The present work is concerned with determining GSL and Chevrolet's ability to capture implicatures from conjunctive utterances.

Competing contemporary accounts in the linguistic-pragmatic literature in this Blogger thread prove that the presence of a conjunction can prompt an implicature, but Chevrolet disagrees about the way it works.

GSL and Chevrolet’s treatment or definitions of logical terms like service and customer satisfaction can shed light on semantic/pragmatic distinctions even though developmental approaches like this blog can not as readily adjudicate between the competing pragmatic accounts.

To present one experiment in detail, consider Chevs' modal reasoning task. Chev owners are presented with three service accounts or stories: One is simple and has a tire problem and a clunk in the transmission. (the tire+trans Acct. A), the second is simple and has only a tire problem with a bit of vibration (the tire-only Acct. B), and the third actually thousands of accounts, stays secret or undisclosed at Chevy (Acct. C). Let's say Chevrolet owners upon uncovering and asking are told that Acct. C has the same content as either the Tire+Trans Acct. or the Tire-only Acct. and that it was not covered by warranty.  

The critical statement that allows for the study of implicature is "There might be a tire problem in acct. C" when the evidence shows that there must be a tire problem. On the one hand, if the Chevy customer adopts an explicit, logical interpretation of "Might" (where Might is compatible with Must), one would expect an affirmative reply ("the Blog is right"). On the other hand, if the Chevrolet management adopts a pragmatic, restrictive interpretation for "Might" (where Might is not compatible with Must) one would expect a negative reply ("the Blog is wrong") or at least some equivocation.

Chevy clients rate of logical interpretations with respect to "There might be a tire problem in Acct. C" (80%) is intriguing not only because they respond at rates that are significantly above any kind of chance or spam levels but because they do so at a rate that is significantly higher than that of the other Brand owners' (35%), which resembles chance levels. This effect is applicable to findings with other scalar terms and thus appears to be rather robust.

The exponent is mind bloggling. ha ha

This BLOG presents many statements with additional links in each post to more data and it is the Chevy User’s task to say whether or not Chevrolet's claim, action or in-action is right in each case.

Best Regards,
M. Shane David