Search or ask a question
Pricing
Login
Sign up
Home
Notebook
BETA
Literature Review
Copilot
Citation generator
Paraphraser
AI Detector
Chrome Extension
Talk with us
Use on ChatGPT
All figures (10)
Figure 1. The 3-point rating scale from the ternary judgement task
Figure 5. Distribution of under-informative statements that were rewarded with the top reward (large strawberry) by the twenty participants who accepted all statements in the binary task
Table 1. Predictions of behaviour towards under-informative statements.
Table 2. Conditions in the binary judgement task
Figure 4. The distribution of small, medium, and large strawberries awarded in each of the different conditions. The number in parentheses refers to the number of objects in the display.
Figure 3. Distribution of acceptances of under-informative statements
Table 3. Reaction times for the accepters of under-informative statements
Figure 2. Percentage of correct responses in the different conditions. The number in parentheses refers to the number of objects in the display. Note that in this paper, we label the rejection of an under-informative statement as a correct response.
Figure 7. Average age for each of the pragmatic competence categories
Figure 6. Average response times in the different conditions. The number in parentheses refers to the number of objects in the display.
Journal Article
•
DOI
•
Why some children accept under-informative utterances
[...]
Alma Veenstra
1
,
Bart Hollebrandse
2
,
Napoleon Katsos
1
•
Institutions (2)
University of Cambridge
1
,
University of Groningen
2
31 Dec 2017
-
Pragmatics & Cognition