时距加工“长度效应”研究述评

所谓长度效应指随着加工长度的变化, 时距加工机制在认知或神经层面会表现出不一致。近20年来, 关于时距加工是否会出现长度效应存在共同机制假设和差异机制假设两种观点。共同机制假设主张不同长度的时距加工认知或神经机制相同, 且该机制可被标量计时模型解释; 而差异机制假设主张不同长度时距加工的认知或神经机制存在差异, 2~3s、1s、1/2s及1/3s等是区别不同机制的分界位置。文章还指出四个值得思考的问题, 即已获证据的可靠性问题、判定标准的多元化问题、分界位置的确定性问题及理论模型的适用性问题。     

Radical Semantics: A New Theory of Meaning

This paper extends Parikh’s earlier work in semantics with games of partial information and attempts to derive and represent the full content of an utterance from first principles. It also discusses various ways in which this content may be indeterminate.     

Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction

Most people working on linguistic meaning or communication assume that semantics and pragmatics are distinct domains, yet there is still little consensus on how the distinction is to be drawn. The position defended in this paper is that the semantics/pragmatics distinction holds between (context-invariant) encoded linguistic meaning and speaker meaning. Two other ‘minimalist’ positions on semantics are explored and found wanting: Kent Bach’s view that there is a narrow semantic notion of context which is responsible for providing semantic values for a small number of indexicals, and Herman Cappelen and Ernie Lepore’s view that semantics includes the provision of values for all indexicals, even though these depend on the speaker’s communicative intentions. Finally, some implications are considered for the favoured semantics/pragmatics distinction of the fact that there are linguistic elements (lexical and syntactic) which do not contribute to truth-conditional content but rather provide guidance on pragmatic inference.     

The effect of sample duration and cue on a double temporal discrimination

To test the assumptions of two models of timing, Scalar Expectancy Theory (SET) and Learning to Time (LeT), nine pigeons were exposed to two temporal discriminations, each signaled by a different cue. On half of the trials, pigeons learned to choose a red key after a 1.5-s horizontal bar and a green key after a 6-s horizontal bar; on the other half of the trials, they learned to choose a blue key after a 6-s vertical bar and a yellow key after a 24-s vertical bar. During subsequent test trials, they were exposed to the horizontal or vertical bar, for durations ranging from 1.5 to 24 s, and given a choice between novel key combinations: red vs. yellow, or green vs. blue. Results showed a strong effect of sample duration—as the test signal duration increased, preference for green over blue increased and preference for red over yellow decreased. The effect of sample cue was obtained only on the green-blue test trials. These effects are discussed in light of SET and LeT.     

LEARNING TO TIME: A PERSPECTIVE

In the last decades, researchers have proposed a large number of theoretical models of timing. These models make different assumptions concerning how animals learn to time events and how such learning is represented in memory. However, few studies have examined these different assumptions either empirically or conceptually. For knowledge to accumulate, variation in theoretical models must be accompanied by selection of models and model ideas. To that end, we review two timing models, Scalar Expectancy Theory (SET), the dominant model in the field, and the Learning‐to‐Time (LeT) model, one of the few models dealing explicitly with learning. In the first part of this article, we describe how each model works in prototypical concurrent and retrospective timing tasks, identify their structural similarities, and classify their differences concerning temporal learning and memory. In the second part, we review a series of studies that examined these differences and conclude that both the memory structure postulated by SET and the state dynamics postulated by LeT are probably incorrect. In the third part, we propose a hybrid model that may improve on its parents. The hybrid model accounts for the typical findings in fixed‐interval schedules, the peak procedure, mixed fixed interval schedules, simple and double temporal bisection, and temporal generalization tasks. In the fourth and last part, we identify seven challenges that any timing model must meet.     

Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences

Recent research in semantics and pragmatics has revived the debate about whether there are two cognitively distinct categories of conversational implicatures: generalised and particularised. Generalised conversational implicatures are so-called because they seem to arise more or less independently of contextual support. Particularised implicatures are more context-bound. The Default view is that generalised implicatures are default inferences and that their computation is relatively autonomous--being computed by some default mechanism and only being open to cancellation at a second stage when contextual assumptions are taken into consideration (i.a.). It is at that second stage where contextual assumptions are considered that particularised implications are computed. By contrast, Context-Driven theorists claim that both generalised and particularised implicatures are generated by the same process and only where there is contextual support (Chierchia, 2004; Horn, 1984; Levinson, 2000 i.a.). In this paper, we present three on-line studies of the prototypical cases of generalised implicatures: the scalar implicatures 'some of the Fs' > 'not all the Fs' and 'X or Y' > 'either X or Y but not both'. These studies were designed to test the context-dependence and autonomy of the implicatures. Our results suggest that these scalar implicatures are dependent on the conversational context and that they show none of the autonomy predicted by the Default view. We conclude with a discussion of the degree to which such implicatures are purely context-driven and whether an interactionist default position may also be plausible.     

Making disjunctions exclusive

This work examines how people interpret the sentential connective “or”, which can be viewed either inclusively (A or B or both) or exclusively (A or B but not both). Following up on prior work concerning quantifiers (Bott & Noveck, 2004; Noveck, 2001; Noveck & Posada, 2003), which shows that the common pragmatic interpretation of “some”, some but not all, is conveyed as part of an effortful step, we investigate how extra effort applied to disjunctive statements leads to a pragmatic interpretation of “or”, or but not both. Experiment 1 compelled participants to wait for three seconds before answering, hence giving them the opportunity to process the utterance more deeply. Experiments 2 and 3 emphasized “or”, either by visual means (“OR”) or by prosodic means (contrastive stress) as another way to encourage participants to apply more effort. Following a relevance-theoretic line of argument, we hypothesized that conditions encouraging more processing effort would give rise to more pragmatic inferences and hence to more exclusive interpretations of the disjunction. This prediction was confirmed in the three experiments.     

The relativity of time perception produced by facial emotion stimuli

Insults elicit intense emotion. This study tests the hypothesis that one's social image, which is especially salient in honour cultures, influences the way in which one reacts to an insult. Seventy-seven honour-oriented and 72 non-honour oriented participants answered questions about a recent insult episode. Participants experienced both anger and shame in reaction to the insult. However, these emotions resulted in different behaviours. Anger led to verbal attack (i.e., criticising, insulting in return) among all participants. This relationship was explained by participants’ motivation to punish the wrongdoer. Shame, on the other hand, was moderated by honour. Shame led to verbal disapproval of the wrongdoers behaviour, but only among the honour-oriented participants. This relationship was explained by these participants’ motivation to protect their social image. By contrast, shame led to withdrawal among non-honour-oriented participants.     

Kant and the king: Lying promises,conventional implicature,and hypocrisy

Immanuel Kant promised, ‘as Your Majesty's loyal subject’, to abstain from all public lectures about religion. All past commentators agree this phrase permitted Kant to return to the topic after the King died. But it is not part of the ‘at-issue content’. Consequently, ‘as Your Majesty's loyal subject’ is no more an escape clause than the corresponding phrase in ‘I guarantee, as your devoted fan, that these guitar strings will not break’. Just as the guarantee stands regardless of whether the guarantor ceases to be your devoted fan, the compliance conditions of Kant's promise are not affected by Kant's ceasing to be the king's loyal subject. For good or ill, Kant made a lying promise to King Friedrich Wilhelm II in 1794.     

Scalar implicature and contrastive explanation

I argue for a subsumption of any version of Grice’s first quantity maxim posited to underlie scalar implicature, by developing the idea of implicature recovery as a kind of explanatory inference, as e.g. in science. I take the applicable model to be contrastive explanation, while following van Fraassen’s analysis of explanation as an answer to a why-question. A scalar implicature is embedded in such an answer, one that meets two probabilistic constraints: the probability of the answer, and ‘favoring’. I argue that besides having application at large, outside of linguistic interpretation, these constraints largely account not only for implicatures based on strength order, logical and otherwise, but also for unordered cases. I thus suggest that Grice’s maxim and its descendants are expressions of general explanatory constraints, as they happen to be manifested in this particular explanatory task. I conclude by briefly discussing how I accordingly view Grice’s system outside of scalar implicature.