Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental Pragmatics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Presuppositions and Cognitive Processes

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition ((PSPLC))

  • 428 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter I provide a map of the current debate in experimental pragmatics. First, I present the core ideas of the Gricean intention-based semantics; I claim that this traditional semantic framework has led to an abandonment of the classic code model of verbal communication in favour of an inferential account of communication. I go on to describe the four main levels of meaning that characterize an utterance in a particular context of use: the sentence meaning, what is said, presuppositions, and implicatures. Next, the field of cognitive pragmatics is introduced and I distinguish between neuropragmatics and experimental pragmatics. I then describe the main areas of investigation in experimental pragmatics. I conclude by pointing out that the debate in experimental pragmatics has been characterized by the common assumption that presuppositions are a second level pragmatic phenomenon and I try to suggest some reasons to explain the lack of an experimental research line on presuppositions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrusán, M., & Szendrői, K. (2013). Experimenting with the king of France: Topics, verifiability, and definite descriptions. Semantics & Pragmatics, 6, 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abusch, D. (2010). Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics, 27, 37–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bambini, V., Gentili, C., Ricciardi, E., Bertinetto, P. M., & Pietrini, P. (2011). Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Research Bulletin, 86(3–4), 203–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrouillet, P., & Lecas, J.-F. (1999). Mental models in conditional reasoning and working memory. Thinking and Reasoning, 5(4), 289–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beeke, S. (2003). I suppose as a resource for the construction of turns at talk in agrammatic aphasia. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 17, 291–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bill, C., Romoli, J., Schwarz, F., & Crain, S. (2014). Indirect scalar implicatures are neither scalar implicatures nor presuppositions (or both). Poster presented at CUNY 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482–1493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, P. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 98, 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1998). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capon, A., Handley, S., & Dennis, I. (2003). Working memory and reasoning: An individual differences perspective. Thinking and Reasoning, 9, 203–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive semantics. A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. (2004). Explicature and semantics. In S. Davis & B. Gillon (Eds.), Semantics: A reader (pp. 817–845). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. (2010). Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In B. Soria & E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication: Essays on Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (pp. 217–287). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. A., & Wearing, C. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 283–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E. (2009). Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics, 17, 299–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E., & Bott, L. (2013). Processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs pragmatic enrichment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 38, 241–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E., & Schlenker, P. (2012). Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presup- position projection: An experimental approach. Natural Language Semantics, 20, 177–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., et al. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning Verbal Behavior, 22, 245–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 320–358). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, C., Amaral, P., & Katsos, N. (2013). In E. Chemla, V. Homer, G. Winterstein (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2012/: Semanticsarchive.

  • Domaneschi, F. (Ed.). (2016). Presuppositions: Philosophy, linguistics and psychology. Topoi, 35(1), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnellann, K. (1968). Putting humpty dumpty together again. The Philosophical Review, 77, 203–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, A. (1998). Conversational turn-taking and repair in fluent aphasia. Aphasiology, 12, 1007–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (1987). Psychosemantics: The problem of meaning in the philisophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift. Halle: Nebert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, L., Goulet, P., Giroux, F., & Joanette, Y. (2003). Processing of metaphoric and nonmetaphoric alternative meaning of words after right- and left-hemispheric lesions. Brain and Language, 87, 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 457–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (Eds.). (2011). The processing and acquisition of reference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilhooly, K. J., Phillips, L. H., Wynn, V., Logie, R. H., & Della Sala, S. (1999). Planning processes and age in the five-disc Tower of London task. Thinking and Reasoning, 5, 339–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, R. (2003). On our mind. Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66, 377–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Happé, F. G. (1993). Communicative competence and the theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition, 48, 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 512–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, & M. Westcoat (Eds.), Second annual west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 114–126). Stanford: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hird, K., & Kirsner, K. (2003). The effect of right cerebral hemisphere damage on collaborative planning in conversation: an analysis of intentional structure. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 17(4–5), 309–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statements: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayez, J. (2013). Presupposition triggers and orthogonality. Ms. Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasher, A. (1991). Pragmatics and Chomsky’s research program. In A. Kasher (Ed.), The Chomskyan turn (pp. 122–149). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasher, A. (1994). Modular speech act theory: Program and results. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives (pp. 312–322). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasher, A., Batori, G., Soroker, N., Graves, D., & Zaidel, E. (1999). Effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding conversational implicatures. Brain and Language, 68, 566–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keysar, B., et al. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11, 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keysar, B., Lina, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89, 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C. (2015). In Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions, ed. F Schwarz. Springer International Publishing, 109–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, S. (1977). Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2, 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, C. L., Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1997). The use of contextual information related to general world knowledge by right brain-damaged individuals in pronoun resolution. Brain and Language, 57, 343–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (1690). An essays concerning human understanding. London, printed by E. Holt (edited by P. H. Nidditch). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markovits, H., Doyon, C., & Simoneau, M. (2002). Individual differences in working memory and conditional reasoning with concrete and abstract content. Thinking and Reasoning, 8, 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiser, T., Klauer, K. C., & Naumer, B. (2001). Propositional reasoning and working memory: The role of prior training and pragmatic content. Acta Psychologica, 106, 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, I., & Sperber, D. (2004). Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Papagno, C., Lucchelli, F., Muggia, S., & Rizzo, S. (2003). Idiom comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: The role of the central executive. Brain, 126, 2419–2430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935). In C. Hartshorne, & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1–6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penco, C., & Domaneschi, F. (Eds.). (2013). What is said and what is not. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. (2001). Reference and reflexivity. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierre Barrouillet & Jean-Francois Lecas (1999). Mental Models in Conditional Reasoning and Working Memory. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (4):289–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preyer, G., & Peter, G. (Eds.). (2007). Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, F. (2010). Truth conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Romoli, J., Sudo, Y., & Snedeker, J. (2011). An experimental investigation of presupposition projection in conditional sentences. In N. Ashton, A. Chereches, & D. Lut (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 21. Rutgers University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubio-Fernández, P. (2007). Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics, 24, 345–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubio-Fernández, P. (2008). Concept narrowing: The role of context-independent information in concepts. Journal of Semantics, 25, 381–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U., & Yatsushiro, K. (Eds.). (2009). Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, P. (2009). Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics, 2, 1–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, F. (2007). Processing presupposed content. Journal of Semantics, 24, 373–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, F. (Ed.). (2014–2015). Experimental perspectives on presuppositions. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, F., & Tiemann, S. (2012). In M. Aloni, V. Kimmelmann, F. Roelofsen, G. W. Sassoon, K. Schulz, & M. West- era (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 200–209). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. A., & Hall, K. C. (2011). Projection diversity: Experimental evidence. Work- shop on projective meaning at ESLLI 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986, 1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2000). Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stemmer, B., & Whitaker, H. A. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of the neuroscience of language. Burlington: Academic Press Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Süß, H. M., Oberauer, K., Wittman, W. W., Wilhelm, O., & Schulze, R. (2002). Working-memory capacity explains reasoning ability and a little bit more. Intelligence, 30, 261–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiemann, S. (2014). The processing of wieder (‘again’) and other presupposition triggers. PhD thesis, Eberhard Karls Universit ̈at Tu ̈bingen, Tu ̈bingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhalle, C., Lemieux, S., Joubert, S., Goulet, P., Ska, B., & Joanette, Y. (2000). Processing of speech acts by right hemisphere brain-damages patients: An ecological approach. Aphasiology, 14, 1127–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velleman, D., Beaver, D., Bumford, D., Destruel, E., & Onea, E. (2011). “yes, but…” – Exhaustivity and at-issueness across languages. Poster presented at PEPA 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2006). Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind and Language, 21(3), 230–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230–259). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue, J., & Onea, E. (2011). Correlation between presupposition projection and at-issueness: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 Workshop on Projective Meaning, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeevat, H. (1992). Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics. Journal of Semantics, 9, 379–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziff, P. (1967). On H.P. Grice’s account of meaning. Analysis, 28(1), 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

    Filippo Domaneschi

Authors
  1. Filippo Domaneschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Domaneschi, F. (2016). Experimental Pragmatics. In: Presuppositions and Cognitive Processes. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57942-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57942-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57941-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57942-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation