References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2019
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Implicatures , pp. 225 - 244Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Ackerman, B. (1981). When is a question not answered? The understanding of young children of utterances violating or conforming to the rules of conversational sequencing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31: 487–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. M. (eds.) (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andor, J. (2004). The master and his performance: An interview with Noam Chomsky. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1): 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antoniou, K. & Katsos, N. (2017). The effect of childhood multilingualism and bilectalism on implicature understanding. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38: 787–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnauld, A. & Lancelot, C. (1660). Grammaire générale et raisonnée contenant les fondements de l’art de parler, expliqués d’une manière claire et naturelle. Paris: P. Le Petit.Google Scholar
Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2013). Strategic conversation. Semantics & Pragmatics, 6(2): 1–62.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. R. & Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 1–61). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1995). Standardization vs. conventionalization. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18(6): 677–686.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4): 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. (1991). Infant’s contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development, 62: 875–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, D. (1993). Infant’s ability to consult the speaker for clues to word reference. Journal of Child Language, 20: 395–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barac, R., Bialystok, E., Castro, D. & Sanchez, M. (2014). The cognitive development of young dual learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4): 699–714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barner, D. & Bachrach, A. (2010). Inference and exact numerical representation in early language development. Cognitive Psychology, 60: 40–62.Google Scholar
Barner, D., Chow, K. & Yang, S. (2009). Finding one’s meaning: A test of the relation between quantifiers and integers in language development. Cognitive Psychology, 58: 195–219.Google Scholar
Barner, D., Brooks, N. & Bale, A. (2011). Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition, 188: 87–96.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (1997). Hey! It was just a joke! Understanding propositions and propositional attitudes by normally developing children, and children with autism. Israel Journal of Psychiatry, 37: 174–178.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’? Cognition, 21: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barron, A. (2002). Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study-Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barron, A., Gu, Y & Steen, G. (eds.) (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford, CA: SCLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bergen, L. & Grodner, D. (2012). Speaker knowledge influences the comprehension of pragmatic inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 38(5): 1450–1460.Google Scholar
Bernicot, J., Laval, V. & Chaminaud, S. (2007). Nonliteral language forms in children: In what order are they acquired in pragmatics and metapragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics, 39: 2115–2132.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why Only Us? Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, A. (2014). More than Nature Needs: Language, Mind, and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bill, C., Romoli, J. & Schwarz, F. (2018). Processing presuppositions and implicatures: Similarities and differences. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 3: 1–22.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. & Carston, R. (1999). The pragmatics of and conjunctions: The non-narrative cases. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 11: 1–21.Google Scholar
Blochowiak, J. (2014). A Theoretical Approach to the Quest for Understanding. Semantics and Pragmatics of Whys and Becauses. PhD thesis, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bonnefon, J.-F., Feeney, A. & Villejoubert, G. (2009). When some is actually all: Scalar inferences in face threatening contexts. Cognition, 112: 249–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonnefon, J.-F., de Neys, W. & Feeney, A. (2011). Processing scalar inferences in face-threatening contexts. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 3389–3395.Google Scholar
Bott, L. & Noveck, I. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51: 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bott, L., Bailey, M. & Grodner, D. (2012). Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of Memory and Language, 66: 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, L. (1988). A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 7: 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, L. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically without being explicitly taught? In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 3 (pp. 53–65). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. (1994a). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2): 157–167.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. (1994b). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 5 (pp. 89–109). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. (1999). Developing non-native speaker skills in interpreting conversational implicatures in English: Explicit teaching can ease the process. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 47–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Breheny, R., Katsos, N. & Williams, J. (2006). Are scalar implicatures generated by default? Cognition, 100: 434–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breheny, R., Ferguson, H. J. & Katsos, N. (2013a). Investigating the timecourse of accessing conversational implicatures during incremental sentence interpretation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(4): 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breheny, R., Ferguson, H. J. (2013b). Taking the epistemic step: Toward of model of on-line access to conversational implicatures. Cognition, 126(3): 423–440.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, M., Colle, L. & Bara, B. G. (2003). How children comprehend speech acts and communicative gestures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35: 207–241.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In Carston, R. & Uchida, S. (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications (pp. 179–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2010). Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110(3): 295–321.Google Scholar
Chevallier, C., Wilson, D., Happé, F. & Noveck, I. (2010). Scalar inferences in autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40: 1104–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belleti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond (pp. 39–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2006). Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the logicality of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4): 535–590.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M. T., Gualmini, A. & Meroni, L. (2001). The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In Do, A. H.-J., Dominguez, L. & Johansen, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 157–168). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., Fox, D. & Spector, B. (2012). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K. & Portner, P. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (pp. 2297–2332). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972). Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1988). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Explaining language use. In New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind (pp. 19–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Haviland, J. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle, R. (ed.), Discourse Production and Comprehension (pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1971). Some remarks on Grice’s view about the logical particles of natural language. In Bar-Hillel, Y. (ed.), Pragmatics of Natural Language (pp. 50–68). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (1981). Preface. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. xi–xiv). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Conti, D. & Camras, L. (1984). Children’s understanding of conversational principles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38: 456–463.Google Scholar
Cook, M. & Liddicoat, A. (2002). The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25: 19–39.Google Scholar
Cromdal, J. (1999). Childhood bilingualism and metalinguistic skills: Analysis and control in young Swedish-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20: 1–20.Google Scholar
Cummins, C. & Katsos, N. (eds.) (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, C. & Katsos, N. (2010). Over-informative children: Production/ comprehension asymmetry or tolerant of pragmatic violations? Lingua, 120(8): 1956–1972.Google Scholar
Davis, W. (2014). Implicature. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/. Accessed 13 December 2018.Google Scholar
De Carvalho, A., Reboul, A., van der Henst, J.-B., Cheylus, A. & Nazir, T. (2016). Scalar implicatures: The psychological reality of scales. Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 1500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17: 428–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Neys, W. & Schaeken, W. (2007). When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology, 54: 128–133.Google Scholar
de Villiers, P., de Villiers, J., Coles-White, D. & Carpenter, L. (2009). Acquisition of relevance implicatures in typically-developing children and children with autism. In Chandlee, J., Franchini, M., Lord, S., & Rheiner, G. M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 121–132). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Degen, J. (2015). Investigating the distribution of some (but not all) implicatures using corpora and web-based methods. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degen, J. & Tanenhaus, M. (2011). Making inferences: The case of scalar implicature processing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston (MA): 3299–3304.Google Scholar
Degen, J. & Tanenhaus, M. (2015). Availability of alternatives and the processing of scalar implicatures: A visual-world eye-tracking study. Cognitive Science, 40(1): 172–201.Google Scholar
Dewey, D. (2004). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in intensive domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26: 249–273.Google Scholar
Dieussaert, K., Verkerk, S., Gilliard, E. & Schaeken, W. (2011). Some effort for some: Further evidence that scalar implicatures are effortful. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64: 2352–2367.Google Scholar
Dupuy, L., van der Henst, J.-B., Cheylus, A. & Reboul, A. (2016). Context in generalized conversational implicatures: The case of ‘some’. Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiteljörge, S., Pouscoulous, N. & Lieven, E. (2018). Some pieces are missing: Implicature production in children. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 9: 1–16.Google Scholar
