Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures

Lirong Bai

doi:doi:10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures

Lirong Bai^*

Published in Science Discovery (Volume 13, Issue 6)

Received: 1 December 2025 Accepted: 11 December 2025 Published: 24 December 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

In recent years, with the interdisciplinary integration of cognitive science and linguistics, experimental pragmatics has emerged as a burgeoning interdisciplinary field. In the course of its development, embedded implicature has become a newly added research topic attracting considerable attention. Generally, embedded implicatures concern the conversational implicatures of complex sentences. Specifically, an embedded implicature is a seeming conversational implicature that is engendered locally at the sub-sentential level, typically occurring in a clause that is embedded under a logical operator such as a propositional attitude verb, a conditional and a comparative. The paper provides a critical overview of experimental research on embedded implicatures. It starts with the experimental background, figuring out that embedded implicature is a cutting-edge topic of experimental pragmatics in the narrow sense. It then attempts to explore the theoretical grounds and experimental methods, ranging from three approaches to ten paradigms. Next, we make an analysis of the experimental contents, covering experiments on three approaches, developmental pragmatics, scale diversity and large language model prediction. Finally, we outline the future development of experimental research on embedded implicatures from four key dimensions: foregrounding, refinement, systematization, and integration.

Published in	Science Discovery (Volume 13, Issue 6)
DOI	10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15
Page(s)	131-138
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Embedded Implicature, Experiment, Background, Theoretical Ground and Method, Content

1．引言

经典格莱斯 (Grice) 会话含义理论自诞生之日起便引起了语言哲学、语义学和语用学界的广泛关注。其中，尝试修正和发展它的Horn、Levinson、Huang等被称作“新格莱斯学派” (neo-Gricean)，而试图挑战它的Sperber、Wilson、Carston等被称作“后格莱斯学派” (post-Gricean)。近二十年来，国际语言哲学、语义学和语用学界围绕着又一后格莱斯现象内嵌会话含义展开了热烈讨论。据考，最早注意到该现象的学者是Cohen。经典格莱斯会话含义产生于整个句子层面 (sentential level)，遵循“先语义后语用”的推导顺序，是一种整体观 (global view)，而Cohen

[21, 22]

却指出该推理模式并不适应于复合句会话含义的推导。Huang

[37-39]

明确提出内嵌会话含义至少包括两个基本要素：(1) 外观像会话含义；(2) 产生于子句层面（sub-sentential level），通常触发自由某些逻辑算子 (如：命题态度动词、条件词、比较词) 所引导复合从句的分句之内。比如：“我认为他完全可以签约法拉利或者红牛做一个赛季的试车手”的内嵌会话含义应为“我认为他完全可以签约法拉利或者红牛[而不是法拉利和红牛]做一个赛季的试车手”。

目前，国际上对于内嵌会话含义的理论研究分为语法学派 (grammatical school)、语用学派 (pragmatic school) 和互补学派 (complementary school)：语法学派包括词汇规约主义 (lexicalist conventionalism) 和句法规约主义 (syntax-based conventionalism)，提出严格而言内嵌会话含义不是语用推论，而是句子词汇-语法内容的一部分且与规约性真值条件意义基本无差别

[44, 13-16]

；语用学派囊括了格莱斯语用学、真值条件语用学及关联理论的观点，分别将内嵌会话含义归属于“格莱斯会话含义”、“自由扩充” (free enrichment) 和“显义” (explicature)

[28, 29, 55, 56, 51-53, 9]

；互补的主张由Recanati

[56]

提出。除却理论研究外，国际语言哲学、语义学和语用学界还围绕内嵌会话含义现象开展了一系列实验研究。本文从背景、理论依据与方法、内容等方面考察了国外关于内嵌会话含义的实验研究，指出了其存在的不足之处，并对其未来发展前景进行了展望。

2．内嵌会话含义的实验背景

广义实验语用学始于1960年代，当时有少数心理学家的研究兴趣由“孤立的句子理解”转向了“人们在社会和交际目的情景中使用语言的方式”。该研究转变主要基于两点：一是“对乔姆斯基学派 (Chomskyan) 关于语言结构与行为解释的否定”；二是“哲学和语言学界发出在语境中理解话语的倡议”。其中，哲学跟语用学家明确关注讲话者所言的含义及听话者如何解读这些信息。1960年代以来，Grice在哈佛所作的威廉·詹姆斯讲座 (William James Lectures) 广为流行，心理学家根据其哲学与语用学理论设计了一系列心理实验，最初关心的问题是“哲学及语用学家关于听话者如何推断讲话者意义的解释是否真正反映了听话者在实际话语中解读语言的基本心理过程”

[32]

。

狭义实验语用学产生于1990年代末至2000年代初，主要研究会话含义，尤其是一般会话含义中的级差含义 (scalar implicature)。例如，“一些发达国家以及我国周边的国家与地区都已经制定了专门的特殊教育法”的级差含义为“不是所有发达国家以及我国周边的国家与地区都已经制定了专门的特殊教育法”。关于级差含义的实验研究围绕着默认推断论(default inference theory)

[44]

、语境推断论 (contextual inference theory)

[59, 60]

和结构推断论 (structural inference theory)

[23, 13]

三种理论观点展开。其中多数支持语境推断论，同时亦有不少赞同默认推断论和结构推断论的学者

[36, 6]

。自Geurts & Pouscoulous

[30]

