Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Contribution from the Perspective of Language Cognitive Sciences on the Default Semantics and Architecture of Mind Debate

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Part 2 Theories and Applications

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 20))

  • 522 Accesses

Abstract

This essay is a contribution to the recent debate between Capone’s ‘Default Semantics and the architecture of mind’ and Zhang and Zhang’s ‘Explicature versus default meaning: A response to Alessandro Capone’s Default Semantics and the architecture of the mind’ about the relationship between Jaszczolt’s default semantics and relevance theory. Relevance theory and default semantics have made different predictions about the elaboration of scalar inferences. Default semantics, gathers Levinson’s idea of ‘default interpretations’, and considers generalized conversational implicatures as instances of default interpretations. On the other hand, relevance theory rejects default meanings and thinks of inferential enrichments as inferentially derived explicatures.

Neither theory fully resolves the problem. Scalar inferences are directly elaborated in context, with inner workings that are similar to those used by Levinson. Studies of scalar implicatures have certainly argued that generating an implicature carries a cost that could not be attributed to retrieval probabilities or factors relating to semantic complexity, but it seems that costs are associated with deriving implicatures per se. Pragmatic interpretation needs the extra cost of elaboration, with respect to semantic interpretation. It is only a formal computational process that allows semantic interpretation, whereas at least, pragmatic interpretation has to integrate semantics and several contextual aspects. Nevertheless, pragmatic elaboration, when it is supported by context, does not seem to be elaborated after the literal meaning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    N400 is a negative deflection in the ERP that emerges somewhere between 150 and 300 ms after the onset of a word and that peaks at about 400 ms. It is considered the electrophysiological index of semantic processing and its amplitude reflects the fit between the lexical-semantic meaning of an incoming word and the interaction between linguistic context with information stored in memory.

  2. 2.

    P600 is a centro-parietally distribuited late positivity. Its amplitude has been suggested to reflect late integration processes of various information types. The P600 component has been regarded as a reflection of processes based on semantic information. It is modulated by semantic expectancy and by thematic and semantic-pragmatic anomalies.

