Topics in Cognitive Science:
Cognitive Issues in Pragmatics
CG 186
Syllabus
Instructor: Julie Sedivy
Office: Metcalf Research Labs 236
Email: Julie_Sedivy@brown.edu
Tel.: 863-3383
Office Hours: Tues. 11-12, or by appointment
Course Description: Foundational work in pragmatic theory has assumed a distinction
between aspects of linguistic form and language use. To date, the field of linguistics has
a better-developed framework for addressing linguistic form than for understanding
language use. Because theories of language use rely on an understanding of how humans
behave in communicative interactions, it is important to step into neighboring fields in
order to understand how pragmatic knowledge is learned and used in real time
communicative exchanges. One would expect that a better understanding of these
aspects might shed some light on the relationship between pragmatic information and
structurally-based linguistic information. Fortunately, activity in cognitive aspects of
pragmatics across a number of sub-disciplines has been more and more lively over the
past decade. In this course, we will focus specifically on the question of how an intended
message (what is meant) is recovered when it is not directly related or fully determined
by the structural aspects of the utterance (what is said). We begin with an introduction to
modern neo-Gricean views of pragmatics, in which a division between linguistic form
and intended message plays an important role. The main body of the course then focuses
on experimental papers in language development, language processing, and language
production. Some questions explored in the readings are: What evidence is there that
recovery of intention plays a role in word learning and early language development? Do
language acquisition patterns support a sharp psychological division between knowledge
of language and knowledge of language use? How is pragmatic knowledge integrated
with knowledge of linguistic form and meaning during real-time language comprehension
and production? How do speakers and hearers respond to cues from each other in the
process of conveying/recovering intended meanings? At the end of the class, we return
to the theoretical question of the appropriate dividing line between linguistic form and
language use in a collection of recent theoretical and philosophical papers that have
incorporated some of the experimental literature.
Course content and readings:
Introduction: A Neo-Gricean View of Conversational Implicature
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational
implicature. MIT Press. (Introduction and Chapter 1).
Early word learning and discerning communicative intent
Bloom, P. (2002). Mindreading, communication and the learning of names for things.
Mind & Language, 17, 37-54.
Diesendruck, G., & Markson, L. (2001). Children’s avoidance of lexical overlap: A
pragmatic account. Developmental Psychology, 37, 630-641.
Samuelson, L., & Smith, L. (1998). Memory and attention make smart word learning:
An alternative account of Akhtar, Carpenter and Tomasello. Child Development, 69,
94-104.
Diesendruck G, Markson L, Akhtar N, & Reudor A. (2004). Two-year-olds' sensitivity
to speakers' intent: an alternative account of Samuelson and Smith. Developmental
Science, 7, 33-41.
Kaminski J, Call J, & Fischer J. (2004). Word learning in a domestic dog: Evidence for
"fast mapping". Science, 304, 1682-1683.
Bloom, P. (2004). Can a dog learn a word? Science, 304, 1605-1606.
Markman, E.M., & Abeley, M. (2004). Word learning in dogs? Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 8, 479-481.
Happe, F., & Loth, E. (2002). “Theory of mind” and tracking speakers’ intentions.
Mind & Language, 17, 24-36.
Mintz, T.H. (2005). Linguistic and conceptual influences on adjective acquisition in 24and 36-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 41, 17-29.
Akhtar, N. (2002). Relevance and early word learning. Journal of Child Language, 29,
677-686.
Papafragou, A. (2002). Mindreading and verbal communication. Mind & Language, 17,
55-67.
Pragmatic inference and later language acquisition
Noveck, I. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental
investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165-188.
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the
semantics-pragmatic interface. Cognition, 86, 253-282.
Feeney, A., Scrafton, S., Duckworth, A., & S. Handley. (2004). The story of some:
Everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. Canadian Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 58 (2), 121-132.
Ryder, N. (2003). Use of Context in Question Answering by 3-, 4-, and 5-Year-Old
Children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 397-415.
Jackson, S. (1981). Conversational Implicature in Children's Comprehension of
Reference. Communication Monographs, 48, 237-249.
Real-time inference processing by hearers
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.
Noveck, I.A., & Posada, A. (2003). Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An
evoked potentials study. Brain and Language, 85, 203-210.
Hamblin, J.L., & Gibbs, R. W. : Processing the meanings of what speakers say and
implicate. Discourse Processes, 35, 59-80.
Sedivy, J. (2003). Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast:
Evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research. 32(1), 3-23.
Grodner, D. & Sedivy, J. (In press) The effects of speaker-specific information on
pragmatic inferences. In N. Pearlmutter & E. Gibson (eds). The Processing and
Acquisition of Reference. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Real-time production processes in the speaker, and adjustments to the hearer
Brown, P.M., & Dell, G.S. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: the explicit
mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 441-472.
Lockridge, C.B., & Brennan, S.E. (2002). Addressees' needs influence speakers' early
syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 550-557.
Horton, W.S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common
ground? Cognition, 59, 91-117.
Horton, W.S., & Gerrig, R. (2002). Speakers’ experiences and audience design.
Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 589-606.
Horton, W.S., & Gerrig, R. (2005). The impact of memory demands on audience design
during language production. Cognition, 96, 127-142.
Speaker-hearer coordination during communication
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.
Metzing, C., & Brennan, S.E. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partnerspecific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory
and Language, 49, 201-213.
Hanna, J.E., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2004). Pragmatic effects on reference resolution in a
collaborative task: evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Science, 28, 105-115.
Theoretical/ philosophical issues
Bontly, T.D. (2005). Modified Occam's Razor: Parsimony, pragmatics, and the
acquisition of word meaning. Mind & Language, 20, 288-312.
Recanati, F. Does linguistic communication rest on reference? Mind & Language, 17,
105-126.
Saul, J. (2002). What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance
theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 347-372.
Stone, M. (2004). Intention, interpretation and the computational structure of language.
Cognitive Science, 28, 781-809.
Horn, L. (2005). "The Border Wars." In K. Turner & K. von Heusinger (eds.), Where
Semantics Meets Pragmatics. Elsevier, 2005.
Course Requirements:
In-class participation and discussion syntheses
Final paper
60%
40%
Everyone is expected to have done a careful reading of the papers for the each class, and
to contribute to the discussion. After each class, one of you will be charged with writing
and circulating a summary synthesis of the discussion of the readings that arose during
class. These summaries (and hence class discussions) should identify links between the
readings and previous papers, outstanding questions or problems with the papers,
alternative interpretations of data, ideas for further extensions of the work etc. The final
paper should outline a research project proposal intended to address some unresolved
question in the literature we have covered.