Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-kpmwg Total loading time: 2.85 Render date: 2021-12-06T04:02:12.187Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2019

Kate Scott
Affiliation:
Kingston University, London
Billy Clark
Affiliation:
Northumbria University, Newcastle
Robyn Carston
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, B. P. (1981). Young children’s understanding of a speaker’s intentional use of a false utterance. Developmental Psychology 17: 472–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, B. P. (1983). Form and function in children’s understanding of ironic utterances. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 35: 487508.CrossRefGoogle 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. 4970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acredolo, L. & Goodwyn, S. (1988). Symbolic gesturing in normal infants. Child Development 59: 450–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 151.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1122.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.
Allott, N. (2013). Relevance theory. In: Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F. & Carapezza, M. (eds.) Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Springer, pp. 5798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allott, N. (2017). Metarepresentation. In: Barron, A., Gu, Y. & Steen, G. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Routledge, pp. 295309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73(3): 247–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, G. T. M. & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 30(3): 191238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 101–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L. & Lepore, E. (2013a). Slurring words. Noûs 47(1): 2548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L. (2013b). What did you call me? Slurs as prohibited words. Analytic Philosophy 54(3): 350–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. J. (2014). After Phrenology: Neural Reuse and the Interactive Brain. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle 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: 2340.CrossRefGoogle 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. 4768.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. & Choueiri, L. (2000). Epithets. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18: 139.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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. 4760.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. 161.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.CrossRefGoogle 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: 4360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baetens, J. (2010). Expanding the field of constraint: Novelization as an example of multiply constrained writing. Poetics Today 31(1): 5179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M. & Bian, L. (2016). Psychological reasoning in infancy. Annual Review of Psychology 67(1): 159–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable Sentences. Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Barceló, A. & Stainton, R. J. (2016). Cuasi-Factivos. Elenkhos 1(1): 6588.Google Scholar
Barner, D. & Bachrach, A. (2010). Inference and exact numerical representation in early language development. Cognitive Psychology 60(1): 4062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barner, D., Brooks, N. & Bale, A. (2011). Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition 118(1): 8493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnhart, R. K. (1988). Chambers Dictionary of Etymology. Chambers Harrap.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, M. D. (1978). Lexical development and overextension in child language. Journal of Child Language 5: 205–19.CrossRefGoogle 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. 3967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, E. (1990). Nonsentential Constituents. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, E. & Progovac, L. (2005). Nonsententials in Minimalism. In: Elugardo, R. & Stainton, R. (eds.) Ellipsis and Non-Sentential Speech. Springer, pp. 7193.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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: 592607.Google Scholar
Begby, E. (2017). Language from the ground up: A study of Homesign communication. Erkenntnis 82: 693714.CrossRefGoogle 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 ScholarPubMed
Berthonneau, A. M. & Kleiber, G. (1993). Pour une nouvelle approche de l’imparfait: l’imparfait, un temps anaphorique méronomique. Langages 112: 5573.CrossRefGoogle 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: 3544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickhard, M. H. (2009). The interactivist model. Synthese 166(3): 547–91.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billow, R. M. (1981). Observing spontaneous metaphor in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 31: 430–55.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2009). Parentheticals and point of view in free indirect style. Language and Literature 18(2): 129–53.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2011). On the descriptive ineffability of expressive meaning. Journal of Pragmatics. 43: 3537–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2013a). Voice and expressivity in Free Indirect Thought representations: Imitation and representation. Mind & Language 28(5): 579605.CrossRefGoogle 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: 2235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. & Gallai, F. (2014). Discourse markers in free indirect style and interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 60: 106–20.CrossRefGoogle 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: 296312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L. (1975). One Word at a Time. Mouton.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. (2000). How Children Learn the Meaning of Words. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. & Markson, L. (2001). Are there principles that apply only to the acquisition of words? Cognition 78: 8990.CrossRefGoogle 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: 6372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 150.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.
Breheny, R. (1996). Pro-active focus. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 142.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): 74107.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J. & Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of aspectual coercion. Brain and Language 106(2): 132–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brucart, J. M. (2012). Copular alternation in Spanish and Catalan attributive sentences. Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Univerdade do Porto 7: 943.Google Scholar
Bryant, G. A. (2012). Is verbal irony special? Language and Linguistics Compass 6(11): 673–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, G. A. & Fox Tree, J. E. (2005). Is there an ironic tone of voice? Language and Speech 48(3): 257–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bucciarelli, M., Colle, L. & Bara, B. G. (2003). How children comprehend speech acts and communicative gestures. Journal of Pragmatics 35(2): 207–41.CrossRefGoogle 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): 99191.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, R. & Kempson, R. (2017). What do words do for us? Dialectica 71: 425–60.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, H. & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind 106: 429–50.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Carlson, G. (2006). ‘Mismatches’ of form and interpretation. In: van Geenhoven, V. (ed.) Semantics in Acquisition. De Gruyter, pp. 1936.CrossRefGoogle 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): 4573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2003). Moderately massive modularity. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 53: 6789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1995). Quantity maxims and generalized implicature. Lingua 96: 213–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1996). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 309–30.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1998b). Informativeness, relevance, and scalar implicature. In: Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds.) Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Benjamins, pp. 179236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2010). Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society CX(3): 295321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2012). Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review 29(4): 607–23.CrossRefGoogle 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. 175204.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.
