Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:00:51.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Show me the pragmatic contribution: a developmental investigation of contrastive inference*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2013

EDMUNDO KRONMÜLLER ,
TIFFANY MORISSEAU  and
IRA A. NOVECK
EDMUNDO KRONMÜLLER*
Affiliation:
Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
TIFFANY MORISSEAU
Affiliation:
Laboratoire sur le Langage, le Cerveau et la Cognition (L2C2, UMR5230), Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem (CRFJ)
IRA A. NOVECK
Affiliation:
Laboratoire sur le Langage, le Cerveau et la Cognition (L2C2, UMR5230), Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem (CRFJ)
*
Address for correspondence: e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An utterance such as ‘Show me the large rabbit’ potentially generates a contrastive inference, i.e., the article the and the adjective large allow listeners to pragmatically infer the existence of other entities having the same noun (e.g. a small rabbit). The primary way to measure children's ability to carry out this pragmatic inference has been through tasks that measure infelicity detection. We argue that such studies are not as revealing as one might assume because they force children to adopt a metalinguistic stance and they consider infelicity detection as tantamount to contrastive inference-making. To address these concerns, we develop a game-like situation in which all utterances remain felicitous. Moreover, we make a distinction between responses that are revealing of a pragmatic interpretation and responses that are revealing of a reliance on the utterance's linguistically encoded meaning (i.e., a lack of contrastive inference). Three experiments with seven-year-olds, ten-year-olds, and adults show that pragmatic interpretations do not emerge among seven-year-olds, that ten-year-olds do not show adult-like performance, and that adults are not at ceiling. We conclude that contrastive inference-making is an effortful process and that the ability to detect such gains-in-information through language increases with age.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue 5 , September 2014 , pp. 985 - 1014
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

Portions of this research were carried out while the first author was supported by a Fyssen Fondation Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Laboratoire sur le Langage, le Cerveau et la Cognition in Lyon, France. This research was also funded by a Conicyt-Chile grant to the first author.

References

REFERENCES

Ackerman, B. P. (1981). Performative bias in children's interpretations of ambiguous referential communications. Child Development 52, 1224–230.Google Scholar
Ackerman, B. P., Szymanski, J. & Silver, D. (1990). Children's use of common ground in interpreting ambiguous referential utterances. Developmental Psychology 26, 234–45.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, Special Issue: Emerging Data Analysis 59, 457–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in r. R News 5, 27–30.Google Scholar
Birner, B. & Ward, G. (1994). Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 20), 93–102. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Brédart, S. (1984). Children's interpretation of referential ambiguities and pragmatic inference. Journal of Child Language 11, 665–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, C. & Katsos, N. (2010). Over-informative children: production/comprehension asymmetry or tolerance to pragmatic violations? Lingua 120, 1956–72.Google Scholar
De Neys, W. & Schaeken, W. (2007). When people are more logical under cognitive load: dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology 54(2), 128–33.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, P. E., Bailey, K. G. D. & Ferreira, F. (2006). Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean Maxim of Quantity? Journal of Memory and Language 54, 554–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, J. H., Speer, J. R., Green, F. L., August, D. L. & Whitehurst, G. J. (1981). The development of comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication. Monographs of the Society for Research in Chile Development 46(5), 1–65.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66(3), 377–88.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: a reader, 305–15. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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, 667–96.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. & Snedeker, J. (2009). Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in 5-year-olds: evidence from real-time spoken language comprehension. Developmental Psychology 45(6), 1723–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ironsmith, M. & Whitehurst, G. (1978). The development of listeners' abilities in communication: how children deal with ambiguous information. Child Development 49, 348–52.Google Scholar
Jaeger, F. T. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVA (transformation or not) and toward logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language: Special Issue on Emerging Data Analysis and Inferential Techniques 59, 434–46.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review 80, 237–51.Google Scholar
Katsos, N. & Bishop, D. (2008). A developmental investigation of the effects of scale type and speech-act on the generation of scalar implicatures. Paper presented at the 11th Congress of the International Association for the Study of Child Language, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
Keenan, T. R. & Quigley, K. (1999). Do young children use echoic information in their comprehension of sarcastic speech? A test of echoic mention theory. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 17, 83–96.Google Scholar
Levaroto, M. C., Nesi, B. & Cacciari, C. (2004). Reading comprehension and understanding idiomatic expressions: a developmental study. Brain & Language 91, 303–14.Google Scholar
Moore, C., Harris, L. & Patriquin, M. (1993). Lexical and prosodic cues in the comprehension of relative certainty. Journal of Child Language 20(1), 153–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morisseau, T., Davies, C. and Matthews, D. (in press). How do 3- and 5-year-olds respond to over- and under-informative utterances?Google Scholar
Nadig, A. S. & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Evidence of perspective taking constraints in children's online reference resolution. Psychological Science 13, 329–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78, 165–88.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A., Bianco, M. & Castry, A. (2001). The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 16(1/2), 109–21.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A. & Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: a Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12, 425–31.Google Scholar
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: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A. & Spotorno, N. (in press). Narrowing. In Goldstein, L. (ed.), Brevity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition 86, 253–82.Google Scholar
Pexman, P. M. & Glenwright, M. (2007). How do typically developing children grasp the meaning of verbal irony? Journal of Neurolinguistics 20(2), 178–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I. A., Politzer, G. & Bastide, A. (2007). A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition 14, 347–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedivy, J. C. (2003). Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G. & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition 71, 109–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonson, I. & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research 29(3), 281–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southgate, V., Chevallier, C. & Csibra, G. (2010). 17-month-olds appeal to false beliefs to interpret others' communication. Developmental Science 13(6), 907–12.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1982). Evidential impact of base rates. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (eds), Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases, 153–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehurst, G. J. (1976). The development of communication: changes with age and modeling. Child Development 47, 473–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar