Shared and distinct mechanisms in deriving linguistic enrichment

Abstract

a b s t r a c tMeanings of basic expressions can be enriched by considering what the speaker could have said, but chose not to, that is, the alternatives. We report three priming experiments that test whether there are shared enrichment mechanisms across a diverse range of linguistic categories. We find that quantifier, number, and ad hoc enrichments exhibit robust priming within their categories and between each other. Plural enrichments, in contrast, demonstrate within-category priming but no between-category priming. Our results demonstrate that (1) enrichment typically thought of as pragmatic or semantic can be primed in the same way as syntactic structures and (2) there are mechanisms that are shared across different enrichment categories, and that some phenomena (e.g., plurals) are excluded from this class. We discuss the implications of our findings for psychological models of enrichment, theories of individual categories of enrichment, and structural priming.

The role of alternative salience in the derivation of scalar implicatures

“…Second, rates of strong interpretations were higher following strong and alternative prime trials than weak primes, as shown by the main effect of prime, F(2, 186) = 32.24, p < .001. Planned comparisons showed that rates of implicature were significantly higher following strong primes than weak primes, t(99) = 6.67, p < .001, illustrating the basic priming effect observed by Bott and Chemla (2016). There was also significantly greater rates of implicature following alternative primes than weak primes, t(99) = 6.69, p < .001.…”

“…While this theory relates to processing cost, and not implicature rates, it nonetheless suggests that alternative salience is important for adult processing of implicatures. Bott and Chemla (2016) also argued that the salience of the alternative was important. They tested whether people could be primed to derive scalar implicatures, in the same way that they can be primed to produce particular syntactic structures (e.g., Bock, 1986;Bock, Dell, Chang, & Onishi, 2007;Branigan, Pickering, & Cleland, 2000;Thothathiri & Snedeker, 2008;see Pickering & Ferreira, 2008 for a review).…”

“…In our study we adapted Bott and Chemla's (2016) paradigm to test whether the usage mechanism can be primed. A priming effect would support the combination model, and the absence of one would support the salience model.…”

“…Chierchia, 2013;Geurts, 2010;Grice, 1989;Horn, 1972;Levinson, 2000) and psycholinguistics (e.g. Bott, Bailey, & Grodner, 2012;Bott & Chemla, 2016;Bott & Noveck, 2004;Breheny, Katsos & Williams, 2006;Breheny, Ferguson & Katsos, 2013;Degen & Tanenhaus, 2015;Gotzner, Wartenburger, & Spalek, 2016;Grodner, Klein, Carbary, & Tanenhaus, 2010;Huang & Snedeker, 2009a;Tomlinson, Bailey & Bott, 2013). In our study we address the role of the alternative in this process.…”

Information Integration in Modulation of Pragmatic Inferences During Online Language Comprehension

“…Recent studies have taken a step toward addressing these questions by testing generalization of pragmatic infelicity across lexical items (Bott & Chemla, ; Pogue, Kurumada, & Tanenhaus, ). Pogue et al () first exposed listeners to two speakers who gave instructions in displays where scalar adjectives were necessary (e.g., a display with a large and a small chair, and two unrelated items).…”