Carston, R. (forthcoming) Lexical innovation, word meaning and the lexicon.
Carston, R. & Uchida, S. (eds.) (1998). Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. & Wearing, C. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition 3(2): 283312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1999). The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casartelli, D. (2017). The Interaction of Negation and Epistemic Modality. A Pragmatic Approach. MA thesis, University of Geneva.
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): 16777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cave, T. (2016). Thinking with Literature: Towards a Cognitive Criticism. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, S. (in press). Pragmatics and Literature. John Benjamins.
Chatman, S. (1980). What novels can do that films can’t (and vice versa). Critical Inquiry 7(1): 121–40.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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. 39103.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. 4762.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner, ‘Verbal Behavior’, 1957. Language 35: 2658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In: Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn & Co, pp. 184221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1978a). A theory of core grammar. Glot 1: 726.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1978b). Interview with Sol Saporta. Washington State University, Dept. of Linguistics Working Papers in Linguistics, Supplement 4: 126.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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. 2655.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1992a). Explaining language use. Philosophical Topics 20: 205–31.CrossRefGoogle 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. 99128.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chouliaraki, L. (2013). Re-mediation, inter-mediation, trans-mediation. Journalism Studies 14(2): 267–83.CrossRefGoogle 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. 4366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipria, A. & Roberts, C. (2000). Spanish imperfecto and pretérito: Truth conditions and Aktionsart effects in a Situation Semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8: 297347.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A. (2016). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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. 65110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1978). Strategies for communicating. Child Development 49: 953–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2009). First Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. & Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55: 767811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Carlson, T. B. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language 58(2): 332–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology 3(3): 472517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clément, F., Koenig, M. & Harris, P. (2004). The ontogeny of trust. Mind & Language 19: 360–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (2012). Discourse integration guided by the ‘question under discussion.’ Cognitive Psychology 65: 352–79.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1986). Tense in indirect speech. Folia Linguistica 20: 265–96.CrossRefGoogle 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. 271323.Google Scholar
Corazza, E. (2005). Epithets qua attributive anaphors. Journal of Linguistics 41: 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cormack, A. & Smith, N. (in prep). Categorial Minimalism: Syntax, Semantics and the Language of Thought.
Corrigan, T. (2017). Defining adaptation. In: Leitch, T. (ed.) The Oxford Book of Adaptation Studies. Oxford University Press, pp. 2335.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. 91115.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, P. (2008). Between extended metaphor and allegory: Is blending enough? Language and Literature 17(4): 291308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croom, A. (2008). Racial epithets: What we say and mean by them. Dialogue 51: 3445.Google Scholar
Croom, A. (2011). Slurs. Language Sciences 33: 343–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croom, A. (2014a). The semantics of slurs: A refutation of pure expressivism. Language Sciences 41: 227–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croom, A. (2014b). Slurs, stereotypes, and in-equality: A critical review of ‘How Epithets and Stereotypes are Racially Unequal’. Language Sciences 44: 116.Google Scholar
Csibra, G. & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(4): 148–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
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. 79101.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1978/1984). What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry 5(1): 3147. Reprinted in his 1984 Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford University Press, pp. 245–64.CrossRefGoogle 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.
De Brabanter, P. (2010). The semantics and pragmatics of hybrid quotations. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(2): 107–20.CrossRefGoogle 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: 667710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehé, N. (2014). Parentheticals in Spoken English: The Syntax–Prosody Relation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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): 96113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dezecache, G., Mercier, H. & Scott-Phillips, T. (2013). An evolutionary approach to emotional communication. Journal of Pragmatics 59(B): 221–33.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drożdżowicz, A. (2015). Investigating Utterance Meaning: Essays in the Epistemology of Language. PhD thesis, University of Oslo.
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. 6590.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: 1421.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eckardt, R. (2006). Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, F. (2014). How to think about mental content. Philosophical Studies, 170(1): 115–35.CrossRefGoogle 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.
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (2018a). Evidential commitment and feature mismatch in Spanish estar constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 128: 102–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (2018b). Ser y estar con adjetivos. Afinidad y desajuste de rasgos. Revista Española de Lingüística 48: 57114.CrossRefGoogle 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. 81102.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabb, N. (2002). Language and Literary Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, N. (2016). Processing effort and poetic closure. International Journal of Literary Linguistics 5(4): 122.Google Scholar
Falkum, I. L. (2011). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: A Relevance-Theoretic Account. PhD thesis, University College London.
Falkum, I. L. (2015). The how and why of polysemy: A pragmatic account. Lingua 157: 8399.CrossRefGoogle 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): 87119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD thesis, Stanford University.
