Embedded Scalars and Typicality

In recent years, the interpretation of scalar terms in embedded environments has been investigated extensively. Some experimentalists have been concerned with sentences like (1), in which a scalar term is embedded under a universal quantifier. The controversy involves the question whether ‘some’ in these sentences is interpreted as ‘some but not all’, thus leading to the embedded upper-bounded inference that no square is connected to all of the circles. (1) All the squares are connected with some of the circles. Geurts & Pouscoulous (2009) conducted a verification task that seemed to prove that the inference is not licensed. In response, Clifton & Dube (2010) and Chemla & Spector (2011) gathered evidence suggesting the opposite conclusion. By experimentally investigating the typicality structure of complex quantified sentences like (1) above, I show how the results of the latter two experiments can be explained as typicality effects. Typicality plays a significant role in the comprehension of quantified sentences, thus complicating the interpretation of data from the kinds of experiments that have been employed to test between theories of upper-bounded inferences.

[1]  Gy. Fuhrmann,et al.  Note on the integration of prototype theory and fuzzy-set theory , 2004, Synthese.

[2]  George Lakoff,et al.  Hedges: A Study In Meaning Criteria And The Logic Of Fuzzy Concepts , 1973 .

[3]  James A. Hampton,et al.  Typicality, Graded Membership, and Vagueness , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  David A. Routh,et al.  On Representations of Quantifiers , 1994, J. Semant..

[5]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Broaden Your Views: Implicatures of Domain Widening and the Logicality of Language , 2006, Linguistic Inquiry.

[6]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Similar and Different: The Differentiation of Basic-Level Categories , 1997 .

[7]  M. A. Borges,et al.  Common verbal quantifiers: Usage and interpretation , 1974 .

[8]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[9]  M. McCloskey,et al.  Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets? , 1978 .

[10]  S. Laurence,et al.  Concepts and Cognitive Science , 1999 .

[11]  P. Shaver,et al.  Emotion knowledge: further exploration of a prototype approach. , 1987 .

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

[13]  James A. Hampton,et al.  Measures of internal category structure: A correlational analysis of normative data , 1983 .

[14]  Mandy Simons,et al.  A Gricean View on Intrusive Implicatures , 2010 .

[15]  Charles Clifton,et al.  Embedded Implicatures Observed: A Comment on. , 2010, Semantics and pragmatics.

[16]  Bart Geurts,et al.  Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. , 2009 .

[17]  Charles O. Frake,et al.  The ethnographic study of cognitive systems , 1962 .

[18]  Katherine A. Rawson,et al.  Category Norms: An Updated and Expanded Version of the Battig and Montague (1969) Norms. , 2004 .

[19]  D. Fox Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures , 2007 .

[20]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Outline of a New Approach to the Analysis of Complex Systems and Decision Processes , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[21]  Paula M. Niedenthal,et al.  Making use of social prototypes: From fuzzy concepts to firm decisions , 1984 .

[22]  Robert van Rooy,et al.  Conversational Implicatures , 2001, SIGDIAL Workshop.

[23]  J. M. Anglin,et al.  Word, object, and conceptual development , 1977 .

[24]  Petra Hendriks,et al.  Some implicatures reveal semantic differences , 2009 .

[25]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  Deriving Categories to Achieve Goals , 1991 .

[26]  H. Kamp,et al.  Prototype theory and compositionality , 1995, Cognition.

[27]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  On typicality and vagueness , 1997, Cognition.

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[29]  Benjamin Spector 10: Scalar Implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean Reasoning , 2007 .

[30]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Fuzzy Sets , 1996, Inf. Control..

[31]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Making Inferences: The Case of Scalar Implicature Processing , 2011, CogSci.

[32]  I. Noveck,et al.  A Developmental Investigation of Processing Costs in Implicature Production , 2007 .

[33]  G. Storms,et al.  The Role of Contrast Categories in Natural Language Concepts , 2001 .

[34]  Bernadette Bouchon-Meunier,et al.  Fuzzy Prototypes Based on Typicality Degrees , 2004, Fuzzy Days.

[35]  C. Mervis,et al.  Acquisition of basic object categories , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  C. Fillmore An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning , 1975 .

[37]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[38]  Lawrence M. Ward,et al.  Prototypicality of emotions: A reaction time study , 1982 .

[39]  W. Montague,et al.  Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms , 1969 .

[40]  S. Levinson Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature , 2001 .

[41]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[42]  J. Hammersley,et al.  Monte Carlo Methods , 1965 .

[43]  E. Rosch,et al.  Categorization of Natural Objects , 1981 .

[44]  Arjen Zondervan,et al.  Scalar implicatures or focus: an experimental approach , 2010 .

[45]  E. Smith,et al.  Psychiatric diagnosis as prototype categorization. , 1980, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[46]  R. Rooij Conjunctive interpretation of disjunction , 2010 .

[47]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Ad hoc categories , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[48]  B. Adelson Comparing Natural and Abstract Categories: A Case Study from Computer Science. , 1985 .

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

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

[51]  Barbara C. Malt,et al.  Do artifact concepts have cores , 1992 .

[52]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations , 1973 .

[53]  Emmanuel Chemla,et al.  Experimental Evidence for Embedded Scalar Implicatures , 2011, J. Semant..

[54]  P. Pollard,et al.  The effect of set size on the interpretation of quantifiers used in rating scales. , 1987, Applied ergonomics.

[55]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts , 1987 .

[56]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Embedded Implicatures and Experimental Constraints: A Reply to Geurts & Pouscoulous and Chemla , 2010 .

[57]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation , 1999, Cognition.

[58]  A. Feeney,et al.  The story of some: everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. , 2004, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[59]  J. A. Goguen,et al.  The logic of inexact concepts , 1969, Synthese.

[60]  Sharon Lee Armstrong,et al.  What some concepts might not be , 1983, Cognition.

[61]  E. Rosch Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. , 1975 .

[62]  Virginia Valian,et al.  Children's internal organization of locative categories. , 1979, Child development.