (1990) Pragmatic conditional reasoning: Context and content effects on the interpretation of causal assertions,Journal of Pragmatics, 14, pp. 791–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones, C.J. & Harris, P.L. (1987) Insight into the law of large numbers: a comparison of Piagetian and judment theory,Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, pp. 479–488.Google Scholar
  27. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982)Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  28. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1973) On the psychology of prediction,Psychological Review, 80, pp. 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Macchi, L. (1995) Pragmatics aspects of the base-rate fallacy,The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A(1), pp. 188–207.Google Scholar
  30. Macchi, L. (1998) Partitive formulation in probabilistic problems: beyond heuristics and frequency format explanations,The Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, in press.Google Scholar
  31. Macchi, L. & Mosconi, G. (1998) Computational features vs frequentist phrasing in the base-rate fallacy,Swiss Journal of Psychology, 57(2), pp. 79–85Google Scholar
  32. Mackie, J.L. (1974),The cement of the universe (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  33. Mosconi, G. & Macchi, L. (1994) The role of pragmatic rules in the conjunction fallacy,Report University of Milan.Google Scholar
  34. Newstead, S.E. & Griggs, R.A. (1983) Drawing inferences from quantified statements: A study of the square of opposition,Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, pp. 535–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Piaget, J. & Szeminska, A. (1941). La génèse du nombre chez l'enfant, (Neuchatel, G.N.).Google Scholar
  36. Politzer, G. (1986). Laws of language use and formal logic,Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, pp. 47–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Politzer, G. (1990). Immediate deduction between quantified sentences, in K.J. Gilhooly, M.T.G. Keane, R.H. Logie & G. Erdos (Eds.)Lines of thinking. Reflections on the psychology of thought (London, Wiley).Google Scholar
  38. Politzer, G. (1993)La psychologie du raisonnement. Lois de la pragmatique et logique formelle. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
  39. Politzer, G. & Braine, M.D.S. (1991) Responses to inconsistent premisses cannot count as suppression of valid inferences,Cognition, 38, pp. 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Politzer, G. & George, C. (1992) Non monotonic effects in conditional reasoning,Paper presented at the XXVth International Congress of Psychology, Brussels.Google Scholar
  41. Politzer, G. & Noveck, I.A. (1991), Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations?,Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, pp. 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Hilton, D. & Naderer, G. (1991) Base rates, representativeness, and the logic of conversation: the contextual relevance of “irrelevant” information,Social Cognition, 9(1), pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
  43. Shipley, E.F. (1979) The class-inclusion task: question form and distributive comparison,Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8, pp. 301–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sperber, D., Cara, F. & Girotto, V. (1995) Relevance theory explains the selection task,Cognition, 57, pp. 31–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995)Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edition (London, Blackwell).Google Scholar
  46. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1971) Belief in the Law of Small Numbers,Psychological Bulletin, 76, pp. 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1980) Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty, in M. Fishbein (Ed.)Progress in Social Psychology, Vol. 1 (Hillsdale, Erlbaum).Google Scholar
  48. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1982) Evidential impact of base rates, in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (Eds.)Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  49. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1983) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment,Psychological Review, 90, pp. 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Winefield, A.H. (1966) Negative recency and event dependence,Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, pp. 47–54.Google Scholar
  51. Winer, G.A. (1974) An analysis of verbal facilitation of classinclusion reasoning,Child Development, 51, pp. 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Fondazione Rosselli, Rosenberg & Sellier 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS-Psychologie Cognitive-2Université de Paris VIIISaint-DenisFrance
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Psicologia, Facoltà di PsicologiaUniversità degli Studi di Milano-BicoccaMilano

Personalised recommendations