以来，狭义实验语用学的研究范围进一步扩展到了内嵌会话含义 (主要是内嵌级差含义) 上面。

就实验背景而论，内嵌环境下的会话含义虽属实验语用学新增研究热点，但其萌芽和生长离不开非内嵌环境下会话含义研究这片沃土的滋润，国际涉及内嵌会话含义的实验研究多局限于其自身，缺少内嵌会话含义和非内嵌会话含义的对比研究。而且，实验语用学同心理学和哲学都有密切联系，国外内嵌会话含义实验研究多停留在借鉴心理学实验方法层面，较少考虑其实验的哲学基础。

3．内嵌会话含义实验的理论依据与方法

3.1．内嵌会话含义实验的理论依据

内嵌会话含义实验研究以语法、语用和互补学派的观点为理论基石。

语法学派关注内嵌会话含义的规约性质，可划分为词汇规约主义和句法规约主义。词汇规约主义的核心范式是Levinson提出的默认推断论，侧重探究句法上能够触发含义的特定表达式，认为内嵌会话含义在该特定表达式出现的瞬间即可自动生成，属于默认意义。因为受到特定表达式触发且其产生速度非常快，由此方式生成的内嵌会话含义被称之为强化含义(strong implicature), Levinson的默认推断论亦被称之为强化默认理论 (strong defaultism)

[44, 29]

。句法规约主义以Chierchia提出的结构推断论为代表，将研究重点放到穷尽性算子“只”(Only，简称为“O”)上，指出该算子可自由插入到句法树形图的任意节点位置且能够反复出现。同时，Chierchia还提出另一论断，即：内嵌会话含义在向下蕴含语境中会变微弱甚至被阻断(blocked)

[13-16]

。结构推断论者的方案虽有助于生成内嵌会话含义，却也导致意义泛滥。为解决这一难题，有学者提出了最强意义假设 (strong meaning hypothesis)。

与语法学派不同，语用学派重视“意图”、“合作”、“理性”、“语境”等因素在内嵌会话含义生成过程中的作用，甚少提及意义规约性，涵盖格莱斯语用学、关联论者和真值条件语用学者的分析。格莱斯语用学者试图将内嵌会话含义纳入格莱斯会话含义理论范畴考察，发现内嵌会话含义是一种边缘现象，只能出现在对照语境之下

[28, 29, 55, 56]

。关联论者提出会话含义靠语境确定的观点，又名语境推断论。他们认为内嵌会话含义是“由特定语境触发的显义”

[9]

。真值条件语用学的代表人物Recanati将内嵌会话含义的产生机制归于依赖语境的自由扩充

[51-53]

。

互补的观点亦由Recanati提出。例如，Recanati

[52]

曾指出：“尽管语法学派将内嵌会话含义置于近乎独立于语境的语法计算系统内，语用学派则将其放在依赖语境的语用系统内，这并不表明语法学派和语用学派的方案不能互补，因为没有理由假定话语意义单靠语法学派和语用学派中的一方就可解决”。然而，Recanati并未明确哪部分意义受语法制约，哪部分意义受语用制约。

3.2．内嵌会话含义的实验方法

国际上对内嵌会话含义的实验研究方法涉及“真值条件判断任务” (truth-value judgment task)、“适切型判断任务” (felicity judgment task)、“推断型任务” (inference task)、“验证型任务” (verification task)、“句子-图片核正范式” (sentence-picture pairing)、“选择型任务” (choice task)、“自定步速阅读任务” (self-paced reading task)、“眼动追踪任务” (eye-tracking task)、“最佳反应范式” (the best response paradigm)、“肯宁难题” (Koening’s puzzle) 等等。

(1) 真值条件判断任务由被试阅读句子并且判断它们的“对”与“错”

[17, 19, 47, 66, 58]

。(2) 在适切型判断任务中，实验者先给被试描述一个场景，继而呈现两个断言性句子，这两个句子的真值相同但合适程度不一，最后由被试来确认哪个句子更符合所呈现的场景

[17, 19, 42, 34]

。(3) 在推断型任务下，被试必须思考所看到的句子是否隐含某一特定信息

[30, 6, 10, 19, 66]

。(4) 验证型任务要求被试确定所呈现的句子是否正确描述了某种情境

[30, 54, 66, 7, 24, 49, 67]

。 (5) 句子-图片核正范式需要被试确认某一句子和图片是否相匹配，或者哪一图片与某一句子最匹配

[11, 43]

。(6) 选择型任务通常先给被试呈现一个句子和两幅图片 (其中一幅图片是根据句子“字面解读”而设计，另一幅则是依据“局部产生的强化解读” (strong interpretation) 而设计)，再让被试从“字面解读”、“强化解读”、“两者均可”和“两者均不可”四个选项中挑出最适合句子意义的图片

[20]

。(7) 在自定步速阅读任务中，每一句子都被切割成单个词语，被试每按一次空格键就会看到一个词语，如此操作，直至整个句子结束，之后会有一幅图片呈现在电脑屏幕上。被试的任务就是判断所看到的句子与图片是否相符 (F键代表“是”，J键代表“否”)。被试每次按键之间的时间反映了阅读屏幕上出现的单个词语的时间

[12, 8, 6]

。(8) 眼动追踪技术中较新的实验范式为视觉情景眼动追踪 (visual-world eye-tracking)。与自定步速阅读任务不同，眼动追踪的句子会一次性呈现给被试。目前运用眼动技术测量被试阅读复合句速度的方式有两种：“准首次通过时间”(quasi-first pass time)和“二次通过时间”(second pass time)。“准首次通过时间”是被试眼球从开始到结束凝视某一区域的时间总和，反映的是早期加工速度。“二次通过时间”是指被试眼球离开某一区域后又回溯到该区域的时间总和，反映的是后期加工速度

