Advertisement

A Contribution from the Perspective of Language Cognitive Sciences on the Default Semantics and Architecture of Mind Debate

  • Caterina SciannaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 20)

Abstract

This essay is a contribution to the recent debate between Capone’s ‘Default Semantics and the architecture of mind’ and Zhang and Zhang’s ‘Explicature versus default meaning: A response to Alessandro Capone’s Default Semantics and the architecture of the mind’ about the relationship between Jaszczolt’s default semantics and relevance theory. Relevance theory and default semantics have made different predictions about the elaboration of scalar inferences. Default semantics, gathers Levinson’s idea of ‘default interpretations’, and considers generalized conversational implicatures as instances of default interpretations. On the other hand, relevance theory rejects default meanings and thinks of inferential enrichments as inferentially derived explicatures.

Neither theory fully resolves the problem. Scalar inferences are directly elaborated in context, with inner workings that are similar to those used by Levinson. Studies of scalar implicatures have certainly argued that generating an implicature carries a cost that could not be attributed to retrieval probabilities or factors relating to semantic complexity, but it seems that costs are associated with deriving implicatures per se. Pragmatic interpretation needs the extra cost of elaboration, with respect to semantic interpretation. It is only a formal computational process that allows semantic interpretation, whereas at least, pragmatic interpretation has to integrate semantics and several contextual aspects. Nevertheless, pragmatic elaboration, when it is supported by context, does not seem to be elaborated after the literal meaning.

Keywords

Default semantics Relevance theory Scalar inference Sentence processing Conversational implicature 