Fernald, T. (1999). Evidential coercion: Using individual-level predicates in stage-level environments. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29: 4363.Google Scholar
Filippova, E. & Astington, J. W. (2008). Further development in social reasoning revealed in discourse irony understanding. Child Development 79(1): 126–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts. Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle 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. 7584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (2005). Reply to Steven Pinker ‘So how does the mind work?’ Mind & Language 20(1): 2532.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1531.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, A. (1989). A new theory of communication. London Review of Books 11(7): 1617.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: 182.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): 197256.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): 348.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. 3358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, T. (2017). The pragmatics of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. In: Assimakopoulos, S. (ed.) Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Mouton, pp. 175200.Google Scholar
Friend, M. (2000). Developmental changes in sensitivity to vocal paralanguage. Developmental Science 3: 148–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friend, M. & Bryant, J. B. (2000). A developmental lexical bias in the interpretation of discrepant messages. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 46(2): 342–69.Google ScholarPubMed
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): 595613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2): 127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 283302.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: 7187.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. 138.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 ScholarPubMed
Garrett, E. (2001). Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD thesis, UCLA.
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): 207214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geurts, B. (2018). Convention and common ground. Mind & Language 33(2): 115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115(1): 315.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2011). The allegorical impulse. Metaphor and Symbol 26(2): 121–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2015a). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? Journal of Pragmatics 90: 7787.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. (1996). Interrogatives: Questions, facts and dialogue. In: Lappin, S. & Fox, C. (eds.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell, pp. 359423.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. (2012). The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. & Cooper, R. (2014). Quotation via dialogical interaction. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 23(3): 287311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J., Fernández, R. & Schlangen, D. (2014). Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(9): 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Brown, M. & McGlone, M. S. (1993). Conceptual metaphors are not automatically accessed during idiom comprehension. Memory and Cognition 21: 711–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica 251–2: 130.CrossRefGoogle 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. 3561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golding, A. (2016). Metaphor in the Embodied Mind: Beyond the Propositionality of Figurative Language. PhD thesis, University of Brighton, UK.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). The Resilience of Language. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1646.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.CrossRefGoogle 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): 293316.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. 195255.CrossRefGoogle 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): 199233.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 5885.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review 66: 377–88.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1143.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. 4158.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: 4255.CrossRefGoogle 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.
Hamilton, C. (2011). Allegory, blending, and censorship in modern literature. Journal of Literary Semantics 40(1): 2342.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Happé, F. G. E. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind: A test of relevance theory. Cognition 48: 101–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedger, J. (2012). The semantics of racial slurs: Using Kaplan’s framework to provide a theory of derogatory epithets. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 11: 7484.Google Scholar
Hedger, J. (2013). Meaning and racial slurs: derogatory epithets and the semantics/pragmatics interface. Language and Communication 33: 205–13.CrossRefGoogle 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.
Hobart, R. E. (1934). Free will as involving determination and inconceivable without it. Mind 43(169): 127.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1975). On assertive predicates. In: Kimball, J. P. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics (Vol 4). Academic Press, pp. 91124.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.
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. 1142.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61(1): 121–74.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, J. (2014). Modelling Incremental Self-Repair Processing in Dialogue. PhD thesis, Queen Mary, University of London.
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: 96114.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): 376415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutcheon, L. (2006). A Theory of Adaptation. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J. & Smiley, P. (1987). Early word meanings: The case of object names. Cognitive Psychology 19: 6389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2001). Evidentials and Relevance. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2014). Pragmatic Competence and Relevance. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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.
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jary, M. (2016). When terminology matters: The imperative as a comparative concept. Linguistics 54(1): 119–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeshion, R. (2013). Expressivism and the offensiveness of slurs. Philosophical Perspectives 27: 307–35.CrossRefGoogle 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. 6792.CrossRefGoogle 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: 169231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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. 481566.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1999). What Is Meaning? Explorations in the Theory of Meaning as Use. Manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
Karttunen, L. (1971). Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics 5: 5569.CrossRefGoogle 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): 6781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R., Cann, R., Gregoromichelaki, E. (2017). Action-based grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 43(1–2): 141–67.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobele, G. M. (2016). Actual language use and competence grammars. Theoretical Linguistics 42(3–4): 277–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolaiti, P. (2015). The poetic mind: A producer-oriented approach to literature and art. Journal of Literary Semantics 45(1): 2344.Google Scholar
Kolaiti, P. & Wilson, D. (2014). Corpus analysis and lexical pragmatics: An overview. International Review of Pragmatics 6: 211–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kölbel, M. (2003). Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104: 5373.CrossRefGoogle 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. 5772.CrossRefGoogle 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.
