@article{AlxatibSauerland2019,
  author    = {Alxatib, Sam and Sauerland, Ulrich},
  title     = {Vagueness},
  series = {The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics},
  journal   = {The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  doi       = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198791768.013.24},
  pages     = {28},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Though vague phenomena have been studied extensively for many decades, it is only in recent years that researchers sought the support of quantitative data. This chapter highlights and discusses the insights that experimental methods brought to the study of vagueness. One area focused on are 'borderline contradictions', that is, sentences like 'She is neither tall nor not tall' that are contradictory when analysed in classical logic, but are actually acceptable as descriptions of borderline cases. The flourishing of theories and experimental studies that borderline contradictions have led to are examined closely. Beyond this illustrative case, an overview of recent studies that concern the classification of types of vagueness, the use of numbers, rounding, number modification, and the general pragmatic status of vagueness is provided.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchreiberOneaGaspar2021,
  author    = {Schreiber, Alexander and Onea G{\´a}sp{\´a}r, Edgar},
  title     = {Are narrow focus exhaustivity inferences Bayesian inferences?},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.677223},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {In successful communication, the literal meaning of linguistic utterances is often enriched by pragmatic inferences. Part of the pragmatic reasoning underlying such inferences has been successfully modeled as Bayesian goal recognition in the Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework. In this paper, we try to model the interpretation of question-answer sequences with narrow focus in the answer in the RSA framework, thereby exploring the effects of domain size and prior probabilities on interpretation. Should narrow focus exhaustivity inferences be actually based on Bayesian inference involving prior probabilities of states, RSA models should predict a dependency of exhaustivity on these factors. We present experimental data that suggest that interlocutors do not act according to the predictions of the RSA model and that exhaustivity is in fact approximately constant across different domain sizes and priors. The results constitute a conceptual challenge for Bayesian accounts of the underlying pragmatic inferences.},
  language  = {en}
}