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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bott, L., Bailey, T.M., Grodnar D., 2012. Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of memory and language. 66(1), 123–142.
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.
Capone A., 2006. On Grice’s circle (a theory-internal problem in linguistic theories of the Gricean type) Journal of Pragmatics 38 645–669.
Capone, A., 2011a. Default Semantics and the architecture of the mind. Journal of pragmatics. 43, 1741–54.
Capone A., 2011b. The attributive/referential distinction, pragmatics, modularity of mind and modularization. Australian Journal of Linguistics. 31 (2), 153–186.
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.
Capone A. (2017). Précis by Capone in response to Zhang and Zhang. Journal of pragmatics 117, 273–279.
Carruthers, P., 2006. The architecture of mind, OUP, Oxford.
Carston, R. 1990. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 1–31.
Carston R., 1995. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. Lingua 96.4 213–244.
Carston, R., 1996. The architecture of the mind: modularity and modularization, in: Green, D. (Ed.), Cognitive Science: An introduction. Blackwell, Oxford.
Carston R., 1997. Relevance-theoretic pragmatics and modularity. UCL Working papers in Linguistics 9
Carston, R., 1998. Informativeness, Relevance and Scalar implicature, Pragmatics And Beyond New Series, 179–238.
Carston, R. 2000. Explicature and semantics (Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 44–89). UCL Working Papers in Linguistics.
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).
Carston R., 2004. Truth-conditional content and conversational implicature. In Bianchi C. (ed) The semantics/Pragmatics distinction. CSLI Stanford University 65–100.
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.
Carston, R., 2005. Relevance Theory, Grice and neo-gricean: a response to L. Horn. Intercultural pragmatics. 2/3, 303–319.
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.
Carston, R. 2006b. Code and inference: The meaning of words in context. Explicit and Implicit Information in Text Information Structure across Languages, 3.
Carston R. 2007. How many pragmatic systems are there. Saying, meaning, referring. Essays on the philosophy of Francoise Recanati, 1–17
Carston, R. 2009. Relevance theory: contextualism or pragmaticism. Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 19–26.
Carston, R., 2013. Word meaning, what is said an explicature CSLI Publications
Carston R., 2015. Contextual adjustment of meaning. The Routledge handbook of semantics 195.
Carston, R. 2016. Linguistic Conventions and the Role of Pragmatics. Mind & Language, 31(5), 612–624.
Carston, R. 2017. Pragmatic enrichment: beyond Gricean rational reconstruction–a response to Mandy Simons. Inquiry, 60(5), 517–538.
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.
Carston, R., Hall, A. 2017. Contextual effects on explicature. International Review of Pragmatics, 9(1), 51–81.
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.
Chemla, E., Bott, L., 2013. Processing presuppositions: dynamic semantics vs pragmatic enrichment. Language and Cognitive processes. 28 (3), 241–260.
Chemla, E., Bott, L., (2014). Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition. 130 (3), 280–396.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Degen, J., Tanenhaus, M.K., 2015b. Processing scalar implicature: A constraintbased approach. Cognitive science. 39 (4), 667–710.
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.
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.
Gibbs, R., 1983. Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests?. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory and cognition. 9, 524–533.
Gibbs, R., 1986. On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of experimental psychology: General. 115, 3–25.
Gildea, P., Glucksberg, S., 1983. On understanding metaphor: The role of context. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 21, 512–521.
Giora, R., 2003 On our Minds: Salience, Context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Hagoort, P., 2003. How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage. 20, S18-S29.
Hagoort, P., 2005. On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 9, 416–423.
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.
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.
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.
Haugh, M., 2008. Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics. 5 (2), 99–110.
Haugh, M., 2011. Practices and defaults in interpreting disjunction. Salience and defaults in utterance processing. 189–225.
Haugh, M., Jaszczolt, K.M, 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality.The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. 87–112.
Horn, L. R. 2004. Implicature, in: Horn, L. R., Ward, G. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics Malden MA: Blackwell, pp. 2–28.
Huang, Y., Snedeker, J. 2009a. Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology. 58, 376–415.
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.
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.
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.
Jaszczolt, K.M., 1999. Discourse, Beliefs and Intentions. Elsevier, Oxford.
Jaszczolt, K.M., 2005. Default Semantics. Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. OUP, Oxford.
Jaszczolt, K.M., 2006. Default Semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
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.
Jaszczolt, K. M. 2011. Default meanings, salient meanings, and automatic processing. Salience and defaults in utterance processing. 11–33.
Karmiloff-Smith, A., 1992. Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. MIT Press.
Karmiloff-Smith, A., 2010. A developmental perspective on modularity, in: Karmiloff-Smith, A. (Ed.), On Thinking. Springer, Berlin.
Katsos, N., Bishop, D. V. M., 2011. Pragmatic tolerance: implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition. 120, 67–81.
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.
Levinson, S. C., 2000. Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
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.
Noveck, I.A., Posada, A., 2003. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language. 85(2), 2013–210.
Noveck, I. A., Reboul, A. 2008. Experimental pragmatics: a Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 12, 425–431.
Noveck, I.A., Sperber, D., 2004. (Eds.) Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Papafragou, A., Musolino, J., 2001. Scalar Implicatures: Experiment at the Semantics-Pragmatics interface, IRCS Technical reports, series 29.
Papafragou, A., Musolino, J., 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition. 78(3), 253–282
Papafragou, A., Tantalou, N., 2004. Children’s computation of implicatures. Language acquisition. 12(1), 71–82.
Perkins, M., 2007. Pragmatic Impairment. CUP, Cambridge.
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.
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.
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
Sperber, D., Wilson, D., 1986. Relevance, 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.
Sperber D., Wilson, D., 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition, Oxford, Blackwell.
Sperber D., Wilson, D., 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language. 17(1–2), 3–23.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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)