The effect of online methods on epistemic inference and scalar implicature

IF 1.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Alan Bale , Maho Takahashi , Miguel Mejia , David Barner
{"title":"The effect of online methods on epistemic inference and scalar implicature","authors":"Alan Bale ,&nbsp;Maho Takahashi ,&nbsp;Miguel Mejia ,&nbsp;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.
在线方法对认知推理和标量蕴涵的影响
越来越多地使用在线方法对语义学和语用学的研究有何影响?呈现方式如何影响我们在语言推理中检测和使用说话者知识状态的能力?在三个实验中,我们通过一项任务调查了标量含义,包括面对面和三种在线模式(文本、文本+图片和视频),该任务要求参与者监测上下文信息以推断说话者的心理状态(即,他们是否对更强的替代陈述有知识或无知)。在实验1和2中,我们发现标量蕴涵率在不同的模态上没有一致的差异,并且发现当说话者无知时,参与者很少计算蕴涵(即,参与者对说话者的知识状态敏感)。然而,在前两个实验中,参与者被明确提醒监控说话者的知识状态。在实验3中,当这些提醒被删除时,我们再次发现当说话者有知识时,情态对说话者没有影响,但在说话者无知时,情态对说话者有显著影响。尤其值得一提的是,与仅使用文字或文字加图片的在线测试相比,参与者在面对面测试时更容易错误地计算出含义。这些发现表明,在某些情况下,在线方法可能为实际推理的现场测试提供了一个有用的替代方案,但在选择方法时,当它们探测微妙的精神状态推理时,应该小心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
18.80%
发文量
219
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信