Experimental pragmatics: Testing for implicitures

Pragmatics and Cognition

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 65-90

  Garrett, Merrill ^a   Harnish, Robert M ^b  

^a University of Arizona   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250771530     PISSN: 09290907     EISSN: 15699943     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/pc.15.1.07gar     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bach, K. 1989. Thought and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bach, K. 1994. "Semantic slack". In S. Tsohatzidis (ed), Foundations of Speech Act Theory. London: Routledge, 267-291.
3. Bach, K. 1994. "Conversational impliciture". Mind and Language 9: 124-162.
4. Bach, K. 2000. "Quantification, qualification and context". Mind and Language 15: 262-284.
5. Bach, K. 2001. "Speaking loosely: Sentence nonliterality". Midwest Studies in Philosophy 25: 249-263.
6. Bezuidenhout, A. 2002. "Generalized conversational implicatures and default pragmatic inference". In J. Campbell et al. (eds), Meaning and Truth. New York: Seven Bridges, 257-283.
7. Bezuidenhout, A. and Cutting, J. 2002. "Literal meaning, minimal propositions and pragmatic processing". Journal of Pragmatics 34: 433-456.
8. Bezuidenhout, A. and Morris, R. 2004. "Implicature, relevance and default pragmatic inference". In I. Noveck and D. Sperber (eds), 257-282.
9. Bird, G. 1997. "Explicature, impliciture, implicature". Linguistische Berichte 8: 72-91.
10. Breheny, R., Katsos, N., and Williams, J. 2006. "Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences". Cognition 100 (3): 434-463.
11. Brennan, J. 2003. "Encyclopedic knowledge and default pragmatic inference" (ms. University of Arizona).
12. Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. 2005. Insensitive Semantics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
13. Carston, R. 1988. "Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics". In R. Kempson (ed), Mental Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155-181.
14. Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
15. Clark, H. 1979. "Responding to indirect speech acts". Cognitive Psychology 11: 430-477.
16. Fodor, J. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17. Fodor, J. 2001. The Mind Doesn't Work that Way. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
18. Garrett, M. and Harnish, R. (in preparation), "Skating along the syntactic verge: Experimental pragmatics and understood elements of content". In W. Lewis, S. Karimi, H. Harley, and S. Farrar (eds), Time and Again: Theoretical and Experimental Perspectives on Formal Linguistics. Papers in Honor of D. Terence Langendoen. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
19. Geis, M. 1995. Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Gibbs, R. and Moise, J. 1997. "Pragmatics in understanding what is said". Cognition 62: 51-74.
21. Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
22. Harnish, R. 1976. "Logical form and implicature". In T. Bever et al., An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability. New York. Crowell, 313-391.
23. Harnish, R. 1983. "Pragmatic derivations". Synthese 54: 325-373.
24. Harnish. R. 2005. "Implicature and its discontents". Manuscript, University of Arizona.
25. Levinson, S. 1995. "Three levels of meaning". In F. Palmer (ed), Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 90-115.
26. Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
27. Morgan, J. 1978. "Two types of convention in indirect speech acts". In P. Cole (ed), Syntax and Semantics 9. New York. Academic Press, 261-280.
28. Nicolle, S. and Clark, B. 1999. "Experimental pragmatics and what is said" Cognition 69: 337-354.
29. Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. 2005. Experimental Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
30. Perry, P. 1986. "Thought without representation". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 60: 263-283.
31. Putnam, H. 1975. "The meaning of 'meaning". In K. Gunderson (ed), Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 131-193.
32. Recanati, F. 1989. "The pragmatics of what is said". Mind and Language 4: 295-329.
33. Recanati, F. 2002. "Unarticulated constituents". Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299-345.
34. Recanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Searle, J. 1978. "Literal meaning". Erkenntnis 13: 207-224.
36. Searle, J. 1975. "Indirect speech acts". In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3. New York: Academic Press, 59-82.
37. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Stanley, J. 2000. "Context and logical form". Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391-434.
39. Stanley, J. and Szabo, Z. 2000. "On quantifier domain restriction". Mind and Language 15: 219-261.
40. Taylor, K. 2001. "Sex, breakfast and descriptus interruptus". Synthese 128: 45-61.
41. Vicente, B. 2002. "What pragmatics can tell us about (literal) meaning". Journal of Pragmatics 34: 403-421.
42. Wilks Y. and Bien, J. 1983. "Beliefs, points of view, and multiple environments". Cognitive Science 7: 95-119.