Alternatives and attention in language and reasoning: A reply to Mascarenhas &amp; Picat 2019

Bade, Nadine; Picat, Léo; Chung, Woojin; Mascarenhas, Salvador

doi:10.3765/sp.15.2

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The question-answer framing of the mental-models mechanistic account has proven fruitful uncovering new illusory inferences that share linguistic and logical properties with disjunctions and questions, such as indefinite expressions like "some" (Mascarenhas & Koralus, 2017) and the modal operator "might" Bade, Picat, Chung, & Mascarenhas, 2022). In sum, the question-answer approach to these reasoning fallacies isn't merely an extension of the original mental-model theory approach that unifies it with linguistics, it is a properly stronger theory, making novel predictions that do not follow from mental-model theory in any of its incarnations past or present.…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Question-answer dynamics in deductive fallacies without language

Chung¹,

Bade²,

Blanc-Cuenca³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We introduce purely visual paradigms that convey the logical structure of illusory inferences from disjunction: (a AND b) OR c, a |- b. Although the logical information was conveyed entirely via non-linguistic means, we found that the visual paradigms induce reasoning fallacies, though less attractive than their linguistic counterparts. The visual paradigms highlight the role of alternative-based reasoning, or question-answer dynamics, as they control for narrowly interpretive processes that confound the study of their linguistic counterparts. To our knowledge, this is the first work to develop visual paradigms that represent reasoning fallacies committed by adults and involve multiple logical operators non-trivially embedded. Previous studies focused on pre-verbal children or non-human animals, and for this reason limited the scope of research to visually representing logically simple, valid inferences.

show abstract

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Question-answer dynamics in deductive fallacies without language

Chung¹,

Bade²,

Blanc-Cuenca³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Super Linguistics: an introduction

Patel-Grosz

Mascarenhas

Chemla

et al. 2023

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that formal linguistic theory, properly extended, can provide a unifying framework for diverse phenomena beyond traditional linguistic objects. We display applications to pictorial meanings, visual narratives, music, dance, animal communication, and, more abstractly, to logical and non-logical concepts in the ‘language of thought’ and reasoning. In many of these cases, a careful analysis reveals that classic linguistic notions are pervasive across these domains, such as for instance the constituency (or grouping) core principle of syntax, the use of logical variables (for object tracking), or the variety of inference types investigated in semantics/pragmatics. The aim of this overview is to show how the application of formal linguistic concepts and methodology to non-linguistic objects yields non-trivial insights, thus opening the possibility of a general, precise theory of signs. (An appendix, found in the online supplements to this article, surveys applications of Super Linguistics to animal communication.)

show abstract

On the Interplay Between Interpretation and Reasoning in Compelling Fallacies

Picat,

Mascarenhas

2024

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the articulation between domain‐general reasoning and interpretive processes in failures of deductive reasoning. We focus on illusory inferences from disjunction‐like elements, a broad class of deductive fallacies studied in some detail over the past 15 years. These fallacies have received accounts grounded in reasoning processes, holding that human reasoning diverges from normative standards. A subset of these fallacies, however, can be analyzed differently: human reasoning is not to blame, instead the premises were interpreted in a nonobvious, yet perfectly predictable and reasonable way. Once we consider these interpretations, the apparent fallacious conclusion is no mistake at all. We give a two‐factor account of these fallacies that incorporates both reasoning‐based elements and interpretive elements, showing that they are not in real competition. We present novel experimental evidence in favor of our theory. Cognitive load such as induced by a dual‐task design is known to hinder the interpretive mechanisms at the core of interpretation‐based accounts of the fallacies of interest. In the first experiment of its kind using this paradigm with an inferential task instead of a simpler truth‐value‐judgment task, we found that the manipulation affected more strongly those illusions where our theory predicts that interpretive processes are at play. We conclude that the best way forward for the field to investigate the elusive line between reasoning and interpretation requires combining theories and methodologies from linguistic semantics and the psychology of reasoning.

show abstract

Alternatives and attention in language and reasoning: A reply to Mascarenhas & Picat 2019

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Question-answer dynamics in deductive fallacies without language

Question-answer dynamics in deductive fallacies without language

Super Linguistics: an introduction

On the Interplay Between Interpretation and Reasoning in Compelling Fallacies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About