References

  • Barner, D., Brooks, N., Bale, A., 2011. Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inferences. Cognition.118 (1), 84–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkum, J.J.A., 2009. The neuropragmatics of ‘simple’ utterance comprehension: An ERP review. Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 276–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkum, J.J.A., Zwitserlood, P., Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., 2003. When and how do listeners relate a sentence to the wider discourse? Evidence from the N400 effect. Cognitive brain research. 17 (3), 701–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkum, J.J.A., Brown, C.M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., Hagoort, P., 2005. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPS and reading time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 31 (3), 443–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkum, J.J.A., Brink, D., Tesink, C.M.J.Y., Kos, M., Hagoort, P., 2008. The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 20 (4), 580–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bott, L., Noveck, I.A., 2004. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of memory and language. 51, 437–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bott, L., Bailey, T.M., Grodnar D., 2012. Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of memory and language. 66(1), 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breheny, R., Katsos, N., Williams, J., 2006. Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition. 100, 434–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone A., 2006. On Grice’s circle (a theory-internal problem in linguistic theories of the Gricean type) Journal of Pragmatics 38 645–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A., 2011a. Default Semantics and the architecture of the mind. Journal of pragmatics. 43, 1741–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone A., 2011b. The attributive/referential distinction, pragmatics, modularity of mind and modularization. Australian Journal of Linguistics. 31 (2), 153–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone A., 2013. Explicatures are NOT cancellable, in: A. Capone et al. (eds.) Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_5, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capone A. (2017). Précis by Capone in response to Zhang and Zhang. Journal of pragmatics 117, 273–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers, P., 2006. The architecture of mind, OUP, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. 1990. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston R., 1995. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. Lingua 96.4 213–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R., 1996. The architecture of the mind: modularity and modularization, in: Green, D. (Ed.), Cognitive Science: An introduction. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston R., 1997. Relevance-theoretic pragmatics and modularity. UCL Working papers in Linguistics 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R., 1998. Informativeness, Relevance and Scalar implicature, Pragmatics And Beyond New Series, 179–238.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. 2000. Explicature and semantics (Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 44–89). UCL Working Papers in Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. 2003. Conversational implicatures and pragmatic mechanisms. In Paper delivered at the meeting of the European Society for Philosophy and Psychology, ESPP (Vol. 3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston R., 2004. Truth-conditional content and conversational implicature. In Bianchi C. (ed) The semantics/Pragmatics distinction. CSLI Stanford University 65–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. (2004). Stephen C. Levinson, Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000. Pp. xxiii+ 480. Journal of linguistics, 40(1), 181–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R., 2005. Relevance Theory, Grice and neo-gricean: a response to L. Horn. Intercultural pragmatics. 2/3, 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston R., 2006a. Relevance Theory, Grice, and the neo.Griceans: A response to Lauren Horn’s “Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics”. Intercultural pragmatics 2.3 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. 2006b. Code and inference: The meaning of words in context. Explicit and Implicit Information in Text Information Structure across Languages, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston R. 2007. How many pragmatic systems are there. Saying, meaning, referring. Essays on the philosophy of Francoise Recanati, 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. 2009. Relevance theory: contextualism or pragmaticism. Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R., 2013. Word meaning, what is said an explicature CSLI Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston R., 2015. Contextual adjustment of meaning. The Routledge handbook of semantics 195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. 2016. Linguistic Conventions and the Role of Pragmatics. Mind & Language, 31(5), 612–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. 2017. Pragmatic enrichment: beyond Gricean rational reconstruction–a response to Mandy Simons. Inquiry, 60(5), 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R., Hall, A., 2012. Implicature and explicature. Cognitive pragmatics vol.4 of handbook in Pragmatics, eds. H-J. Schmid and D. Geeraerts, 7–84. Berlin: Moutoun de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R., Hall, A. 2017. Contextual effects on explicature. International Review of Pragmatics, 9(1), 51–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R., Powell, G. 2006. Relevance theory–new directions and developments. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. OUP Online at www. phon. ucl. ac. uk/home/robyn/home. htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E., Bott, L., 2013. Processing presuppositions: dynamic semantics vs pragmatic enrichment. Language and Cognitive processes. 28 (3), 241–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E., Bott, L., (2014). Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition. 130 (3), 280–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Neys, W., Schaeken, W., 2007. When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature, Experimental Psychology. 54 (2), 128–133. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degen, J., 2015. Investigating the distribution of “some” (but not “all”) implicatures using corpora and web-based methods. Semantics and pragmatics. 8 (11), 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degen, J., Tanenhaus, M.K., 2011. Making inferences: The case of scalar implicature processing, in Carlson, L., Höolscher, C., Shipley T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, pp.3299–3304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degen, J., Tanenhaus, M.K., 2015a. Availability of alternatives and the processing of scalar implicatures: A visual world eye-tracking study. Cognitive sciences. 40 (1), 172–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degen, J., Tanenhaus, M.K., 2015b. Processing scalar implicature: A constraintbased approach. Cognitive science. 39 (4), 667–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eiteljörge, S.F.V., Pouscoulous, N., Lieven, E., 2016. Implicature production in children: a corpus study, in: Fabienne S., Uli, S. (Eds.), Pre-proceedings of Trends in Experimental Pragmatics, XPRAG.de, Berlin, pp.46–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, A., Scrafton, S., Duckworth, A., Handley, S.J., 2004. The story of some: Everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. Canadian Journal of experimental psychology. 58 (2), 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R., 1983. Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests?. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory and cognition. 9, 524–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R., 1986. On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of experimental psychology: General. 115, 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gildea, P., Glucksberg, S., 1983. On understanding metaphor: The role of context. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 21, 512–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giora, R., 2003 On our Minds: Salience, Context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P., 1975. Logic and conversation, in: Cole P., Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts, New York: Academic Press, pp.41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grodner, D.J., Klein, N.M., Carbary, K. M., Tanenhaus, M.K., 2010. “Some” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition. 116 (1), 42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guasti, M.T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo. F., Gualmini, A., Meroni. L., 2005. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive processes. 20 (5), 667–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P., 2003. How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage. 20, S18-S29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P., 2005. On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 9, 416–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P., 2009. Reflections on the neurobiology of syntax, in: Bickerton, D., Szathmary, E., (Eds.), Biological foundations and origin of syntax, The MIT Press, Cambridge-London, pp. 279–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P. 2017. The core and beyond in the language-ready brain. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiorev.2017.01.048.

