Bibliography

Ira Noveck

doi:10.1017/9781316027073.016

Ackerman, B. P. (1978). Children's comprehension of presupposed information: Logical and pragmatic inferences to speaker belief. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 26(1), 92–114.Google Scholar

Ackerman, B. P. (1979). Children's understanding of definite descriptions: Pragmatic inferences to the speaker's intent. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28(1), 1–15.Google Scholar

Ackerman, B. P. (1982a). On comprehending idioms: Do children get the picture? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33(3), 439–54.Google Scholar

Ackerman, B. P. (1982b). Contextual integration and utterance interpretation: The ability of children and adults to interpret sarcastic utterances. Child Development, 53: 1075–83.Google Scholar

Ackerman, B. P. (1983). Form and function in children's understanding of ironic utterances. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35(3), 487–508.Google Scholar

Ackerman, B. P., Szymanski, J., & Silver, D. (1990). Children's use of the common ground in interpreting ambiguous referential utterances. Developmental Psychology, 26(2), 234.Google Scholar

Almor, A., Arunachalam, S., & Strickland, B. (2007). When the creampuff beat the boxer: Working memory, cost, and function in reading metaphoric reference. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(2), 169–93.Google Scholar

Altmann, G. T. (1998). Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(4), 146–52.Google Scholar

Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–64.Google Scholar

Altmann, G. T., van Nice, K. Y., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J. A. (1998). Late closure in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 459–84.Google Scholar

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). American Psychiatric Publishing, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar

Angier, N. (2012, May 1). From the minds of babes. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com.Google Scholar

Asperger, H. (1944). Die “Autistischen Psychopathen” im Kindesalter. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 117(1), 76–136.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1956a). Ifs and cans. Proceedings of the British Academy, 42, 232. Philosophical Papers (1961).Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1956b). Ifs and cans. Proceedings of the British Academy, 42, 109–32. Reprinted in Austin (1979): 205–32.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1975). How To Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1979). Philosophical Papers, 3rd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9(2), 124–62.Google Scholar

Bambini, V., & Resta, D. (2012). Metaphor and experimental pragmatics: When theory meets empirical investigation. Humana Mente – Journal of Philosophical Studies, 23, 37–60.Google Scholar

Baratgin, J., Douven, I., Evans, J. S. B., et al. (2015). The new paradigm and mental models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 547–8.Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, Y., & Carnap, R. (1953). Semantic information. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 4(14), 147–57.Google Scholar

Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A. (2011). Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children's pragmatic inference. Cognition, 118(1), 84–93.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S. (1989). The autistic child's theory of mind: A case of specific developmental delay. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30(2), 285–97.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S. (2001). Theory of mind in normal development and autism. Prisme, 34(1), 74–183.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 248–54.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21(1), 37–46.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17.Google Scholar

Barrouillet, P., Grosset, N., & Lecas, J. F. (2000). Conditional reasoning by mental models: Chronometric and developmental evidence. Cognition, 75(3), 237–66.Google Scholar

Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2002). Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 391–418.Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–27.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (1987). On Communicative Intentions: A Reply to Recanti. Mind & Language, 2(2), 141–54.Google Scholar

Bates, E., Camaioni, L., & Volterra, V. (1975). The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 21(3), 205–26.Google Scholar

Bennett, D. J. (2004). Logic Made Easy: How to Know When Language Deceives You. W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Berger, F., & Höhle, B. (2012). Restrictions on addition: Children's interpretation of the focus particles auch ‘also’ and nur ‘only’ in German. Journal of Child Language, 39(02), 383–410.Google Scholar

Bernicot, J., & Laval, V. (2004). Speech acts in children: The example of promises. In Noveck, I. & Sperber, D. (eds.), Experimental Pragmatics (pp. 207–27). Palgrave Macmillan, UK.Google Scholar

Bonnefon, J. F., De Neys, W., & Feeney, A. (2011). Processing scalar inferences in face-threatening contexts. In Carlson, L., Hölscher, C., & Shipley, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.Google Scholar

Bonnefon, J. F., Feeney, A., & Villejoubert, G. (2009). When some is actually all: Scalar inferences in face-threatening contexts. Cognition, 112(2), 249–58.Google Scholar

Bonnefond, M., Van der Henst, J. B., Gougain, M., et al. (2012). How pragmatic interpretations arise from conditionals: Profiling the affirmation of the consequent argument with reaction time and EEG measures. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(4), 468–85.Google Scholar

Bonnefond, M., & Van der Henst, J. B. (2009). What's behind an inference? An EEG study with conditional arguments. Neuropsychologia, 47(14), 3125–33.Google Scholar

Borg, E. (2010). Semantics and the place of psychological evidence. In New Waves in Philosophy of Language (pp. 24–40). Palgrave Macmillan, UK.Google Scholar

Bosch, P. (2007). Productivity, polysemy, and predicate indexicality. In Cate, Balder ten & Zeevat, Henk (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic & Computation (pp. 58–71). Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar

Bott, L., Bailey, T. M., & Grodner, D. (2012). Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(1), 123–42.Google Scholar

Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 437–57.Google Scholar

Braine, M. D., O'Brien, D. P., Noveck, I. A., et al. (1995). Predicting intermediate and multiple conclusions in propositional logic inference problems: Further evidence for a mental logic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(3), 263.Google Scholar

Braine, M. D. and Rumain, B. (1981). Development of comprehension of “or”: Evidence for a sequence of competencies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31(1): 46–70.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–26.Google Scholar

Breheny, R. (2006). Communication and folk psychology. Mind & Language, 21(1), 74–107.Google Scholar

Breheny, R., Katsos, N., & Williams, J. (2006). Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100(3), 434–63.Google Scholar

Breheny, R., Ferguson, H. J., & Katsos, N. (2013a). Taking the epistemic step: Toward a model of on-line access to conversational implicatures. Cognition, 126(3), 423–40.Google Scholar

Breheny, R., Ferguson, H. J., & Katsos, N. (2013b). Investigating the time course of accessing conversational implicatures during incremental sentence interpretation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(4), 443–67.Google Scholar

Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482–93.Google Scholar

Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 274–91.Google Scholar

Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 171–90.Google Scholar

Brunet, E., Sarfati, Y., & Hardy-Baylé, M. C. (2003). Reasoning about physical causality and other's intentions in schizophrenia. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 8(2), 129–39.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. M. (1989). Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals. Cognition, 31(1), 61–83.Google Scholar

