A Developmental Investigation of Processing Costs in Implicature Production

Much developmental work has been devoted to scalar implicatures. These are implicitly communicated propositions linked to relatively weak terms (consider how Some pragmatically implies Not all) that are more likely to be carried out by adults than by children. Children tend to retain the linguistically encoded meaning of these terms (wherein Some is compatible with All). In three experiments, we gauge children's performance with scalars while investigating four factors that can have an effect on implicature production: (i) the role of (the presence or absence of) distractor items; (ii) the nature of the task (verbal judgments versus action-based judgments); (iii) the choice of scalar expression (the French quantifier quelques versus certains); and (iv) the type of scale that contextualizes the weak utterance (the affirmative All versus the negative None). Experiment 1 replicated earlier findings showing that 9-year-olds are more likely than adults to consider as true statements such as Some turtles are in the boxes (uttered when all turtles are in the boxes) while employing the quantifier certains in a truth evaluation task containing multiple distractor items. The task in Experiment 2 increased implicature production across all ages (4-, 5-, and 7-year-olds as well as adults) but maintained the developmental effect while using quelques in an action-based task containing no distractor items. Experiment 3 showed that 9-year-olds are more likely to produce implicatures with quelques than they are with certains in the action task while adults are not affected by the choice of term. Overall, these results identify seemingly harmless task features that can prevent even older children (9-year-olds) from carrying out implicatures (e.g., through the inclusion of distractors) while also showing how implicature production among even young children (4- to 5-year-olds) can be facilitated by task features (e.g., the use of an action task) and without the introduction of special training.

[1]  David McNeill Acquisition of Syntax , 1969 .

[2]  C. Chomsky The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10 , 1969 .

[3]  Scott G. Paris,et al.  Comprehension of Language Connectives and Propositional Logical Relationships. , 1973 .

[4]  R J Sternberg,et al.  Developmental patterns in the encoding and combination of logical connectives. , 1978, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[5]  Carol L. Smith Quantifiers and Question Answering in Young Children. , 1980 .

[6]  M. Braine,et al.  Development of comprehension of “or”: Evidence for a sequence of competencies☆ , 1981 .

[7]  F. D. Jong,et al.  Generalized Quantifiers: the Properness of their Strength , 1984 .

[8]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1997 .

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

[10]  P. Mousty,et al.  Brulex: une base de donne 'es lexicales informatise 'e pour le franc?ais e 'crit et parle , 1990 .

[11]  Mürvet Enç The semantics of specificity , 1991 .

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

[13]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd ed. , 1995 .

[14]  H. D. Hoop On the Characterization of the Weak-Strong Distinction , 1995 .

[15]  Le syllogisme catégorique : une réexamination du terme certains dans une perspective développementale , 1998 .

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

[17]  Robyn Carston,et al.  Relevance theory : applications and implications , 1998 .

[18]  Rosalind Thornton,et al.  Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics , 1998 .

[19]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  Relevance theory: A tutorial , 2002 .

[20]  Eric Lambert,et al.  NOVLEX : une base de donnes lexicales pour les lves de primaire , 2001 .

[21]  I. Noveck When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature , 2001, Cognition.

[22]  R. Carston Thoughts and Utterances , 2002 .

[23]  I. Noveck,et al.  Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study , 2003, Brain and Language.

[24]  長沼 圭一 Georges KLEIBER, Brenda LACA et Liliane TASMOWSKI (eds.) (2001): Typologie des groupes nominaux, Presses Universitaires de Rennes , 2003 .

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

[26]  Ira A. Noveck,et al.  Pragmatic Inferences Related to Logical Terms , 2004 .

[27]  L. Surian,et al.  Conceptual development and conversational understanding , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[28]  Bernard Lété,et al.  MANULEX: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary school readers , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[29]  A. Papafragou,et al.  Children's Computation of Implicatures , 2004 .

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

[31]  I. Noveck,et al.  Implicatures et développement , 2004 .

[32]  Julian M. Pine,et al.  Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. , 2004 .

[33]  P. Bloom How Children Learn the Meaning of Words and How LSA Does It ( Too ) , 2005 .

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

[35]  Julien Musolino,et al.  On the Semantics of the Subset Principle , 2006 .

[36]  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.

[37]  Jeffrey Lidz,et al.  Why children aren't universally successful with quantification , 2006 .

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

[39]  Ira A. Noveck,et al.  How reaction time measures elucidate the matching bias and the way negations are processed , 2006 .

[40]  J. Prado,et al.  How reaction times can elucidate matching effects and the processing of negation , 2006 .

[41]  D. Sperber,et al.  The Why and How of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘Scalar Inferences’ , 2007 .

[42]  W. Schaeken,et al.  When people are more logical under cognitive load: dual task impact on scalar implicature. , 2007, Experimental psychology.

[43]  S. Crain,et al.  Language Acquisition , 2008 .