=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1419/paper0109
|storemode=property
|title=It’s maybe Somewhat Difficult but I Understand It!
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0109.pdf
|volume=Vol-1419
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eapcogsci/JanssensDS15
}}
==It’s maybe Somewhat Difficult but I Understand It!==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0109.pdf
It’s Maybe Somewhat Difficult but I Understand it!
Leen Janssens (Leen.Janssens@pww.kuleuven.be)
Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Leuven, Tiensestraat 102 - Postbox 3711
B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Kim Delombaerde (Kim.Delombaerde@hotmail.com)
Department of Psychology, University of Leuven, Tiensestraat 102
B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Walter Schaeken (Walter.Schaeken@ppw.kuleuven.be)
Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Leuven, Tiensestraat 102 – Postbox 3711
B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Abstract to the goals of the conversation and appropriately phrased.
According to Grice (1989), whenever people follow these
Most studies of implicatures focused on conversational
implicatures. This study, however, examined the conventional maxims, the result is an efficient exchange of information.
implicature induced by but. According to the literature, one However, these maxims are not exhaustive. Other maxims,
can assume that the second argument in a ‘p but q’ such as maxims of social or ethical nature, are necessary in
construction is the argument with the most weight. This is, communication as well.
however, never experimentally tested with a direct distancing- By means of the cooperative principle and the maxims,
contrastive but. We presented participants with stories which Grice (1989) describes the inference process, the retrieval of
ended with a direct distancing but construction, in which one a speaker’s meaning. This brings us to the term
of the arguments expressed a feeling of understanding ‘implicature’. In his work, he made a difference between
towards the behavior of the main character in the story. The
two categories of implicatures, i.e. conversational
results indicated that indeed the q-argument has most weight.
There was, however, also an effect of the specific content of implicatures on the one hand and conventional implicatures
the stories. These results are discussed in light of the on the other hand. The idea of implicatures became quickly
hypotheses generated on the basis of previous research with popular both in theoretical and experimental pragmatics.
an indirect distancing-contrastive but, but also in the light of However, experimental research on implicatures has almost
the effect of content of the stories in conventional completely concentrated on (generalized) conversational
implicatures research and specific task characteristics. implicatures. One has to be even more precise: most
Keywords: conventional implicature; but; scale; content experimental research focused on the subcategory of scalar
implicatures (e.g., De Neys & Schaeken, 2007; Dieussaert,
Introduction Verkerk, Gillard, & Schaeken, 2011; Doran, et al., 2009;
Noveck, 2001; Papafragou & Musolino, 2003). Horn (1972)
As Clark and Schober (1992) formulated: “It is a common developed this concept. Horn-scales involve a set of
misperception that language use has primarily to do with alternative expressions of the same grammatical category,
words and what they mean. It does not. It has primarily to but with a difference in semantic informativeness.
do with people and what they mean. It is essentially about Underlying these scales is the assumption that the use of a
speakers' intention”. What we want to convey in daily semantically weaker term implies that the stronger one does
communication is to a large extent not explicitly expressed. not hold. We would do this, because we want to be as
Instead, people in conversation make use of facial informative as required, but also not more informative as
expressions, gesticulation, and the (assumed) intentions of required. This is called by Grice (1989) the maxim of
the speaker to make their interactions successful. Grice quantity. The most well-known examples of such scales,
(1989) is one of the founding fathers of pragmatics and ordered from strong to weak are “all, most, some” and “and,
provided us with a theoretical framework to discuss this or”.
issue. Starting point was the general principle of The scalar implicatures are examples of generalized
cooperation, which Grice (1989) formulates as follows: conversational implicatures, which are assumed to occur
“Make your conversational contribution such as is required, very systematically although the context may be such that
at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or they do not occur. In contrast, there are also particularized
direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” conversational implicatures, which were assumed to be less
The cooperative principle can be divided into four maxims: systematic and always clearly context dependent. An
the Maxim of Quantity, the Maxim of Quality, the Maxim example of such a particularized implicature is the situation
of Relation and the Maxim of Manner. These maxims where one wonders were the hamburger is and the
respectively imply that interlocutors are always expected to grandmother suddenly says: “Well, the dog is looking very
offer contributions which are informative, truthful, relevant happy.” In such a situation, we will derive the implicature
657
that the grandmother thinks that the dog ate the hamburger. On the one hand, q can directly cancel the inference from
The derivation from “looking happy”’ to “did eat the p because it contains a conclusion that contradicts the
hamburger” can only be made in this very specific context. inference from p (p (p → r), but q (q = not-r) (so not-r)).
In the current study we will not focus on conversational For example: “The water is cold (→ will not swim), but I
implicatures, but on the seldom investigated conventional swim in it”. The connector but, used in a direct distancing
implicature. Conventional implicatures are independent of contrast, is labelled as a ‘concluding but’. In a direct
the cooperative principle: A statement always carries its concession, p and q are always connected by their content: p
conventional implicature, but this implicature is not part of expresses a cause or a good reason for r and ‘but q’
the semantic meaning of the terms. Based on the different expresses the conclusion. It’s because of this connection that
definitions found in the literature, Horn (2004) came up but can be replaced or strengthened by a conjunctional
with a summarizing definition of this concept: adverb such as nevertheless (e.g., the water is cold,
nevertheless I swim in it).
“Unlike an entailment or logical presupposition, On the other hand, q can indirectly cancel the inference
this type of inference is irrelevant to the truth from p because q contains an argument that can be
conditions of the proposition. This inference is not considered as stronger or more relevant than p. (p (p → r),
cancellable without contradiction, but it is but q (q → not-r) (so not-r)). E.g.: “The water is cold (→
detachable, in the sense that the same truth- will not swim), but I like swimming (→ will swim). (So I
conditional content is expressible in a way that will swim)”. Note that it is the conventional meaning of but
removes (detaches) the inference. Such detachable, that causes the argument from q to overrule the argument
but non-cancellable aspects of meaning that are from p. When the two arguments trade places, the opposite
neither part of, nor calculable from ‘what is said’, conclusion follows because the q-argument always
are conventional implicatures.” (Horn, 2004) outweighs the p-argument. E.g.: “I like swimming, but the
water is cold. So I will not swim.” The connector but, used
Huang (2006) defines a conventional implicature as “a non- in an indirect distancing contrast, is labelled as an
truth-conditional inference which is not deductive in any ‘argumentative but’. This is in line with the three claims
general, natural way from the saying of what is said, but Anscombre and Ducrot (1977) postulated concerning this
arises solely because of the conventional features attached type of ‘p but q’ utterance:
to particular lexical items and/or linguistic constructions”
(Huang, 2006). 1. q is always the argument with most weight and the
More specifically, we investigated in the present study the ‘p but q’ construction must be viewed as a defense
implicature induced by the conjunction ‘but’. The word but of not-r.
(translated from Dutch maar) is the most commonly used 2. By uttering ‘p but q’, the speaker always expresses
connector to express a contrastive-concessive relation (Van some kind of acceptance of p.
Belle & Devroy, 1992). This ‘p but q’ relation is a particular 3. ‘p but q’ constructions are always aimed at
type of contrast in which one part of the utterance (p) is a cancelling a particular conclusion r.
concession and the other, contrastive part of the utterance
(q) denies the inference that could be made based on p (Van The word so, following a ‘p argumentative but q’ utterance,
Belle, 2003). In the Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst introduces the expected conclusion from q (e.g., “The water
(ANS; General Dutch Grammar), three types of the is cold, but I like swimming. So I will swim.”). In contrast,
connector but are distinguished (Haeseryn et al., 1997). the word nevertheless following a ‘p argumentative but q’
First, but can be used in a dividing contrast, in which but utterance is used as a conjunctive adverb and has the
can be replaced by and. Replacing and with but emphasizes purpose of reversing the argumentative orientation again
the contrastive nature of the connection, but not the other and thus directing the reader towards the conclusion
way around (e.g., he is rich but he is friendly). stemming from p (e.g., “The water is cold, but I like
Second, but can be used in a replacing contrast. In such a swimming. Nevertheless, I will not swim.”).
construction, the first part of the sentence is a negation and Given the high frequency of the connector but, it is
the second part replaces the first part by expressing what’s surprising that there is almost no empirical research about
true (e.g., not bananas but apples are my favorite fruit). this connector. One of the exceptions is Janssens and
Finally, in a distancing contrast, but connects two parts of Schaeken (2013). They investigated the indirect distancing
a complex speech act and the second part is disassociated contrast use of but. In their research, they presented adult
from the first part, without denying what is being expressed participants with short stories. Each of these stories ended
in the first part (Van Belle & Devroy, 1992). In this type of with a ‘p but q’ sentence, which was followed by two
‘p but q’ construction, the speaker endorses or recognizes possible conclusions. The participants were instructed to
that p is true (Van Belle, 2003). However, by using the word indicate the appropriate conclusion. These were either two
but, the possible inference derived from p is cancelled. so-conclusions (‘so conclusion from p’ and ‘so conclusion
There are two possible ways in which this cancellation can from q’) or two nevertheless-conclusions (‘nevertheless
be manifested (Moeschler & de Spengler, 1982). conclusion from p’ and ‘nevertheless conclusion from q’).
658
The appropriate pragmatic conclusion following so is the between the two of you is important for the entire
conclusion inferred from q and the appropriate conclusion company.
following nevertheless is the conclusion from p (see Van
Belle, 2003). The experiments showed that adults indeed Third, the dependent variable was a different one than in
understand the pragmatic meaning of but: so-conclusions previous research. Instead of evaluating conclusions,
primarily followed the q-argument and the nevertheless- participants were asked to express on a scale whether or not
arguments followed the p-argument, although the preference they expected that the person in the story would feel
was smaller. A plausible reason for the latter effect is the understood or not.
difficulty of nevertheless: one has to negate the negation of Our hypothesis was that there would be a significant
the expectation based on the p-argument interaction between order (whether p or q is the
Interestingly, the content of the arguments also had an ‘understanding argument’) and connector (but or period).
effect. In the experiment, Janssens and Schaeken (2013) We expected the effect or order to be only there when the
presented not only sensible arguments, but also irrelevant connector but is used instead of the period. Only in that case
arguments. In the swimming example above, both the q-argument has more weight, leading to higher feelings
arguments are sensible in a context in which a person is of being understood when the q-argument is the
doubting whether or not he will jump in the water. In this ‘understanding argument’.
same context, uttering “I like swimming, but I have a
brother” clearly contains an irrelevant q-argument. These Experiment
irrelevant arguments were included to examine whether the
pragmatic meaning of but is understood or used irrespective Method
of the content of the arguments. This was not the case. It Participants A total of 192 adults participated in the
was observed that in those cases where an irrelevant experiment. They were all psychology students at the
argument was combined with a sensible argument, the University of Leuven and participated as part of a course
participants had a clear preference for the conclusion from requirement.
the sensible argument. This was true for both the so-
conclusions and the nevertheless-conclusions. Design The experiment had a 2x2x2 design, whereby all
In a second experiment, Janssens and Schaeken (2013) independent variables were manipulated between
asked participants to justify their answers. It was observed participants. First, the connector was either but or a period.
that participants mostly referred to the content of the Second, the proposition in which the feeling of
arguments whenever they did not provide the appropriate understanding was expressed was either the p-argument or
conclusion. the q-argument. Third, to control for possible content
The present research builds on the work of Janssens and effects, we developed two different stories (one about a
Schaeken (2013), but there were innovations. company, one about an exam). The dependent variable was
First, instead of investigating the indirect distancing a rating of the feeling of being understood of the main
contrast use of but, in the current experiment the direct character.
distancing contrast use of but will be examined.
Second, one argument of the ‘p but q’ construction Material and Procedure Each of the stories started with a
represents a relevant argument in daily life and might even description of a very difficult situation. The company-story
have repercussions for consoling talks, that is, expressing (story A) goes as follows:
that you understand the action of the person. An example of
such a sentence is: Joke had a violent fight with her colleague. The
close collaboration between them is important for a
I understand that after many attempts you lost the good functioning of the business. A
hope for reconciliation, but a good communication misunderstanding that arose a few days ago, has
between the two of you is important for the entire escalated. Joke is convinced that her colleague
company. made a mistake and does not want to concede. Her
colleague is blaming Joke. Joke has repeatedly
In half of the problems, the “I understand”-argument was tried to talk about this, but this never led to a
the p-argument, for the other half of the problems, it was the success. As a consequence, being in the same room
q-argument. To control for the real effect of but, half of the leads inevitably to an angry passage of words.
problems contained the connector but, and for the other half Therefore, Joke decided to not say a word to her
of the problems, the two arguments were separated with a colleague. Joke is very determined to keep silent
‘period’: for the rest of their working collaboration.