References

  1. Barner, D., Brooks, N., Bale, A., 2011. Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inferences. Cognition.118 (1), 84–93.Google Scholar
  2. Berkum, J.J.A., 2009. The neuropragmatics of ‘simple’ utterance comprehension: An ERP review. Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 276–316.Google Scholar
  3. Berkum, J.J.A., Zwitserlood, P., Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., 2003. When and how do listeners relate a sentence to the wider discourse? Evidence from the N400 effect. Cognitive brain research. 17 (3), 701–718.Google Scholar
  4. Berkum, J.J.A., Brown, C.M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., Hagoort, P., 2005. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPS and reading time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 31 (3), 443–467.Google Scholar
  5. Berkum, J.J.A., Brink, D., Tesink, C.M.J.Y., Kos, M., Hagoort, P., 2008. The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 20 (4), 580–591.Google Scholar
  6. Bott, L., Noveck, I.A., 2004. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of memory and language. 51, 437–457.Google Scholar
  7. Bott, L., Bailey, T.M., Grodnar D., 2012. Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of memory and language. 66(1), 123–142.Google Scholar
  8. Breheny, R., Katsos, N., Williams, J., 2006. Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition. 100, 434–463.Google Scholar
  9. Capone A., 2006. On Grice’s circle (a theory-internal problem in linguistic theories of the Gricean type) Journal of Pragmatics 38 645–669.Google Scholar
  10. Capone, A., 2011a. Default Semantics and the architecture of the mind. Journal of pragmatics. 43, 1741–54.Google Scholar
  11. Capone A., 2011b. The attributive/referential distinction, pragmatics, modularity of mind and modularization. Australian Journal of Linguistics. 31 (2), 153–186.Google Scholar
  12. Capone A., 2013. Explicatures are NOT cancellable, in: A. Capone et al. (eds.) Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_5, Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Capone A. (2017). Précis by Capone in response to Zhang and Zhang. Journal of pragmatics 117, 273–279.Google Scholar
  14. Carruthers, P., 2006. The architecture of mind, OUP, Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Carston, R. 1990. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 1–31.Google Scholar
  16. Carston R., 1995. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. Lingua 96.4 213–244.Google Scholar
  17. Carston, R., 1996. The architecture of the mind: modularity and modularization, in: Green, D. (Ed.), Cognitive Science: An introduction. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. Carston R., 1997. Relevance-theoretic pragmatics and modularity. UCL Working papers in Linguistics 9Google Scholar
  19. Carston, R., 1998. Informativeness, Relevance and Scalar implicature, Pragmatics And Beyond New Series, 179–238.Google Scholar
  20. Carston, R. 2000. Explicature and semantics (Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 44–89). UCL Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  21. Carston, R. 2003. Conversational implicatures and pragmatic mechanisms. In Paper delivered at the meeting of the European Society for Philosophy and Psychology, ESPP (Vol. 3).Google Scholar
  22. Carston R., 2004. Truth-conditional content and conversational implicature. In Bianchi C. (ed) The semantics/Pragmatics distinction. CSLI Stanford University 65–100.Google Scholar
  23. Carston, R. (2004). Stephen C. Levinson, Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000. Pp. xxiii+ 480. Journal of linguistics, 40(1), 181–186.Google Scholar
  24. Carston, R., 2005. Relevance Theory, Grice and neo-gricean: a response to L. Horn. Intercultural pragmatics. 2/3, 303–319.Google Scholar
  25. Carston R., 2006a. Relevance Theory, Grice, and the neo.Griceans: A response to Lauren Horn’s “Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics”. Intercultural pragmatics 2.3 303–319.Google Scholar
  26. Carston, R. 2006b. Code and inference: The meaning of words in context. Explicit and Implicit Information in Text Information Structure across Languages, 3.Google Scholar
  27. Carston R. 2007. How many pragmatic systems are there. Saying, meaning, referring. Essays on the philosophy of Francoise Recanati, 1–17Google Scholar
  28. Carston, R. 2009. Relevance theory: contextualism or pragmaticism. Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 19–26.Google Scholar
  29. Carston, R., 2013. Word meaning, what is said an explicature CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  30. Carston R., 2015. Contextual adjustment of meaning. The Routledge handbook of semantics 195.Google Scholar
  31. Carston, R. 2016. Linguistic Conventions and the Role of Pragmatics. Mind & Language, 31(5), 612–624.Google Scholar
  32. Carston, R. 2017. Pragmatic enrichment: beyond Gricean rational reconstruction–a response to Mandy Simons. Inquiry, 60(5), 517–538.Google Scholar
  33. Carston, R., Hall, A., 2012. Implicature and explicature. Cognitive pragmatics vol.4 of handbook in Pragmatics, eds. H-J. Schmid and D. Geeraerts, 7–84. Berlin: Moutoun de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  34. Carston, R., Hall, A. 2017. Contextual effects on explicature. International Review of Pragmatics, 9(1), 51–81.Google Scholar