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., , M. L.-H., Conrad, M. & Manfred, H. (2005). Incidental effects of emotional valence in single word processing: An fMRI study. NeuroImage 28: 1022–32.CrossRefGoogle 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): 321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1989). Essays on Binding and Anaphora. Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavender, A. (2017). The internet, theatre, and time: Transmediating the theatron. Contemporary Theatre Review 27(3): 340–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavie, N. & De Fockert, J. (2005). The role of working memory in attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12(4): 669–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M. (1994). Ser y estar: estado de la cuestión. Barataria 1: 182205.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2004). Por qué el imperfecto es anafórico. In: Fernández, L. García & Bergareche, B. Camus (eds.) El imperfecto. Gredos, pp. 481507.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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. 161227.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. 90115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3): 1126–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88(4): 513–43.CrossRefGoogle 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. 78104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, M. (2000). Intuition: A social-cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological Bulletin 126: 109–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 199222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. & Low, G. D. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics 27(2): 268–94.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, G., Todd, Z., Deignan, A. & Cameron, L. (eds.) (2010). Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, M. (1987). Frequency effects on the processing of ambiguous words in sentence contexts. Language and Speech 30(1): 2546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lust, B. (2006). Child Language: Acquisition and Growth. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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): 676703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maguire, P., Wisniewski, E. & Storms, G. (2010). A corpus study of semantic patterns in compounding. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6: 4973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, C. (2005). A discourse-based account of Spanish ser/estar. Linguistics 43(1): 155–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, E. (2014a). Mixed quotation: The grammar of apparently transparent opacity. Semantics & Pragmatics 7(7): 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, E. (2014b). Language shifts in free indirect discourse. Journal of Literary Semantics 43(2): 143–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malle, B. (2004). How the Mind Explains Behavior: Folk Explanations, Meaning and Social Interaction. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marantz, A. (2001). Words. Unpublished ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2013). Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130: 152–68.CrossRefGoogle 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
Marín, R. (2015). Ser y estar. In: Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (ed.) Enciclopedia de Lingüística Hispánica (Vol. 2). Routledge, 1324.Google Scholar
Markson, L. & Bloom, P. (1997). Evidence against a dedicated system for word learning in children. Nature 385(27): 813–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, F. (2008). Deux types de stage-level predicates. Langages 169: 111–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, V. (2013). Mary Reilly. Vintage.Google Scholar
Mascaro, O. & Sperber, D. (2009). The moral, epistemic and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception. Cognition 112: 367–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsui, T. & Miura, Y. (2009). Children’s understanding of certainty and evidentiality: Advantage of grammaticalised forms over lexical alternatives. In: Fitneva, S. & Matsui, T. (eds.) Evidentiality: A Window into Language and Cognitive Development. Wiley, pp. 4962.Google Scholar
Matsui, T. & Yamamoto, T. (2013). Developing sensitivity to the sources of information: Early use of the Japanese quotative particles tte and to in mother–child conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 59: 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsui, T., Rakoczy, H., Miura, Y. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Understanding of speaker certainty and false-belief reasoning: A comparison of Japanese and German preschoolers. Developmental Science 12: 602–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsui, T., Yamamoto, T., Miura, Y. & McCagg, P. (2016a). Young children’s early sensitivity to linguistic indications of speaker certainty in their selective word learning. Lingua 175–176: 8396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsui, T., Nakamura, T., Utsumi, A., Sasaki, A. T., Koike, T., Yoshida, Y., Harada, T., Tanabe, H. C. & Sadato, N. (2016b). The role of prosody and context in sarcasm comprehension: Behavioral and fMRI evidence. Neuropsychologia 87: 7484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzarella, D. (2013). ‘Optimal relevance’ as a pragmatic criterion: The role of epistemic vigilance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 2045.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, D. (2015). Politeness, relevance and scalar inferences. Journal of Pragmatics 79: 93106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1999). Participant roles, frames, and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(6): 595619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., Pylkkänen, L., Pickering, M. J. & Traxler, M. J. (2006). A timecourse of enriched composition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 31(1): 53–9.Google Scholar
McFarlane, B. (1996). Novel to Film. An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 16(3): 247–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meikle, K. (2013). Rematerializing adaptation theory. Literature/Film Quarterly 41(3): 174–83.Google Scholar
Miller, B. (2013). Metaphor, writer’s block and the Legend of Zelda: A link to the writing process. In: Colby, R., Johnson, M. S. S. & Shultz Colby, R. (eds.) Rhetoric/Composition/Play through Video Games. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 99111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. & Weinert, R. (1998). Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. (2004). The Varieties of Meaning: The 2002 Jean Nicod Lectures. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, K. (2011). ‘I’m making it different to the book’: Transmediation of young children’s multimodal and digital texts. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 36(3): 5668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milsark, G. (1974). Existential Sentences in English. PhD thesis, MIT.