Byrnes, J. P., & Duff, M. A. (1989). Young children's comprehension of modal expressions. Cognitive Development, 4(4), 369–87.Google Scholar

Carnap, R., & Bar-Hillel, Y. (1952). An Outline of a Theory of Semantic Information. Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality (pp. 155–81). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2010). Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Vol. 110, No. 3, pt 3, pp. 295–321). Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Carston, R., & Hall, A. (2012). 3. Implicature and explicature. Cognitive Pragmatics, 4, 47.Google Scholar

Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2015). Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 79–92.Google Scholar

Ceponiene, R., Lepisto, T., Sheshtakova, A., et al. (2003). Speech-sound-selective auditory impairment in children with autism: They can perceive but do not attend. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 100, 5567–72.Google Scholar

Chedd, G. (2013). Brains on trial, brainsontrial.com. How does fMRI brain scanning work? Alan Alda and Dr. Nancy Kanwisher, MIT, www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvB9hAarzw4&t=49s Google Scholar

Chemla, E., & Bott, L. (2014). Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition, 130(3), 380–396.Google Scholar

Chemla, E., & Singh, R. (2014). Remarks on the experimental turn in the study of scalar implicature. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(9), 373–99.Google Scholar

Chemla, E., & Spector, B. (2011). Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, ffq023.Google Scholar

Chemla, E., Cummins, C., & Singh, R. (2016). Training and timing local scalar enrichments under global pragmatic pressures. Journal of Semantics, 34(1), 107–126.Google Scholar

Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17(4), 391–416.Google Scholar

Chevallier, C., Kohls, G., Troiani, V., Brodkin, E. S., & Schultz, R. T. (2012). The social motivation theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 231–9.Google Scholar

Chevallier, C., Noveck, I., Happé, F., & Wilson, D. (2009). From acoustics to grammar: Perceiving and interpreting grammatical prosody in adolescents with Asperger syndrome. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(2), 502–16.Google Scholar

Chevallier, C., Noveck, I., Happe, F., & Wilson, D. (2011). What's in a voice? Prosody as a test case for the Theory of Mind account of autism. Neuropsychologia, 49(3), 507–17.Google Scholar

Chevallier, C., Noveck, I. A., Nazir, T., et al. (2008). Making disjunctions exclusive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(11), 1741–60.Google Scholar

Chevallier, C., Parish-Morris, J., Tonge, N., et al. (2014). Susceptibility to the audience effect explains performance gap between children with and without autism in a theory of mind task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 972.Google Scholar

Chevallier, C., Wilson, D., Happé, F., & Noveck, I. (2010). Scalar inferences in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(9), 1104–17.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. Structures and Beyond, 3, 39–103.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2012). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (Vol. 3, pp. 2297–332). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of BF Skinner's verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58.Google Scholar

Clark, E. V. (1990). Speaker perspective in language acquisition. Linguistics, 28(6), 1201–20.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 472–517.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 121–6.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(1), 56–72.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1–39.Google Scholar

Cohen, L. J. (1971). Some remarks on Grice's views about the logical particles of natural language. In Pragmatics of Natural Languages (pp. 50–68). Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Coltheart, M. (1999). Modularity and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(3), 115–20.Google Scholar

Cooney, J. W., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). Neurological disorders and the structure of human consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 161–5.Google Scholar

Cooper, L. A., & Shepard, R. N. (1973). Chronometric studies of the rotation of mental images. In Chase, W. G. (ed.), Visual Information Processing. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31(3), 187–276.Google Scholar

Coulson, S. (2004). Electrophysiology and pragmatic language comprehension. In Experimental Pragmatics (pp. 187–206). Palgrave Macmillan, UK.Google Scholar

Csibra, G. (2010). Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind & Language, 25(2), 141–68.Google Scholar

Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 148–53.Google Scholar

Dale, R., & Duran, N. D. (2011). The cognitive dynamics of negated sentence verification. Cognitive Science, 35(5), 983–96.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (1974). Belief and the basis of meaning. Synthese, 27(3–4), 309–23.Google Scholar

Davies, C., & Katsos, N. (2010). Over-informative children: Production/comprehension asymmetry or tolerance to pragmatic violations? Lingua, 120(8), 1956–72.Google Scholar

de Almeida, R. G. (2004). The effect of context on the processing of type-shifting verbs. Brain and Language, 90(1), 249–61.Google Scholar

de Almeida, R. G., & Riven, L. (2012). Indeterminacy and coercion effects: Minimal representations with pragmatic enrichment. In DiSciullo, A. M. (ed.), Towards a Biolinguistic Understanding of Grammar (pp. 277–301). John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Deamer, F. M. (2013). An investigation into the processes and mechanisms underlying the comprehension of metaphor and hyperbole (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London)).Google Scholar

Degen, J. (2015). Investigating the distribution of some (but not all) implicatures using corpora and web-based methods. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(11), 1–55.Google Scholar

Degen, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2015). Processing scalar implicature: A constraint-based approach. Cognitive Science, 39(4), 667–710.Google Scholar

Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Cohen, L., Le Bihan, D., Mangin, J. F., Poline, J. B., & Rivière, D. (2001). Cerebral mechanisms of word masking and unconscious repetition priming. Nature Neuroscience, 4(7), 752.Google Scholar

De Neys, W., Schaeken, W., & d'Ydewalle, G. (2005). Working memory and everyday conditional reasoning: Retrieval and inhibition of stored counterexamples. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4), 349–81.Google Scholar

De Neys, W., & Schaeken, W. (2007). When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology, 54(2): 128–33.Google Scholar

De Saussure, Ferdinand. (1993) Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics (1910–1911). Pergamon Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Denkel, A. (1985). What makes meaning non-natural? The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 23(4), 445–50.Google Scholar

Dennett, D. C. (1989). The Intentional Stance. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

De Renzi, E., & Vignolo, L. A. (1962). The token test: A sensitive test to detect receptive disturbances in aphasics. Brain, 85(4), 665–78.Google Scholar

Dokic, J. (2012) Indexicality. In Newen, A. & van Riel, R. (eds.), Identity, Language, & Mind. An Introduction to the Philosophy of John Perry (pp. 13–31). CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar

Domaneschi, F., Carrea, E., Penco, C., & Greco, A. (2014). The cognitive load of presupposition triggers: Mandatory and optional repairs in presupposition failure. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(1), 136–46.Google Scholar

Donaldson, M. (1982). Conservation: What is the question? British Journal of Psychology, 73(2), 199–207.Google Scholar

Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Hermann, Paris.Google Scholar

Dufour, N., Redcay, E., Young, L., et al. (2013). Similar brain activation during false belief tasks in a large sample of adults with and without autism. PLoS One, 8(9), e75468.Google Scholar

Duffley, P. J., & Larrivée, P. (2014) The emergence of implicit meaning: Scalar implicatures with some. International Journal of Corpus Linguisitics, 19, 526–44.Google Scholar

Dulany, D. E., & Hilton, D. J. (1991). Conversational implicature, conscious representation, and the conjunction fallacy. Social Cognition, 9(1), 85–110.Google Scholar

Eberhard, K. M., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Sedivy, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(6), 409–36.Google Scholar

Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science, 171, 303–306.Google Scholar

Elsabbagh, M., Mercure, E., Hudry, K., et al. (2012). Infant neural sensitivity to dynamic eye gaze is associated with later emerging autism. Current Biology, 22, 338–42.Google Scholar

Evans, J. S. B. (1993). The mental model theory of conditional reasoning: Critical appraisal and revision. Cognition, 48(1), 1–20.Google Scholar

Evans, J. S. B. (1998). Matching bias in conditional reasoning: Do we understand it after 25 years? Thinking & Reasoning, 4(1), 45–110.Google Scholar

Evans, J. S. B., Clibbens, J., & Rood, B. (1996). The role of implicit and explicit negation in conditional reasoning bias. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 392–409.Google Scholar

Evans, J. S. B., Handley, S. J., Neilens, H., & Over, D. (2008). Understanding causal conditionals: A study of individual differences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(9), 1291–7.Google Scholar

Evans, J. S. B., Handley, S. J., & Bacon, A. M. (2009). Reasoning under time pressure: A study of causal conditional inference. Experimental Psychology, 56(2), 77–83.Google Scholar

Evans, J. S. B., Handley, S. J., Neilens, H., & Over, D. E. (2007). Thinking about conditionals: A study of individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1772–84.Google Scholar

Falkum, I. L., Recasens, M., Clark, E. V. (2017). “The moustache sits down first”: On the acquisition of metonymy. Journal of Child Language, 44(7): 87–119.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15.Google Scholar

Filik, R., & Moxey, L. M. (2010). The on-line processing of written irony. Cognition, 116(3), 421–36.Google Scholar

Flavell, J. H., Speer, J. R., Green, F. L., August, D. L., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1981). The development of comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46(Serial No. 192).Google Scholar

Folstein, J. R., & Van Petten, C. (2008). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review. Psychophysiology, 45(1), 152–70.Google Scholar

Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336(6084), 998.Google Scholar

Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2014). Inferring word meanings by assuming that speakers are informative. Cognitive Psychology, 75, 80–96.Google Scholar

Franke, M. (2011). Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics, 4, 1–1.Google Scholar

Franke, M., & Degen, J. (2016). Reasoning in reference games: Individual-vs. population-level probabilistic modeling. PLoS One, 11(5), e0154854.Google Scholar

Franke, M., & Jäger, G. (2016). Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes’ rule is probably important for pragmatics. Zeitschrift für sprachwissenschaft, 35(1), 3–44.Google Scholar

Franke, M., Schlotterbeck, F., & Augurzky, P. (2016). Embedded scalars, preferred readings and prosody: An experimental revisit. Journal of Semantics, 34(1), ffw007.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. (1979). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar

Friederici, A. D., & Meyer, M. (2004). The brain knows the difference: Two types of grammatical violations. Brain Research, 1000(1), 72–7.Google Scholar

Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78–84.Google Scholar

Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366.Google Scholar

Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2006). The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron, 50(4), 531–4.Google Scholar

Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialog: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218.Google Scholar

Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). The split brain revisited. Scientific American–American Edition, 287, 26–31.Google Scholar

Geis, M. L., & Zwicky, A. M. (1971). On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(4), 561–6.Google Scholar

Gergely, G., & Pléh, C. (1994). Lexical processing in an agglutinative language and the organization of the lexicon. Folia Linguistica, 28(1–2), 175–204.Google Scholar

Gerrig, R. J. (1989). The time course of sense creation. Memory & Cognition, 17(2), 194–207.Google Scholar

Gervais, H., Belin, P., Boddaert, N., et al. (2004). Abnormal cortical voice processing in autism. Nature Neuroscience, 7(8), 801–2.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. (2009). Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind & Language, 24(1), 51–79.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Geurts, B., & Beaver, D. I. (2007). Discourse representation theory. Stanford Online Encyclopedia. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Geurts, B., & Pouscoulous, N. (2009). Embedded implicatures?!? Semantics and Pragmatics, 2(4), 1–34.Google Scholar

Geurts, B., & van Tiel, B. (2013). Embedded scalars. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(9), 1–37.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition, 8(2), 149–56.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1983). Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(3), 524.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 3.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1990). Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(1), 56.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1992). Categorization and metaphor understanding. Psychological Review, 99(3), 572–7.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457–86.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Gildea, P., & Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphor: The role of context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(5), 577–90.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 8(3), 183–206.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 919–29.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (2002). Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 487–506.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (2008). “Is metaphor unique.” In Gibbs, R. W. ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 143–160). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humour, 12(4), 425–36.Google Scholar

Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T. (1998). Irony: Grade salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(2), 83–101.Google Scholar

Ginzburg, J. (2012) The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Girotto, V., Mazzocco, A., & Tasso, A. (1997). The effect of premise order in conditional reasoning: A test of the mental model theory. Cognition, 63(1), 1–28.Google Scholar

Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92–6.Google Scholar

Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 85–98.Google Scholar

González Fuente, S., Prieto Vives, P., & Noveck, I. A. (2016). A fine-grained analysis of the acoustic cues involved in verbal irony recognition in French. Barnes, J., Brugos, A., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Veilleux, N., eds. Speech Prosody 2016; 2016 May 31–June 3; Boston, United States of America. [place unknown]: International Speech Communication Association; 2016. p. 902–6. DOI: 10.21437/SpeechProsody. 2016-185.Google Scholar

Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2016). Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(11), 818–29.Google Scholar

Grassmann, S., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Young children follow pointing over words in interpreting acts of reference. Developmental Science, 13(1), 252–63.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1961). The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 35, 121–52.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1967). William James Lectures. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66(3), 377–88.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. Academic Press, New York, NY, 41–58.Google Scholar

Grodner, D. J., Klein, N. M., Carbary, K. M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). “Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116(1), 42–55.Google Scholar

Grodner, D., & Sedivy, J. (2011) The effect of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences. In Gibson, E. & Pearlmutter, N. (eds.), The Processing and Acquisition of Reference (Vol. 2327, pp. 239–72). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Grossi, G. (2014). A module is a module is a module: Evolution of modularity in evolutionary psychology. Dialectical Anthropology, 38(3), 333–51.Google Scholar

Guasti, M. T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., et al. (2005). Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(5), 667–96.Google Scholar

Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 416–23.Google Scholar

Happé, F. G. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition, 48(2), 101–19.Google Scholar

Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Chimpanzees are more skilful in competitive than in cooperative cognitive tasks. Animal Behaviour, 68(3), 571–81.Google Scholar

Hartshorne, J. K., Snedeker, J., Liem Azar, S. Y. M., & Kim, A. E. (2015). The neural computation of scalar implicature. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(5), 620–34.Google Scholar

Hartshorne, J. K., & Germine, L. T. (2015). When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the life span. Psychological Science, 26(4), 433–43.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M., & König, E. (1998). Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. In Van der Auwera, J. & Baoill, D. Ó. (eds.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe (Vol. 3). Mouton, Berlin.Google Scholar

Hirst, W., & Weil, J. (1982). Acquisition of epistemic and deontic meaning of modals. Journal of Child Language, 9(03), 659–66.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1973). Greek Grice: A brief survey of proto-conversational rules in the history of logic. CLS, 9, 205–14.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (GURT ‘84) (pp. 11–42). Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC (Reprinted in Kasher (ed., 1998), vol. IV: 389–418.)Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (Expanded reissue, Stanford, CA: CSLI, 2001).Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1992). The Said and the Unsaid. Semantics and Linguistic Theory II (pp. 163–92). Ohio State University Department of Linguistics, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (2000). From if to iff: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(3), 289–326.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (2006). The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In Heusinger, K. von and Turner, K. (eds.), Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics (pp. 21–48). Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2009a). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 376–415.Google Scholar

Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2009b). Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in 5-year-olds: Evidence from real-time spoken language comprehension. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1723.Google Scholar

Hughes, C., & Russell, J. (1993). Autistic children's difficulty with mental disengagement from an object: Its implications for theories of autism. Developmental Psychology, 29, 498–510.Google Scholar

Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., & Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 558–67.Google Scholar

Ippolito, M. (2010). Embedded implicatures? Remarks on the debate between globalist and localist theories. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3, 1–15.Google Scholar

Ironsmith, M., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1978). The development of listener abilities in communication: How children deal with ambiguous information. Child Development, 49(2), 348–52.Google Scholar

Ivanko, S. L., & Pexman, P. M. (2003). Context incongruity and irony processing. Discourse Processes, 35(3), 241–79.Google Scholar

Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Reference and attitude in infant pointing. Journal of Child Language, 34(1), 1–20.Google Scholar

Johansson, P., Hall, L., Sikström, S., & Olsson, A. (2005). Failure to detect mismatches between intention and outcome in a simple decision task. Science (New York, N.Y.), 310(5745), 116–9. doi:10.1126/science.1111709Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review, 109(4), 646.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P., & Legrenzi, M. S. (1972). Reasoning and a sense of reality. British Journal of Psychology, 63(3), 395–400.Google Scholar

Jorgensen, J., Miller, G. A., & Sperber, D. (1984). Test of the mention theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 112.Google Scholar

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1971). Comprehension of negation with quantification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(3), 244–53.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 11(2), 123–41.Google Scholar

Kail, M. (1978). La compréhension des présuppositions chez l'enfant. L'année psychologique, 78(2), 425–44.Google Scholar

Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217–50.Google Scholar

Kao, J. T., & Goodman, N. (2015). Let's talk (ironically) about the weather: Modeling verbal irony. In Noelle, D. C. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (held 22–25 July 2015). Pasadena, CA, USA.Google Scholar

Kao, J. T., Wu, J. Y., Bergen, L., & Goodman, N. D. (2014). Nonliteral understanding of number words. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(33), 12002–7.Google Scholar

Katsos, N., Cummins, C., Ezeizabarrena, M. J., et al. (2016). Cross-linguistic patterns in the acquisition of quantifiers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(33), 9244–9.Google Scholar

Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. V. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition, 120(1), 67–81.Google Scholar

Katz, A. N. (2005). Discourse and sociocultural factors in understanding nonliteral language. In Colston, H. & Katz, A. N. (eds.), Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences (pp. 183–207). Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar

Kaup, B., Ludtke, J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005, January). Effects of negation, truth value, and delay on picture recognition after reading affirmative and negative sentences. In Bara, B. G., Barsalou, L., Bucciarelli, M., (eds.) Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1114–1119). Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar

Kaup, B., Yaxley, R. H., Madden, C. J., Zwaan, R. A., & Lüdtke, J. (2007). Experiential simulations of negated text information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(7), 976–90.Google Scholar

Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11(1), 32–8.Google Scholar

Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–94.Google Scholar

Kissine, M. (2012). Pragmatics, cognitive flexibility and autism spectrum disorders. Mind & Language, 27(1), 1–28.Google Scholar

Kissine, M., Cano-Chervel, J., Carlier, S., et al. (2015). Children with autism understand indirect speech acts: Evidence from a semi-structured act-out task. PLoS One, 10(11), e0142191.Google Scholar

Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 259–82.Google Scholar

Klin, A. (1991). Young autistic children's listening preferences in regard to speech: A possible characterization of the symptom of social withdrawal. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21, 29–42.Google Scholar

Klin, C. M., Weingartner, K. M., Guzmán, A. E., & Levine, W. H. (2004). Readers’ sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: How salience influences anaphor resolution. Memory & Cognition, 32(3), 511–22.Google Scholar

Korta, K. and Perry, J., “Pragmatics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/pragmatics/Google Scholar

Kovács, Á. M., Tauzin, T., Téglás, E., Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2014). Pointing as epistemic request: 12-month-olds point to receive new information. Infancy, 19(6), 543–57.Google Scholar

Krauss, R. M., & Glucksberg, S. (1969). The development of communication: Competence as a function of age. Child Development, 40(1), 255–66.Google Scholar

Kreuz, R. J., & Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(4), 374.Google Scholar

Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J. (2007). Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from-preemption hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 436–55.Google Scholar

Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J. (2015). Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 1–19.Google Scholar

Kronmüller, E., Morisseau, T., & Noveck, I. A. (2014). Show me the pragmatic contribution: A developmental investigation of contrastive inference. Journal of Child Language, 41(5), 985–1014.Google Scholar

Kronmüller, E., Noveck, I., Rivera, N., Jaume-Guazzini, F., & Barr, D. (2017). The positive side of a negative reference: The delay between linguistic processing and common ground. Royal Society Open Science, 4(2), 160827.Google Scholar

Kuhl, P. K., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., & Dawson, G. (2005). Links between social and linguistic processing of speech in preschool children with autism: Behavioral and electrophysiological measures. Developmental Science, 8(1), F1–12.Google Scholar

Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2685–701.Google Scholar

Kutas, M. (1993). In the company of other words: Electrophysiological evidence for single-word and sentence context effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 533–72.Google Scholar

Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980a). Reading between the lines: Event-related brain potentials during natural sentence processing. Brain and Language, 11(2), 354–73.Google Scholar

Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980b). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11(2), 99–116.Google Scholar

Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980c). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–5.Google Scholar

Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161–3.Google Scholar

Larrivee, P., & Duffley, P. (2014). The emergence of implicit meaning: Scalar implicatures with some. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(4), 530–47.Google Scholar

La Pointe, L. B., & Engle, R. W. (1990). Simple and complex word spans as measures of working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(6), 1118.Google Scholar

Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1284, 145–55.Google Scholar

Lauer, S. (2013). Towards a dynamic pragmatics (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University).Google Scholar

Landman, F. (1998) Plurals and maximalization. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Lea, R. B. (1995). On-line evidence for elaborative logical inferences in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(6), 1469.Google Scholar

Lea, R. B., Rapp, D. N., Elfenbein, A., Mitchel, A. D., & Romine, R. S. (2008). Sweet silent thought alliteration and resonance in poetry comprehension. Psychological Science, 19(7), 709–16.Google Scholar

Lepore, E., & Stone, M. (2015). Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. (1972). Some psychological aspects of linguistic data. Linguistische Berichte, 17, 18–30.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1980). Speech act theory: The state of the art. Language Teaching, 13(1–2), 5–24.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (1989) Convention. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Lewis, M. (2016) The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 551.Google Scholar

Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., Striano, T., & Tomasello, M. (2006). 12-and 18-month-olds point to provide information for others. Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 173–87.Google Scholar

Ma, N., Vandekerckhove, M., Van Overwalle, F., Seurinck, R., & Fias, W. (2011). Spontaneous and intentional trait inferences recruit a common mentalizing network to a different degree: Spontaneous inferences activate only its core areas. Social Neuroscience, 6(2), 123–38.Google Scholar

MacLeod, C. M. (1992). The Stroop task: The “gold standard” of attentional measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(1), 12–14.Google Scholar

Magri, G. (2011). Another argument for embedded scalar implicatures based on oddness in downward entailing environments. Semantics and Pragmatics, 4, 1–51.Google Scholar

Marcus, S. L., & Rips, L. J. (1979). Conditional reasoning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(2), 199–223.Google Scholar

Markman, E. M. (1978). Empirical versus logical solutions to part-whole comparison problems concerning classes and collections. Child Development, 49(1), 168–77.Google Scholar

Marr, D. (1982). Vision. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. (1995). The conversational condition on Horn scales. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18(1), 21–60.Google Scholar

Mazzarella, D. (2015). Politeness, relevance and scalar inferences. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 93–106.Google Scholar

Mazzarella, D., Trouche, E., Mercier, H. & Noveck, I. A. (2018). Believing what you're told: Politeness and scalar inferences. Ms.Google Scholar

McElree, B., Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Deferred interpretations: Why starting Dickens is taxing but reading Dickens isn't. Cognitive Science, 30(1), 181–92.Google Scholar

McElree, B., & Nordlie, J. (1999). Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(3), 486–94.Google Scholar

McElree, B., Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., Seely, R. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2001). Reading time evidence for enriched composition. Cognition, 78(1), B17–25.Google Scholar

McGarrigle, J., & Donaldson, M. (1975). Conservation accidents. Cognition, 3(4), 341–50.Google Scholar

McGarrigle, J., Grieve, R., & Hughes, M. (1978). Interpreting inclusion: A contribution to the study of the child's cognitive and linguistic development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 26(3), 528–50.Google Scholar

McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746–8.Google Scholar

McKeon, G. (2014, April 29). Message in a bottle: 10 famous floating note discoveries. ABC News Australia. www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-18/message-in-a-bottle-washes-up-after-28-years/4636320 Google Scholar

Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12(4), 269–75.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Metzing, C., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 201–13.Google Scholar

Miklósi, Á., & Soproni, K. (2006). A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Animal Cognition, 9(2), 81–93.Google Scholar

Monetta, L., Grindrod, C. M., & Pell, M. D. (2009). Irony comprehension and theory of mind deficits in patients with Parkinson's disease. Cortex, 45(8), 972–81.Google Scholar

Monti, M. M., Parsons, L. M., & Osherson, D. N. (2009). The boundaries of language and thought in deductive inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(30), 12554–9.Google Scholar

Morier, D. M., & Borgida, E. (1984). The conjunction fallacy: A task specific phenomenon? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(2), 243–52.Google Scholar

Morisseau, T., Davies, C., & Matthews, D. (2013). How do 3-and 5-year-olds respond to under- and over-informative utterances? Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 26–39.Google Scholar

Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Murphy, G. L., & Andrew, J. M. (1993). The conceptual basis of antonymy and synonymy in adjectives. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(3), 301.Google Scholar

Neale, S. (1992). Paul Grice and the philosophy of language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15(5), 509–59.Google Scholar

Newstead, S. E. (1995). Gricean implicatures and syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(5), 644.Google Scholar

Nieuwland, M. S., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 324–46.Google Scholar

Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle an event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213–18.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–59.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78(2), 165–88.Google Scholar

Noveck, I., & Chevaux, F. (2002). The pragmatic development of and. In Skarabella, B. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual BUCLD (pp. 453–63). Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A., & O'Brien, D. P. (1996). To what extent do pragmatic reasoning schemas affect performance on Wason's selection task?. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49(2), 463–489.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A., Bianco, M., & Castry, A. (2001). The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1–2), 109–21.Google Scholar

Noveck, I., Bonnefond, M., & Van der Henst, J. B. (2011). Squib: A deflationary account of invited inferences. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 195–208.Google Scholar

Noveck, I., Chevallier, C., Chevaux, F., Musolino, J., & Bott, L. (2009). Children's enrichments of conjunctive sentences in context (pp. 211–34). Utterance Interpretation and Cognitive Models. Emerald, Bingley.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A., Chierchia, G., Chevaux, F., Guelminger, R., & Sylvestre, E. (2002). Linguistic-pragmatic factors in interpreting disjunctions. Thinking & Reasoning, 8(4), 297–326.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A., Goel, V., & Smith, K. W. (2004). The neural basis of conditional reasoning with arbitrary content. Cortex, 40(4), 613–22.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A., Ho, S., & Sera, M. (1996). Children's understanding of epistemic modals. Journal of Child Language, 23(3), 621–43.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A., & Posada, A. (2003). Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language, 85, 203–10.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A., & Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 425–31.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A., & Sperber, D. (2004) Experimental Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A., & Sperber, D. (2007). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Advances in Pragmatics. Palgrave, Basingstoke.Google Scholar

Noveck, I.A., Spotorno, N. (2013). Narrowing. In Goldstein, L. (ed.), Brevity. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Nunberg, G. (1978). The Pragmatics of Reference. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar

Oaksford, M. (2002). Contrast classes and matching bias as explanations of the effects of negation on conditional reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 8(2), 135–51.Google Scholar

O'Brien, D. P., Braine, M. D., Connell, J. W., et al. (1989). Reasoning about conditional sentences: Development of understanding of cues to quantification. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48(1), 90–113.Google Scholar

Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9(3), 225–36.Google Scholar

Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(4), 465–77.Google Scholar

Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., & McLaughlin, J. (1997). Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory & Cognition, 25(3), 273–85.Google Scholar

Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785–806.Google Scholar

Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 786.Google Scholar

Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(6), 739.Google Scholar

Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–8.Google Scholar

Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86(3), 253–82.Google Scholar

Paris, S. (1973). Comprehension of language connectives and propositional logical relationships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 16, 278–91.Google Scholar

Peleg, O., Giora, R., & Fein, O. (2001). Salience and context effects: Two are better than one. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 173–92.Google Scholar

Peleg, O., Giora, R., & Fein, O. (2004). Contextual strength: The whens and hows of context effects. In Experimental Pragmatics (pp. 172–86). Palgrave Macmillan, UK.Google Scholar

Pexman, P. M. (2008). It's fascinating research: The cognition of verbal irony. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 286–90.Google Scholar

Pierce, K., Conant, D., Hazin, R., Stoner, R., & Desmond, J. (2011). Preference for geometric patterns early in life as a risk factor for autism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68, 101–9.Google Scholar

Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(4), 940.Google Scholar

Pijnacker, J., Geurts, B., Van Lambalgen, M., et al. (2009a). Defeasible reasoning in high-functioning adults with autism: Evidence for impaired exception-handling. Neuropsychologia, 47(3), 644–51.Google Scholar

Pijnacker, J., Hagoort, P., Buitelaar, J., Teunisse, J. P., & Geurts, B. (2009b). Pragmatic inferences in high-functioning adults with autism and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(4), 607–18.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (1997). Words and rules in the human brain. Nature, 387(6633), 547.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (2015). The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century! Penguin Books, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Politzer, G. (1986). Laws of language use and formal logic. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15(1), 47–92.Google Scholar

Politzer, G. (1993). La psychologie du raisonnement : lois de la pragmatique et logique formelle. Doctorat d'Etat, Paris 8.Google Scholar

Politzer, G. (2016). The class inclusion question: A case study in applying pragmatics to the experimental study of cognition. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1133.Google Scholar

Politzer, G., & Noveck, I. A. (1991). Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(2), 83–103.Google Scholar

Politzer-Ahles, S., & Gwilliams, L. (2015). Involvement of prefrontal cortex in scalar implicatures: Evidence from magnetoencephalography. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(7), 853–66.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientiﬁc Discovery. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar

Potts, C., Lassiter, D., Levy, R., & Frank, M. C. (2016). Embedded implicatures as pragmatic inferences under compositional lexical uncertainty. Journal of Semantics, 33(4), 755–802.Google Scholar

Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I. A., Politzer, G., & Bastide, A. (2007). A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition, 14(4), 347–75.Google Scholar

Prado, J., & Noveck, I. A. (2006). How reaction time measures elucidate the matching bias and the way negations are processed. Thinking & Reasoning, 12(3), 309–28.Google Scholar

Prado, J., & Noveck, I. A. (2007). Overcoming perceptual features in logical reasoning: A parametric functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(4), 642–57.Google Scholar

Prado, J., Van Der Henst, J. B., & Noveck, I. A. (2010). Recomposing a fragmented literature: How conditional and relational arguments engage different neural systems for deductive reasoning. Neuroimage, 51(3), 1213–21.Google Scholar

Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–26.Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Mismatching meanings in brain and behavior. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 712–38.Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B. (2007). An MEG study of silent meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(11), 1905–21.Google Scholar

Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F. H., & Poli, J. (1996). The time-course of metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study. Brain and Language, 55(3), 293–316.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (1986). On defining communicative intentions. Mind & Language, 1(3), 213–41.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Reverberi, C., Cherubini, P., Rapisarda, A., et al. (2007). Neural basis of generation of conclusions in elementary deduction. Neuroimage, 38(4), 752–62.Google Scholar

Reverberi, C., Shallice, T., D'Agostini, S., Skrap, M., & Bonatti, L. L. (2009). Cortical bases of elementary deductive reasoning: Inference, memory, and metadeduction. Neuropsychologia, 47(4), 1107–16.Google Scholar

Rieber, R. W. (1980). Psychology of Language and Thought: Essays on the Theory and History of Psycholinguistics. Plenum Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Rohrbacher, B. (2015). Jewish law and medieval logic: Why eating horse meat is a punishable offense. The Journal of Law and Religion, 30(2), 295.Google Scholar

Rosenwald, M. S. (2013, September 29). Washington Post Empty Stomach? Try filling up at a Gas Station. Retrieved from Washington Post.Google Scholar

Rubio-Fernandez, P. (2007). Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics, 24(4), 345–71.Google Scholar

Rumain, B., Connell, J., & Braine, M. D. (1983). Conversational comprehension processes are responsible for reasoning fallacies in children as well as adults: If is not the biconditional. Developmental Psychology, 19(4), 471.Google Scholar

Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D. (2010). Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 547–63.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (2006). Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 23(4), 361–82.Google Scholar

Russell, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of autism. In Harrison, J. E. & Owen, A. M. (eds.), Cognitive Deficits in Brain Disorders (pp. 295–323). Dunitz, London.Google Scholar

Rutherford, M. D., Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2002). Reading the mind in the voice: A study with normal adults and adults with Asperger syndrome and high functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32(3), 189–94.Google Scholar

Sauerland, U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(3), 367–91.Google Scholar

Saussure, F. D. (1910). Third course of lectures on general linguistics. Retrieved 21 August 2015. www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm Google Scholar

Saxe, R., & Kanwisher, N. (2003). People thinking about thinking people: The role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind”. Neuroimage, 19(4), 1835–42.Google Scholar

Saxe, R., Xiao, D. K., Kovacs, G., Perrett, D. I., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). A region of right posterior superior temporal sulcus responds to observed intentional actions. Neuropsychologia, 42(11), 1435–46.Google Scholar

Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conﬂict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Schiffer, S. R. (1972). Meaning. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Schultz, D. (1975) A History of Modern Psychology. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Schumacher, P. B. (2011). “The hepatitis called…: electrophysiological evidence for enriched composition,” in Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics, eds Meibauer, J. and Steinbach, M. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 199–219.Google Scholar

Schumacher, P. B. (2013). When combinatorial processing results in reconceptualization: toward a new approach of compositionality. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 677.Google Scholar

Schumacher, P. B. (2014). Content and context in incremental processing: “The ham sandwich” revisited. Philosophical Studies, 168(1), 151–65.Google Scholar

Scott-Phillips, T. (2014). Speaking our Minds: Why Human Communication is Different, and How Language Evolved to Make It Special. Palgrave MacMillan, UK.Google Scholar

Schwarz, F. (2007). Processing presupposed content. Journal of Semantics, 24(4), 373–416.Google Scholar

Schwarz, F., & Tiemann, S. (2017). Presupposition projection in online processing. Journal of Semantics, 34(1), 61–106.Google Scholar

Schwitzgebel, E. (2004). Introspective training apprehensively defended: Reflections on Titchener's lab manual. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(7–8), 58–76.Google Scholar

Schwitzgebel, E. (2011). Perplexities of Consciousness. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K. (2000). Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 47–61.Google Scholar

Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1980). The background of meaning. In Searle, J., Keifer, F. & Bierwisch, M. (eds.) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, Reidel, Dordrecht pp. 221–32.Google Scholar

Sedivy, J. C. (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. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71(2), 109–47.Google Scholar

Senju, A., Csibra, G., & Johnson, M. H. (2008). Understanding the referential nature of looking: Infants’ preference for object-directed gaze. Cognition, 108(2), 303–19.Google Scholar

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Information. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar

Shetreet, E., Chierchia, G., & Gaab, N. (2014a). When some is not every: Dissociating scalar implicature generation and mismatch. Human Brain Mapping, 35(4), 1503–14.Google Scholar

Shetreet, E., Chierchia, G., & Gaab, N. (2014b). When three is not some: On the pragmatics of numerals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(4), 854–63.Google Scholar

Shetreet, E., Chierchia, G., & Gaab, N. (2014c). Linguistic inability or poor performance: Dissociating scalar implicature generation and mismatch in the developing brain. Developmental Psychology, 50(9), 2264.Google Scholar

Shipley, E. F., & Kuhn, I. F. (1983). A constraint on comparisons: Equally detailed alternatives. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35(2), 195–222.Google Scholar

Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Hastings, R., Jackson, B., and Zvolensky, Z. (eds.), in Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Copley Publishing Group, Acton, MA.Google Scholar

Skinner, B. F. (1986). The evolution of verbal behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45(1), 115–122.Google Scholar

Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2016). Children's derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance. Cognition, 153, 6–18.Google Scholar

Smith, C. L. (1980). Quantifiers and question answering in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 191–205.Google Scholar

Solan, L. M. (1993). The Language of Judges. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Spenader, J. (2002). Presuppositions in spoken discourse. PhD thesis, University of Stockholm. Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57(1), 31–95.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., et al. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–93.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 295–318). Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Vol. 1). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2nd edn, 1995, Blackwell, Oxford).Google Scholar

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R.W. (Ed.), The Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, (pp. 171–203), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2015). Beyond speaker's meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15(2 (44)), 117–49.Google Scholar

Spivey, M. J., Grosjean, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102(29), 10393–8.Google Scholar

Spotorno, N., Koun, E., Prado, J., Van Der Henst, J. B., & Noveck, I. A. (2012). Neural evidence that utterance-processing entails mentalizing: The case of irony. NeuroImage, 63(1), 25–39.Google Scholar

Spotorno, N., Cheylus, A., Van Der Henst, J. B., & Noveck, I. A. (2013). What's behind a P600? Integration operations during irony processing. PLoS One, 8(6), e66839.Google Scholar

Spotorno, N., & Noveck, I. A. (2014). When is irony effortful? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1649.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. C. (1973), Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4): 447–57.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1979). Developmental patterns in the encoding and combination of logical connectives. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28(3), 469–98.Google Scholar

Stiller, A. J., Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2015). Ad-hoc implicature in preschool children. Language Learning and Development, 11(2), 176–90.Google Scholar

