We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
References
Références
Asher, Nicholas et Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, David. 2001. Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1993. The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554377Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using language. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620539Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian, ed. 1997. The handbook of sociolinguistics. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63:805–855.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1973. La preuve et le dire. Paris: Mame.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Pragmatic scales and semantic structure. Linguistic Inquiry6:353–375.Google Scholar
Horn, Lawrence. 1984. Ambiguity, negation, and the London School of Parsimony. NELS14:108–131.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1999. An enquiry concerning human understanding. Sous la dir. Beauchamp, de Tom L.. New York : Oxford University Press. [1748]Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans et Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. 1997. Linguistic etiquette. In The handbook of sociolinguistics, ed. Coulmas, Florian, 374–385. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax : Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Explicature explicated. Behavioral and Brain Sciences10:722–723.10.1017/S0140525X00055473Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1989. Relevance. Journal of Linguistics27:107–161.10.1017/S0022226700012433Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2003. Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613609Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis3:1–29.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques et Reboul, Anne. 1994. Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Morris, Charles W.1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya et Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry24:657–720.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan et Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance : Communication and cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford : Blackwell.Google Scholar