Abstract:
The language used in conversation is prone to differences in interpretation. The interpretation
can be influenced by context – whether the interaction is face-threatening or not (Bonnefon,
2014; Bonnefon, Feeney, & Villejoubert, 2009), whether a disfluency is presented (Loy, Rohde,
& Corley, 2019), or the use of underinformative terms (Bonnefon, 2014; Bott & Noveck, 2004).
The present study examined scalars in conversational dialogues. Participants were presented
dialogues that included a scalar expression, followed by a semantic interpretation (“some and
possibly all”) or a more pragmatic interpretation (“more than one, but not all”). Dialogues
included either a “well” preface, or no “well” preface acting as a hedge. ERPs were used to
examine participants’ neural responses to the hedge and the semantic or more pragmatic
alternative.
The present research predicted that the presentation of “well” would reduce an N400
response to “some” compared with no “well” preface, however, this hypothesis could not be
analyzed. The hypothesis that a greater N400 would be observed for semantic compared with a
more extreme interpretation was not supported. Finally, a reduced N400 was predicted for the
subsequent semantic meaning of the scalar term when the “well” preface occurred compared to
the absence of the “well” preface. No significant interaction was found between the hedge and
interpretation.
In exploratory analyses, the present study found significant hemispheric differences between
the left and right hemispheres and a significant interaction between hemisphere and preface
presentation in which reduced N400 in the left hemisphere (vs. the right hemisphere) was greater
when “well” was presented than when “well” was not presented.