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643.Google Scholar

Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645–59.Google Scholar

Tanenhaus, M. K., & Donnenwerth-Nolan, S. (1984). Syntactic context and lexical access. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36(4), 649–61.Google Scholar

Taplin, J. E., Staudenmayer, H., & Taddonio, J. L. (1974). Developmental changes in conditional reasoning: Linguistic or logical? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 17(2), 360–73.Google Scholar

Tian, Y., Breheny, R., & Ferguson, H. J. (2010). Why we simulate negated information: A dynamic pragmatic account. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(12), 2305–12.Google Scholar

Tian, Y., Ferguson, H., & Breheny, R. (2016). Processing negation without context – Why and when we represent the positive argument. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(5), 683–98.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., & Liszkowski, U. (2007). A new look at infant pointing. Child Development, 78(3), 705–22.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2010). Origins of Human Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Tomlinson, J. M., Bailey, T. M., & Bott, L. (2013). Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(1), 18–35.Google Scholar

Topál, J., Gergely, G., Miklósi, Á., Erdőo˝hegyi, Á., & Csibra, G. (2008). Infants’ perseverative search errors are induced by pragmatic misinterpretation. Science, 321(5897), 1831–34Google Scholar

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). Tile psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Trabasso, T., Rollins, H., & Shaughnessy, E. (1971). Storage and verification stages in processing concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 2(3), 239–89.Google Scholar

Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & McElree, B. (2002). Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(4), 530–47.Google Scholar

Trouche, E., Johansson, P., Hall, L., & Mercier, H. (2016). The selective laziness of reasoning. Cognitive Science, 40(8), 2122–36.Google Scholar

Trueswell, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Toward a lexical framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C., Jr., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing, (pp. 155–180). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar

Tummeltshammer, K. S., Wu, R., Sobel, D. M., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2014). Infants track the reliability of potential informants. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1730–8.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–32.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293.Google Scholar

van der Auwera, J. (1997). Pragmatics in the last quarter century: The case of conditional perfection. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 261–74.Google Scholar

van der Henst, J. B., Bujakowska, K., Ciceron, C., & Noveck, I. A. (2006). How to make a participant logical: The role of premise presentation in a conditional reasoning task. Reasoning and Cognition, 3, 7–18.Google Scholar

Van Herwegen, J., Dimitriou, D., & Rundblad, G. (2013). Development of novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension in typically developing children and Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(4), 1300–11.Google Scholar

Van Overwalle, F. (2009). Social cognition and the brain: A meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 30(3), 829–58.Google Scholar

Van Overwalle, F., & Baetens, K. (2009). Understanding others’ actions and goals by mirror and mentalizing systems: A meta-analysis. Neuroimage, 48(3), 564–84.Google Scholar

Van Rooij, R., & Schulz, K. (2004). Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 13(4), 491–519.Google Scholar

van Tiel, B. (2014). Embedded scalars and typicality. Journal of Semantics, 31(2), 147–77.Google Scholar

Vlach, F. (1981). Speaker's meaning. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(3), 359–91.Google Scholar

Wang, A. T., Dapretto, M., Hariri, A., Sigman, M., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (2001). Processing affective and linguistic prosody in autism: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 13(6), 621.Google Scholar

Wang, A. T., Lee, S. S., Sigman, M., & Dapretto, M. (2006). Neural basis of irony comprehension in children with autism: The role of prosody and context. Brain, 129(4), 932–43.Google Scholar

Wang, A. T., Lee, S. S., Sigman, M., & Dapretto, M. (2007). Reading affect in the face and voice: Neural correlates of interpreting communicative intent in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64(6), 698–708.Google Scholar

Wang, Y., Wang, H., Cui, L., Tian, S., & Zhang, Y. (2002). The N270 component of the event-related potential reflects supramodal conflict processing in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 332(1), 25–8.Google Scholar

Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129–40.Google Scholar

Wason, P. C. (1961). Response to affirmative and negative binary statements. British Journal of Psychology, 52(2), 133–42.Google Scholar

Wason, P. C. (1965). The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4(1), 7–11.Google Scholar

Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 273–81.Google Scholar

Wason, P. C., & Jones, S. (1963). Negatives: Denotation and connotation. British Journal of Psychology, 54(4), 299–307.Google Scholar

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158.Google Scholar

Weiland, H., Bambini, V., & Schumacher, P. B. (2014). The role of literal meaning in figurative language comprehension: Evidence from masked priming ERP. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 583. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00583.Google Scholar

Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Wilkes-Gibbs, D., & Clark, H. H. (1992). Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(2), 183–94.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (1973). Presuppositions and non-truth-conditional semantics (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (1975). Presupposition, assertion, and lexical items. Linguistic Inquiry, 6(1), 95–114.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (2006). The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 116(10), 1722–43.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (2009). Irony and metarepresentation. UCLWPL, 21, 183–226.Google Scholar

Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2007) A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Advances in Pragmatics (pp. 230–60). Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.Google Scholar

Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2008). Metaphor and the “emergent property” problem: A relevance-theoretic treatment. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3(2007), 1–40.Google Scholar

Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1998). Pragmatics and time. In Carston, R. & Uchida, S. (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications (pp. 1–22). John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Wilson, D., & Wharton, T. (2006). Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1559–79.Google Scholar

Wilson, N. L. (1959). The Concept of Language. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar

Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–28.Google Scholar

Winer, G. A., Cottrell, J. E., Mott, T., Cohen, M., & Fournier, J. (2001). Are children more accurate than adults? Spontaneous use of metaphor by children and adults. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(5), 485–96.Google Scholar

Wing, L. (1981). Asperger's syndrome: A clinical account. Psychological Medicine, 11(1), 115–29.Google Scholar

Wing, L., & Gould, J. (1979). Severe impairments of social interaction and associated abnormalities in children: Epidemiology and classification. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9(1), 11–29.Google Scholar

Wright, R. (2014). The Wright show (with guest Leda Cosmides). Last retrieved August 23, 2017 from https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/25161 Google Scholar

Wu, S., & Keysar, B. (2007). The effect of culture on perspective taking. Psychological Science, 18(7), 600–6.Google Scholar

Book contents

Bibliography

Access options

References

Book contents

Bibliography

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive