Shared and distinct mechanisms in deriving linguistic enrichment

Meanings of basic expressions can be enriched by considering what the speaker could have said, but chose not to, that is, the alternatives. We report three priming experiments that test whether there are shared enrichment mechanisms across a diverse range of linguistic categories. We find that quantifier, number, and ad hoc enrichments exhibit robust priming within their categories and between each other. Plural enrichments, in contrast, demonstrate within-category priming but no between-category priming. Our results demonstrate that (1) enrichment typically thought of as pragmatic or semantic can be primed in the same way as syntactic structures, and (2) there are mechanisms that are shared across different enrichment categories, and that some phenomena (e.g., plurals) are excluded from this class. We discuss the implications of our findings for psychological models of enrichment, theories of individual categories of enrichment, and structural priming.

[1]  Laurence R. Horn The Said and the Unsaid , 1992 .

[2]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Cues, Constraints, and Competition in Sentence Processing , 2004 .

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

[4]  J. Snedeker,et al.  Give and take: Syntactic priming during spoken language comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[5]  Benjamin Spector Aspects of the Pragmatics of Plural Morphology: On Higher-Order Implicatures , 2007 .

[6]  John M. Tomlinson,et al.  Possibly All of that and Then Some: Scalar Implicatures Are Understood in Two Steps. , 2013 .

[7]  Z. Dienes Bayesian Versus Orthodox Statistics: Which Side Are You On? , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[8]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure , 2003 .

[9]  M. Kutas,et al.  Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association , 1984, Nature.

[10]  Emmanuel Chemla,et al.  Interpreting numerals and scalar items under memory load , 2013 .

[11]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience , 2013, Cognition.

[12]  Katrin Schulz,et al.  Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences , 2004, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[13]  Katherine A. DeLong,et al.  Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[14]  A. Papafragou,et al.  Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface , 2003, Cognition.

[15]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  How Do People Construct Logical Form During Language Comprehension? , 2010, Psychological science.

[16]  Nikole D. Patson,et al.  The Conceptual Representation of Number , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  S. Crain Investigations In Universal Grammar , 1998 .

[18]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form , 1978 .

[19]  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.

[20]  Zoltan Dienes,et al.  Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results , 2014, Front. Psychol..

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

[22]  G. Boolos On ‘syllogistic inference’ , 1984, Cognition.

[23]  J. K. Bock Syntactic persistence in language production , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Processing Scalar Implicature: A Constraint-Based Approach , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  The source of belief bias effects in syllogistic reasoning , 1992, Cognition.

[26]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon , 2012 .

[27]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  G. Dell,et al.  Becoming syntactic. , 2006, Psychological review.

[29]  Robert J. Hartsuiker,et al.  Priming Word Order in Sentence Production , 1999 .

[30]  Natalie M. Klein,et al.  “Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment , 2010, Cognition.

[31]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[32]  D. Barner,et al.  Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference , 2011, Cognition.

[33]  R. Hartsuiker,et al.  Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production , 2000, Cognition.

[34]  D. Bates,et al.  Linear Mixed-Effects Models using 'Eigen' and S4 , 2015 .

[35]  M. Pickering,et al.  The Representation of Verbs: Evidence from Syntactic Priming in Language Production , 1998 .

[36]  J. Snedeker,et al.  On-line Interpretation of Scalar Quantifiers: Insight into the Semantic-Pragmatics Interface , 2006 .

[37]  U. Sauerland A New Semantics for Number , 2003 .

[38]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentences , 2004 .

[39]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[40]  I. Douven,et al.  Rationality: a social-epistemology perspective , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[41]  Corien Bary,et al.  Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles , 2011 .

[42]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: persistence of structural configuration in sentence production , 2003, Cognition.

[43]  Stephen Crain,et al.  Children's Knowledge of Free Choice Inferences and Scalar Implicatures , 2016, J. Semant..

[44]  R. Hartsuiker,et al.  Syntactic Persistence in Dutch , 1998, Language and speech.

[45]  Chris Kennedy From Grammar to Meaning: A scalar semantics for scalar readings of number words , 2013 .

[46]  Bart Geurts,et al.  Take 'five': the meaning and use of a number word , 2006 .

[47]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  A theory of scalar implicature , 1985 .

[48]  Richard Breheny,et al.  A New Look at the Semantics and Pragmatics of Numerically Quantified Noun Phrases , 2007, J. Semant..

[49]  Leon Bergen,et al.  Speaker knowledge influences the comprehension of pragmatic inferences. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[50]  M. Pickering,et al.  Structural priming: a critical review. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[51]  Laurence R. Horn A Natural History of Negation , 1989 .

[52]  Tessa Warren,et al.  Building complex reference objects from dual sets. , 2011, Journal of memory and language.

[53]  S. Crain,et al.  Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures , 2005 .

[54]  Yi Ting Huang,et al.  Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[55]  Michael Franke,et al.  Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation , 2011 .

[56]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  The effect of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences , 2011 .

[57]  J. Musolino The semantics and acquisition of number words: integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives , 2004, Cognition.

[58]  Lewis Bott,et al.  Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences , 2004 .

[59]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[60]  Nikole D. Patson,et al.  Conceptual plural information is used to guide early parsing decisions: Evidence from garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[61]  Alex B. Fine,et al.  Evidence for Implicit Learning in Syntactic Comprehension , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

[62]  Benjamin Spector,et al.  Bare Numerals and Scalar Implicatures , 2013, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[63]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[64]  木村 和夫 Pragmatics , 1997, Language Teaching.

[65]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension , 1998 .

[66]  Roni Katzir,et al.  Structurally-defined alternatives , 2007 .

[67]  Jesse Snedeker,et al.  What Exactly do Numbers Mean? , 2013, Language learning and development : the official journal of the Society for Language Development.

[68]  Robyn Carston,et al.  Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature , 1998 .

[69]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue , 2000, Cognition.

[70]  Zhenguang G Cai,et al.  The production of coerced expressions: Evidence from priming , 2014 .