Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society: Online-First Articles

Scalar implicature

An encyclopedic semantic approach

 | Shandong University
 | Shandong University
 | Zhejiang Gongshang University
Scalar implicature is a very interesting topic in linguistic pragmatics. This study is intended to argue that, based on the Cognitive Grammar paradigm, scalar implicature is contextually activated by schematic networks. From a hierarchical perspective, those linguistic units sharing the same schema can be compared; from a horizontal perspective, these units are distributed from the stronger to the weaker in terms of semantic inclusion. The encyclopedic nature of context determines that using a weaker lexical item to implicate the denial of a stronger statement has become a cognitive routine which is presumed to be shared by the speaker and hearer. The study concludes that scalar implicature lies in between semantics and pragmatics.
Keywords: scalar implicature, encyclopedic semantics, schematic network, convention, context
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The CG-based encyclopedic semantic approach
    • 2.1The relationship between semantics and pragmatics in CG
    • 2.2Encyclopedic semantics
  • 3.RSSI as a schematic network
  • 4.RSSI as a network of sister nodes
  • 5.Scalar implicature activated by a schematic network in a usage event
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.22090.zha
References (50)
References
Bott, Lewis, and Ira Noveck. 2004. “Some Utterances are Underinformative: The Onset and Time Course of Scalar Implicatures.” Journal of Memory and Language 511: 437–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bultinck, Bert. 2005. Numerous Meanings: The Meaning of English Cardinals and the Legacy of Paul Grice. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1998. “Informativeness, Relevance and Scalar Implicature.” In Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications, ed. by Robyn Carston, and Seiji Uchida, 179–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, 633–656. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Relevance Theory, Grice and the Neo-Griceans: A Response to Laurence Horn’s ‘Current Issues in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics’.” Intercultural Pragmatics 2 (3): 303–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “The Explicit/Implicit Distinction in Pragmatics and the Limits of Explicit Communication.” International Review of Pragmatics 11: 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, Chris. 2015. Constraints on Numerical Expressions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2017. “Cognitive Linguistics and Pragmatics.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier, 330–346. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2010. Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. “Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.” Lingua 50 (4): 329–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2015. Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia. 1991. A Theory of Scalar Implicature. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1972. “On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English.” Dissertation, UCLA.
. 1984. “Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q- and R- based Implicature.” In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, ed. by Deborah Shiffrin, 11–42. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Implicature”. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Current Issues in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics.” Intercultural Pragmatics 2 (2): 191–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “WJ-40: Implicature, Truth, and Meaning.” International Review of Pragmatics 11: 3–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2017. “Implicature.” In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 155–179. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Katarzyna. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2012. “Encyclopedic Knowledge and Cultural Models.” In Cognitive Pragmatics, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid, 175–197. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1986. “An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Sciences 101: 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1988a. “A View of Linguistic Semantics.” In Topic in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 49–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988b. “A Usage-based Model.” In Topic in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 127–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 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
. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Interactive Cognition: Toward a Unified Account of Structure, Processing, and Discourse.” International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics 31: 95–125.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Cognitive Grammar.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier, 262–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira. 2018. Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noveck, Ira., and Dan Sperber. 2007. “The Why and How of Experimental Pragmatics: The Case of Scalar Inference.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 184–212. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2004. “Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentences.” Linguistics and Philosophy 271: 367–391. 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 Hans-Jörg Schmid, 3–22. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 1995. “Approaches to Word Meaning: The Network Model (Langacker) and the Two-level Model (Bierwisch) in Comparison.” In Current Approaches to the Lexicon, ed. by René Dirven, and Johan Vanparys, 3–26. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Lexical Semantics.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier, 246–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Ten Lectures on Applied Cognitive Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terejko, Przemysław. 2016. “Cognitive Grammar as a Manifestation of the Pragmatic Turn in Linguistics.” Acta Humana 71: 33–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, David. 2007. “Schematicity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens, 82–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2004. “Relevance Theory.” The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yanfei, and Shaojie Zhang. 2017. “Explicature versus Default Meaning: A Response to Alessandro Capone’s Default Semantics and the Architecture of the Mind.” Journal of Pragmatics 1171: 264–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “A Cognitive-Pragmatic Study of Non-scalar Implicatures.” Pragmatics and Society 11(1): 149–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar