{"title":"Speech prosody and pragmatic scalar inferences: Divergent cognitive strategies in adults with high and low levels of autistic traits","authors":"Yuhan Jiang , Ting Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2025.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Given the communicative challenges associated with autistic traits (ATs), individuals with higher levels of ATs can sometimes make certain pragmatic inferences, such as quantifier scalar implicatures. However, it remains unclear whether they can effectively integrate prosodic cues when drawing these inferences.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study examines scalar quantifier interpretations and reaction time (RT) among Mandarin-speaking adults using computer-based Picture-Sentence Judgment & Selection Tasks, considering prosodic cues and cognitive abilities. Samples included 18 adults with lower (11F, 7M) and 27 with higher (19F, 8M) levels of ATs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Our study found that when prosodic cues were present, low AT individuals showed greater delays in response times but were less likely to change their interpretations. This suggests heightened sensitivity to prosodic cues and stronger conviction in their initial judgments. Additionally, while prosodic focus affected cognitive factors in both groups, low AT individuals relied more on Theory of Mind (ToM), whereas high AT individuals relied more on Executive Functions (EFs).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Higher levels of ATs are linked to greater difficulty with pragmatic scalar inferences, but compensatory cognitive strategies offset this. This study highlights the role of prosodic focus and the distinct cognitive strategies used by individuals with varying levels of ATs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":"249 ","pages":"Pages 70-83"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-21","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/S0378216625002085","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
Background
Given the communicative challenges associated with autistic traits (ATs), individuals with higher levels of ATs can sometimes make certain pragmatic inferences, such as quantifier scalar implicatures. However, it remains unclear whether they can effectively integrate prosodic cues when drawing these inferences.
Methods
This study examines scalar quantifier interpretations and reaction time (RT) among Mandarin-speaking adults using computer-based Picture-Sentence Judgment & Selection Tasks, considering prosodic cues and cognitive abilities. Samples included 18 adults with lower (11F, 7M) and 27 with higher (19F, 8M) levels of ATs.
Results
Our study found that when prosodic cues were present, low AT individuals showed greater delays in response times but were less likely to change their interpretations. This suggests heightened sensitivity to prosodic cues and stronger conviction in their initial judgments. Additionally, while prosodic focus affected cognitive factors in both groups, low AT individuals relied more on Theory of Mind (ToM), whereas high AT individuals relied more on Executive Functions (EFs).
Conclusions
Higher levels of ATs are linked to greater difficulty with pragmatic scalar inferences, but compensatory cognitive strategies offset this. This study highlights the role of prosodic focus and the distinct cognitive strategies used by individuals with varying levels of ATs.
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.