Experimental Pragmatics: a Gricean turn in the study of language

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Volumn 12, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 425-431

  Noveck, Ira A ^a   Reboul, Anne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXPERIMENTS; PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

ACTIVE AREAS; COGNITIVE SCIENTISTS; EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS; LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS; ORDINARY LANGUAGES; REFERENCE RESOLUTIONS;

LINGUISTICS;

COGNITION; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE ABILITY; REVIEW;

COGNITION; COGNITIVE SCIENCE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PHILOSOPHY; VERBAL LEARNING;

EID: 54049139151     PISSN: 13646613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.009     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Noveck I.A., and Sperber D. Experimental Pragmatics (2004), Palgrave Macmillan
2. Grice P. Studies in the Way of Words (1989), Harvard University Press
3. Glucksberg S., et al. On understanding nonliteral speech: can people ignore metaphors?. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 21 (1982) 85-98
4. Ackerman B.P. Contextual integration and utterance interpretation: the ability of children and adults to interpret sarcastic utterances. Child Dev. 53 (1982) 1075-1083
5. Schwarz N. Cognition and Communication: Judgmental Biases, Research Methods and the Logic of Conversation (1996), Erlbaum
6. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Extension versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol. Rev. 90 (1983) 293-315
7. Politzer G., and Noveck I.A. Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations?. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 20 (1991) 83-103
8. Horn L. Implicature. In: Horn L., and Ward G. (Eds). Handbook of Pragmatics (2004), Blackwell 3-28
9. Levinson S. Presumptive Meanings (2000), MIT Press
10. Chierchia G. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In: Belletti A. (Ed). Structures and Beyond (2004), Oxford University Press 39-103
11. Noveck I.A., et al. Linguistic-pragmatic factors in interpreting disjunctions. Think. Reason. 8 (2002) 297-326
12. Sperber D., and Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (1995), Basil Blackwell
13. Noveck I.A. When children are more logical than adults: investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78 (2001) 165-188
14. Papafragou A., and Musolino J. Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition 86 (2003) 253-282
15. Guasti M.T., et al. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Lang. Cogn. Process. 20 (2005) 667-696
16. Pouscoulous N., et al. Processing costs and implicature development. Lang. Acquis. 14 (2007) 347-375
17. Bott L., and Noveck I.A. Some utterances are underinformative: the onset and time course of scalar inferences. J. Mem. Lang. 51 (2004) 437-457
18. Noveck I.A., and Posada A. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: an evoked potentials study. Brain Lang. 85 (2003) 203-210
19. Chevallier C., et al. Making Or exclusive. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 61 (2008) 1741-1760
20. De Neys W., and Schaeken W. When people are more logical under cognitive load: dual task impact on scalar implicature. Exp. Psychol. 54 (2007) 128-133
21. Breheny R., et al. Are generalized scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100 (2006) 434-463
22. Braine M.D., and Rumain B. Development of comprehension of 'or': evidence for a sequence of competencies. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 31 (1981) 46-70
23. Rips L.J. Quantification and semantic memory. Cognit. Psychol. 7 (1975) 307-340
24. Clark H. Using Language (1996), Cambridge University Press
25. Clark H.H., et al. Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 22 (1983) 245-258
26. Brennan S.E., and Clark H.H. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22 (1996) 1482-1493
27. Garrod S., and Anderson A. Saying what you mean in dialog: a study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition 27 (1987) 181-218
28. Keysar B., et al. Taking perspective in conversation: the role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychol. Sci. 11 (2000) 32-38
29. Keysar B., et al. Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition 89 (2003) 25-41
30. Keysar B., et al. Definite reference and mutual knowledge: process models of common ground in comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 39 (1998) 1-20
31. Hanna J.E., et al. The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. J. Mem. Lang. 49 (2003) 43-61
32. Sedivy J.C. Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: evidence for effects of informativity expectations. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 32 (2003) 3-23
33. Nadig A., and Sedivy J. Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children's on-line reference resolution. Psychol. Sci. 13 (2002) 329-336
34. Rubio Fernández P. Suppression in metaphor interpretation: differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. J. Semant. 24 (2007) 345-371
35. Wilson D., and Carston R. Metaphor, Relevance and the 'emergent property' issue. Mind Lang. 21 (2006) 404-433
36. Musolino J., and Lidz J. Why children are not universally successful with quantification. Linguistics 44 (2006) 4817-4852
37. Gualmini, A. (2005/2006) Some facts about quantification and negation one simply cannot deny: a reply to Gennari and MacDonald. Lang. Acquis. 13, 363-370
38. Noveck I.A., et al. What autism can tell us about Every...not sentences. J. Semant. 24 (2007) 73-90
39. Coulson S., et al. Looking back: joke comprehension and the space structuring model. Humor 19 (2006) 229-250
40. Laurent J.P., et al. On understanding idiomatic language: the salience hypothesis assessed by ERP's. Brain Res. 1068 (2006) 151-160
41. Austin J.L. Ifs and cans. Proc. Br. Acad 42 (1956) 109-132
42. Clark H. Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognit. Psychol. 11 (1979) 430-477
43. Van der Henst J.B., et al. Truthfulness and relevance in telling the time. Mind Lang. 17 (2002) 457-466
44. Gibbs R., and Bryant G.A. Striving for optimal relevance when answering questions. Cognition 106 (2008) 345-369
45. Clark, H.H. and Clark, E.V. (1977). Psychology and Language, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich
46. Diesendruck G., et al. Two-year-olds' sensitivity to speakers' intent: an alternative account of Samuelson and Smith. Dev. Sci. 7 (2004) 33-41
47. Frisson S., and McElree B. Complement coercion is not modulated by competition: evidence from eye movements. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 34 (2008) 1-11
48. Pylkkanen L., and McElree B. An MEG study of silent meaning. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19 (2007) 1905-1921
49. Kronmüller E., and Barr D.J. Perspective-free pragmatics: broken precedents and the recovery-from-preemption hypothesis. J. Mem. Lang. 56 (2007) 436-455
50. Happé F., and Loth E. 'Theory of Mind' and Tracking Speakers' Intentions. Mind Lang. 17 (2002) 24-36
51. Sperber D., and Wilson D. Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-reading. Mind Lang. 17 (2002) 3-23
52. Perner J., et al. Objects of desire, thought, and reality: problems of anchoring discourse referents in development. Mind Lang. 22 (2007) 475-513