Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures

By Maria Teresa Guasti, Gennaro Chierchia, Stephen Crain, Francesca Foppolo, Andrea Gualmini, Luisa Meroni. 2005

305 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cccea6b40484066ae8a8eb68738978de0c68738b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

A Developmental Investigation of Processing Costs in Implicature Production (2007, methodology): “So far, performances revealing impressive pragmatic abilities among the youngest children (e.g., 5-year-olds) occur when the task includes training to detect pragmatic anomalies (e.g., Papafragou and Musolino (2003, Experiment 2)) and the recent tasks that employ training (Guasti et al. (2005)) stud”
Ad-hoc Implicature in Preschool Children (2015, methodology): “Apparent failures may also be due to the methodologies of truth-value or felicity judgment (Guasti et al., 2005; Papafragou, 2006).”
Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition (2010, unknown): “Recall from the previous section that Guasti et al. (2005) argues that logical interpretations may be given when implicatures are undone by conjuring up alternative contexts.”
Inferring word meanings by assuming that speakers are informative (2014, unknown): “Nevertheless, accounts differ considerably on the age at which children first succeed in making implicatures (Papafragou & Musolino, 2003; Guasti et al., 2005) and on the factors that prevent them from succeeding (Barner & Bachrach, 2010; Barner et al.”
Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Consequences for theories of implicature and child development (2016, unknown): “Suppose – as an idealization motivated by previous results (e.g., Noveck and Posada 2003, Guasti et al. 2005, Katsos and Bishop 2011) – that subjects are consistent in the interpretation strategy they pursue (e.g., whether or not they strengthen the meaning by STR, and similarly for other relevant…”