Alan Bale , Maho Takahashi , Miguel Mejia , David Barner
{"title":"The effect of online methods on epistemic inference and scalar implicature","authors":"Alan Bale , Maho Takahashi , Miguel Mejia , David Barner","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2025.04.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>How is research on semantics and pragmatics impacted by the growing use of online methodologies, and how does the modality of presentation impact our ability to detect and use a speaker's knowledge state in the service of a linguistic inference? In three experiments, we investigated scalar implicatures both in-person and across three online modalities (text, text + pictures, and video) using a task that required participants to monitor contextual information to infer the mental states of speakers (i.e., whether they were knowledgeable or ignorant with respect to stronger alternative statements). In Experiments 1 and 2 we found no consistent differences across modalities in rates of scalar implicatures, and found that participants rarely computed implicatures when speakers were ignorant (i.e., participants were sensitive to a speaker's knowledge state across all modalities). However, in these first two experiments participants were explicitly reminded to monitor the knowledge state of speakers. In Experiment 3, when these reminders were removed, we again found no effect of modality when speakers were knowledgeable, but found a significant effect when speakers were ignorant. In particular, participants were more likely to erroneously compute implicatures when tested in-person relative to when they were tested online with text only, or with text and pictures. These findings suggestf that online methods may in certain cases offer a useful alternative to in-person testing of pragmatic reasoning, but that care should be taken in selecting methods when they probe subtle mental state reasoning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":"242 ","pages":"Pages 76-92"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037821662500089X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
How is research on semantics and pragmatics impacted by the growing use of online methodologies, and how does the modality of presentation impact our ability to detect and use a speaker's knowledge state in the service of a linguistic inference? In three experiments, we investigated scalar implicatures both in-person and across three online modalities (text, text + pictures, and video) using a task that required participants to monitor contextual information to infer the mental states of speakers (i.e., whether they were knowledgeable or ignorant with respect to stronger alternative statements). In Experiments 1 and 2 we found no consistent differences across modalities in rates of scalar implicatures, and found that participants rarely computed implicatures when speakers were ignorant (i.e., participants were sensitive to a speaker's knowledge state across all modalities). However, in these first two experiments participants were explicitly reminded to monitor the knowledge state of speakers. In Experiment 3, when these reminders were removed, we again found no effect of modality when speakers were knowledgeable, but found a significant effect when speakers were ignorant. In particular, participants were more likely to erroneously compute implicatures when tested in-person relative to when they were tested online with text only, or with text and pictures. These findings suggestf that online methods may in certain cases offer a useful alternative to in-person testing of pragmatic reasoning, but that care should be taken in selecting methods when they probe subtle mental state reasoning.
期刊介绍:
Since 1977, the Journal of Pragmatics has provided a forum for bringing together a wide range of research in pragmatics, including cognitive pragmatics, corpus pragmatics, experimental pragmatics, historical pragmatics, interpersonal pragmatics, multimodal pragmatics, sociopragmatics, theoretical pragmatics and related fields. Our aim is to publish innovative pragmatic scholarship from all perspectives, which contributes to theories of how speakers produce and interpret language in different contexts drawing on attested data from a wide range of languages/cultures in different parts of the world. The Journal of Pragmatics also encourages work that uses attested language data to explore the relationship between pragmatics and neighbouring research areas such as semantics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, interactional linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, media studies, psychology, sociology, and the philosophy of language. Alongside full-length articles, discussion notes and book reviews, the journal welcomes proposals for high quality special issues in all areas of pragmatics which make a significant contribution to a topical or developing area at the cutting-edge of research.