[6, 61]

。(9) 最佳反应范式要求被试根据所给予的刺激做出最恰当的选择

[33, 4]

。另外，值得一提的还有Reboul

[50]

的“肯宁难题” (Koening’s puzzle)，用来测验“比较” (comparatives) 类型。

总体而言，国外关于内嵌会话含义的实验研究方法数目繁多，至少有两点值得关注：1) 真值条件判断任务、适切型判断任务、推断型任务、验证型任务、句子-图片核正范式、选择型任务、最佳反应范式、肯宁难题等多用来测试内嵌会话含义在多大程度上存在，而自定步速阅读、眼动追踪等多作为在线实验来考察内嵌会话含义在哪个位置产生及用时多久；2) 真值条件判断任务、推断型任务、验证型任务、肯宁难题以真值 (即：“是”还是“否”) 为目标，适切型判断任务、选择型任务、最佳反应范式以合适性 (即：“适合”还是“不适合”) 为目标，句子-图片核正范式既可用来判断真值又可用来确认合适性。具体而论，我们发现内嵌会话含义的实验研究方法实际上比较单调、松散，多为寻找某一两个问题的答案而借用某一两个实验心理学范式，较少阐释某一实验问题同所采纳实验范式之间的内在联系，缺少多个实验问题和多个实验方法的系统整合研究。

4．内嵌会话含义的实验内容

国际上对于内嵌会话含义实验内容的研究触及到语法、语用、语法和语用互补、发展语用学、级差多样性和大语言模型推理等，下面逐一论述。

4.1．语法学派开展的实验研究

语法学派统称规约主义学派，相关实验研究涉及对词汇规约主义、句法规约主义和规约主义整体理论的验证。

(1) 词汇规约主义 (以Levinson的默认推断论为范例) 的实验假设为“内嵌会话含义跟词汇内容的性质无太大区别”。比如“寄宿生还要承担部分或全部伙食费”中的析取解读意义就与“部分”的词汇内容有关。当听话者接收到“部分”这一信号时，“不是全部”的意思便会迅速被自动激活。Storto & Tanenhaus

[61]

利用视觉情景眼动追踪范式考察了英语中的析取式，事实与上述实验假设相吻合。

(2) 关于句法规约主义 (以Chierchia等的结构推断论为样本) 的实验重点体现在两方面：反应时和语言环境。首先，基于反应时的探讨。Chemla，Cummins & Singh

[12]

以量词“一些” (some)内嵌到析取词“或” (or) 之下为例做出了“如若会话含义可以局部产生，则被试在量词辖域停留的速度要比其它辖域慢”的假定，选用自定步速阅读任务作为实验工具，结果确定被试在局部条件下花费时间多，因此Chemla, Cummins & Singh提出其实验为句法规约主义提供了支撑

[49]

。。其次，对于语言环境的研究。“格莱斯级差含义在向上蕴含语境中保留而在向下蕴含语境中变得微弱甚至被阻止”是句法规约主义的一个理论观点，相关实验也不断涌现。比如，Bezuidenthout, Morris & Widmann

[6]

通过自定步速阅读、眼动追踪和推断型任务三种实验方法得出“级差含义会在向下蕴含语境中消失”的结论。此外，与句法规约主义相关的实验研究还包括对“语义核心模型” (semantic core model) 的验证，该模型提出“语义和语用因素共同起作用” (即：“会话含义与真值条件一起以递归方式呈现”) 的观点

[19]

。

(3) 对规约主义整体的实验研究集中在主流规约主义 (mainstream conventionalism) 和最简规约主义 (minimal conventionalism) 层面。主流规约主义强调“强化解读”的优先性，认为只要不出现在比整体解读更弱的语境下 (比如向下蕴含的情形)，会话含义就偏重内嵌的“强化解读”；最简规约主义仅关心“强化解读”的可能性。以“所有的学生都分散到一些国际名企参加了一段相对长时间的实习”为例，主流规约主义倾向于将其优先解读为“所有的学生都分散到一些但不是所有国际名企参加了一段相对长时间的实习”，而最简规约主义却指出上述解读只是一种可能。Clifton & Dube

[20]

采用选择型任务对此问题进行了考察，结果发现被试更偏向于做出“强化”解读，从而验证了主流规约主义的观点。

由此可见，语法学派进行的实验有两个分布特点：1) 着重考察以Chierchia等结构推断论为代表的句法规约主义；2) 句法规约主义论者内部对于内嵌级差含义反应时的问题依旧存在争议。

4.2．语用学派开展的实验研究

语用学派展开的实验研究覆盖了格莱斯语用学、关联理论与默认理论的对比和典型性(typicality)三方面。

(1) 格莱斯语用学以反驳规约主义为重心。Geurts & Pouscoulous

[30]

首次利用实验方法 (推断型任务和验证型任务) 探讨了内嵌会话含义问题，最终发现唯一产生内嵌级差含义的情形是“认为” (think)，且该情形可通过“能力假设”得以解决，从整体上否定了规约主义(包含主流规约主义和最简规约主义)。自Geurts & Pouscoulous

[30]

以来，出现了不少反对声音

[20]

，因此Geurts & van Tiel

[31]

进一步澄清了格莱斯语用学对内嵌会话含义的态度。格莱斯学派承认经典格莱斯无法解决内嵌会话含义问题，然这并不代表该学派对此问题没有解决方案。他们以为，内嵌会话含义并非会话含义但可通过数量含义 (quantity implicatures) 和真值条件缩小 (truth-conditional narrowing) 两种方式达到上限解读。如此，内嵌会话含义问题便涉及会话含义和真值条件缩小之间的分工问题。更进一步讲，关涉到真值条件缩小的可及性 (availability) 问题。在规约主义看来，缩小是自由可及的，是以会话含义可自由出现在内嵌位置，而格莱斯学派却认为缩小是特殊情形 (需要对比重读)，因而内嵌的上限解读应当是有标记的边缘现象。Geurts & Pouscoulous

[30]

和Geurts & van Tiel

[31]

从整体上批判了规约主义，Ippolito

[41]

拓展了其相关实验成果，以“一些” (some) 内嵌到命题态度动词“相信” (believe) 之下的情况为例具体考察了“更强意义假设” (strong meaning hypothesis)，结果彻底否定了内嵌会话含义的存在。

(2) 关联理论 (又名语境推断论) 和默认理论 (又名默认推断论) 的对比研究。在非内嵌实验环境下，关联理论和默认理论通常被当作两种对立观点来探究，多数赞成关联理论

[7, 45, 46, 8]

，内嵌环境下的实验亦是如此。Reboul

[50]

利用“肯宁难题”对以关联理论为代表的整体观和以默认理论为代表的局部观进行了测试，着重考察了会话含义内嵌到“比较词”之下的情况，证明了关联理论的正确性，支持整体观。

(3) 典型性由van Tiel

[65]

为解决Geurts & Pouscoulous

[30]

、Clifton & Dube

[20]

和Chemla & Spector

[11]

之间的争论而提出。Geurts & Pouscoulous

[30]

明确表示内嵌会话含义基本不存在，而Clifton & Dube

[20]

和Chemla & Spector

[11]

却得出了与之相反的结论，van Tiel

[65]

发现Clifton & Dube

[20]

和Chemla & Spector

[11]

的实验结果受典型性因素的影响，从而丰富了内嵌会话含义的实验内容。通常情况下，典型性是指某一类型中的代表。比如：提到鸟类，人们头脑中更多浮现的是麻雀而非企鹅。同理，在对内嵌会话含义问题的探讨过程中，van Tiel借用典型性代指某些情景更符合命题的真值条件。例如：对于命题“所有的方块都连着一些圆圈”来说，“所有的方块都连着半数的圆圈”要比“所有的方块都连着所有圆圈”更符合条件。基于此，van Tiel

[65]

指出Clifton & Dube

[20]

和Chemla & Spector

[11]

测量的是哪一种解读更具代表性而非内嵌会话含义出现的频率

[66, 25, 26, 57, 67]

。

显而易见，语用学派进行的实验也有两个分布特征：1) 以验证Geurts格莱斯语用学的观点为主；2) 将影响意义解读的因素由字面意义和语用推断扩展到了典型性。

4.3．语法和语用互补的实验研究

部分实验结果与互补学派的观点相呼应。Chemla

[10]

运用推断型任务对语法和语用学派观点进行了验证，结论是前者对否定的“全称推断” (universal inference) 缺乏解释力，后者则不能很好阐释“自由选择” (free choice)。如此看来，两大学派该互相取长补短。Potts

[48]

梳理了语用和语法学派的实验研究，也认为它们是互补的：内嵌到“命题态度动词”和“条件词”之下的成分以及“赫福德限制条件” (Hurford’s constraint) 类型可走语用路径，“介入式” (intrusive construction) 可采纳语法路径[35, 5, 18, 40]。

不难看出，语法和语用互补的实验结果表明语法和语用因素都对内嵌会话含义的识解起作用，但在二者的具体分工问题上尚未达成一致意见。

4.4．发展语用学的实验研究

从发展语用学视角对内嵌会话含义展开的实验涉及两个问题：(1) 儿童是否具备推断内嵌会话含义的能力？(2) 如果对 (1) 的回答是肯定的，那么儿童在何种语境下可推断出内嵌会话含义，又在何种语境下不能够推断出内嵌会话含义？对于问题 (1)，Gualmini et al.

[34]

采用真值条件判断任务对儿童语言进行了测验，最后给出了肯定答案。关于问题 (2)，Chierchia et al.[17, 19]分别以真值条件判断任务、推断型任务和适切型判断任务测试了儿童语言，发现了“内嵌级差含义在向下蕴含语境中会取消，而在向上蕴含和单调环境下会出现”的规律。

如此看来，基于发展语用学进行内嵌会话含义实验研究的学者主要是语法学派，相关实验结论也与该学派所持观点相吻合

[68]

。

此外，级差多样性和大语言模型推理是实验语用学的新增研究内容。级差多样性是指不同级差项能够引发级差含义的程度有差别，学者们最关心的问题是级差多样性的成因及相较之下哪种级差项更能触发内嵌级差含义[62, 63]。大语言模型是否具备意向性和能否真正理解各种类型的会话含义是不少实验语用学家关注的问题，目前相关问题已经扩展到了对内嵌会话含义的研究上

[64]

。

就实验内容而言，国际关于内嵌会话含义的实验研究重点围绕着语法学派中的句法规约主义、语用学派中Geurts的格莱斯语用学、语用和语法学派互补三方面展开，对于语法学派中的词汇规约主义和语用学派中的关联理论探讨较少；实验增加了语用学派的主流规约主义和最简规约主义、语法学派的典型性、发展语用学、级差多样性、大语言模型推理五个板块，但甚少阐释其理论根基；尚无实验触及Recanati的“自由扩充”主张。有趣的是，Storto & Tanenhaus

[61]

、Chemla, Cummins & Singh

[12]

、Bezuidenthout, Morris & Widmann

[6]

、Chierchia et al.

[19]

的实验结果为以Levinson默认推断论和Chierchia结构推断论为代表的语法学派提供了支撑，但也遭到了Geurts & Pouscoulous

[30]

、Geurts & van Tiel

[31]

、Ippolito

[41]

等的反对。语用学派的观点在得到Geurts & Pouscoulous

[30]

、Ippolito

[41]

、Reboul

[50]

等实验结果支持的同时，亦受到了Clifton & Dube

[20]

、Chemla & Spector

[11]

等的质疑。Chemla

[10]

、Potts

[48]

等的实验结果与语法和语用互补的观点相符。Gualmini et al.

[34]

、Chierchia et al.

[17, 19]

等从发展语用学视角开展的实验结果也支持语法学派的观点。进一步说，国际上开展内嵌会话含义实验研究的学者有不少分别是语法、语用和互补学派理论的坚定支持者，我们不能排除其实验设计会受到理论模式影响继而导致实验结果出现偏差的可能性。基于此，我们对国际内嵌会话含义的实验结果应持“不可不信，不可全信”的理智态度。

5．未来展望

我们预测，内嵌会话含义的实验研究将会朝着四个方向发展，即前景化、精确化、系统化和融合化。

第一，所谓前景化是指关于内嵌会话含义，尤其是内嵌会话含义实验方面的研究将会层出不穷并在语用学中占据一席重地。一直以来，“意义的传递和理解”都是语言哲学、语用学和语义学界非常关心的问题。其中，格莱斯的会话含义理论堪称经典解决方案，亦是语用学的理论基石之一。随经典格莱斯会话含义理论涌现的不仅是新格莱斯和后格莱斯理论，还包括大批致力于从实验角度验证经典格莱斯、新格莱斯和后格莱斯理论的学者。作为格莱斯会话含义理论的有益补充，内嵌会话含义这一后格莱斯现象将会话含义研究范围从简单句转移到了复合句，从整体层面转移到了局部层面，必将吸引更多实验学者投入到内嵌会话含义本身及会话含义与内嵌会话含义对比研究之中，有助于进一步揭示意义传递与理解过程。

第二，精确化包括两层意思。一层说的是内嵌会话含义的实验研究方法将从重复走向创造。一个不容忽视的事实是，现有实验方法虽多达十种，但多数却相差无几。比如，真值条件判断任务、适切型判断任务、选择型任务和句子-图片核正范式就跟推断型任务和验证型任务非常相似。主要原因在于，推断型任务和验证型任务是内嵌会话含义实验研究者最早采用的方法，其它方法都以此为模板改编而成。这就容易产生许多看似不同实则重复的研究，导致研究结果不精确。为解决该难题，我们建议对于同一问题，既要重复现有方法又要设计新方法进行研究。另一层说的是内嵌会话含义的实验研究方法将从单调走向整合。意义的传递和理解是生理现象，更是心理现象。当前研究多行为实验，少认知实验。为认清问题起见，我们提议开展行为与认知实验的结合研究。譬如，眼动和脑电技术的结合一方面可考察被试对某一特定表达式凝视时间的长短，另一方面又可挖掘其行为背后所隐藏的心理机制。

第三，系统化主要体现在两方面：有实验的理论和有理论的实验。我们都清楚，在实证研究中，数据收集方式有定量的，如问卷调查法；有定性的，如访谈法；还有混合的，如问卷调查法和访谈法的结合。就系统性而言，混合法更胜一筹。同理，内嵌会话含义的理论研究可与实验相结合，谓之有实验的理论；内嵌会话含义的实验研究亦可与理论相结合，谓之有理论的实验。如此，可尽量保证内嵌会话含义研究的系统化。随着研究的不断进展，我们有理由相信：(1) 将会有越来越多的内嵌会话含义理论研究者通过开展实验来验证每家理论的解释力；(2) 将会有越来越多的内嵌会话含义实验研究者通过摄取语言学和哲学理论来设计实验和阐释实验结果。当然，目前国际上关于内嵌会话含义的研究并不缺乏有理论的实验，Chierchia就同时是结构推断论的提出者和验证者，如何避免陷入自家理论当中才是更值得思考的问题。

第四，融合化指的是国内学者将会结合国际内嵌会话含义研究成果和汉语自身特点，开展一些关于汉语内嵌会话含义，尤其是汉语内嵌会话含义实验方面的研究，积极参与到国际分工中来。该发展趋势的理论假设是内嵌会话含义现象的普遍性特征。所谓普遍性，即跨语言通用性。进一步而言，内嵌会话含义现象虽最早针对英语话语提出，亦当适应于汉语话语。当前，国际内嵌会话含义实验研究主要涉及荷兰语、法语、英语等，关于汉语的内嵌会话含义实验研究并不多见。因而，内嵌会话含义在汉语层面的实验研究依旧存在很大发展空间。这就需要国内学者既重视和加强对本土语言现象或问题的探讨，又要关注和盯紧国际语言学新进展或新动态，开拓国际视野，坚持走国际化研究路径。

6．结语

本文从背景、理论依据与方法、内容方面梳理了国际上关于内嵌会话含义的实验研究成果，发现：(1) 内嵌会话含义是狭义实验语用学最新研究热点；(2) 内嵌会话含义的实验基础是语法、语用和互补学派的理论观点，其实验方法包含真值条件判断任务、最佳反应范式等十种；(3) 内嵌会话含义的实验内容囊括语法学派开展的实验研究、语用学派开展的实验研究、语法跟语用互补的实验研究、发展语用学的实验研究及新兴的关于级差多样性和大语言模型推理研究。另外，我们还提出了内嵌会话含义实验研究过程中值得努力的四个方向——前景化、精确化、系统化和融合化。