  35. Carston, R., Powell, G. 2006. Relevance theory–new directions and developments. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. OUP Online at www. phon. ucl. ac. uk/home/robyn/home. htm.Google Scholar
  36. Chemla, E., Bott, L., 2013. Processing presuppositions: dynamic semantics vs pragmatic enrichment. Language and Cognitive processes. 28 (3), 241–260.Google Scholar
  37. Chemla, E., Bott, L., (2014). Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition. 130 (3), 280–396.Google Scholar
  38. De Neys, W., Schaeken, W., 2007. When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature, Experimental Psychology. 54 (2), 128–133. doi: https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.128.Google Scholar
  39. Degen, J., 2015. Investigating the distribution of “some” (but not “all”) implicatures using corpora and web-based methods. Semantics and pragmatics. 8 (11), 1–55.Google Scholar
  40. Degen, J., Tanenhaus, M.K., 2011. Making inferences: The case of scalar implicature processing, in Carlson, L., Höolscher, C., Shipley T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, pp.3299–3304.Google Scholar
  41. Degen, J., Tanenhaus, M.K., 2015a. Availability of alternatives and the processing of scalar implicatures: A visual world eye-tracking study. Cognitive sciences. 40 (1), 172–201.Google Scholar
  42. Degen, J., Tanenhaus, M.K., 2015b. Processing scalar implicature: A constraintbased approach. Cognitive science. 39 (4), 667–710.Google Scholar
  43. Eiteljörge, S.F.V., Pouscoulous, N., Lieven, E., 2016. Implicature production in children: a corpus study, in: Fabienne S., Uli, S. (Eds.), Pre-proceedings of Trends in Experimental Pragmatics, XPRAG.de, Berlin, pp.46–52.Google Scholar
  44. Feeney, A., Scrafton, S., Duckworth, A., Handley, S.J., 2004. The story of some: Everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. Canadian Journal of experimental psychology. 58 (2), 121–132.Google Scholar
  45. Gibbs, R., 1983. Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests?. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory and cognition. 9, 524–533.Google Scholar
  46. Gibbs, R., 1986. On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of experimental psychology: General. 115, 3–25.Google Scholar
  47. Gildea, P., Glucksberg, S., 1983. On understanding metaphor: The role of context. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 21, 512–521.Google Scholar
  48. Giora, R., 2003 On our Minds: Salience, Context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Grice, H. P., 1975. Logic and conversation, in: Cole P., Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts, New York: Academic Press, pp.41–58.Google Scholar
  50. Grodner, D.J., Klein, N.M., Carbary, K. M., Tanenhaus, M.K., 2010. “Some” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition. 116 (1), 42–55.Google Scholar
  51. Guasti, M.T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo. F., Gualmini, A., Meroni. L., 2005. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive processes. 20 (5), 667–696.Google Scholar
  52. Hagoort, P., 2003. How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage. 20, S18-S29.Google Scholar
  53. Hagoort, P., 2005. On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 9, 416–423.Google Scholar
  54. Hagoort, P., 2009. Reflections on the neurobiology of syntax, in: Bickerton, D., Szathmary, E., (Eds.), Biological foundations and origin of syntax, The MIT Press, Cambridge-London, pp. 279–296.Google Scholar
  55. Hagoort, P. 2017. The core and beyond in the language-ready brain. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiorev.2017.01.048.
  56. Hagoort, P., Berkum, J., 2007. Beyond the sentence given. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 362, 801–811.Google Scholar
  57. Hagoort, P., Levinson S.C., 2014. Neuropragmatics, in: Gazzaniga, M. S., Mangun G. R. (Eds.), The cognitive neurosciences, Cambridge Mass, Mit Press, pp.667–674.Google Scholar
  58. Haugh, M., 2008. Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics. 5 (2), 99–110.Google Scholar
  59. Haugh, M., 2011. Practices and defaults in interpreting disjunction. Salience and defaults in utterance processing. 189–225.Google Scholar
  60. Haugh, M., Jaszczolt, K.M, 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality.The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. 87–112.Google Scholar
  61. Horn, L. R. 2004. Implicature, in: Horn, L. R., Ward, G. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics Malden MA: Blackwell, pp. 2–28.Google Scholar
  62. Huang, Y., Snedeker, J. 2009a. Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology. 58, 376–415.Google Scholar
  63. Huang, Y.T., Snedeker, J., 2009b. Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in 5-years olds: Evidence from real-time spoken language comprehension. Developmental Psychology. 45(6), 1723–1739.Google Scholar
  64. Huang, Y.T., Snedeker, J., 2011. Logic and conversation revisited: evidence for a division between semantic and pragmatic content in real-time language comprehension. Language and Cognitive processes. 26(8), 1161–1172.Google Scholar
  65. Jang, G., Yoon, S., Lee, S., Park, H., Kim, J., Hoon Ko, J., Park, H. 2013. Everyday conversation requires cognitive inference: neural bases of comprehending implicated meanings in conversations. Neuroimage. 81, 61–72.Google Scholar
  66. Jaszczolt, K.M., 1999. Discourse, Beliefs and Intentions. Elsevier, Oxford.Google Scholar