Elrod, M. (1987). Children’s understanding of indirect requests. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 148: 63–70.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977). Wait for me, roller skate! In Ervin-Tripp, S. & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (eds.), Child Discourse (pp. 165–188). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1982). Ask and it shall be given you: Children’s requests. In Byrnes, H. (ed.), Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics (pp. 235–245). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Eskritt, M., Whalen, J. & Lee, K. (2008). Preschoolers can recognize violations of the Gricean maxims. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26: 435–443.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1984). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Feeney, A. & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2012). Politeness and honesty contribute additively to the interpretation of scalar expressions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(2): 181–190.Google Scholar
Feeney, A. (2013). Politeness and honesty contribute additively to the interpretation of scalar expressions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(2): 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrier, S., Dunham, P. & Dunham, S. (2000). The confused robot: Two-year-olds’ responses to breakdowns in conversation. Social Development, 9(3): 337–347.Google Scholar
Field, M. (2001). Triadic directives in Navajo language socialization. Language in Society, 30(2): 249–263.Google Scholar
Filik, R., Leuthold, H., Wallington, K. & Page, G. (2014). Testing theories of irony processing using eye-tracking and ERPs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 40(3): 811–828.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P. & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64: 591–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster-Cohen, S. (2000). Review article: D. Sperber & D. Wilson (1986: 1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Second Language Research, 16(1): 77–92.Google Scholar
Foster-Cohen, S. (2004). Relevance theory and second language learning/behavior. Second Language Research, 20(3): 189–192.Google Scholar
Fox, D. (2007). Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Sauerland, U. & Stateva, P. (eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics (pp. 71–120). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
Galambos, S. J. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1990). The effects of learning two languages on levels of metalinguistic awareness. Cognition, 34: 1–56.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geis, M. and Zwicky, A. (1971). On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry, 2: 561–565.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (1998). Scalars. In Ludewig, P., & Geurts, B. (eds.), Lexikalische Semantik aus kognitiver Sicht (pp. 95–118). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2006). ‘Take five’: The meaning and use of a number word. In Vogeleer, S. & Tasmowski, L. (eds.), Non-Definiteness and Plurality (pp. 311–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1983). Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9: 524–533.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1986). What makes some indirect speech acts conventional? Journal of Memory and Language, 25: 181–196.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2): 92–96.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1982). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Gold, R. & Faust, M. (2010). Right hemisphere dysfunction and metaphor comprehension in young adults with Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40: 800–811.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2005). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graesser, A., Singer, M. & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3): 371–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, M. S. & Williams, J. N. (eds.) (2007). Moore’s Paradox: New Essays on Belief, Rationality, and the First Person. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grodner, D. & Sedivy, J. (2011). The effect of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences. In Pearlmutter, N. & Gibson, E. (eds.), The Processing and Acquisition of Reference (pp. 239–272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grodner, D., Klein, N., Carbary, K. & Tanenhaus, M. (2010). ‘Some,’ and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116(1): 42–55.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A., Crain, S., Meroni, L., Chierchia, G. & Guasti, M. T. (2001). At the semantics/pragmatics interface in child language. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic theory XI. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo, F., Gualmini, A. & Meroni, L. (2005). Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(5): 667–696.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. (2010). Reference and accessibility from a Givenness Hierarchy perspective. International Review of Pragmatics, 2: 148–168.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J. (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics (pp. 140–165). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Harnish, R. M. (1991). Logical form and implicature. In Davies, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A Reader (pp. 316–364). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, M., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298: 1569–1579.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, J. (1985). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J., Stickel, M., Appelt, D. & Martin, P. (1993). Interpretation as abduction. Technical Note 499, SRI International, Menlo Park.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochstein, L., Bale, A. & Barner, D. (2018). Scalar implicature in absence of epistemic reasoning? The case of autism spectrum disorder. Language Learning and Development, 14(3): 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1976). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (GURT’84) (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1): 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1992). The said and the unsaid. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics (SALT II proceedings), Vol. 40 (pp. 163–192). Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. T. & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantic-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58: 376–415.Google Scholar
Hurewitz, F., Papafragou, A., Gleitman, L. & Gelman, R. (2006). Asymmetries in the acquisition of numbers and quantifiers. Language Learning and Development, 2: 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanko, S. & Pexman, P. (2003). Context incongruity and irony processing. Discourse Processes, 35(3): 241–179.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1957). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Russian Language Project. Harvard University: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures. Reprinted in L. R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston, On Language (pp. 386–392). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kaakinen, J., Olkoniemi, H., Kinnari, T. & Hyönä, J. (2014). Processing of written irony: An eye-movement study. Discourse Processes, 51(4): 287–311.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kampa, A. & Papafragou, A. (2017). Gricean epistemic reasoning in 4-year-olds. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society: 2362–2365.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In Almog, J., Perry, J. & Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In McCawley, J. D. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground (pp. 363–385). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1977). Presupposition and linguistic context. In Rogers, A., Wall, B. & Murphy, J. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures (pp. 149–160). Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In Choon-Kyu, O. & Dinneen, D. A. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kato, S. (2004). Examining relationships between phonological/orthographic processing efficiency, working memory capacity, and overall reading performance: Implications for developmental changes in L2 reading proficiency. JACET Bulletin, 37: 31–48.Google Scholar
Katsos, N. (2009). Evaluating under-informative utterances with context-dependent and context-independent scales: Experimental and theoretical implications. In Sauerland, U. & Yatsushiro, K., Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 51–73). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Katsos, N. (2014). Scalar implicature. In Matthews, D. (ed.), Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition (pp. 183–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Katsos, N. & Bishop, D. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicatures. Cognition, 120: 67–81.Google Scholar
Katsos, N., Breheny, R. & Williams, J. (2005). The interaction of structural and contextual constraints during the on-line generation of scalar inferences. In Bara, B., Barsalou, L., & Bucciarelli, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1108–1113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Katsos, N., Roqueta, A., Estevan, E. & Cummins, C. (2011). Are children with Specific Language Impairment competent with the pragmatics and logics of quantification? Cognition, 119: 43–57.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1977). Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K. & Portner, P. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. (1976). The universality of conversational postulates. Language and Society, 5: 67–79.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S. & Christiansen, M. (2017). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2): 154–169.Google Scholar
Kissine, M., de Brabanter, P. & Leybaert, J. (2012). Compliance with requests by children with autism: The impact of sentence type. Autism, 16(5): 523–531.Google Scholar
Koike, D. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In Gass, S. & Neu, J. (eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language (pp. 257–281). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. & Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation. In Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B. (eds.), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (pp. 380–402). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25: 209–257.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. In Davison, D. & Harman, G. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language (pp. 253–355). Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted as Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell (1980).Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology (pp. 232–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1972). Linguistics in natural logic. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language (pp. 545–665). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Tell Us About the Nature of Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landman, E. (1998). Plural and maximalization. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and Grammar (pp. 237–271). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ledbetter, P. & Dent, C. (1988). Young children’s sensitivity to direct and indirect request structure. First Language, 8: 227–245.Google Scholar
Lee, J. J. & Pinker, S. (2010). Rationales for indirect speech: The theory of the strategic speaker. Psychological Review, 117(3): 785–807.Google Scholar
Leonard, L., Wilcox, M., Fulmer, K. & Davis, G. (1978). Understanding indirect requests: An investigation of children’s comprehension of pragmatic meanings. Journal of Speech and Language Research, 21(3): 528–537.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: A case study of language socialization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57: 58–87.Google Scholar
Loukusa, S., Leinonen, E. & Ryder, N. (2007). Development of language comprehension in Finnish-speaking children. First Language 27(3): 279–296.Google Scholar
MacKay, G. & Shaw, A. (2004). A comparative study of figurative language in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 20: 13–32.Google Scholar
Martin, I. & McDonald, S. (2004). An exploration of causes of non-literal language problems in individuals with Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34: 311–328.Google Scholar
Marty, P. & Chemla, E. (2013). Scalar implicatures: Working memory and a comparison with only. Frontiers in Psychology, 4: 1–12.Google Scholar
Matthews, D. (ed.) (2014). Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakson, A. & Tomasello, M. (2006). The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children’s use of referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27: 403–422.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, D. (2015). Politeness, relevance and scalar inferences. Journal of Pragmatics, 79: 93–106.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, D., Reinecke, R., Noveck, I. & Mercier, H. (2018). Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulate commitment. Journal of Pragmatics, 133: 15–27.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. (2009). La théorie argumentative du raisonnement. PhD thesis, Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 34: 57–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2006). The French tradition in pragmatics: From structuralism to cognitivism, Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(4): 381–407.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2016). Where is procedural meaning? Evidence from discourse connectives and tenses. Lingua, 175–176: 122–138.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2017). Why scalar implicatures are not speaker meaning: Evidences from logical connectives and quantifiers. In Giora, R. & Haugh, M. (eds.), Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives (pp. 215–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. & Reboul, A. (1994). Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1993). Moore’s paradox. In Baldwin, T. (ed.), G. E. Moore: Selected Writings (pp. 207–212). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Murray, J. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition, 25: 227–236.Google Scholar
Musolino, J. (2004). The semantics and acquisition of number words: Integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives. Cognition, 93(1): 1–41.Google Scholar
Newcombe, N. & Zaslow, M. (1981). Do 2½ year-olds hint? A study of directive forms in the speech of 2½ year-olds to adults. Discourse Processes, 4(3): 239–252.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1998). Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2017). Form and function in the evolution of grammar. Cognitive Science, 41(2): 259–276.Google Scholar
Norbury, C. (2005). The relationship between theory of mind and metaphor: Evidence from children with language impairment and autistic spectrum disorders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23: 383–399.Google Scholar
Nordmeyer, A. & Franck, M. (2014). A pragmatic account of the processing of negative sentences. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. (2001). When children are more logical than adults. Cognition, 86: 253–282.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. & Posada, A. (2003). Characterising the time course of an implicature. Brain and Language, 85: 203–210.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. & Sperber, D. (eds.) (2004). Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. & Sperber, D. (2007). The why and how of experimental pragmatics. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 184–212). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
O’Neill, D. (1996). Two-year-old children’s sensitivity to a parent’s knowledge state when making requests. Child Development, 67: 659–677.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, E. (2009). Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Swedish requests. Journal of Politeness Research, 5: 189–216.Google Scholar
Onishi, K. & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308 (255): 255–258.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. (2006). From scalar semantics to implicature: Children’s interpretation of aspectuals. Journal of Child Language, 33: 721–757.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics/pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86: 253–282.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. & Skordos, D. (2016). Implicature. In Lidz, J., Snyder, W. & Pater, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics (pp. 611–631). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. & Tantalou, N. (2004). Children’s computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition, 12(1): 71–82.Google Scholar
Pijnacker, J., Hagoort, P., Buitelaar, J., Teunisse, J.-P. & Geurts, B. (2009). Pragmatic inferences in high-functioning adults with autism and Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39: 607–618.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and Mind. London: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2007). The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(4): 437–465.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R. S. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition, 95: 201–236.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A. & Lee, J. J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 105(3): 833–8.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1997). Langage et cognition: Introduction au programme minimaliste de la grammaire générative. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I., Politzer, G. & Bastide, A. (2007). A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition, 14: 347–376.Google Scholar
Read, B. & Cherry, L. (1978). Preschool children’s production of directive forms. Discourse Processes, 1: 233–245.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2013). The social evolution of language and the necessity of implicit communication. In Anderson, S. R., Moeschler, J. & Reboul, F. (eds.), The Language-Cognition Interface (pp. 252–273). Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2014). Live metaphors. In Reboul, A. (ed.), Minds, Values and Metaphysics: Essays in Honor of Kevin Mulligan, Vol. II (pp. 503–515). Cham, Heidelberg and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2017a). Cognition and Communication in the Evolution of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2017b). Is implicit communication a way to escape vigilance? In Assimakopoulos, S. (ed.), Pragmatics at Its Interface (pp. 91–112). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reeder, K. & Wakefield, J. (1987). The development of young children’s speech act comprehension: How much language is necessary? Applied Psycholinguistics, 8: 1–18.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Repacholi, B. & Gopnik, A. (1997). Early reasoning about desires: Evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 33: 12–21.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2013). Theoretical and comparative syntax: Some current issues. In Anderson, S. R., Moeschler, J. & Reboul, F. (eds.), The Language–Cognition Interface (pp. 307–331). Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Roever, C., Wang, S. & Brophy, S. (2014). Learner background factors and learning of second language pragmatics. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(4): 377–401.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In Jacob, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 222–272). Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar
Ross, S. & Kasper, G. (2003). Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. (1978). On testing for conversational implicature. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 281–297). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Salomo, D., Graf, E., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2011). The role of perceptual availability and discourse context in young children’s question answering. Journal of Child Language, 38: 918–931.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers for text processing. Discourse Processes, 29: 37–60.Google Scholar
Schulze, C., Grassmann, S. & Tomasello, M. (2013). 3-year-old children make relevance inferences in indirect verbal communication. Child Development, 84(6): 2079–2093.Google Scholar
Scott, R. & Baillargeon, R. (2009). Which penguin is this? Attributing false beliefs about object identity at 18 months. Child Development, 80, 1172–1196.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Metaphor. In Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (pp. 76–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sedivy, J. (2003). Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: Evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32: 3–23.Google Scholar
Sedivy, J. (2007). Implicature during real time conversation: A view from language processing research. Philosophy Compass 2(3): 475–496.Google Scholar
Sedivy, J., Tanenhaus, M., Chambers, C. & Carlson, G. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71: 109–147.Google Scholar
Shatz, M. & McCloskey, L. (1984). Answering appropriately: A developmental perspective on conversational knowledge. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Discourse Development (pp. 19–36). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Shetreet, E., Chierchia, G. & Gaab, N. (2014). When some is not every: Dissociating scalar implicature generation and mismatch. Human Brain Mapping, 35(4): 1503–1514.Google Scholar
Siegal, M. & Surian, L. (2007). Conversational understanding in young children. In Hoff, E. & Shatz, M. (eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Language Development (pp. 304–323). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Siegal, M., Iozzi, L. &. & Surian, L. (2009). Bilingualism and conversational understanding in young children. Cognition, 110(1): 115–122.Google Scholar
Siegal, M., Surian, L., Matsuo, A., Geraci, A., Iozzi, L., Okumura, Y. & Itakura, S. (2010). Bilingualism accentuates children’s conversational understanding. PLoS One, 5: e9004.Google Scholar
Skordos, D. & Papafragou, A. (2012). Lexical alternatives improve five-year-olds’ ability to compute scalar implicatures. In Biller, A., Chung, E. & Kimball, A. (eds.), Online Proceeding Supplements of the 36 Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M. & Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Song, H. J., Onishi, K. H., Baillargeon, R. & Fisher, C. (2008). Can an agent’s false belief be corrected by an appropriate communication? Psychological reasoning in 18-month-old infants. Cognition, 109: 295–315.Google Scholar
Southgate, V., Chevallier, C. & Csibra, G. (2010). Seventeen-month-olds appeal to false beliefs to interpret others’ referential communication. Developmental Science, 13: 907–912.Google Scholar
Spekman, N. & Roth, F. (1985). Preschool children’s comprehension and production of directive forms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(3): 331–349.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1994). Understanding verbal understanding. In Khalfa, J. (ed.), What Is Intelligence? (pp. 179–198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In Smith, N. (ed.), Mutual Knowledge (pp. 61–131). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1998). The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In Carruthers, P. & Boucher, J. (eds.), Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary themes (pp. 184–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary theory of metaphor. In Gibbs, R. (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25: 359–393.Google Scholar
Spotorno, N. & Noveck, I. (2014). When is irony effortful? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4): 1649–1665.Google Scholar