Moeschler, J. (2010). Negation, scope and the descriptive/metalinguistic distinction. Generative Grammar in Geneva 6: 2948.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2011). Causal, inferential and temporal connectives: Why parce que is the only causal connective in French. In: Hancil, S. (ed.) Marqueurs discursifs et subjectivité. PUPH, pp. 97114.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2013). How ‘logical’ are logical words? Negation and its descriptive vs. metalinguistic uses. In: Taboada, M. & Trnavac, R. (eds.) Nonveridicality and Evaluation. Theoretical, Computational and Corpus Approaches. Brill, pp. 76110.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2016). Where is procedural meaning? Evidence from discourse connectives and tenses. Lingua 175–176: 122–38.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2018). A set of semantic and pragmatic criteria for descriptive vs. metalinguistic negation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 58.CrossRefGoogle 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: 2639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science 12: 529–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadig, A. S. & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children’s on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science 13(4): 329–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nerlich, B., Clarke, D. D. & Todd, Z. (1999). ‘Mummy, I like being a sandwich’. Metonymy in language acquisition. In: Panther, K. & Radden, G. (eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought. John Benjamins, pp. 361–83.Google Scholar
Nicolle, S. (2015). Diachronic change in procedural semantic content. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 32: 133–48.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 12: 1213–18.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. (1999). The semantics of Northern Khandy evidentials. Journal Societé Finno-Ougrinne 88: 131–59.Google Scholar
Ninan, D. (2014). Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. In: Snider, T., D’Antonio, S. & Weigand, M. (eds.) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 24: 290309.Google Scholar
Noh, E.-J. (1998). Echo questions: metarepresentation and pragmatic enrichment. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 603–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noh, E.-J. (2000). Metarepresentation: A Relevance Theory Approach. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noh, E.-J. (2016). The Korean sentence-final suffix -ci: An epistemic marker vs. a metarepresentational marker. Korean Journal of Linguistics 41(2): 267–87.Google Scholar
Noh, E.-J., Choo, H. & Koh, S. (2013). Processing metalinguistic negation: Evidence from eye-tracking experiments. Journal of Pragmatics 57: 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, J. H. (2012). Winckelman’s ‘Philosophy of Art: A Prelude to German Classicism. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78(2): 165–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noveck, I. A. & Sperber, D. (eds.) (2004). Experimental Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. A. (2007). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. In: Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.) Advances in Pragmatics. Palgrave, pp. 184212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. A., Bianco, M. & Castry, A. (2001). The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 16: 109–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olkoniemi, H., Ranta, H. & Kaakinen, J. K. (2016). Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 42 (3): 433–50.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Neill, D. K. (1996). Two-year-old children’s sensitivity to a parent’s knowledge state when making requests. Child Development 67(2): 659–77.Google Scholar
O’Neill, D. K. & Topolovec, J. C. (2001). Two-year-old children’s sensitivity to the referential (in)efficacy of their own pointing gestures. Journal of Child Language 28: 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T., Putnam, M. & Gross, T. M. (2011). Bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax. Is Minimalism becoming a dependency grammar? The Linguistic Review 28(3): 315–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özçaliskan, S. (2005). On learning how to draw the distinction between physical and metaphorical motion: Is metaphor and early emerging cognitive and linguistic capacity? Journal of Child Language 32: 291318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozturk, O. & Papafragou, A. (2015). The acquisition of epistemic modality: From semantic meaning to pragmatic interpretation. Language Learning and Development 11(3): 191214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M. (2009a). Might interjections encode concepts? More questions than answers. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5(2): 241–70.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M. (2009b). Towards an alternative relevance-theoretic approach to interjections. International Review of Pragmatics 1(1): 182206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M. (ed.) (2016). Relevance Theory: Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1974). Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, P. (2014a). A minimalist approach to roots. In: Kosta, P. et al. (eds.) Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces. John Benjamins, pp. 287303.Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, P. (2014b). Indices, domains and homophonous forms. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3/4): 415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. (1996). On metonymy. Lingua 99: 169–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. (2006). From scalar semantics to implicature: Children’s interpretation of aspectuals. Journal of Child Language 33(4): 721–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papafragou, A. & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition 86(3): 253–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papafragou, A. & Skordos, D. (2016). Scalar implicature. In: Lidz, J., Snyder, W. & Pater, J. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics. Oxford University Press, pp. 611–29.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. & Tantalou, N. (2004). Children’s computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition 12(1): 7182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A., Fairchild, S., Cohen, M. & Friedberg, C. (2017a). Learning words from speakers with false beliefs. Journal of Child Language 44(4): 905–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papafragou, A., Friedberg, C. & Cohen, M. (2017b). The role of speaker knowledge in children’s pragmatic inferences. Child Development 89(5): 1642–56.Google ScholarPubMed
Partee, B. (1973). The syntax and semantics of quotation. In: Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, pp. 410–18.Google Scholar