基金项目

本文为山东省高等学校青创团队研究项目“非典型级差含义的社会-认知研究”(编号: 2022RW069)的阶段性成果。

References

[1]	白丽荣, 黄衍. 2020. 内嵌会话含义研究：现状与评述 [J]. 当代语言学(3): 453-466.
[2]	薛兵. 2021. 内嵌含义：会话含义理论研究的未解难题 [J]. 外国语(2): 41-49.
[3]	徐永智, 刘龙根. 2018. 真值条件语用学视阈下的内嵌含义新论 [J]. 现代外语(6): 744-755.
[4]	Benz, A. & N. Gotzner. 2021. Embedded implicature: what can be left unsaid? [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy (44): 1099-1130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-020-09310-x
[5]	Bezuidenhout, A. & R. Morris. 2004. Implicature, relevance and default pragmatic inference [C] C // I. Noveck & D. Sperber. Experimental Pragmatics. Hampshire: Palgrave: 257-282.
[6]	Bezuidenhout, A., Morris, R. & C. Widmann. 2009. The DE-blocking hypothesis: The role of grammar in scalar reasoning [C] // U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro. Semantics and Pragmatics: From Experiment to Theory. NY: Palgrave: 124-144.
[7]	Bott, L., Bailey, T. & D. Grodner. 2012. Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures [J]. Journal of Memory and Language (1): 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.005
[8]	Breheny, R., Katsos, N. & J. Williams. 2006. Are generalized scalar implictures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences [J]. Cognition (3): 434-463.
[9]	Carston, R. 2004. Relevance Theory and the saying/implicating distinction [C] // L. Horn & G. Ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics. USA, UK & Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: 631-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959
[10]	Chemla, E. 2009. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimentl data [J]. Semantics & Pragmatics (2): 1-33. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.2
[11]	Chemla, E. & B. Spector. 2011. Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures [J]. Journal of Semantics (3): 359-400. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq023
[12]	Chemla, E., Cummins, C. & R. Singh. 2017. Training and timing local scalar enrichments under global pragmatic pressures [J]. Journal of Semantics (1): 107-126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw006
[13]	Chierchia, G. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface [C] // A. Belletti. Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1-51.
[14]	Chierchia, G. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language [J]. Linguistic Inquiry (4): 535-590. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535
[15]	Chierchia, G. 2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[16]	Chierchia, G. 2017. Scalar implicatures and their interface with grammar [J]. Annual Review of Linguistics (1): 245-264. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033846
[17]	Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M., Gualmini A. & L. Meroni. 2001. The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for grammatical view of scalar implicatures [C] // Anna H.-J. Do et al. BYCLD 25 Proceedings. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press: 157-168.
[18]	Chierchia, G., Fox, D. & B. Spector. 2008. Huford’s constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures: Evidence for embedded implicatures [J]. Ibm Systems Journal (2): 1-16.
[19]	Chierchia, G., Guasti, M., Gualmini, A., Meroni, L., Crain, S. & F. Foppolo. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic competence in children’s and adults’comprehension of Or [C] // I. Noveck & D. Sperber. Experimental Pragmatics. Hampshire: Palgrave: 283-300.
[20]	Clifton, C. & C. Dube. 2010. Embedded implicatures observed: A comment on Geurts and Pouscoulous (2009) [J]. Semantics & Pragmatics (7): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.7
[21]	Cohen, J. 1971. Some remarks on Grice’s views about the logical particles of natural language [A]. In Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.). Pragmatics of Natural Language [C]. Dordrecht: Reidel: 50-68.
[22]	Cohen, J. 1977. Can the conversationalist hypothesis be defended? [J]. Philosophical Studies (2): 81-90.
[23]	Crain, S. & P. Pietrosk. 2002. Why language acquisition is a snap [J]. The Linguistic Review (1-2): 163-183.
[24]	CrniČ, L., Chemla, E. & D. Fox. 2015. Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunction [J]. Natural Language Semantics (4): 271-305.
[25]	Cummins, C. 2014. Typicality made familiar: A commentary on Geurts & van Tiel (2013) [J]. Semantics & Pragmatics (8): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.8
[26]	Doran, R., Baker, R., McNabb, Y., Larson, M. & G. 2009. Ward. On the non-unified nature of scalar implicature: An empirical investigation [J]. International Review of Pragmatics (2): 211-248. https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12538045489854
[27]	Franke, M., Schlotterbeck, F. & P. Augurzky. 2017. Embedded scalars, preferred readings and prosody: An experimental revisit [J]. Journal of Semantics (1): 153-199. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw007
[28]	Geurts, B. 2009. Scalar implicature and local pragmatics [J]. Mind and Language (1): 51-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01353.x
[29]	Geurts, B. 2010. Quantity implicatures [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975158
[30]	Geurts, B. & N. Pouscoulous. 2009. Embedded Implicatures?!? [J]. Semantics & Pragmatics (4): 1-34. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.4
[31]	Geurts, B. & van Tiel, B. 2013. Embedded scalars [J]. Semantics & Pragmatics (9): 1-37. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.9
[32]	Gibbs Jr., R.W. 2017. Experimental pragmatics [C] //Y. Huang. The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 311-325.
[33]	Gotzner, N. & A. Benz. 2018. The best response paradigm: A new approach to test implicatures of complex sentences [J]. Frontiers in Communication (21): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2017.00021
[34]	Gualmini, A., Crain, S., Meroni, L., Chierchia, G. & M. Guasti. 2001. At the semantics/pragmatics interface in child language [C] //A. Gualmini, S. Crain, L. Meroni, G. Chierhcia, M. Guasti, R. Hastings, B. Jackson & Z. Zvolenszky. SALT XI. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University: 231-247.
[35]	Hartshorne, J., Snedeker, J., Azar, S. & A. Kim. 2015. The neural computation of scalar implicature [J]. Language, Cognition & Neuroscience (5): 620-634.
[36]	Huang, Y. 2013. Micro- and macro pragmatics: Remapping their domains [J]. International Review of Pragmatics (1): 129-162.
[37]	Huang, Y. 2014. Pragmatics (2^nd ed.) [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[38]	Huang, Y. 2017a. Implicature [C] //Y. Huang. The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 155-179.
[39]	Huang, Y. 2017b. Truth-condition-contributing conversational implicatures, intrusive constructions, and neo-Gricean pragmatics [J]. 外语教学与研究 (5): 643-662.