Spotorno, N., Koun, E. Prado, J., Van der Henst, J.-B. & Noveck, I. (2012). Neural evidence that utterance-processing entails mentalizing: The case of irony. NeuroImage, 63: 25–39.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1977). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Rogers, A., Wall, B. & Murphy, J. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures (pp. 135–147). Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2007). Language in Context: Selected Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stiller, B., Goodman, N. & Frank, M. (2015). Ad hoc implicature in pre-school children. Language, Learning and Development, 11: 176–190.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. (1964). Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review, 73(4): 439–460.Google Scholar
Surian, L., Baron-Cohen, S. & Van der Lely, H. (1996). Are children with autism deaf to Gricean maxims? Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 1: 55–72.Google Scholar
Surian, L., Caldi, S., & Sperber, D. (2007). Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 18: 580–586.Google Scholar
Surian, L., Tedoldi, M. & Siegal, M. (2010). Sensitivity to conversational maxims in deaf and hearing children. Journal of Child Language, 37(4): 929–943.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 89: 543–562.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2008a). Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 92: 558–576.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2008b). The effect of working memory, semantic access, and listening abilities on the comprehension of conversational implicatures in L2 English. Pragmatics and Cognition, 16(3): 527–539.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2008c). The role of learning context in the development of pragmatic comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30: 423–452.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2008d). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58(1): 33–71.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2011). Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production? Analysis of appropriateness, accuracy and fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49: 265–293.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. & Kim, Y. (2018). Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. & Roever, C. (2017). Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Li, S. & Liu, Y. (2013). Comprehension of conversational implicature in L2 Chinese. Pragmatics and Cognition, 21(1): 139–157.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Gomez-Laich, M. P. & Arrufat-Marques, M.-J. (2016). Comprehension of indirect meaning in Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 49(4): 677–698.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept Structuring System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In Rose, K. & Kasper, G. (eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 200–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tian, Y., Ferguson, H. & Breheny, R. (2016). Processing negation without context: Why and when we process the positive argument. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(5): 683–698.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. (1995). Conditional perfection. In Athanasiadou, A. & Dirven, R. (eds.), On Conditionals Again (pp. 169–190). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. (1997). Pragmatics in the last quarter century: The case of conditional perfection. Journal of Pragmatics, 27: 261–274.Google Scholar
Van der Henst, J.-B., Mercier, H., Yama, H., Kawasaki, Y. & Adachi, K. (2006). Dealing with contradiction in a communicative context: A cross-cultural study. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(4): 487–502.Google Scholar
Vázquez, M., Delisle, S. & Saylor, M. (2012). Four- and six-year-olds use pragmatic competence to guide word learning. Journal of Child Language, 40(2): 291–306.Google Scholar
Vega Moreno, R. (2007). Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verbuk, A. & Shultz, T. (2010). Acquisition of relevance implicatures: A case against a rationality-based account of conversational implicatures. Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 2297–2313.Google Scholar
Von Fintel, K. (2001). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! (Presupposition and truth-value intuitions). In Bezuidenhout, A. & Reimer, M. (eds.), Description and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Von Fintel, K. & Matthewson, L. (2008). Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review, 25: 139–201.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1975). Presupposition and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2003). Relevance theory and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15: 73–291.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2005). New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua, 115: 1129–1146.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2011). The conceptual–procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. & Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives (pp. 1–31). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2016). Reassessing the conceptual–procedural distinction. Lingua 175–176: 5–19.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Carston, R. (2006). Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language, 21: 406–433.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230–259). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance Theory. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interactions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, X., Minai, U. & Fiorentino, R. (2018). Context-sensitivity and individual differences in the derivation of scalar implicature, Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 9: 1–14.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. (2015). Acquiring Pragmatics: Social and Cognitive Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. & Moeschler, J. (2010/2015). Initiation à la linguistique française. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. & Moeschler, J. (2012). Initiation à l’étude du sens: sémantique et pragmatique. Auxerre: Éditions Sciences Humaines.Google Scholar