Evoking Context with Contrastive Stress: Effects on Pragmatic Enrichment

Although it is widely acknowledged that context influences a variety of pragmatic phenomena, it is not clear how best to articulate this notion of context and thereby explain the nature of its influence. In this paper, we target contextual alternatives that are evoked via focus placement and test how the same contextual manipulation can influence three different phenomena that involve pragmatic enrichment: scalar implicature, presupposition, and coreference. We argue that focus placement influences these three phenomena indirectly by providing the listener with information about the likely question under discussion (QUD) that a particular utterance answers (Roberts, 1996/2012). In three listening experiments, we find that the predicted interpretations are indeed made more available when focus placement is added to the final element (to the scalar adjective, to an entity embedded under the negated presupposition trigger, and to the predicate of a pronoun). These findings bring together several distinct strands of work on the effect of focus placement on interpretation all in the domain of pragmatic enrichment. Together they advance our empirical understanding of the relation between focus placement and QUD and highlight commonalities between implicature, presupposition, and coreference.

[1]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  On the semantic properties of logical operators in english' reproduced by the indiana university lin , 1972 .

[2]  Roger S. Brown,et al.  The psychological causality implicit in language , 1983, Cognition.

[3]  Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst,et al.  Using ERPs to capture inferential processes guided by prosodic cues , 2010 .

[4]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse , 1993 .

[5]  Lewis Bott,et al.  Making disjunctions exclusive , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  A. Sheldon.  The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English , 1973 .

[7]  Ron Smyth,et al.  Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution , 1994 .

[8]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition , 2012, CogSci.

[9]  Robert B. Most,et al.  Information Structure in Sentences: New Information , 1979 .

[10]  Andrew Kehler,et al.  Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar , 2002, CSLI lecture notes series.

[11]  Bart Geurts,et al.  Scalar Diversity , 2016, J. Semant..

[12]  Michael Blome-Tillmann,et al.  Knowledge and implicatures , 2013, Synthese.

[13]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Cognitive Status and the form of Referring Expressions in Discourse , 1993, The Oxford Handbook of Reference.

[14]  Craige Roberts,et al.  Information Structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics , 2012 .

[15]  B. Geurts.  Embedded scalars , 2013 .

[16]  Terry Kit-fong Au,et al.  A Verb Is Worth a Thousand Words: The Causes and Consequences of Interpersonal Events Implicit in Language. , 1986 .

[17]  A. Zondervan.  The Question Under Discussion Focus Condition for Scalar Implicatures , 2006 .

[18]  Rosemary J. Stevenson,et al.  Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events , 1994 .

[19]  G. Chierchia,et al.  The Grammatical View of Scalar Implicatures and the Relationship between Semantics and Pragmatics , 2008 .

[20]  John M. Tomlinson.  How intonation constrains pragmatic inference , 2013 .

[21]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Coherence and Coreference Revisited , 2007, J. Semant..

[22]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[23]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  The Effect of Thematic Roles on Pronoun Use and Frequency of Reference Continuation , 2001 .

[24]  J. V. Berkum,et al.  On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension : Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking , 2006 .

[25]  John N. Williams,et al.  Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences , 2006, Cognition.

[26]  C. Cummins,et al.  Using Triggers Without Projecting Presuppositions , 2014, Topoi.

[27]  R Ratcliff,et al.  Discourse models, pronoun resolution, and the implicit causality of verbs. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[29]  Lewis Bott,et al.  How intonation contrains pragmatic inference , 2013, CogSci.

[30]  David I. Beaver,et al.  Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning , 2008 .

[31]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Discourse models, pronoun resolution, and the implicit causality of verbs. , 1993 .

[32]  A. Gualmini,et al.  Experiments on the Role of the Question Under Discussion for Ambiguity Resolution and Implicature Computation in Adults , 2008 .

[33]  Daniel Büring,et al.  On D-Trees, Beans, And B-Accents , 2003 .

[34]  Andrew Kehler.  Coherence-Driven Constraints on the Placement of Accent , 2005 .

[35]  H. Rohde.  Coherence-driven effects in sentence and discourse processing , 2008 .

[36]  D. Bishop,et al.  Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature , 2011, Cognition.

[37]  Mira Ariel.  Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents , 1990 .

[38]  Anna Maria Di Sciullo,et al.  Natural Language Understanding , 2009, SoMeT.

[39]  Alan Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 2003 .

[40]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Comprehension of Anaphoric Pronouns. , 1977 .

[41]  Craige Roberts.  Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated for-mal theory of pragmatics , 1996 .

[42]  James Davidson,et al.  Natural Language Understanding. , 1979 .

[43]  Jerry R. Hobbs.  Coherence and Coreference , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[44]  Siobhan Chapman.  Logic and Conversation , 2005 .