Cover not available
Discussion published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 11:1 (2020) ► pp.149–163
FORUM

A cognitive-pragmatic study of non-scalar implicatures

| Shandong University
| Northeast Normal University

Whether or not non-entailment relations generate scalar implicatures is a cutting-edge issue in linguistic pragmatics. The present study intends to argue that, based on the Cognitive Grammar paradigm, non-scalar implicatures generated by non-entailment relations are manifested as cognitive defaults which are conventionally incorporated into symbolic units in schema-instance complexes. Conventions provide a shortcut for the hearer to infer non-scalar implicatures in an unconscious, effortless and automatic way. We maintain that, contrary to neo-Gricean pragmatics, non-entailment relations cannot generate (scalar) Q-implicatures.

Keywords: non-scalar implicature, schema, instance, convention, cognitive default, (non-)entailment, Horn scales, Cognitive Grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Revising the Horn scales
  • 3.Cognitive pragmatics
  • 4.Defining non-entailment relations via the schema-instance relationship
  • 5.Non-scalar implicatures as cognitive defaults
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18062.zha
References
Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green
2006 Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamawand, Zeki
2016 Semantics: A Cognitive Account of Linguistic Meaning. Sheffield: Equinox. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia
1991 A Theory of Scalar Implicature. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence
1984 “Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R- based implicature”. In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, ed. by D. Schiffrin, 11–42. Washington: Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “WJ-40: Implicature, truth, and meaning”. International Review of Pragmatics 11: 3–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan
2014 Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia
2005 Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 “An introduction to cognitive grammar”. Cognitive Sciences 101: 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Discourse in cognitive grammar”. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2): 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Cognitive grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Récanati, François
2004 Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2012 “Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable. Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the construal of meaning-in-context”. In Cognitive Pragmatics, ed. by H. Schmid, 3–22. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John
2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Shaojie and Yanfei Zhang
2015 “Scalar implicature: A Saussurean system-based approach”. Language Sciences 511: 43–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Yanfei and Shaojie Zhang
2017 “Explicature versus default meaning”. Journal of Pragmatics 1171: 264–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar