A Review of Cognitive Model: Experiments of Scalar Implicature
Experimental pragmatic studies focus on the cognitive processing models of scalar implicature (a general conversational implicature). The “[neo]-Gricean,” Levinson, infers that the cognitive processing model of general conversational implicature is a process of cancellation of one literal meaning in the general conversational implicature in terms of a “stereotypical relation”, which he calls “default model”. However, the “post-Gricean” infers that the processing follows the “context-driven model”, which holds that the literal meaning is only a stimulus to the hearer; it is the context that people depend on to process the conversational implicature. Countless experimental studies have been conducted to find a conclusion, but this issue is still unresolved. Another valuable inference about the cognitive processing model should be that the cognitive processing of contextual meaning is a dynamic interactive process among language, ad hoc, and mental contexts. It is completed by the interaction of various brain mechanisms with the surrounding neural systems as bridges, which are a holistic, dynamic, complicated process.
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bezuidenhout, A., & Cutting, J. (2002). Literal meaning, minimal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 433-56.
Bezuidenhout, & Sperbe, D. (Eds.) Experimental pragmatics (pp.257-82). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Breheny, R., Katsos, N., & John, W. (2006). Are generalized implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100 (3), 434-63.
Carston, R. (1991/1988). Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics (pp.33-51). In S. Davis (Ed.).Calgary: Broadview Press.
Carston, R. (2002). Linguistics meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language, 17(1/2), 127-48.
Gibbs, R., & Moise, J. (1997). Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition. 62, 51-74.
Grice, H. (1968). Utterances’ meaning, sentence meaning, and word-meaning. Foundations of Language, 4, 225-42.
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts (pp. 183-98). New York: Academic Press.
Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in english. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 376-415.
Katsos, N. (2008). The semantics/pragmatics interface from an experimental perspective: The case of scalar implicatures. Synthese, 165, 385-401.
Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition, 120, 67-81.
Kounios, J., & Holcomb, P. (1992). Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 459-79.
Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Psycholinguistics (pp.83-133). San Diego: Academic Press.
Levinson, S. (2001). Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Liu, S. (2008). An overview of experimental pragmatics studies. Contemporary Linguistics, 3, 246-56.
Nicolle, S., & Clark, B. (1999). Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition, 69, 337-54.
Noveck, I., & Posada, A. (2003). Characterizing the time course of an implicature. Brain and Language, 85, 203-10.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2001/1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell /Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wu, Z., & Tan, J. (2009). Scalar implicature in Chinese child language: An experimental study. Journal of Foreign Languages, 3, 69-75.
- There are currently no refbacks.
If you have already registered in Journal A and plan to submit article(s) to Journal B, please click the CATEGORIES, or JOURNALS A-Z on the right side of the "HOME".
We only use three mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2010 Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture
Address: 730, 77e AV, Laval, Quebec, H7V 4A8, Canada
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138
E-mail: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com