Pearson, B. Z. (1990). The comprehension of metaphor by preschool children. Journal of Child Language 17(1): 185203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, H. (2013). A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of Semantics 30(3): 103–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez Jiménez, I., Leonetti, M. & Gumiel-Molina, S. (eds.) (2015). New Perspectives on the Study of Ser and Estar. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perner, J. & Wimmer, H. (1985). ‘John thinks that Mary thinks that…’: Attribution of second-order beliefs by 5- and 10-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 39: 437–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. (1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs 13(1): 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, D. (2014). What elements of successful scientific theories are the correct targets for ‘selective’ scientific realism? Philosophy of Science 81(3): 377–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P. M. & Glenwright, M. (2007). How do typically developing children grasp the meaning of verbal irony? Journal of Neurolinguistics 20: 178–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pezzulo, G. & Cisek, P. (2016). Navigating the affordance landscape: Feedback control as a process model of behavior and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20(6): 414–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phelan, M. (2014). Experimental pragmatics: An introduction for philosophers. Philosophy Compass 9(1): 6679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., Frisson, S., Chen, L. & Traxler, M.J. (2006). Underspecification and aspectual coercion. Discourse Processes 42(2): 131–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piñango, M. M., Zurif, E. & Jackendoff, R. (1999). Real-time processing implications of aspectual coercion at the syntax-semantics interface. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28(4): 395414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piquer-Píriz, A. M. (2008). Reasoning figuratively in early EFL: Some implications for the development of vocabulary. In: Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (eds.) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 219–40.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. & Rosengren, I. (1997). On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1(3): 177224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poesio, M. & Rieser, H. (2010). Completions, coordination, and alignment in dialogue. Dialogue and Discourse 1(1): 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, A. (1994). Flesh and the Ideal Winckelman: The Origins of Art History. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2007a). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, C. (2007b). The dimensions of quotation. In: Jacobson, P. & Barker, C. (eds.) Direct Compositionality. Oxford University Press, pp. 405–31.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2007c). The centrality of expressive indices. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 255–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, C. (2012). Conventional implicature and expressive content. In: Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (eds.) Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (Vol. 3). Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 2516–36.Google Scholar
Potts, C. & Roeper, T. (2006). The narrowing acquisition path: From expressive small clauses to declaratives. In: Progovac, L., Paesani, K., Casielles, E. & Barton, E. (eds.) The Syntax of Nonsententials: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives. John Benjamins, pp. 183201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouscoulous, N. (2011). Metaphor: For adults only? Belgian Journal of Linguistics 25: 5179.Google Scholar
Pouscoulous, N. (2013). Early pragmatics with words. In: Liedke, F. & Schulze, C. (eds.) Beyond the Words: Content, Context and Inference. De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 149–71.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preissler, M. A. & Carey, S. (2005). The role of inferences about referential intent in word learning: Evidence from autism. Cognition 97: B13–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pullum, G. & Wilson, D. (1977). Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Language 53: 741–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. (2010). Brain embodiment of syntax and grammar. Brain and Language 112(3): 167–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purver, M., Gregoromichelaki, E., Meyer-Viol, W. & Cann, R. (2010). Splitting the I’s and crossing the you’s: Context, speech acts and grammar. In: Proceedings of SemDial 2010 (PozDial), Poznan, Poland.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1993). Type coercion and lexical selection. In: Pustejovsky, J. (ed.) Semantics and the Lexicon. Reidel, pp. 7394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (2011). Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics 49(6): 1401–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1978). Meaning and the Moral Sciences. Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T. (ed.). (2009). Towards a Derivational Syntax: Survive-Minimalism. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M. T. (ed.). (2010). Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Querido, A. (1976). The semantics of copulative constructions in Portuguese. In: Luján, M. & Hensey, F. (eds.) Current Studies in Romance Linguistics. Georgetown University Press, pp. 343–66.Google Scholar
Radcliffe, E. (1999). Hume on the generation of motives: Why beliefs alone never motivate. Hume Studies 25(1 & 2): 101–22.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, , J. (2012). The n word: Its history and use in the African American community. Journal of English Linguistics 40: 137–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, V. & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6(6–7): 1551.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2015). Why language really is not a communication system: A cognitive view of language evolution. Frontiers in Psychology 6: Article 1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reboul, A. (2017). Is implicit communication a way to escape epistemic vigilance? In: Assimakopoulos, S. (ed.) Pragmatics at Its Interfaces. De Gruyter, pp. 91112.Google Scholar
Reboul, A., Delfitto, D. & Fiorin, G. (2016). The semantic properties of free indirect discourse. Annual Review of Linguistics 2: 255–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Recta, Oratio Obliqua. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. (2012). Mental Files. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regier, T. (2005). The emergence of words: Attentional learning in form and meaning. Cognitive Science 29: 819–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. Free Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1995). Interface Strategies. OTS Working Papers.
Reinhart, T. (2004). The processing cost of reference set computation: acquisition of stress shift and focus. Language Acquisition 12(2): 109–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, L. (1980). Overextension in early language development. Journal of Child Language 7: 321–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rey, G. (1980). Functionalism and the emotions. In: Rorty, A. (ed.) Explaining Emotions. University of California Press, pp. 163–98.Google Scholar
Rey, G. (2003). Chomsky, intentionality and a CRTT. In: Antony, L. M. & Hornstein, N. (eds.) Chomsky and His Critics. Blackwell, pp. 105–39.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (1996/2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In: Yoon, J.-H. & Kathol, A. (eds.) Papers in Semantics (Working Papers in Linguistics 49). The Ohio State University. Reproduced with minor amendments in Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6): 169.Google Scholar
Robisco Martín, M. M. & Cuadrado Esclápez, G. (2013). Metaphor and genre: An approach to improve the learning process of English for aeronautics. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 1: 209–28.Google Scholar
Roby, D. (2007). Aspect and the Categorisation of States. The Case of Ser and Estar in Spanish. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
Romero, M. & Han, C.-Y. (2004). On negative yes–no questions. Linguistics & Philosophy 27(5): 609–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouchota, V. & Jucker, A. (eds.) (1998). Current Issues in Relevance Theory. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubio Fernández, P. (2007). Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics 24(4): 345–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundblad, G. & Annaz, D. (2010). Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 28: 547–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, B. (2012). Probabilistic Reasoning and the Computation of Scalar Implicatures. PhD thesis, Brown University.