  67. Jaszczolt, K.M., 2005. Default Semantics. Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. OUP, Oxford.Google Scholar
  68. Jaszczolt, K.M., 2006. Default Semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  69. Jaszczolt K. M., 2010. Default Semantics, in Heine, B., Narrog, H. (Eds), The Oxford handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.193–221.Google Scholar
  70. Jaszczolt, K. M. 2011. Default meanings, salient meanings, and automatic processing. Salience and defaults in utterance processing. 11–33.Google Scholar
  71. Karmiloff-Smith, A., 1992. Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. Karmiloff-Smith, A., 2010. A developmental perspective on modularity, in: Karmiloff-Smith, A. (Ed.), On Thinking. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  73. Katsos, N., Bishop, D. V. M., 2011. Pragmatic tolerance: implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition. 120, 67–81.Google Scholar
  74. Kuperberg, G. R., Lakshmanan, B. M., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J., 2006. Making sense of discourse: An fMRI study of causal inferencing across sentences. Neuroimage. 33 (1), 343–361.Google Scholar
  75. Levinson, S. C., 2000. Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  76. Nieuwland, M. S., Ditman, T., Kuperberg, G.R., 2010. On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: an ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of memory and language. 63, 324–346.Google Scholar
  77. Noordzij, M., Newman-Norlund, S. E., Ruiter, J. P., Hagoort, P., Levinson, S. C., Toni, I., 2010. Neural correlates of intentional communication. Frontiers in neuroscience. 4, Article 188, doi:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2010.00188.
  78. Noveck, I.A., 2001. When Children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigation of scalar implicature. Cognition. 78(2) 165–188.Google Scholar
  79. Noveck, I.A., Posada, A., 2003. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language. 85(2), 2013–210.Google Scholar
  80. Noveck, I. A., Reboul, A. 2008. Experimental pragmatics: a Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 12, 425–431.Google Scholar
  81. Noveck, I.A., Sperber, D., 2004. (Eds.) Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  82. Noveck, I. A, Sperber, D., 2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of “scalar inferences”, in Burton-Roberts, N. (Ed.), Advances in pragmatics, Basingstoke, UK:Palgrave, pp.184–212.Google Scholar
  83. Papafragou, A., Musolino, J., 2001. Scalar Implicatures: Experiment at the Semantics-Pragmatics interface, IRCS Technical reports, series 29.Google Scholar
  84. Papafragou, A., Musolino, J., 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition. 78(3), 253–282Google Scholar
  85. Papafragou, A., Tantalou, N., 2004. Children’s computation of implicatures. Language acquisition. 12(1), 71–82.Google Scholar
  86. Perkins, M., 2007. Pragmatic Impairment. CUP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  87. Poscoulous, N., Noveck, I.A., Politzer, G., Bastide, A., 2007. A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language acquisition. 14(4), 347–375.Google Scholar
  88. Regel, S., Coulson, S., Gunter, T.C., 2010. The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain Research. 1311, 121,135.Google Scholar
  89. Scianna, C., 2014. Unificazione, rappresentazione e linguaggio: l’area di Broca nei processi cognitivi complessi, RIFL, DOI  https://doi.org/10.4396/11SFL2014: 203-214.
  90. Shetreet, E., Chierchia, G., Gaab, N., 2013. When Some is not Every: dissociating scalar implicature generation and mismatch. Human brain Mapping. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22269 Google Scholar
  91. Sperber, D., Wilson, D., 1986. Relevance, 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  92. Sperber D., Wilson, D., 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  93. Sperber D., Wilson, D., 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language. 17(1–2), 3–23.Google Scholar
  94. Spotorno, N., Cheylus, A., van Der Henst, J., Noveck, I. A., 2013. What’s behind a P600? Integration operations during irony processing. PLoS ONE. 8(6):e66839 doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066839 Google Scholar
  95. Stolk, A., Noordzij, M. L., Volman, I., Verhagen, L., Overeem, S., Elswijk, G., Bloem, B., Hagoort, P.,Toni, I., 2014. Understanding communicative actions: A repetitive TMS study. Cortex. 51, 25–34.Google Scholar
  96. Tomlinson, J.M, Bailey, T. M., Bott, L., 2013. Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps. Journal of memory and language. 89(1), 18–35.Google Scholar
  97. Van Tiel, B., 2016, Processing Pragmatic inferences, in Salfner, F., Sauerland, U., (Eds.), Pre-proceedings of Trends in Experimental Pragmatics, XPRAG.de, Berlin, pp 146–152.Google Scholar
  98. Van Tiel, B., Schaeken, W., 2016. Processing Conversational implicatures: Alternatives and Counterfactual reasoning. Cognitive Science. 1–36. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12362.Google Scholar
  99. Zhang, Y., Zhang, S., 2016. Explicature versus default meaning: A response to Alessandro Capone’s Default Semantics and the architecture of the mind. Journal of Pragmatics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze Cognitive, Psicologiche, Pedagogiche e degli Studi CulturaliUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly

Personalised recommendations