Fluctuations in pupil size have been shown to reflect variations in processing demands during lexical and syntactic processing in language comprehension. An issue that has not received attention is whether pupil size also varies due to pragmatic manipulations. In two pupillometry experiments, we investigated whether pupil diameter was sensitive to increased processing demands as a result of comprehending an indirect request versus a direct statement. Adult participants were presented with 120 picture–sentence combinations that could be interpreted either as an indirect request (a picture of a window with the sentence “it's very hot here”) or as a statement (a picture of a window with the sentence “it's very nice here”). Based on the hypothesis that understanding indirect utterances requires additional inferences to be made on the part of the listener, we predicted a larger pupil diameter for indirect requests than statements. The results of both experiments are consistent with this expectation. We suggest that the increase in pupil size reflects additional processing demands for the comprehension of indirect requests as compared to statements. This research demonstrates the usefulness of pupillometry as a tool for experimental research in pragmatics.
AttarN., SchnepsM., & PomplunM. (2013). Pupil size as a measure of working memory load during a complex visual search task. Journal of Vision, 13(9), 160–160.
2.
AustinJ. L. (1962). How to do things with words.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
BaayenR. H., DavidsonD. J., & BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
4.
BarrD. J., LevyR., ScheepersC., & TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
5.
BašnákováJ., WeberK., PeterssonK. M., Van BerkumJ., & HagoortP. (2014). Beyond the language given: The neural correlates of inferring speaker meaning. Cerebral Cortex, 24(10), 2572–2578.
6.
BatesD.MaechlerM., BolkerB., & WalkerS. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–7.
7.
BeattyJ. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 276–292.
8.
BeattyJ., & Lucero-WagonerB. (2000). The pupillary system. Handbook of Psychophysiology, 2, 142–162.
9.
Ben-NunY. (1986). The use of pupillometry in the study of on-line verbal processing: Evidence for depths of processing. Brain and Language, 28, 1–11.
10.
BrownP., & LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
ClarkH. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive psychology, 11(4), 430–477.
12.
CoulsonS., & LovettC. (2010). Comprehension of non-conventional indirect requests: An event related brain potential study. Psychology, 11, 430–477.
13.
EinhäuserW., StoutJ., KochC., & CarterO. (2008). Pupil dilation reflects perceptual selection and predicts subsequent stability in perceptual rivalry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(5), 1704–9.
14.
EngelhardtP. E., FerreiraF., & PatsenkoE. G. (2010). Pupillometry reveals processing load during spoken language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4), 639–645.
15.
GallagherH. L., & FrithC. D. (2003). Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 77–83.
16.
GerakakiS., SjerpsM. J., & MeyerA. S. (in press). Planning speech while listening to speech affects memory of heard words.
17.
GibbsR. W. (1981). Your wish is my command: Convention and context in interpreting indirect requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(4), 431–444.
18.
GibbsR. W. (1983). Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(3), 524–533.
19.
GibbsR. W.Jr (1986). What makes some indirect speech acts conventional?Journal of Memory and Language, 25(2), 181–196.
20.
HessE. H., & PoltJ. M. (1964). Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science, 143(3611), 1190–1192.
21.
HoltgravesT. (1994). Communication in context: Effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 1215–1218.
22.
HoltgravesT. (2002). Language as social action.New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
HoltgravesT. (2008). Automatic intention recognition in conversation processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 627–645.
24.
JaegerT. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.
25.
JanisseM. P. (1977). Pupillometry: The psychology of the pupillary response. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
26.
JustM. A., & CarpenterP. A. (1993). The intensity dimension of thought: pupillometric indices of sentence processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 47, 310–339.
27.
JustM. A., CarpenterP. A., & MiyakeA. (2003). Neuroindices of cognitive workload: Neuroimaging, pupillometric and event-related potential studies of brain work. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4(1), 56–88.
28.
KahnemanD. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
29.
LevinsonS. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
OteroS. C., WeekesB. S., & HuttonS. B. (2011). Pupil size changes during recognition memory. Psychophysiology, 48(10), 1346–53.
31.
ÖzyürekA., WillemsR., KitaS., & HagoortP. (2007). On-line integration of semantic information from speech and gesture: Insights from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(4), 605–616.
32.
PiquadoT., IsaacowitzD., & WingfieldA. (2010). Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology, 47(3), 560–569.
33.
PorterG., TrosciankoT., & GilchristI. D. (2007). Effort during visual search and counting: Insights from pupillometry. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 211–229.
34.
SchluroffM. (1982). Pupil responses to grammatical complexity of sentences. Brain and Language, 17(1), 133–145.
35.
SchluroffM., ZimmermannT. E., FreemanR. B., HofmeisterK., LorscheidT., & WeberA. (1986). Pupillary responses to syntactic ambiguity of sentences. Brain and Language, 27(2), 322–344.
36.
SearleJ. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. Syntax and Semantics, 3, 59–82.
37.
SearleJ. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
SperberD., & WilsonD. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
SperberD., & WilsonD. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: UK Blackwell Publishers.
41.
Van AckerenM. J., CasasantoD., BekkeringH., HagoortP., & RueschemeyerS. A. (2012). Pragmatics in action: Indirect requests engage theory of mind areas and the cortical motor network. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(11), 2237–2247.
42.
Van BerkumJ. J., Van den BrinkD., TesinkC. M., KosM., & HagoortP. (2008). The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 580–591.
43.
Van RijnH., DalenbergJ. R., BorstJ. P., & SprengerS. A. (2012). Pupil dilation co-varies with memory strength of individual traces in a delayed response paired-associate task. PloS One, 7(12), 1–8.
44.
WierdaS. M., van RijnH., TaatgenN. A., & MartensS. (2012). Pupil dilation deconvolution reveals the dynamics of attention at high temporal resolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(22), 8456–8460.
45.
ZellinM., PannekampA., ToepelU., & van der MeerE. (2011). In the eye of the listener: Pupil dilation elucidates discourse processing. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 81(3), 133–141.
