If A asks B “Do you like berries?”, and B replies “I like some berries,” B would infer that A does not like all kinds of berries. Such inference derived by negating the stronger alternative (all) is known as the scalar implicature (SI). Earlier experimental studies showed that computation of SI requires additional processing time compared to literal interpretation, and hence they argued that derivation of implicature is cost-demanding. Some recent experiments, however, found that derivation of implicature does not require any additional processing cost. The present study re-examines the comprehension of implicature using a Truth Value Judgement task. The hypothesis of this study is that the computation of implicature is as immediate as the computation of literal meaning if the sentences are preceded by prior context and communicative intent as in real conversation. The study uses a two-between-subject design where 32 native English speakers were required to read a ‘context’, followed by a ‘question’ and an ‘answer’. The context followed by the question either demanded the lower-bounded ‘literal’ meaning or the upper-bounded ‘pragmatic’ meaning of the under-informative answers which is the implicature. The result indicates that when a prior context and a clear communicative intent guide the hearer toward the intended meaning, both literal and pragmatic meaning comprehension is immediate. The result certainly indicates against the Default Inference accounts, but it also opposes the Literal-first hypothesis of the Contextualist school. The result strongly supports the Constraint-Based account of implicature derivation and brings additional support to the studies which argue for immediate implicature computation.


Sentence Comprehension Processing Cost Scalar Implicature Quantifier


Metrics Loading ...


  1. Bott, L., & Noveck, I.A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3): 437–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006
  2. Breheny, R., Katsos, N., & Williams, J. (2006). Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100(3), 434–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.003
  3. Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 179-238.
  4. Chevallier, C., Noveck, I.A., Nazir, T., Bott, L., Lanzetti, V., & Sperber, D. (2008). Making disjunctions exclusive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(11), 1741–1760. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701712960
  5. Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar Implicatures, Polarity Phenomena, and the Syntax/ Pragmatics Interface. Struct. Beyond, 3.
  6. De Neys, W., & Schaeken, W. (2007). When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology, 54(2), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.128
  7. Degen, J., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2015). Processing scalar implicature: A constraint-based approach. Cognitive science, 39(4), 667–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12171
  8. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. Speech Acts, 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003
  9. Grodner, D., Klein, N., Carbary, K., & Tanenhaus, M. (2010). “Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014
  10. Huang, Y.T., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 376–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001
  11. Levinson, S.C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
  12. Noveck, I.A., & Posada, A. (2003). Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language, 85(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1
  13. Politzer-Ahles, S., & Fiorentino, R. (2013). The realization of scalar inferences: Context sensitivity without processing cost. PloS One, 8(5), e63943. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063943
  14. Ronai, E., & Xiang, M. (2020). Pragmatic inferences are QUD-sensitive: an experimental study. Journal of Linguistics, 57. 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000389
  15. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell Oxford UK &- Cambridge USA.