Sabbagh, M. A. & Baldwin, D. A. (2001). Learning words from knowledgeable versus ignorant speakers: Links between preschoolers’ theory of mind and semantic development. Child Development 72(4): 1054–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadock, J. (1998). On the autonomy of combination morphology. In: Lapointe, S., Brentari, D. & Farrell, P. (eds.) Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax. CSLI Publications, pp. 161–87.Google Scholar
Sato, Y. (2011). Local ambiguity, search strategies and parsing in Dynamic Syntax. In: Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E. & Howes, C. (eds.) The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces. CSLI Publications, pp. 201–28.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, U. (2012). The computation of scalar implicatures: Pragmatic, lexical or grammatical? Language and Linguistics Compass 6: 3649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schacht, A. & Sommer, W. (2009). Emotions in word and face processing: Early and late cortical responses. Brain and Cognition 69: 538–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scherer, K. R. (2009). Emotion theories and concepts (psychological perspectives). In: Sander, D. & Scherer, K. R. (eds.) The Oxford Companion to Emotion and the Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press, pp. 145–51.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2004). Context of thought and context of utterance: A note on free indirect discourse and the historical present. Mind & Language 19: 279304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, S. F. (1982). How imperatives are different, and how they aren’t. In: Schneider, R., Tuite, K. & Chameltzy, R. (eds.) Chicago Linguistic Society: Parasession on Nondeclaratives, pp. 202–18.Google Scholar
Schmidt, G. L. & Seger, C. A. (2009). Neural correlates of metaphor processing: The roles of figurativeness, familiarity and difficulty. Brain and Cognition 71 (3): 375–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitter, A. M. (2014). 17th and 18th century theories of emotions. In: Zalta, E. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotions-17th18th/. Accessed 8 November 2018.Google Scholar
Schulze, C., Grassmann, S. & Tomasello, M. (2013). 3-year-old children make relevance inferences in indirect verbal communication. Child Development 84(6): 2079–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarzschild, R. (1999). GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2):141–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K. (2015). The pragmatics of hashtags: Inference and conversational style on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics 81: 820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K. (2018). Hashtags work everywhere: The pragmatic functions of spoken hashtags. Discourse, Media & Context 22: 5764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott-Phillips, T. (2015). Speaking Our Minds. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1953). Inference and meaning. Mind 62(247): 313–38.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1954). Some reflections on language games. Philosophy of Science 21(3): 204–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seth, A. K. (2015). The cybernetic Bayesian brain. In: Metzinger, T. & Windt, J. M. (eds.) Open MIND: 35(T). MIND Group, doi: 10.15502/9783958570108.Google Scholar
Shibata, M., Toyomura, A., Itoh, H. & Abe, J.-I. (2010). Neural substrates of irony comprehension: A functional MRI study. Brain Research 1308: 114–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simons, M. (2007). Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117(6): 1034–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skordos, D. & Papafragou, A. (2016). Children’s derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance. Cognition 153: 618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, N. & Allott, N. (2016). Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. & Tsimpli, I. (1995). The Mind of a Savant: Language Learning and Modularity. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smith, N. & Wilson, D. (1979). Modern Linguistics: The Results of Chomsky’s Revolution. Penguin.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (1977). Review of Presupposition by David E. Cooper and Presuppositions and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics by Deirdre Wilson. The Philosophical Review 86(2): 274–8.Google Scholar
Sohn, H.-M. (1999). The Korean Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Southgate, V., Chevallier, C. & Csibra, G. (2010). Seventeen-month-olds appeal to false beliefs to interpret others’ referential communication. Developmental Science 16: 907–12.Google Scholar
Speas, M. (2010). Evidentials as generalized functional heads. In: DiSciullo, A. M. & Hill, V. (eds.) Edges, Heads and Projections: Interface Properties. John Benjamins, pp. 127–50.Google Scholar
Speas, P. (2008). On the syntax and semantics of evidentials. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5): 940–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spector, B. (2006). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In: Aloni, M., Butler, A. & Dekker, P. (eds.) Questions in Dynamic Semantics. Elsevier, pp. 229–54.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1975). Rethinking Symbolism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (ed.) (2000). Metarepresentations: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use–mention distinction. In: Cole, P. (ed.) Radical Pragmatics. Academic Press, pp. 295318. Reprinted in: Steven Davies (ed.) 1991: Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford University Press, pp. 550–63.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell. Second edition with Postface 1995.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1987a). Précis of ‘Relevance: Communication and Cognition’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10(4): 697710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (1987b). Presumptions of relevance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10(4): 736–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (1990). Rhetoric and relevance. In: Bender, J. & Wellbery, D. (eds.) The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice. Stanford University Press, pp. 140–56. Reprinted in Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. 2012: Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–96.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1996). Fodor’s frame problem and relevance theory (reply to Chiappe & Kukla). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19(3): 530–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (1997). Remarks on relevance theory and the social sciences. Multilingua 16(2/3): 145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language 17(1–2): 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (2005). Pragmatics. In: Jackson, F. & Smith, M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. Oxford University Press, pp. 468501.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphor. In: Gibbs, R. W. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, pp. 84108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 44: 117–49.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O. Mercier, H., Origgi, G. & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25(4): 359–93.CrossRefGoogle 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): 2539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stainton, R. J. (2006). Words and Thoughts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1979). Assertion. In: Cole, P. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 9). Academic Press, pp. 315–32.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (2000). The Syntactic Process. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. (2007). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics & Philosophy 30: 487525.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strey, C. (2016). The Language of Emotions: An Ostensive-Inferential Study. PhD thesis, Pontifical University Catholic of Rio Grande do Sul.
