Ackerman, B. P. (1981). Young children’s understanding of a speaker’s intentional use of a false utterance. Developmental Psychology 17: 472–80.Google Scholar

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

Acquaviva, P. (2014). Roots, concepts, and word structure: On the atoms of lexical semantics. In: Rainer, F., Dressler, W. U., Gardani, F. & Luschutzky, H. C. (eds.) Morphology and Meaning. John Benjamins, pp. 49–70.Google Scholar

Acredolo, L. & Goodwyn, S. (1988). Symbolic gesturing in normal infants. Child Development 59: 450–66.Google Scholar

Aguert, M., Laval, V., Le Bigot, L. & Bernicot, J. (2010). Understanding expressive speech acts: The role of prosody and situational context in French-speaking 5- to 9-year-olds. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 53: 1629–41.Google Scholar

Aguert, M., Laval, V., Lacroix, A., Gil, S. & Le Bigot, L. (2013). Inferring emotions from speech prosody: Not so easy at age five. PLoS ONE 8(12): e83657. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083657.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2010). Imperatives and Commands. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2014). The grammar of knowledge in typological perspective. In: Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) The Grammar of Knowledge. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–51.Google Scholar

Albrecht-Crane, C. & Cutchins, D. (2013). Introduction: New beginnings for adaptation studies. In: Albrecht-Crane, C. & Cutchins, D. (eds.) Adaptation Studies: New Approaches. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar

Alcázar, A. & Saltarelli, M. (2014). The Syntax of Imperatives. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allott, N. (2008). Pragmatics and Rationality. PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar

Allott, N. (2013). Relevance theory. In: Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F. & Carapezza, M. (eds.) Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Springer, pp. 57–98.Google Scholar

Allott, N. (2017). Metarepresentation. In: Barron, A., Gu, Y. & Steen, G. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Routledge, pp. 295–309.Google Scholar

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

Altmann, G. T. M. & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 30(3): 191–238.Google Scholar

Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 101–18.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. & Lepore, E. (2013a). Slurring words. Noûs 47(1): 25–48.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. (2013b). What did you call me? Slurs as prohibited words. Analytic Philosophy 54(3): 350–63.Google Scholar

Anderson, M. J. (2014). After Phrenology: Neural Reuse and the Interactive Brain. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Anglin, J. M. (1977). Word, Object, and Conceptual Development. W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O. (1977). Deux mais en français? Lingua 43: 23–40.Google Scholar

Antony, L. (2003). Rabbit-pots and supernovas: On the relevance of psychological data to linguistic theory. In: Barber, A. (ed.) Epistemology of Language. Oxford University Press, pp. 47–68.Google Scholar

Aoun, J. & Choueiri, L. (2000). Epithets. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18: 1–39.Google Scholar

Arad, M. (2005). Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-Syntax. Springer.Google Scholar

Arnon, I., Casillas, M., Kurumada, C. & Estigarribia, B. (eds.). (2014). Language in Interaction: Studies in Honor of Eve V. Clark (Vol. 12). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Asch, S. & Nerlove, H. (1960). The development of double function terms in children: An exploratory investigation. In: Kaplan, B. & Wapner, S. (eds.) Perspectives in Psychological Theory: Essays in Honor of Heinz Werner. International Universities Press, pp. 47–60.Google Scholar

Atlas, J. D. & Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In: Cole, P. (ed.) Radical Pragmatics. Academic Press, pp. 1–61.Google Scholar

Aziz-Zadeh, L. & Gamez-Djokic, V. (2016). The interaction between metaphor and emotion processing in the brain. Emotion Review 8(3): 275–6.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (2006). Review of C. Potts ‘The Logic of Conventional Implicatures’. Journal of Linguistics 42(2): 490–5.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (2018). Loaded words: On the semantics and pragmatic of slurs. In: Sosa, D. (ed.) Bad Words. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baetens, J. (2005). Novelization, a contaminated genre? Critical Inquiry 32: 43–60.Google Scholar

Baetens, J. (2010). Expanding the field of constraint: Novelization as an example of multiply constrained writing. Poetics Today 31(1): 51–79.Google Scholar

Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M. & Bian, L. (2016). Psychological reasoning in infancy. Annual Review of Psychology 67(1): 159–86.Google Scholar

Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable Sentences. Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Barceló, A. & Stainton, R. J. (2016). Cuasi-Factivos. Elenkhos 1(1): 65–88.Google Scholar

Barner, D. & Bachrach, A. (2010). Inference and exact numerical representation in early language development. Cognitive Psychology 60(1): 40–62.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

Barnhart, R. K. (1988). Chambers Dictionary of Etymology. Chambers Harrap.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Barrett, M. D. (1978). Lexical development and overextension in child language. Journal of Child Language 5: 205–19.Google Scholar

Barrett, M. D. (1986). Early semantic representations and early word usage. In: Kuczaj, S. A. II & Barrett, M. D. (eds.) The Development of Word Meaning: Progress in Cognitive Development Research. Springer, pp. 39–67.Google Scholar

Barton, E. (1990). Nonsentential Constituents. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Barton, E. & Progovac, L. (2005). Nonsententials in Minimalism. In: Elugardo, R. & Stainton, R. (eds.) Ellipsis and Non-Sentential Speech. Springer, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar

Bartsch, K. & Wellman, H. M. (1995). Children Talk about the Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (1978). The Grammar of Nominal Compounding with Special Reference to Danish, English and French. Odense University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (1983). English Word Formation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Beck, D. M. & Lavie, N. (2004). Look here but ignore what you see: Effects of distractors at fixation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31: 592–607.Google Scholar

Begby, E. (2017). Language from the ground up: A study of Homesign communication. Erkenntnis 82: 693–714.Google Scholar

Bergen, L. & Grodner, D. J. (2012). Speaker knowledge influences the comprehension of pragmatic inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 38(5): 1450–60.Google Scholar

Berthonneau, A. M. & Kleiber, G. (1993). Pour une nouvelle approche de l’imparfait: l’imparfait, un temps anaphorique méronomique. Langages 112: 55–73.Google Scholar

Bezuidenhout, A. (2004). Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In: Bianchi, C. (ed.) The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. CSLI, pp. 101–31.Google Scholar

Bianchi, C. (2014). Slurs and appropriation: An echoic account. Journal of Pragmatics 66: 35–44.Google Scholar

Bickhard, M. H. (2009). The interactivist model. Synthese 166(3): 547–91.Google Scholar

Bickhard, M. H. (2016). The anticipatory brain: Two approaches. In: Müller, V.C. (ed.) Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp. 259–81.Google Scholar

Billow, R. M. (1975). A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension. Developmental Psychology 11(4): 415–23.Google Scholar

Billow, R. M. (1981). Observing spontaneous metaphor in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 31: 430–55.Google Scholar

Black, M. (1954–1955). Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55: 273–94.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (2009). Parentheticals and point of view in free indirect style. Language and Literature 18(2): 129–53.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (2010). Communication and the representation of thought: The use of audience-directed expressions in free indirect thought representations. Journal of Linguistics 46(3): 575–99.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (2011). On the descriptive ineffability of expressive meaning. Journal of Pragmatics. 43: 3537–50.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (2013a). Voice and expressivity in Free Indirect Thought representations: Imitation and representation. Mind & Language 28(5): 579–605.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (2013b). The Expressive Meaning of Racial Epithets: Towards a Non-Unitary Account of Expressive Meaning. University of Brighton College of Arts and Humanities – Lectures in Language and Linguistics: 11 December 2013.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (2015). Slurs and expletives: A case against a general account of expressive meaning. Language Sciences 52: 22–35.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. & Gallai, F. (2014). Discourse markers in free indirect style and interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 60: 106–20.Google Scholar

Blakemore, S.-J. & Choudhury, S. (2006). Development of the adolescent brain: Implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47: 296–312.Google Scholar

Blankier, M. (2014). Adapting and transforming ‘Cinderella’: Fairy-tale adaptations and the limits of existing adaptation theory. Interdisciplinary Humanities 31(3): 108–23.Google Scholar

Blochowiak, J. & Grisot, C. (2018). The pragmatics of descriptive and metalinguistic negation: Experimental data from French. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 50.Google Scholar

Bloom, L. (1975). One Word at a Time. Mouton.Google Scholar

Bloom, P. (2000). How Children Learn the Meaning of Words. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bloom, P. & Markson, L. (2001). Are there principles that apply only to the acquisition of words? Cognition 78: 89–90.Google Scholar

Bluestone, G. (1957). Novels into Film: A Critical Study. The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar

Bohn, M., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. (2015). Communication about absent entities in great apes and human infants. Cognition 145: 63–72.Google Scholar

Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W. & Jacobs, A. M. (2013). When we like what we know: A parametric fMRI analysis of beauty and familiarity. Brain and Language 124: 1–8.Google Scholar

Boisvert, D. & Ludwig, K. (2006). Semantics for nondeclaratives. In: Lepore, E. & Smith, B. C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press, pp. 864–93.Google Scholar

Bosch, P. (2001). Against the identification of anaphora and presupposition. In: van Kuppevelt, J. & Smith, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 1–4. Aalborg, Denmark. Available at: http://aclweb.org/anthology/W/W01/W01-1604.pdf.Google Scholar

Botha, R. P. (1982). On ‘the Galilean style’ of linguistic inquiry. Lingua 58(1): 1–50.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

Bowerman, M. (1980). The structure and origin of semantic categories in the language learning child. In: Foster, M. L. & Brandes, S. (eds.) Symbol as Sense. Academic Press, pp. 277–99.Google Scholar

Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction Manual and Affective Ratings. Technical Report C-1, The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.Google Scholar

Breheny, R. (1996). Pro-active focus. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 1–42.Google Scholar

Breheny, R. (1998). Interface economy and focus. In: Rouchota, V. & Jucker, A. H. (eds) Current Issues in Relevance Theory. John Benjamins, pp. 105–40.Google Scholar

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

Breheny, R. (2011). Experimentation-based pragmatics. In: Bublitz, W. & Norrick, N. (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics (Vol. 1: Foundations of Pragmatics). De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 561–86.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: 434–63.Google Scholar

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

Brennan, J. & Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of aspectual coercion. Brain and Language 106(2): 132–43.Google Scholar

Brody, M. (2002). On the status of representations and derivations. In: Epstein, S. D. & Daniel Seely, T. (eds.) Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Blackwell, pp. 19–41.Google Scholar

Brucart, J. M. (2012). Copular alternation in Spanish and Catalan attributive sentences. Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Univerdade do Porto 7: 9–43.Google Scholar

Bryant, G. A. (2012). Is verbal irony special? Language and Linguistics Compass 6(11): 673–85.Google Scholar

Bryant, G. A. & Fox Tree, J. E. (2005). Is there an ironic tone of voice? Language and Speech 48(3): 257–77.Google Scholar

Bucciarelli, M., Colle, L. & Bara, B. G. (2003). How children comprehend speech acts and communicative gestures. Journal of Pragmatics 35(2): 207–41.Google Scholar

Büring, D. (2003). On d-trees, beans, and b-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 511–45.Google Scholar

Büring, D. (2007). Semantics, intonation and information structure. In: Ramchand, G. & Reiss, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford University Press, pp. 445–68.Google Scholar

Büring, D. (2016). Focus, questions and givenness. In: von Heusinger, K., Onea, E. & Zimmermann, M. (eds.) Questions in Discourse. Brill.Google Scholar

Burke, E. (1757). A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful. R. & J. Dodsley.Google Scholar

Burton-Roberts, N. (1989). The Limits to Debate. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Butler, H. E. (ed.) (1922). Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Cahir, L. (2006). Literature into Film: Theory and Practical Approaches. McFarland.Google Scholar

Caink, A. & Clark, B. (eds.) (2012). Inference and implicature in literary interpretation. Special Issue of Journal of Literary Semantics 41(2): 99–191.Google Scholar

Camacho, J. (2012). Ser and estar: The Individual/Stage level distinction and aspectual predication. In: Hualde, J. I., Olarrea, A. & O’Rourke, E. (eds.) The Handbook of Spanish Linguistics. Blackwell, pp. 453–76.Google Scholar

Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. Continuum.Google Scholar

Camp, E. (2013). Slurring perspectives. Analytic Philosophy 54: 330–49.Google Scholar

Cann, R. & Kempson, R. (2017). What do words do for us? Dialectica 71: 425–60.Google Scholar

Cann, R., Kempson, R. & Marten, L. (2005). The Dynamics of Language. Elsevier.Google Scholar

Capelli, C. A., Nakagawa, N. & Madden, C. M. (1990). How children understand sarcasm: The role of context and intonation. Child Development 61(6): 1824–41.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind 106: 429–50.Google Scholar

Cardillo, E. R., Watson, C. E., Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A. & Chatterjee, A. (2012). From novel to familiar: Tuning the brain for metaphors. NeuroImage 59: 3212–21.Google Scholar

Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Carlson, G. (2006). ‘Mismatches’ of form and interpretation. In: van Geenhoven, V. (ed.) Semantics in Acquisition. De Gruyter, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carpenter, P. A. & Just, M. A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review 82(1): 45–73.Google Scholar

Carruthers, P. (2003). Moderately massive modularity. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 53: 67–89.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1995). Quantity maxims and generalized implicature. Lingua 96: 213–44.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1996). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 309–30.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1997). Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? In: Rolf, E. (ed.) Pragmatik. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 103–27.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1998a). Negation, ‘presupposition’ and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Journal of Linguistics 34: 309–50.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1998b). Informativeness, relevance, and scalar implicature. In: Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds.) Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Benjamins, pp. 179–236.Google Scholar

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

Carston, R. (2010). Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society CX(3): 295–321.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2012). Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review 29(4): 607–23.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2013). Word meaning, what is said and explicature. In: Penco, C. and Domaneschi, F. (eds.) What Is Said and What Is Not. CSLI Publications, pp. 175–204.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2016a). The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua 175–176: 154–66.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2016b). Underspecified word meaning, pragmatics and the lexicon. Plenary talk at the conference Between (Stable) Meanings and (Unstable) Interpretations, Uniwersytet Jagiellonski, Kraków, 15–16 September, 2016.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (forthcoming) Lexical innovation, word meaning and the lexicon.Google Scholar

Carston, R. & Uchida, S. (eds.) (1998). Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Carston, R. & Wearing, C. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition 3(2): 283–312.Google Scholar

Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Cartwright, N. (1999). The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Casartelli, D. (2017). The Interaction of Negation and Epistemic Modality. A Pragmatic Approach. MA thesis, University of Geneva.Google Scholar

Cato, M. A., Crosson, B., Gökçay, D., Soltysik, D., Wierenga, C., Gopinath, K., Himes, N., Belanger, H., Bauer, R. M., Fischler, I. S., Gonzalez-Rothi, L. & Briggs, R. W. (2004). Processing words with emotional connotation: An fMRI study of time course and laterality in rostral frontal and retrosplenial cortices. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16(2): 167–77.Google Scholar

Cave, T. (2016). Thinking with Literature: Towards a Cognitive Criticism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (eds.) (1986). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Ablex.Google Scholar

Chapman, S. & Clark, B. (eds.) (2014). Pragmatic Literary Stylistics. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Chapman, S. (in press). Pragmatics and Literature. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chatman, S. (1980). What novels can do that films can’t (and vice versa). Critical Inquiry 7(1): 121–40.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

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: 507–17.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In: Belleti, A. (ed.) Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press, pp. 39–103.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M., Gualmini, A. & Meroni, L. (2001). The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In: Do, A. H.-J., Domínguez, L. & Johansen, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Cascadilla Press, pp. 157–68.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G., Fox, D. & Spector, B. (2009). Hurford’s constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures. In: Egré, P. & Magri, G. (eds.) Presuppositions and Implicatures. Proceedings of the MIT-Paris Workshop. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 47–62.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner, ‘Verbal Behavior’, 1957. Language 35: 26–58.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In: Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn & Co, pp. 184–221.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1978a). A theory of core grammar. Glot 1: 7–26.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1978b). Interview with Sol Saporta. Washington State University, Dept. of Linguistics Working Papers in Linguistics, Supplement 4: 1–26.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1983). Things no amount of learning can teach: Noam Chomsky interviewed by John Gliedman. Omni 6(11). Available at: www.chomsky.info/interviews/198311--.htm. Accessed 8 November 2018.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1991). Linguistics and cognitive science: Problems and mysteries. In: Kasher, A. (ed.) The Chomskyan Turn. Basil Blackwell, pp. 26–55.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1992a). Explaining language use. Philosophical Topics 20: 205–31.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1992b). Language and interpretation: Philosophical reflections and empirical enquiry. In: Earman, J. (ed.) Inference, Explanation and Other Frustrations: Essays in the Philosophy of Science. University of California Press, pp. 99–128.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1996). Powers and Prospects. South End.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2002). On Nature and Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chouliaraki, L. (2013). Re-mediation, inter-mediation, trans-mediation. Journalism Studies 14(2): 267–83.Google Scholar

Chung-hong Leung, D. & Crisp, P. (2011). Cantonese and English bodies do talk: A cross-cultural, metaphor-metonymy study on body-part idioms. In: Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. (eds.) Researching Chinese Learners: Skills, Perceptions and Intercultural Adaptations. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 43–66.Google Scholar

Cipria, A. & Roberts, C. (2000). Spanish imperfecto and pretérito: Truth conditions and Aktionsart effects in a Situation Semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8: 297–347.Google Scholar

Citron, F. M. M. (2012). Neural correlates of written emotion word processing: A review of recent electrophysiological and hemodynamic neuroimaging studies. Brain and Language 122: 211–26.Google Scholar

Clark, A. (2016). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, E. V. (1973). What’s in a word? On the child’s acquisition of semantics in his first language. In: Moore, T. E. (ed.) Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. Academic Press, pp. 65–110.Google Scholar

Clark, E. V. (1978). Strategies for communicating. Child Development 49: 953–9.Google Scholar

Clark, E. V. (2009). First Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, E. V. & Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55: 767–811.Google Scholar

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

Clark, H. H. & Carlson, T. B. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language 58(2): 332–73.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

Clément, F., Koenig, M. & Harris, P. (2004). The ontogeny of trust. Mind & Language 19: 360–79.Google Scholar

Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (2012). Discourse integration guided by the ‘question under discussion.’ Cognitive Psychology 65: 352–79.Google Scholar

Collins, J. (2003). Expressions, sentences, propositions. Erkenntnis 59(2) : 233–62.Google Scholar

Collins, J. (2007). Syntax, more or less. Mind 116(464): 805–50.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1986). Tense in indirect speech. Folia Linguistica 20: 265–96.Google Scholar

Cooper, R. (2012). Type theory and semantics in flux. In: Kempson, R., Asher, N. & Fernando, T. (eds.) Handbook of the Philosophy of Science (Vol 14: Philosophy of Linguistics). Elsevier, pp. 271–323.Google Scholar

Corazza, E. (2005). Epithets qua attributive anaphors. Journal of Linguistics 41: 1–32.Google Scholar

Cormack, A. & Smith, N. (in prep). Categorial Minimalism: Syntax, Semantics and the Language of Thought.Google Scholar

Corrigan, T. (2017). Defining adaptation. In: Leitch, T. (ed.) The Oxford Book of Adaptation Studies. Oxford University Press, pp. 23–35.Google Scholar

Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (2000). Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In: Lewis, M., & Haviland-Jones, J. (eds.) Handbook of Emotions. Guilford Press, pp. 91–115.Google Scholar

Costa, J. C. (2008). A Relevância da Pragmática na Pragmática da Relevância. EDIPUCRS.Google Scholar

Creusere, M. A. (1999). Theories of adults’ understanding and use of irony and sarcasm: Applications to and evidence from research with children. Developmental Review 19: 213–62.Google Scholar

Crisp, P. (2008). Between extended metaphor and allegory: Is blending enough? Language and Literature 17(4): 291–308.Google Scholar

Croom, A. (2008). Racial epithets: What we say and mean by them. Dialogue 51: 34–45.Google Scholar

Croom, A. (2011). Slurs. Language Sciences 33: 343–58.Google Scholar

Croom, A. (2014a). The semantics of slurs: A refutation of pure expressivism. Language Sciences 41: 227–42.Google Scholar

Croom, A. (2014b). Slurs, stereotypes, and in-equality: A critical review of ‘How Epithets and Stereotypes are Racially Unequal’. Language Sciences 44: 1–16.Google Scholar

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

Dalton, P. & Lavie, N. (2004). Auditory attentional capture: Effects of singleton distractor sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 30(1): 180–93.Google Scholar

Damasio, A. (2006). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. Random House Vintage.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (1970). Mental events. In: Foster, L. & Swanson, J. W. (eds.) Experience and Theory. University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 79–101.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (1978/1984). What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry 5(1): 31–47. Reprinted in his 1984 Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford University Press, pp. 245–64.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (1986). A nice derangement of epitaphs. In: Lepore, E. (ed.) Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Blackwell, pp. 433–46.Google Scholar

Davies, E. (1986). The English Imperative. Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Deamer, F. (2013). An Investigation into the Processes and Mechanisms Underlying the Comprehension of Metaphor and Hyperbole. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar

De Brabanter, P. (2010). The semantics and pragmatics of hybrid quotations. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(2): 107–20.Google Scholar

De Bruyn, F. (2012). ‘Expressive uncertainty’: Edmund Burke’s theory of the sublime and eighteenth-century conceptions of metaphor. In: Vermeir, K. & Deckard, M. F. (eds.) The Science of Sensibility: Reading Burke’s Philosophical Enquiry. Springer, pp. 265–82.Google Scholar

Declerck, R. (1991). Tense in English: Its Structure and Use in Discourse. Routledge.Google Scholar

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

Dehé, N. (2014). Parentheticals in Spoken English: The Syntax–Prosody Relation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

de Marchena, A., Eigsti, I.-M., Worek, A., Ono, K. E. & Snedeker, J. (2011). Mutual exclusivity in autism spectrum disorders: Testing the pragmatic hypothesis. Cognition 119(1): 96–113.Google Scholar

Demorest, A., Silberstein, L., Gardner, H. & Winner, E. (1983). Telling it as it isn’t: Children’s understanding of figurative language. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 1: 121–34.Google Scholar

Demorest, A., Meyer, C., Phelps, E., Gardner, H. & Winner, E. (1984). Words speak louder than actions: Understanding deliberately false remarks. Child Development 55: 1527–34.Google Scholar

Dendale, P. & Tasmowski, L. (eds.) (2001). Evidentiality (special issue). Journal of Pragmatics 33(3).Google Scholar

Deonna, J. A. & Teroni, F. (2012). The Emotions: A Philosophical Introduction. Routledge.Google Scholar

De Saussure, L. & Sthioul, B. (2005). Imparfait et enrichissement pragmatique. In: Larrivée, P. & Labeau, E. (eds.) Nouveaux développements de l’imparfait. Rodopi, pp. 103–20.Google Scholar

de Swart, H. (1998). Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 347–85.Google Scholar

de Swart, H. (2011). Mismatches and coercion. In: Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K. & Portner, P. (eds.) Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. De Gruyter, pp. 574–97.Google Scholar

Deutsch, W. & Pechmann, T. (1982). Social interaction and the development of definite descriptions. Cognition 11(2): 159–84.Google Scholar

de Villiers, P. A., de Villiers, J., Coles-White, D. J. & 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. Cascadilla Press, pp. 121–32.Google Scholar

Dews, S., Winner, E., Kaplan, J., Rosenblatt, E., Hunt, M., Lim, K., McGovern, A., Qualter, A. & Smarsh, B. (1996). Children’s understanding of the meaning and functions of verbal irony. Child Development 67: 3071–85.Google Scholar

Dezecache, G., Mercier, H. & Scott-Phillips, T. (2013). An evolutionary approach to emotional communication. Journal of Pragmatics 59(B): 221–33.Google Scholar

Dickens, C. (2011). The Complete Works of Charles Dickens. Delphi.Google Scholar

Diesendruck, G. & Markson, L. (2001). Children’s avoidance of lexical overlap: A pragmatic account. Developmental Psychology 37(5): 630–41.Google Scholar

Dominicy, M. & Franken, N. (2002). Speech acts and relevance theory. In: Vanderveken, D. & Kubo, S. (eds.) Essays in Speech Act Theory. John Benjamins, pp. 263–84.Google Scholar

Doron, E. (1991). Point of view as a factor of content. In: Moore, S. K. & Wyner, A. Z. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 1).Google Scholar

Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53: 810–42.Google Scholar

Drożdżowicz, A. (2015). Investigating Utterance Meaning: Essays in the Epistemology of Language. PhD thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Drożdżowicz, A. (2016). Speakers’ intuitions about meaning provide empirical evidence: Towards experimental pragmatics. In: Hinton, M. (ed.) Evidence, Experiment, and Argument in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language. Peter Lang, pp. 65–90.Google Scholar

Dryden, J. (1913). Preface concerning Ovid’s Epistles. In: Sargeaunt, J. (ed.) The Poems of John Dryden. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ducrot, O. (1984). Le Dire et le Dit. Minuit.Google Scholar

Dudschig, C., de la Vega, I. & Kaup, B. (2014). Embodiment and second-language: Automatic activation of motor responses processing spatially associated L2 words and emotion L2 words in a vertical Stroop paradigm. Brain and Language 132: 14–21.Google Scholar

Duff, M. C., Hengst, J. A., Tranel, D. & Cohen, N. J. (2007). Talking across time: Using reported speech as a communicative resource in amnesia. Aphasiology 21(6–8): 702–16.Google Scholar

Dupré, J. (1993). The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Dyck, M. J., Ferguson, K. & Schochet, I. M. (2001). Do autism spectrum disorders differ from each other and from non-spectrum disorders on emotion recognition tests? European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 10(2): 105–16.Google Scholar

Eckardt, R. (2006). Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Egan, F. (2014). How to think about mental content. Philosophical Studies, 170(1): 115–35.Google Scholar

Eiteljoerge, S., Pouscoulous, N. & Lieven, E. (2016). Some pieces are missing: Scalar implicatures in children. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Epley, N., Morewedge, C. K. & Keysar, B. (2004). Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40(6): 760–8.Google Scholar

Escandell-Vidal, V. (2018a). Evidential commitment and feature mismatch in Spanish estar constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 128: 102–15.Google Scholar

Escandell-Vidal, V. (2018b). Ser y estar con adjetivos. Afinidad y desajuste de rasgos. Revista Española de Lingüística 48: 57–114.Google Scholar

Escandell-Vidal, V. & Leonetti, M. (2011). On the rigidity of procedural meaning. In: Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. & Ahern, A. (eds.) Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Emerald, pp. 81–102.Google Scholar

Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. & Ahern, A. (eds.) 2011. Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Emerald.Google Scholar

Eshghi, A., Healey, P. G. T., Purver, M., Howes, C., Gregoromichelaki, E. & Kempson, R. (2010). Incremental turn processing in dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLAP), York, UK, September 2010.Google Scholar

Eshghi, A., Purver, M. & Hough, J. (2011). Dylan: Parser for Dynamic Syntax. Technical report, Queen Mary, University of London.Google Scholar

Eshghi, A., Hough, J., Purver, M., Kempson, R. & Gregoromichelaki, E. (2012). Conversational interactions: Capturing dialogue dynamics. In: Borin, L. & Larsson, S. (eds.) From Quantification to Conversation. College Publications, pp. 325–49.Google Scholar

Eshghi, A., Howes, C., Gregoromichelaki, E., Hough, J. & Purver, M. (2015). Feedback in conversation as incremental semantic update. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2015), Queen Mary University of London, UK April 2015, pp. 261–71.Google Scholar

Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59: 255–78.Google Scholar

Fabb, N. (2002). Language and Literary Structure. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fabb, N. (2016). Processing effort and poetic closure. International Journal of Literary Linguistics 5(4): 1–22.Google Scholar

Falkum, I. L. (2011). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: A Relevance-Theoretic Account. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar

Falkum, I. L. (2015). The how and why of polysemy: A pragmatic account. Lingua 157: 83–99.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(1): 87–119.Google Scholar

Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Fernald, T. (1999). Evidential coercion: Using individual-level predicates in stage-level environments. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29: 43–63.Google Scholar

Filippova, E. & Astington, J. W. (2008). Further development in social reasoning revealed in discourse irony understanding. Child Development 79(1): 126–38.Google Scholar

Fischler, I., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E. & Perry, N. W. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology 20(4): 400–9.Google Scholar

Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Social Cognition: From Brain to Culture. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Flaubert, G. (2013). Complete Works of Gustave Flaubert. Delphi.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1975). The Language of Thought. Crowell.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (2002). The lexicon and the laundromat. In: Merlo, P. and Stevenson, S. (eds.) The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing. John Benjamins, pp. 75–84.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (2005). Reply to Steven Pinker ‘So how does the mind work?’ Mind & Language 20(1): 25–32.Google Scholar

Fontaine, J. J., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B. & Ellsworth, P. C. (2007). The world of emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science 18(12): 1050–7.Google Scholar

Foolen, A. (1997). The expressive function of language: Towards a cognitive semantic approach. In: Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R. (eds.) The Language of Emotions. John Benjamins, pp. 15–31.Google Scholar

Foppolo, F., Guasti, M. T. & Chierchia, G. (2012). Scalar implicatures in child language: Give children a chance. Language Learning and Development 8(4): 365–94.Google Scholar

Fowler, A. (1989). A new theory of communication. London Review of Books 11(7): 16–17.Google Scholar

Francis, E. J. & Michaelis, L. A. (eds.) (2003). Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Franke, M. (2011). Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics 1: 1–82.Google Scholar

Fretheim, T. (2014). Et relevansteoretisk blikk på likheter og ulikheter mellom partiklene da og altså [A relevance-theoretic view of similarities and differences between the particles da and altså]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 32(2): 197–256.Google Scholar

Fretheim, T. (2015a). Grammatikalisering av adverbet gjerne i ulike norske varieteter. [Grammaticalisation of the adverb gjerne in different varieties of spoken Norwegian.] Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 33(1): 3–48.Google Scholar

Fretheim, T. (2015b). A relevance-theoretic perspective on the Norwegian utterance-final particles da and altså compared to their English counterpart then. In: Hancil, S., Haselow, A. & Post, M. (eds.) Final Particles. Walter de Gruyter, pp. 249–84.Google Scholar

Fretheim, T. (2016). The speaker’s derivational intention. In: Cruz, M. Padilla (ed.) Relevance Theory: Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions. John Benjamins, pp. 33–58.Google Scholar

Fretheim, T. (2017). The pragmatics of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. In: Assimakopoulos, S. (ed.) Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Mouton, pp. 175–200.Google Scholar

Friend, M. (2000). Developmental changes in sensitivity to vocal paralanguage. Developmental Science 3: 148–62.Google Scholar

Friend, M. & Bryant, J. B. (2000). A developmental lexical bias in the interpretation of discrepant messages. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 46(2): 342–69.Google Scholar

Frisson, S. & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The processing of familiar and novel senses of a word: Why reading Dickens is easy but reading Needham can be hard. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(4): 595–613.Google Scholar

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2): 127.Google Scholar

Furlong, A. (2008). You can’t put your foot in the same river once: Relevance stylistics and repetition. Proceedings of The State of Stylistics, 26th Annual Meeting of the Poetics and Linguistics Association. Rodopi, pp. 283–302.Google Scholar

Gagné, C. & Shoben, E. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 23: 71–87.Google Scholar

García Fernández, L. & Camus Bergareche, B. (eds.) (2004). El pretérito imperfecto. Gredos.Google Scholar

Gardner, H., Winner, E., Bechhofer, R. & Wolf, D. (1978). The development of figurative language. In: Nelson, K. E. (ed.) Children’s Language (Vol. 1). Gardner Press, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

Gargett, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., Howes, C. & Sato, Y. (2008). Dialogue-grammar correspondence in Dynamic Syntax. In: Proceedings of the 12th SemDial (LonDial), London.Google Scholar

Gargett, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M. & Sato, Y. (2009). Grammar resources for modelling dialogue dynamically. Journal of Cognitive Neurodynamics, 3(4), 347–63.Google Scholar

Garrett, E. (2001). Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar

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

Gerrig, R. J. & Healy, A. F. (1983). Dual processes in metaphor understanding: comprehension and appreciation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 9: 667–75.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. (2007). Really fucking brilliant. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 207–214.Google Scholar

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

Geurts, B. (2018). Convention and common ground. Mind & Language 33(2): 115–29.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115(1): 3–15.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (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. (2011). The allegorical impulse. Metaphor and Symbol 26(2): 121–30.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (2015a). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? Journal of Pragmatics 90: 77–87.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W., (2015b). The allegorical character of political metaphors in discourse. Metaphor and the Social World 5(2): 264–82.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G. & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R. & Pachur, T. (2011). Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ginzburg, J. (1996). Interrogatives: Questions, facts and dialogue. In: Lappin, S. & Fox, C. (eds.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell, pp. 359–423.Google Scholar

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

Ginzburg, J. & Cooper, R. (2014). Quotation via dialogical interaction. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 23(3): 287–311.Google Scholar

Ginzburg, J., Fernández, R. & Schlangen, D. (2014). Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(9): 1–64.Google Scholar

Glucksberg, S., Brown, M. & McGlone, M. S. (1993). Conceptual metaphors are not automatically accessed during idiom comprehension. Memory and Cognition 21: 711–19.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica 251–2: 1–30.Google Scholar

Golden, A. (2010). Grasping the point: A study of 15-year-old students’ comprehension of metaphorical expressions in schoolbooks. In: Low, G., Todd, Z., Deignan, A. & Cameron, L. (eds.) Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World. John Benjamins, pp. 35–61.Google Scholar

Golding, A. (2016). Metaphor in the Embodied Mind: Beyond the Propositionality of Figurative Language. PhD thesis, University of Brighton, UK.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). The Resilience of Language. Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Gómez, J. C. (1996). Ostensive behavior in great apes: The role of eye contact. In: Russon, A. E., Bard, K. A. & Parker, S. Taylor (eds.) Reaching into Thought: The Minds of the Great Apes. Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–51.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive footing. In: Holt, E.. & Clift, R. (eds.) Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–46.Google Scholar

Gough, P. (1966). The verification of sentences: The effects of delay of evidence and sentence length. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6: 492–6.Google Scholar

Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. (2011). Teaching and Researching Reading. Pearson.Google Scholar

Green, G. M. (1976). Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language 52: 382–97.Google Scholar

Greenspan, P. (2002). Practical reasoning and emotion. In: Mele, A. & Rawlings, P. (eds.) Rationality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, E. (2012). Review of J. Ginzburg (2012) The Interactive Stance. Folia Linguistica 47(1): 293–316.Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, E. (2013a). Clitic left dislocation and clitic doubling: A dynamic perspective on left-right asymmetries in Greek. In: Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M. & Walker, H. (eds.) Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective. John Benjamins, pp. 321–68.Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, E. (2013b). Grammar as action in language and music. In: Orwin, M., Howes, C. & Kempson, R. (eds.). Language, Music and Interaction. College Publications.Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, E. (2017). Quotation in dialogue. In: Saka, P & Johnson, M. (eds.) The Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation. Springer, pp. 195–255.Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, E. & Kempson, R. (2015). Joint utterances and the (split-) turn-taking puzzle. In: Capone, A. & Mey, J. (eds.) Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Springer, pp. 703–43.Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, E. (2016). Reporting, dialogue, and the role of grammar. In: Capone, A., Kiefer, F. & Lo Piparo, F. (eds.) Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Springer, pp. 115–50.Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M., Mills, G. J., Cann, R., Meyer-Viol, W. & Healey, P. G. T. (2011). Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse, 2(1): 199–233.Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R. & Cann, R. (2012). Language as tools for interaction: Grammar and the dynamics of ellipsis resolution. The Linguistic Review 29(4): 563–84.Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Howes, C. & Eshghi, A. (2013a). On making syntax dynamic: The challenge of compound utterances and the architecture of the grammar. In: Wachsmuth, I., de Ruiter, J. P., Jaecks, P. & Kopp, S. (eds.) Alignment in Communication: Towards a New Theory of Communication. John Benjamins, 58–85.Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, E., Cann, R. & Kempson, R. (2013b). Coordination in dialogue: Subsentential speech and its implications. In: Goldstein, L. (ed.) Brevity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gregory, M. E. & Mergler, N. L. (1990). Metaphor comprehension: In search of literal truth, possible sense, and metaphoricity. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 5: 151–73.Google Scholar

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

Grice, H. P. (1967[1989]). Logic and conversation: William James lectures. In: Grice, H. P. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, pp. 1–143.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts (Vol. 3). Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In: Cole, P. (ed.) Radical Pragmatics. Academic Press, pp. 183–98. Reprinted in his (1989) Studies in the Ways of Words. Harvard University Press, pp. 269–82.Google Scholar

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

Grigoroglou, M. & Papafragou, A. (2016). Acquisition of pragmatics. In: Clark, R. & Aronoff, M. (eds.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University 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: 42–55.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. In: Landman, F. & Veltman, F. (eds.) Varieties of Formal Semantics. Foris, pp. 143–70.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): 667–96.Google Scholar

Gutt, E.-A. (2013). How does the affective relate to ostensive-inferential communication? Unpublished draft, available at: www.saunalahti.fi/~ehmgutt. Accessed 8 November 2018.Google Scholar

Hamilton, C. (2011). Allegory, blending, and censorship in modern literature. Journal of Literary Semantics 40(1): 23–42.Google Scholar

Hancock, J. T., Dunham, P. J. & Purdy, K. (2000). Children’s comprehension of critical and complimentary forms of verbal irony. Journal of Cognition & Development 1: 227–48.Google Scholar

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

Harnish, R. M. (1994). Mood, meaning and speech acts. In: Tsohatzidis, S. (ed.) Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives Routledge, pp. 407–59.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. & Sims, A. (2013). Understanding Morphology. Routledge.Google Scholar

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. & Rapson, R. (1994). Emotional Contagion. Cambridge 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: 1569–79.Google Scholar

Hedger, J. (2012). The semantics of racial slurs: Using Kaplan’s framework to provide a theory of derogatory epithets. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 11: 74–84.Google Scholar

Hedger, J. (2013). Meaning and racial slurs: derogatory epithets and the semantics/pragmatics interface. Language and Communication 33: 205–13.Google Scholar

Heggstad, L. (1963). Gamalnorsk Ordbok [Old Norse Dictionary]. Det Norske Samlaget.Google Scholar

Hirschberg, J. (1985). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Hobart, R. E. (1934). Free will as involving determination and inconceivable without it. Mind 43(169): 1–27.Google Scholar

Hochstein, L., Bale, A., Fox, D. & Barner, D. (2014). Ignorance and inference: Do problems with Gricean epistemic reasoning explain children’s difficulty with scalar implicature? Journal of Semantics 33(1): 107–35.Google Scholar

Hom, C. (2008). The semantics of racial epithets. Journal of Philosophy 105(8): 416–40.Google Scholar

Hooper, J. B. (1975). On assertive predicates. In: Kimball, J. P. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics (Vol 4). Academic Press, pp. 91–124.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of the Logical Operators in English. PhD thesis, Indiana University.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. Georgetown University Press, pp. 11–42.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61(1): 121–74.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hornsby, J. (2001). How to think about derogatory words. In: French, P. & Wettstein, H. (eds.) Figurative Language. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 25. Blackwell, pp. 128–41.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. (1990). As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N., Nunes, J. & Grohmann, K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hough, J. (2014). Modelling Incremental Self-Repair Processing in Dialogue. PhD thesis, Queen Mary, University of London.Google Scholar

Htsu, C.-T., Jacobs, A. M., Citron, F. M. M. & Conrad, M. (2015). The emotion potential of words and passages in reading Harry Potter: An fMRI study. Brain and Language 142: 96–114.Google Scholar

Huang, Y. (2000). Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Hurley, S. L. (2008). The shared circuits model (SCM): How control, mirroring, and simulation can enable imitation, deliberation, and mindreading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31(1): 1–58.Google Scholar

Hutcheon, L. (2006). A Theory of Adaptation. Routledge.Google Scholar

Huttenlocher, J. & Smiley, P. (1987). Early word meanings: The case of object names. Cognitive Psychology 19: 63–89.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ifantidou, E. (2001). Evidentials and Relevance. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ifantidou, E. (2014). Pragmatic Competence and Relevance. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (2010). Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jackson, R. (2016).The Pragmatics of Repetition, Emphasis and Intensification. PhD thesis, University of Salford, UK.Google Scholar

Jacobs, A. T. (2002). Appropriating a slur: Looping in the African American usage of nigga. M/C Journal: A Journal of Media and Culture 5(4).Google Scholar

Jary, M. (2010). Assertion. Palgrave.Google Scholar

Jary, M. (2011). Assertion, relevance and the declarative mood. In: Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. & Ahern, A. (eds.) Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspective. Emerald, pp. 267–89.Google Scholar

Jary, M. & Kissine, M. (2014). Imperatives. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jary, M. (2016). When terminology matters: The imperative as a comparative concept. Linguistics 54(1): 119–48.Google Scholar

Jeshion, R. (2013). Expressivism and the offensiveness of slurs. Philosophical Perspectives 27: 307–35.Google Scholar

Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. (2011). More than a journey: ‘Learning’ in the metaphors of Chinese students and teachers. In: Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. (eds.) Researching Chinese Learners: Skills, Perceptions and Intercultural Adaptations. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 67–92.Google Scholar

Jones, M. & Love, B. (2011). Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 34: 169–231.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar

Kaland, N., Calleson, K., Moller-Nielsen, A., Mortensen, E. L. & Smith, L. (2008). Performance of children and adolescents with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism on advanced theory of mind tasks. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorder 38: 1112–23.Google Scholar

Kalsang, K., Garfield, J. Speas, M. & DeVilliers, J. (2013). Direct evidentials, case, tense and aspect in Tibetan: Evidence for a general theory of the semantics of evidentials. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(2): 517–61.Google Scholar

Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M. & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49: 133–56.Google Scholar

Kampa, A. & Papafragou, A. (2017). Gricean epistemic reasoning in 4-year-olds. In: Gunzelmann, G., Howes, A., Tenbrink, T. & Davelaar, E. J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2362–5.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In: Almog, J., Perry, J. & Wettstein, H. (eds.) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, pp. 481–566.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1999). What Is Meaning? Explorations in the Theory of Meaning as Use. Manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Karttunen, L. (1971). Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics 5: 55–69.Google Scholar

Kasher, A. (1991). Pragmatics and Chomsky’s research program. In: Kasher, A. (ed.) The Chomskyan Turn. Basil Blackwell, pp. 122–49.Google Scholar

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

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

Kehler, A. & Rohde, H. (2016). Evaluating an expectation-driven QUD model of discourse interpretation. Discourse Processes 54(3): 219–38.Google Scholar

Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W. & Gabbay, D. (2001). Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E. & Howes, C. (2011). The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Kempson, R., Cann, R., Gregoromichelaki, E. & Chatzikyriakidis, S. (2016). Language as mechanisms for interaction. Theoretical Linguistics 42(3–4): 203–76.Google Scholar

Kempson, R., Cann, R., Gregoromichelaki, E. (2017). Action-based grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 43(1–2): 141–67.Google Scholar

Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., Eshghi, A. & Hough, J. (2019). Ellipsis in dynamic syntax. In: van Craenenbroeck, J. & Temmerman, T. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kissine, M. (2013). From Utterances to Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kobele, G. M. (2016). Actual language use and competence grammars. Theoretical Linguistics 42(3–4): 277–90.Google Scholar

Kolaiti, P. (2015). The poetic mind: A producer-oriented approach to literature and art. Journal of Literary Semantics 45(1): 23–44.Google Scholar

Kolaiti, P. & Wilson, D. (2014). Corpus analysis and lexical pragmatics: An overview. International Review of Pragmatics 6: 211–39.Google Scholar

Kölbel, M. (2003). Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104: 53–73.Google Scholar

Komorowska, H. (2013). Metaphor in education. In: Droździał-Szelest, K. & Pawlak, M. (eds.) Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, pp. 57–72.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1988). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In: Krifka, M. (ed.) Genericity in Natural Language. SNS-Bericht, pp. 247–84.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In: Carlson, G. & Pelletier, F. J. (eds.) The Generic Book. University of Chicago Press, pp. 125–76.Google Scholar

Krennmayr, T. (2011). Metaphor in Newspapers. LOT Dissertation Series, 276. LOT.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): 374–86.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. (1999). Additive particles under stress. Proceedings of SALT 8. CLC Publications, pp. 111–28.Google Scholar

Kuchinke, L., Jacobs, A. M., Grubich, C., Võ, M. L.-H., Conrad, M. & Manfred, H. (2005). Incidental effects of emotional valence in single word processing: An fMRI study. NeuroImage 28: 1022–32.Google Scholar

Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S. & Brown, M. (1995). How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124(1): 3–21.Google Scholar

Kuno, S. (1980). The scope of the question and negation in some verb-final languages. Chicago Linguistic Society 17: 155–69.Google Scholar

Kurz, G. (1997). Metapher, Allegorie, Symbol. Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar

Ladd, R. D. (1981). A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. In: Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 164–71.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lapata, M. (2002). The disambiguation of nominalizations. Computational Linguistics 28: 357–88.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (1989). Essays on Binding and Anaphora. Kluwer.Google Scholar

Lavender, A. (2017). The internet, theatre, and time: Transmediating the theatron. Contemporary Theatre Review 27(3): 340–52.Google Scholar

Lavie, N. & De Fockert, J. (2005). The role of working memory in attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12(4): 669–74.Google Scholar

Lawrence, D. H. (1971/1920). Women in Love. Heinemann.Google Scholar

Lee, H. S. (1991). Tense, Aspect, and Modality: A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Affixes in Korean from a Typological Perspective. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar

Lee, H. S. (1999). A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean: A synthetic approach to the form-meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 243–75.Google Scholar

Lee, K. (1993). A Korean Grammar on Semantic Pragmatic Principles. Hankuk Munhwasa.Google Scholar

Leitch, T. (2003). Twelve fallacies in contemporary adaptation theory. Criticism 45(2): 149–71.Google Scholar

Leonetti, M. (1994). Ser y estar: estado de la cuestión. Barataria 1: 182–205.Google Scholar

Leonetti, M. (2004). Por qué el imperfecto es anafórico. In: Fernández, L. García & Bergareche, B. Camus (eds.) El imperfecto. Gredos, pp. 481–507.Google Scholar

Leonetti, M. & Escandell-Vidal, V. (2003). On the quotative readings of Spanish imperfecto. Cuadernos de Lingüística 10: 135–54.Google Scholar

Leopold, W. F. (1949). Speech Development of a Bilingual Child. Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Lepore, E. & Stone, M. (2015). Imagination and Convention. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20: 441–58.Google Scholar

Lerner, G. H. (2004). On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: Grammar as action in prompting a speaker to elaborate. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(2): 151–84.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. (1993). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levin, B., Glass, L. & Jurafsky, D. (2014). Corpus evidence for systematicity in English compounds. Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 19, Georg August University at Göttingen, 15–17 September 2014.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s participation framework. In: Drew, P. & Wootton, A. (eds.) Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Polity Press, pp. 161–227.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning: Essays in honor of Sir John Lyons. In: Palmer, F. R. (ed.) Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–115.Google Scholar

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

Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3): 1126–77.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88(4): 513–43.Google Scholar

Li, F. T. (2009). Metaphor, Image, and Image Schemas in Second Language Pedagogy. Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar

Lieber, R. (2011). A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In: Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford University Press, pp. 78–104.Google Scholar

Lieberman, M. (2000). Intuition: A social-cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological Bulletin 126: 109–37.Google Scholar

Littlemore, J. (2008). The relationship between associative thinking, analogical reasoning, image formation and metaphoric extension strategies. In: Zanotto, M. S., Cameron, L. & Cavalcanti, M. C. (eds.) Confronting Metaphor in Use: An Applied Linguistic Approach. John Benjamins, pp. 199–222.Google Scholar

Littlemore, J. & Low, G. D. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics 27(2): 268–94.Google Scholar

Littlemore, J. & Taylor, J. R. (2014). The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar

Losee, J. (1980). A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Loukusa, S., Leinonen, E. & Ryder, N. (2007). Development of pragmatic language comprehension in Finnish-speaking children. First Language 27(3): 279–96.Google Scholar

Low, G., Todd, Z., Deignan, A. & Cameron, L. (eds.) (2010). Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lucas, M. (1987). Frequency effects on the processing of ambiguous words in sentence contexts. Language and Speech 30(1): 25–46.Google Scholar

Lust, B. (2006). Child Language: Acquisition and Growth. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmuttter, N. J. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101(4): 676–703.Google Scholar

Maguire, P., Wisniewski, E. & Storms, G. (2010). A corpus study of semantic patterns in compounding. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6: 49–73.Google Scholar

Maienborn, C. (2005). A discourse-based account of Spanish ser/estar. Linguistics 43(1): 155–80.Google Scholar

Maier, E. (2014a). Mixed quotation: The grammar of apparently transparent opacity. Semantics & Pragmatics 7(7): 1–67.Google Scholar

Maier, E. (2014b). Language shifts in free indirect discourse. Journal of Literary Semantics 43(2): 143–67.Google Scholar

Malle, B. (2004). How the Mind Explains Behavior: Folk Explanations, Meaning and Social Interaction. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Djikic, M. & Mullin, J. (2011). Emotion and narrative fiction: Interactive influences before, during, and after reading. Cognition and Emotion 25(5): 818–33.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (2001). Words. Unpublished ms, MIT.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (2013). Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130: 152–68.Google Scholar

Marín, R. (2004). Entre ser y estar. Arco/Libros.Google Scholar

Marín, R. (2010). Spanish adjectives within bounds. In: Cabredo Hofherr, P. & Matushansky, O. (eds.). Formal Analyses in Syntax and Semantics. John Benjamins, pp. 307–32.Google Scholar