The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature
Open accessAbstract
Recent investigations of the acquisition of scalar implicature report that young children do not reliably reject a sentence with a weak scalar term, e.g. 'some of the books are red', when it is used as a description of a situation where a stronger statement is true, e.g. where all the books are red. This is taken as evidence that children do not interpret the sentence with the implicature that the stronger statement does not hold. We propose that (a) these tasks cannot differentiate between actual implicature derivation and mere sensitivity to violations of informativeness; and that (b) children's apparent failure is not due to lack of competence (whether with informativeness or implicature) but due to their tolerance of pragmatic violations. We report three studies with 5-to-6-year-old English-speaking children and adults employing utterances involving scalar and non-scalar expressions. These show that both age-groups are competent with informativeness, but also tolerant of pragmatic infelicity. These findings have implications for the well-established literature on whether children are aware of ambiguity in referential communication tasks.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Relevance: Communication and Cognition
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986) · Cited by 6,708
(1989) · Cited by 4,498
Relevance: Communication and Cognition
Pust, L., Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1997) · Language · doi:10.2307/415932 · Cited by 1,903
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.005 · Cited by 1,648
On the semantic properties of logical operators in English
Horn, L. R. (1972) · University Microfilms International eBooks · Cited by 1,504
Relevance: Communication and Cognition
WALKER, R. C. S. (1989) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00248.x · Cited by 1,385
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998) · Cited by 865
Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the cognitive science society
Dieussaert, K., Ford, M., & Horsten, L. (2004) · Cited by 853
Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00179-8 · Cited by 783
Cited by
Pragmatic Language Interpretation as Probabilistic Inference
Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.005 · Cited by 594
Children’s derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance
Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2016) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.006 · Cited by 257
Metadata
- Authors
- Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. V. M.
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 67-81
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2024899192
- Cited by
- 485
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 30.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015
- The paper
- Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.