I understand that after many attempts you lost the After this introduction, the story continues with the
hope for reconciliation. A good communication introduction of the crucial manipulation:
659
She talks about the situation with a different B: 3.95 vs 3.25; F (1,188) = 13.59, p < .05, partiële η² =
colleague. The colleague tells her: “I understand .07) and an interaction between the variables story and order
that after many attempts you lost the hope for (F (1,188) = 7.25, p < .05, partiële η² = .04) indicating that
reconciliation, but a good communication between the expected effect of order was only there in Story A (4.17
the two of you is important for the entire company. vs 3.25). For Story B, the effect was in the expected
direction, but not significant (3.40 vs 3.08).
A quarter of the participants in the company-condition
received this story; for another quarter, the order of the two General Discussion
arguments was reversed; another quarter received the The present study contributes to the very recent
arguments in the same order, but instead of using the experimental research into the area of conventional
connector but, the sentences were now simply separated by implicatures, and more precisely in the understanding of
a period; finally, another quarter received the two arguments but. From these results of the present experiment, we can
in the opposite order, separated by a period. The university- conclude that with a direct distancing contrast use of but, the
story (Story B) had the same four versions. An example of q-argument indeed has a greater weight than the p-
the crucial sentence in the university story is: argument: Ratings of the expected feeling of being
understood by the main character were clearly higher when
Carrying on with your study is important for your the expression of understanding was in the q-argument
chances for a job later on, but I understand that instead of the p-argument. Importantly, this finding was
you want to stop the study after such a dishonest only true when the two arguments were connected with but;
act. when a period was used to connect the two arguments, there
was no significant difference. The greater weight of the q-
Each participant received only one story. The participants argument seems even higher than in the experiments of
were tested in five different groups, in which the different Janssens and Schaeken (2013) in which stories with an
versions were distributed randomly. indirect distancing contrast use of but were presented. This
The participants were asked to imagine how the main might indicate that the claims of Anscrombre and Ducrot
character in the story would feel after the last sentence. (1977) and Van Belle (2003) about the indirect distancing
They had to indicate this on a seven-point scale, going from contrast use of but are not only also true for the direct
“feels totally misunderstood” to “feels totally understood”. distancing contrast use, but even in a stronger way.
However, we have to be careful with this conclusion
Results and Discussion because of two important problems or shortcomings of the
Table 1 presents the proportions of the feeling of being current study.
understood for the different conditions. We performed an First, there is the effect of content which was present in
ANOVA, which resulted in two significant main effects and the current experiment. The expected effect was only
two significant interaction effects. significant in story A, the company story. In story B, the
exam story, the trend was in the same direction, but the
Table 1: Mean feeling of understanding score in the effect was not significant. Such an effect of content is not
conditions with the “I understand” in the p- or the q- very surprising. Janssens and Schaeken (2013) also
argument and with a period or but as a connector between observed a strong content effect on the understanding of but.
the arguments. Therefore, one could argue that the observed effect was not
due to the direct distancing contrast use of but, but to the
Period But effect of content. The fact that for Story B the effect was,
p - I understand 3.78 4.26 although non-significant, in the same direction as for Story
I understand - q” 3.53 2.80 A, strengthens our belief in the observed significant effect.
Nevertheless, we admit that further research is definitely
First, we observed an effect of order, that is, when the much needed. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the
expression of understanding is the q-argument, the feeling absence of a significant effect of Story B might have
of being understood is higher than when it is the p-argument something to do with the fact that the exam story is very
(4.01 vs. 3.16; F (1,188) = 19.37, p < .05, partiële η² = .09). close to home for the participants of this experiment who
Second, there was, as expected, no significant main effect were all students themselves. It’s plausible that they
of the type of connector (but: 3.51; period: 3.66; F (1,188) = therefore empathize more closely with the main character in
0.48, p > .05, partiële η² = .001). However, there is a this story and generally judge this character as feeling
significant interaction between order and connector (F misunderstood because of the dishonest situation that is
(1,188) = 8.66, p < .05, partiële η² = .04). The effect of easily imaginable to them. In future research, including a
order is only there when the connector but is used instead of greater variety of different context stories should confirm
the period. whether the results of this study can be replicated or are due
Third, to complicate things a little bit, there is a to these specific stories.
significant main effect of the variable story (story A vs story
660
Second, there is the task we used. Janssens and Schaeken De Neys, W., & Schaeken, W. (2007). When people are
(2013) asked to evaluate which of the given conclusions was more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on
the most appropriate. In the current experiment, participants scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology, 54, 128-
were asked to express on a scale whether or not they 133.
expected that the person in the story would feel understood Dieussaert, K., Verkerk, S., Gillard, E., & Schaeken, W.
or not. Katsos and Bishop (2011) compared two different (2011). Some effort for some: Further evidence that scalar
tasks in which participants had to evaluate scalar implicatures are effortful. The Quarterly Journal of
implicatures. In one experiment, they instructed their Experimental Psychology, 64 (12), 2352-2367.
participants to judge on a binary scale (right vs wrong) how Doran, R., Baker, R., McNabb, Y., Larson, M., & Ward, G.
well a fictional character described certain situations. They (2009). On the non-unified nature of scalar implicature:
observed what is typically observed in such binary judgment an empirical investigation. International Review of
tasks when an underinformative sentence was presented, Pragmatics, 1, 1–38.
that is, a sentence in which some is used while all is also the Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words.
case (e.g., using the sentence “The crocodile played with Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
some of the cars” while it was shown that the crocodile Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van
played with all the cars): Children do not penalize such a den Toorn, M. C. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse
description as false whereas adults do. In a second Spraakkunst. Groningen/Leuven: Wolters Noordhoff.
experiment, they used a three-point scale with different Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical
sized strawberries. Now participants were instructed to operators in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
reward a bad conclusion with the smallest strawberry, a University of California, Los Angeles (Distributed by
conclusion that was not completely bad nor good with the Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976).
medium-sized strawberry, and a good conclusion with the Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward
biggest strawberry. As a result, children’s performance did (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell, Oxford.
not differ anymore from adults’: The underinformative Huang, Y. (2006). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford
sentences were judged by both groups with the middle value University Press.
on the scale. This indicated that the use of the scale can Janssens, L., & Schaeken, W. (2013). ‘But’ how do we
reveal children’s comprehension of scalar implicatures reason with it: An experimental investigation of the
whereas a binary task conceals their competence. Although implicature stemming from ‘but’. Journal of Pragmatics,
we did not use a ternary scale, it is clear that it has more 57, 194-209.
resemblances with a ternary scale than with a binary scale. Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. V. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance:
Therefore, one could argue that it is the type of task that Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and
caused the effect and not specifically the direct distancing implicature. Cognition, 120, 67-81.
contrastive use of but. Further research has to confirm if it Moeschler, J., & De Spengler, N. (1982). La concession ou
was the type of answer-scale that is a crucial factor. la réfutation interdite, approches argumentative et
Furthermore, in our task participants did not have to conversationnelle. Cahiers de linguistique française, 4, 7-
evaluate whether or not an utterance was right or wrong (or 37.
something in between), but they had to imagine how the Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than
main character in the story would feel after the last sentence adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature.
and express it on a seven-point scale, going from “feels Cognition, 78 (2), 165-188.
totally misunderstood” to “feels totally understood”. Again, Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003) Scalar implicatures:
further research must clarify whether or not this dependent Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface.
variable was crucial in finding the straightforward effects of Cognition, 86, 253-282
but. Van Belle, W. (2003). Zwijgen is niet altijd toestemmen. De
rol van inferenties bij het interpreteren en argumenteren.
Acknowledgments Leuven: Uitgeverij Acco.
This research was carried out with the financial support of Van Belle, W., & Devroy, G. (1992). Tegenstellende en
the National Council for Scientific Research – Flanders, toegevende connectoren. Een argumentatieve
Belgium (FWO grant G.0634.09) beschrijving (Preprint 143, voorlopige publicatie).
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculteit Letteren,
References Departement Linguïstiek.
Anscombre, J-C., & Ducrot, O. (1977). Deux ‘mais’ en
français? Lingua, 43, 23–40.
Clark, H. H., & Schober, M. F. (1992). Asking questions
and influencing answers. In J. M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions
about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of
surveys. New York: Russell Sage.
661