[40]	Hurford, J. 1974. Inclusive or exclusive disjunction [J]. Foundation of Language (3): 409-411.
[41]	Ippolito, M. 2010. Embedded Implicatures? Remarks on the debate between globalist and localist theories [J]. Semantics & Pragmatics (5): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.5
[42]	Katsos, N. & C. Cummins. 2010. Pragmatics: From theory to experiment and back again [J]. Language and Linguistic Compass (5): 282-295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00203.x
[43]	Kissine, M. & P. De Brabanter. 2023. Pragmatic responses to under-informative some-statements are not scalar implicatures [J]. Cognition (237): 1-14.
[44]	Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[45]	Noveck, I. & A. Posada. 2003. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potential study [J]. Brain & Language (2): 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1
[46]	Noveck, I. & A. Posada. 2004. Introduction [C] // I. Noveck & D. Sperber. Experimental Pragmatics [C]. Hampshire: Palgrave: 1-22.
[47]	Papafragou, A. & J. Musolino. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface [J]. Cogintion (3): 253-282.
[48]	Potts, C. 2013. Conversational implicature: Interacting with grammar [OL]. https://web.stanford.edu/~cgpotts/manuscripts/potts-interacting2013.pdf (2013-12-30).
[49]	Potts, C., Lassiter, D., Levy, R. & M. Frank. 2016. Embedded implicatures as pragmatic inferences under compositional lexical uncertainty [J]. Journal of Semantics (4): 755-802. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv012
[50]	Reboul, A. 2004. Conversational implicatures: Nonce or generalized? [C] //I. Noveck & D. Sperber. Experimental Pragmatics. Hampshire: Palgrave: 322-332.
[51]	Recanati, F. 2003. Embedded implicatures [J]. Philosophical Perspectives (1): 299-332.
[52]	Recanati, F. 2010. Truth--Conditional Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[53]	Recanati, F. 2017. Local pragmatics: Reply to Mandy Simons [J]. Inquiry (5): 493-508. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2016.1246864
[54]	Sauerland, U. 2010. Embedded implictures and experimental constraints: A reply to Geurts & Pouscoulous and Chemla [J]. Semantics & Pragmatics (2): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.2
[55]	Simons, M. 2017a. Local pragmatics in a Gricean framework [J]. Inquiry (5): 466-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2016.1246865
[56]	Simons, M. 2017b. Local pragmatics in a Gricean framework, revisited: Response to three commentaries [J]. Inquiry (5): 539-568. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2017.1281205
[57]	Simons, M. & T. Warren. 2017. A closer look at strengthened readings of scalars [J]. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (1): 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1314516
[58]	Singh, R., Wexler, K., Astle-Rahim, A., Kamawar, D. & D. Fox. 2016. Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Consequences for theories of implicature and child development [J]. Nat Lang Semantics (4): 305-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9126-3
[59]	Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (1^st ed.) [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[60]	Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2^nd ed.) [M]. Oxford UK and Cambridge USA: Blackwell.
[61]	Storto, G. & M. Tanenhaus. 2005. Are scalar implicatures computed online? [OL]. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/778 [2019-8-20].
[62]	Sun, C. 2017. Scalar implicature: Gricean reasoning and local enrichment [D]. London: University of College London.
[63]	Sun, C, Tian, Y. & R. Breheny. 2024. A Corpus-Based Examination of Scalar Diversity [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (5): 808-818. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001278
[64]	Tsvilodub, P., Marty, P., Ramotowska, S., Romoli, J. & M. Fanke. 2024. Experimental Pragmatics with Machines: Testing LLM Predictions for the Inferences of Plain and Embedded Disjunctions [OL]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05776 [2024-5-9].
[65]	van Tiel, B. 2014a. Embedded scalars and typicality [J]. Journal of Semantics (2): 147-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft002
[66]	van Tiel, B.2014b. Quantity matters: Implicatures, typicality and truth [D]. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
[67]	van Tiel, B., Noveck, I. & M. Kissine. 2018. Reasoning with ‘Some’ [J]. Journal of Semantics (4): 757-797. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy012
[68]	Wang, S. Y. 2022. Scalar Implicatures in Child Language: The Role of Processing Capacities [D]. Storrs: University of Connecticut.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Bai, L. (2025). Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures. Science Discovery, 13(6), 131-138. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Bai, L. Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures. Sci. Discov. 2025, 13(6), 131-138. doi: 10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Bai L. Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures. Sci Discov. 2025;13(6):131-138. doi: 10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15,
  author = {Lirong Bai},
  title = {Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures
},
  journal = {Science Discovery},
  volume = {13},
  number = {6},
  pages = {131-138},
  doi = {10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sd.20251306.15},
  abstract = {In recent years, with the interdisciplinary integration of cognitive science and linguistics, experimental pragmatics has emerged as a burgeoning interdisciplinary field. In the course of its development, embedded implicature has become a newly added research topic attracting considerable attention. Generally, embedded implicatures concern the conversational implicatures of complex sentences. Specifically, an embedded implicature is a seeming conversational implicature that is engendered locally at the sub-sentential level, typically occurring in a clause that is embedded under a logical operator such as a propositional attitude verb, a conditional and a comparative. The paper provides a critical overview of experimental research on embedded implicatures. It starts with the experimental background, figuring out that embedded implicature is a cutting-edge topic of experimental pragmatics in the narrow sense. It then attempts to explore the theoretical grounds and experimental methods, ranging from three approaches to ten paradigms. Next, we make an analysis of the experimental contents, covering experiments on three approaches, developmental pragmatics, scale diversity and large language model prediction. Finally, we outline the future development of experimental research on embedded implicatures from four key dimensions: foregrounding, refinement, systematization, and integration.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures

AU  - Lirong Bai
Y1  - 2025/12/24
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15
T2  - Science Discovery
JF  - Science Discovery
JO  - Science Discovery
SP  - 131
EP  - 138
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2331-0650
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15
AB  - In recent years, with the interdisciplinary integration of cognitive science and linguistics, experimental pragmatics has emerged as a burgeoning interdisciplinary field. In the course of its development, embedded implicature has become a newly added research topic attracting considerable attention. Generally, embedded implicatures concern the conversational implicatures of complex sentences. Specifically, an embedded implicature is a seeming conversational implicature that is engendered locally at the sub-sentential level, typically occurring in a clause that is embedded under a logical operator such as a propositional attitude verb, a conditional and a comparative. The paper provides a critical overview of experimental research on embedded implicatures. It starts with the experimental background, figuring out that embedded implicature is a cutting-edge topic of experimental pragmatics in the narrow sense. It then attempts to explore the theoretical grounds and experimental methods, ranging from three approaches to ten paradigms. Next, we make an analysis of the experimental contents, covering experiments on three approaches, developmental pragmatics, scale diversity and large language model prediction. Finally, we outline the future development of experimental research on embedded implicatures from four key dimensions: foregrounding, refinement, systematization, and integration.

VL  - 13
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Lirong Bai

School of Foreign Languages, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China

Contact Email

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Bai, L. (2025). Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures. Science Discovery, 13(6), 131-138. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Bai, L. Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures. Sci. Discov. 2025, 13(6), 131-138. doi: 10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Bai L. Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures. Sci Discov. 2025;13(6):131-138. doi: 10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15,
  author = {Lirong Bai},
  title = {Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures
},
  journal = {Science Discovery},
  volume = {13},
  number = {6},
  pages = {131-138},
  doi = {10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sd.20251306.15},
  abstract = {In recent years, with the interdisciplinary integration of cognitive science and linguistics, experimental pragmatics has emerged as a burgeoning interdisciplinary field. In the course of its development, embedded implicature has become a newly added research topic attracting considerable attention. Generally, embedded implicatures concern the conversational implicatures of complex sentences. Specifically, an embedded implicature is a seeming conversational implicature that is engendered locally at the sub-sentential level, typically occurring in a clause that is embedded under a logical operator such as a propositional attitude verb, a conditional and a comparative. The paper provides a critical overview of experimental research on embedded implicatures. It starts with the experimental background, figuring out that embedded implicature is a cutting-edge topic of experimental pragmatics in the narrow sense. It then attempts to explore the theoretical grounds and experimental methods, ranging from three approaches to ten paradigms. Next, we make an analysis of the experimental contents, covering experiments on three approaches, developmental pragmatics, scale diversity and large language model prediction. Finally, we outline the future development of experimental research on embedded implicatures from four key dimensions: foregrounding, refinement, systematization, and integration.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Overview of Experimental Research on Embedded Implicatures

AU  - Lirong Bai
Y1  - 2025/12/24
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15
T2  - Science Discovery
JF  - Science Discovery
JO  - Science Discovery
SP  - 131
EP  - 138
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2331-0650
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.20251306.15
AB  - In recent years, with the interdisciplinary integration of cognitive science and linguistics, experimental pragmatics has emerged as a burgeoning interdisciplinary field. In the course of its development, embedded implicature has become a newly added research topic attracting considerable attention. Generally, embedded implicatures concern the conversational implicatures of complex sentences. Specifically, an embedded implicature is a seeming conversational implicature that is engendered locally at the sub-sentential level, typically occurring in a clause that is embedded under a logical operator such as a propositional attitude verb, a conditional and a comparative. The paper provides a critical overview of experimental research on embedded implicatures. It starts with the experimental background, figuring out that embedded implicature is a cutting-edge topic of experimental pragmatics in the narrow sense. It then attempts to explore the theoretical grounds and experimental methods, ranging from three approaches to ten paradigms. Next, we make an analysis of the experimental contents, covering experiments on three approaches, developmental pragmatics, scale diversity and large language model prediction. Finally, we outline the future development of experimental research on embedded implicatures from four key dimensions: foregrounding, refinement, systematization, and integration.

VL  - 13
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download