Sullivan, K., Winner, E. & Hopfield, N. (1995). How children tell a lie from a joke: The role of second-order mental state attributions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 13: 191204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M. & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268(5217): 1632–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tian, Y. & Breheny, R. (2015). Representing Polar Questions and Inferring States of Inquiry. Oral Presentation. Xprag, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
Tian, Y., Breheny, R. & Ferguson, H. (2010). Why we simulate negated information: A dynamic pragmatic account. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63(12): 2305–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobias, S. (2003). Interview: Gus Van Sant. The A./V. Club. Available at: https://film.avclub.com/gus-van-sant-1798208262. Accessed 9 November 2018.
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2008). The evolutionary psychology of the emotions and their relationship to internal regulatory variables. In: Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J. M. & Barrett, L. F. (eds.) Handbook of Emotions. Guilford Press, pp. 114–37.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B. (2005). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tribushinina, E. (2012). Comprehension of relevance implicatures by pre-schoolers: The case of adjectives. Journal of Pragmatics 44(14): 2035–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uchiyama, H., Seki, A., Kageyama, H., Saito, D. N., Koeda, T., Ohno, K. & Sadato, N. (2006). Neural substrates of sarcasm: A functional magnetic-resonance imaging study. Brain Research 1124(1): 100–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Unger, C. (2006). Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence: The Pragmatics of Discourse Type. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, C. (2012). Procedural semantics, metarepresentation, and some particles in Behdini Kurdish. Lingua 122: 1613–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, C. (2017). Towards a relevance theory account of allegory. In: Piskorska, A. & Wałaszewska, E. (eds.) From Discourse to Morphemes: Applications of Relevance Theory. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 152174.Google Scholar
Unger, C. (2018). Cognitive pragmatics and multi-layered communication: allegory in Christian religious discourse. In: Chilton, P. & Kopytowska, M. (eds.) Religion, Language, and the Human Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Utsumi, A. (2000). Verbal irony as implicit display of ironic environment: Distinguishing ironic utterances from nonirony. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1777–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V. & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31(3): 443–67.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Herwegen, J., Dimitriouc, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Kuppevelt, J. (1996). Inferring from topics. Linguistics & Philosophy 19: 393443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, R. & Schulz, K. (2004). Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13: 491519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooy, R. (2003). Questioning to resolve decision problems. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 727–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2): 143–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbuk, A. & Shultz, T. (2010). Acquisition of relevance implicatures: A case against a rationality-based account of conversational implicatures. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8): 2297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetter, N. C., Weigelt, S., Dohnel, K., Smolka, M. N. & Kliegel, M. (2014). Ongoing neural development of affective theory of mind in adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 9: 1022–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vicente, A. (2018). Polysemy and word meaning: an account of lexical meaning for different kinds of content words. Philosophical Studies 175(4): 947–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2001). Would you believe it? The King of France is back! (Presupposition and truth-value intuitions). In: Bezuidenhout, A. & Reimer, M. (eds.) Description and Beyond. Oxford University Press, pp. 269–96.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S. (1987). Children and metaphors. Child Development 58(3): 870–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosniadou, S., Orthony, A., Reynolds, P. C. & Wilson, P. T. (1984). Sources of difficulty in the young child’s understanding of metaphorical language. Child Development 55(4): 1588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waggoner, J. E. & Palermo, D. S. (1989). Betty is a bouncing bubble: Children’s comprehension of emotion-descriptive metaphors. Developmental Psychology 25(1): 152–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wałaszewska, E. (2004). What to do with response cries in relevance theory? In: Mioduszewska, E. (ed.) Relevance Studies in Poland (Vol. 1). University of Warsaw, pp. 119–29.Google Scholar
Wałaszewska, E. (2011). Broadening and narrowing in lexical development: How relevance theory can account for children’s overextensions and underextensions. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 314–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, A. T., Lee, S. S., Sigman, M. & Dapretto, M. (2006). Developmental changes in the neural basis of interpreting communicative intent. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 1(2): 107–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, L. & Bastiaansen, M. (2014). Oscillatory brain dynamics associated with the automatic processing of emotion in words. Brain and Language 137: 120–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wason, P. (1961). Response to affirmative and negative binary statements. British Journal of Psychology 52: 133–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wason, P. (1965). The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning Verbal Behavior 4(1): 711.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinberg, A. (2002). Semantics in the spin cycle: Competence and performance criteria for the creation of lexical entries. In: Merlo, P. and Stevenson, S. (eds.) The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing. John Benjamins, pp. 8593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1976). The forces of nature.