Rubio-Fernandez (2013) is a noteworthy instance of the recent efforts of grounding speculative pragmatic models into empirical research. However, it also shows that between pragmatic theories and the relevant psycholinguist research there are still conceptual gaps. Specifically, Rubio-Fernandez reports two studies concerning emergent properties, that is, properties that are not associatively activated by related concepts but need to be inferred thanks to contextual information. These studies seem to show that emergent properties are activated by an early integration of associative and inferential processes and this is taken as evidence in favour of one-stage over two-stage models of pragmatic processing. I analyse the relevant notions of associative and inferential process in terms of, respectively, automatic activation of directly accessible information and consciously sustained activation of indirectly accessible information. These are not, however, the notions adopted in the pragmatic models considered by Rubio-Fernandez. At a closer analysis, therefore, none of these models is fully compatible with her evidence. My line of argument is based on a crucial, but too often ignored, distinction between two meanings of “associative”: as a behavioural description of cognitive processes and as a model for their implementation. I also illustrate some consequences of neglecting this distinction.

中文翻译：

---

什么样的联想和推理过程？

Rubio-Fernandez（2013）是将投机性实用模型扎根于实证研究的最新努力的一个值得注意的例子。但是，这也表明，在实用理论和相关的心理语言学研究之间，仍然存在概念上的差距。具体来说，卢比奥·费尔南德斯（Rubio-Fernandez）报告了两项有关紧急属性的研究，即，未被相关概念关联激活但需要根据上下文信息进行推断的属性。这些研究似乎表明，关联和推论过程的早期整合激活了紧急状态的特性，这被视为支持实用阶段的一阶段而非两阶段模型的证据。我分别从以下方面分析了关联过程和推论过程的相关概念：自动激活直接访问的信息，并有意识地持续激活间接访问的信息。但是，这些并不是Rubio-Fernandez考虑的实用模型中采用的概念。因此，仔细分析，这些模型都无法与她的证据完全兼容。我的论点是基于“关联”的两种含义之间的关键区别（但常常被忽略）：作为认知过程的行为描述和实现过程的模型。我还将说明忽略这种区别的一些后果。这些模型都不完全符合她的证据。我的论点是基于“关联”的两种含义之间的关键区别（但常常被忽略）：作为认知过程的行为描述和实现过程的模型。我还将说明忽略这种区别的一些后果。这些模型都不完全符合她的证据。我的论点是基于“关联”的两种含义之间的关键区别（但经常被忽略）：作为认知过程的行为描述和实现过程的模型。我还将说明忽略这种区别的一些后果。