Making disjunctions exclusive

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 61, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 1741-1760

  Chevallier, Coralie ^a   Noveck, Ira A ^a   Nazir, Tatjana ^a   Bott, Lewis ^b   Lanzetti, Valentina ^c   Sperber, Dan ^c  

^a INSTITUT DES SCIENCES COGNITIVES   (France)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c INSTITUT JEAN NICOD   (France)

Author keywords

Disjunction; Implicature; Pragmatics; Prosody; Relevance theory; Scalar inference

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LOGIC; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; TIME;

COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; LOGIC; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 54049084674     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210701712960     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bezuidenhout, A., & Cutting, J. C. (2002). Literal meaning, minimal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 433-456.
2. Bezuidenhout, A., & Morris, R. (2004). Implicature, relevance and default inferences. In I. A. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 437-457.
4. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
5. Braine, M., & Rumain, B. (1981). Children's comprehension of "or": Evidence for a sequence of competencies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 46-70.
6. Breheny, R., Katsos, N., & Williams, J. (2006). Are scalar implicatures generated on-line by default? Cognition, 100, 434-463.
7. Chierchia, G., Guasti, T., Gualmini, A., Meroni, L., & Crain, S. (2004). Adults' and children's semantic and pragmatic competence in interaction. In I. A. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Content, A., & Radeau, M. (1988). Données statistiques sur la structure orthographique du français [Special issue: Statistical data regarding the orthographic structure of French]. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive.
9. Dik, S. (1997). The theory of functional grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter.
10. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Newstead, S. E. (1980). A study of disjunctive reasoning. Psychological Research, 41, 373-388.
11. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for scalar inference. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), GURT. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
13. Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61, 121-174.
14. House, J. (2006). Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1542-1558.
15. Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
16. Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165-188.
18. Noveck, I. A., Chierchia, G., Chevaux, F., Guelminger, R., & Sylvestre, E. (2002). Linguistic-pragmatic factors in interpreting disjunctions. Thinking and Reasoning, 8, 297-326.
19. Noveck, I. A., & Posada, A. (2003). Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language, 85, 203-210.
20. Noveck, I. A., & Sperber, D. (in press). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of "scalar inferences". In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
21. Paris, S. (1973). Comprehension of language connectives and propositional logical relationships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 16, 278-291.
22. Pelletier, F. J. (1977). "Or". Theoretical Linguistics, 4(1/2), 61-74.
23. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
24. Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I. A., Politzer, G., & Bastide, A. (2007). Processing costs and their impact on the development of scalar implicature. Language Acquisition, 14, 347-375.
26. Raz, A., & Buhle, J. (2006). Typologies of attentional networks. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 367-379.
27. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
28. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1986)
29. Wilson, D., & Wharton, T. (2006). Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1559-1579.