Imprecision is pragmatic: Evidence from referential processing

Timothy Leffel, Ming Xiang, Christopher Kennedy


Gradable adjectives (GAs) provide an ideal domain for evaluating theories of the interface betwen semantic interpretation and context: relative and absolute GAs are both context dependent, but absolute adjectives can have precise meanings in a way that relative adjectives cannot. We provide processing evidence for the hypothesis that imprecision in absolute adjectives is a pragmatic phenomenon: absolute thresholds are semantically scalar endpoints, and imprecise uses are derived by a global pragmatic threshold, which specifies how much deviation from literal meaning is pragmatically ignorable in a context (see e.g. Lasersohn 1999). The evidence comes from a set of visual world eye-tracking experiments adapted from the design of Sedivy, Tanenhaus, Chambers & Carlson (1999) and Aparicio, Xiang & Kennedy (2015). We measured the time-course of reference resolution in phrases of the form the Adj Noun while varying whether Adj is relative or absolute, as well as the degree to which the intended referent (target) and a competing object exemplified Adj. We found a contrast-based processing advantage for absolute GAs when the target exemplified Adj imprecisely but the competitor exemplified Adj precisely. However, this advantage was found to be sensitive to the relative/absolute distinction, as well as to the degree to which objects in the display exemplified the relevant scalar property. Collectively, our results provide evidence for a difference in the mental processes underlying relative versus absolute threshold fixing, which we argue is best modeled by a pragmatic theory of imprecision.

Full Text:



Aparicio, Helena, Ming Xiang & Chris Kennedy. 2015. Processing gradable adjectives in context: A visual world study. In Proceedings of Semantics and

Linguistic Theory 25 25, 413–432. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

Bakeman, Roger. 2005. Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures

designs. Behavior research methods 37(3). 379–384.

Burnett, Heather. 2014. A delineation solution to the puzzles of absolute adjectives.

Linguistics and philosophy 37(1). 1–39.

Grodner, Daniel, Edward Gibson & DuaneWatson. 2005. The influence of contextual

contrast on syntactic processing: evidence for strong-interaction in sentence

comprehension. Cognition 95(3). 275–296.

Grodner, Daniel & Julie Sedivy. 2011. The effect of speaker-specific information on

pragmatic inferences. In The Processing and Acquisition of Reference, 239–272.

MIT Press.

Huettig, Falk, Joost Rommers & Antje Meyer. 2011. Using the visual world paradigm

to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica

(2). 151–171.

Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of

Gradability and Comparison. Garland.

Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and

absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1). 1–45.

Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification,

and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2). 345–381.

Lasersohn, Peter. 1999. Pragmatic halos. Language 75(3). 522–551.

Lassiter, Daniel & Noah Goodman. 2014. Context, scale structure, and statistics in

the interpretation of positive-form adjectives. In Proceedings of Semantics and

Linguistic Theory 24, 587–610.

Leffel, Timothy, Miriam Lauter, Masha Westerlund & Liina Pylkkänen. 2014.

Restrictive versus non-restrictive composition: An MEG study. Language,

Cognition, and Neuroscience 1–15.

Olejnik, Stephen & James Algina. 2003. Generalized eta and omega squared statistics:

measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological

methods 8(4). 434.

Potts, Christopher. 2008. Interpretive Economy, Schelling Points, and evolutionary

stability. Ms., UMass Amherst.

Rips, L. & W. Turnbull. 1980. How big is big? relative and absolute properties in

memory. Cognition 8. 145–174.

Sedivy, Julie. 2002. Invoking discourse-based contrast sets and resolving syntactic

ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 46(2). 341–370.

Sedivy, Julie. 2003. Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast:

evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic

Research 32(1). 3–23.

Sedivy, Julie, Michael Tanenhaus, Craig Chambers & Greg Carlson. 1999. Achieving

incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition

(2). 109–147.

Toledo, Assaf & Galit W Sassoon. 2011. Absolute vs. relative adjectives-variance

within vs. between individuals. In Proceedings of SALT 21, 135–154.

Van Deempter, Kees. 2006. Generating referring expressions that involve gradable

properties. Computational Linguistics 32(2). 195–222.


Add comment