  • Hagoort, P., Berkum, J., 2007. Beyond the sentence given. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 362, 801–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P., Levinson S.C., 2014. Neuropragmatics, in: Gazzaniga, M. S., Mangun G. R. (Eds.), The cognitive neurosciences, Cambridge Mass, Mit Press, pp.667–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M., 2008. Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics. 5 (2), 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M., 2011. Practices and defaults in interpreting disjunction. Salience and defaults in utterance processing. 189–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M., Jaszczolt, K.M, 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality.The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. 87–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. R. 2004. Implicature, in: Horn, L. R., Ward, G. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics Malden MA: Blackwell, pp. 2–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., Snedeker, J. 2009a. Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology. 58, 376–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y.T., Snedeker, J., 2009b. Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in 5-years olds: Evidence from real-time spoken language comprehension. Developmental Psychology. 45(6), 1723–1739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y.T., Snedeker, J., 2011. Logic and conversation revisited: evidence for a division between semantic and pragmatic content in real-time language comprehension. Language and Cognitive processes. 26(8), 1161–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, G., Yoon, S., Lee, S., Park, H., Kim, J., Hoon Ko, J., Park, H. 2013. Everyday conversation requires cognitive inference: neural bases of comprehending implicated meanings in conversations. Neuroimage. 81, 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaszczolt, K.M., 1999. Discourse, Beliefs and Intentions. Elsevier, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaszczolt, K.M., 2005. Default Semantics. Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. OUP, Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jaszczolt, K.M., 2006. Default Semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaszczolt K. M., 2010. Default Semantics, in Heine, B., Narrog, H. (Eds), The Oxford handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.193–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaszczolt, K. M. 2011. Default meanings, salient meanings, and automatic processing. Salience and defaults in utterance processing. 11–33.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A., 1992. Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A., 2010. A developmental perspective on modularity, in: Karmiloff-Smith, A. (Ed.), On Thinking. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsos, N., Bishop, D. V. M., 2011. Pragmatic tolerance: implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition. 120, 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuperberg, G. R., Lakshmanan, B. M., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J., 2006. Making sense of discourse: An fMRI study of causal inferencing across sentences. Neuroimage. 33 (1), 343–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C., 2000. Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwland, M. S., Ditman, T., Kuperberg, G.R., 2010. On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: an ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of memory and language. 63, 324–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noordzij, M., Newman-Norlund, S. E., Ruiter, J. P., Hagoort, P., Levinson, S. C., Toni, I., 2010. Neural correlates of intentional communication. Frontiers in neuroscience. 4, Article 188, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2010.00188.

  • Noveck, I.A., 2001. When Children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigation of scalar implicature. Cognition. 78(2) 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, I.A., Posada, A., 2003. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language. 85(2), 2013–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, I. A., Reboul, A. 2008. Experimental pragmatics: a Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 12, 425–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, I.A., Sperber, D., 2004. (Eds.) Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, I. A, Sperber, D., 2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of “scalar inferences”, in Burton-Roberts, N. (Ed.), Advances in pragmatics, Basingstoke, UK:Palgrave, pp.184–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papafragou, A., Musolino, J., 2001. Scalar Implicatures: Experiment at the Semantics-Pragmatics interface, IRCS Technical reports, series 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papafragou, A., Musolino, J., 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition. 78(3), 253–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papafragou, A., Tantalou, N., 2004. Children’s computation of implicatures. Language acquisition. 12(1), 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, M., 2007. Pragmatic Impairment. CUP, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poscoulous, N., Noveck, I.A., Politzer, G., Bastide, A., 2007. A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language acquisition. 14(4), 347–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regel, S., Coulson, S., Gunter, T.C., 2010. The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain Research. 1311, 121,135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scianna, C., 2014. Unificazione, rappresentazione e linguaggio: l’area di Broca nei processi cognitivi complessi, RIFL, DOI https://doi.org/10.4396/11SFL2014: 203-214.

  • Shetreet, E., Chierchia, G., Gaab, N., 2013. When Some is not Every: dissociating scalar implicature generation and mismatch. Human brain Mapping. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D., Wilson, D., 1986. Relevance, 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D., Wilson, D., 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition, Oxford, Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D., Wilson, D., 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language. 17(1–2), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spotorno, N., Cheylus, A., van Der Henst, J., Noveck, I. A., 2013. What’s behind a P600? Integration operations during irony processing. PLoS ONE. 8(6):e66839 doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolk, A., Noordzij, M. L., Volman, I., Verhagen, L., Overeem, S., Elswijk, G., Bloem, B., Hagoort, P.,Toni, I., 2014. Understanding communicative actions: A repetitive TMS study. Cortex. 51, 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, J.M, Bailey, T. M., Bott, L., 2013. Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps. Journal of memory and language. 89(1), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tiel, B., 2016, Processing Pragmatic inferences, in Salfner, F., Sauerland, U., (Eds.), Pre-proceedings of Trends in Experimental Pragmatics, XPRAG.de, Berlin, pp 146–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Tiel, B., Schaeken, W., 2016. Processing Conversational implicatures: Alternatives and Counterfactual reasoning. Cognitive Science. 1–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Zhang, S., 2016. Explicature versus default meaning: A response to Alessandro Capone’s Default Semantics and the architecture of the mind. Journal of Pragmatics.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Scienze Cognitive, Psicologiche, Pedagogiche e degli Studi Culturali, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Caterina Scianna

Authors
  1. Caterina Scianna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caterina Scianna .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cognitive Science, University of Messina, Barcellona, Italy

    Alessandro Capone

  2. Department SUM, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Marco Carapezza

  3. University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Franco Lo Piparo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scianna, C. (2019). A Contribution from the Perspective of Language Cognitive Sciences on the Default Semantics and Architecture of Mind Debate. In: Capone, A., Carapezza, M., Lo Piparo, F. (eds) Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Part 2 Theories and Applications. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00973-1_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00973-1_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00972-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00973-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation