The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future

Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 3-31

  Wilson, Deirdre ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Coding; Grammaticalisation; Inference; Lexical pragmatics; Massive modularity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84868451265     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1163/9780857240941_002     Document Type: Chapter

References (87)

1. Aikhenvald, A. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Andersen, G. and T. Fretheim (eds.). 2000. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3. Anscombre, J.-C. and O. Ducrot. 1989. Argumentativity and informativity. In M. Meyer, ed., From Metaphysics to Rhetoric, pp. 71-87. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. Anscombre, J.-C. and O. Ducrot. 1997. L'argumentation dans la langue. Paris: Mardaga.
5. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Bach, K. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22:327-366.
7. Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Baron-Cohen, S. 1995. Mindblindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Bezuidenhout, A. 2004. Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In C. Bianchi, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction, pp. 101-131. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
10. Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
11. Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Blass, R. 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special Reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Carruthers, P. 2006. The Architecture of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Carston, R. 1997. Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? Linguistische Berichte 8:103-127.
15. Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
16. Clément, F., M. Koenig, and P. Harris. 2004. The ontogeny of trust. Mind & Language 19:360-379.
17. Corriveau, K. and P. Harris. 2009. Preschoolers continue to trust a more accurate informant 1 week after exposure to accuracy information. Developmental Science 12:188-193.
18. Corriveau, K. and P. Harris. In press. Young children's trust in what other people say. In K. Rotenberg, ed., Interpersonal Trust During Childhood and Adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Ducrot, O. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire: Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.
20. Ducrot, O. 1980. Les mots du discours. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
21. Escandell-Vidal, V. 1998. Intonation and procedural encoding: The case of Spanish interrogatives. In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker, eds., Current Issues in Relevance Theory, pp. 169-203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22. Escandell-Vidal, V. 2002. Echo-syntax and metarepresentations. Lingua 112:871-900.
23. Fiske, S. T. and S. E. Taylor. 2008. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24. Fitneva, S. and T. Matsui (eds.). 2009. Evidentiality: A Window into Language and Cognitive Development. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
25. Fodor, J. 1975. The Language of Thought. New York: Crowell.
26. Fodor, J. 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science went Wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Fraser, B. 2006. On the conceptual-procedural distinction. Style. 40. Available at findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_1-2.../ai_n17113874/.
28. Fretheim, T. 1998. Intonation and the procedural encoding of attributed thoughts: The case of Norwegian negative interrogatives. In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker, eds., Current Issues in Relevance Theory, pp. 205-236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29. Gibbs, R. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Gutt, E. A. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. 2nd edn. 2000 Oxford: Blackwell.
32. Hall, A. 2007. Do discourse connectives encode concepts or procedures? Lingua 117:149-174.
33. Hedley, P. 2005. Pronouns, procedures and relevance theory. Durham and Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 11:41-55.
34. Hedley, P. 2007. Anaphora, Relevance and the Conceptual/Procedural Distinction. D.Phil dissertation, University of Oxford, Oxford.
35. Heyman, G. 2008. Children's critical thinking when learning from others. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:344-347.
36. Hopper, P. and E. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
38. Iten, C. 2005. Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions, and Relevance. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
39. Jackson, F. 1987. Conditionals. Oxford: Blackwell.
40. Kennedy, C. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics & Philosophy 30:1-45.
41. Koenig, M. and P. Harris. 2007. The basis of epistemic trust: Reliable testimony or reliable sources? Episteme 4:264-284.
42. Levelt,W. 1993. Speaking:FromIntention to Articulation. Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
43. Malle, B. 2004. How the Mind Explains Behavior: Folk Explanations, Meaning, and Social Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Mascaro, O. and D. Sperber. 2009. The moral, epistemic and mindreading components of children's vigilance towards deception. Cognition 112:367-380.
45. Matsui, T. and Y. Miura. 2009. Children's understanding of certainty and evidentiality: Advantage of grammaticalised forms over lexical alternatives. In S. Fitneva and T. Matsui, eds., Evidentiality: A Window into Language and Cognitive Development, pp. 49-62. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
46. Matsui, T., H. Rakoczy, Y. Miura, and M. Tomasello. 2009. Understanding of speaker certainty and false-belief reasoning: A comparison of Japanese and German preschoolers. Developmental Science 12:602-613.
47. Matsui, T., T. Yamamoto, and P. McCagg. 2006. On the role of language in children's early understanding of others as epistemic beings. Cognitive Development 21:158-173.
48. Mercier, H. and D. Sperber. 2009. Intuitive and reflective inferences. In J. St. B. Evans and K. Frankish, eds., Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49. Mercier, H. and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34:57-74.
50. Moeschler, J., A. Reboul, J. M. Luscher, and J. Jayez. 1994. Langage et pertinence. Référence temporelle, anaphore, connecteurs et métaphore. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.
51. Nurmsoo, E. and E. Robinson. 2009. Children's trust in previously inaccurate informants who were well or poorly informed: When past errors can be excused. Child Development 80:23-27.
52. Onishi, K. and R. Baillargeon. 2005. Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science 308:255-258.
53. Palmer, F. 1986. Mood and Modality. 2nd edn. 2001 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Papafragou, A. 2000. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
55. Papafragou, A., P. Li, Y. Choi, and C. H. Han. 2007. Evidentiality in language and cognition. Cognition 103:253-299.
56. Pietroski, P. 2010. Concepts, meaning and truth: First nature, second nature and hard work. Mind & Language 25:247-278.
57. Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Powell, G. 2010. Language, Thought and Reference. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
59. Recanati, F. 2004. Semantics and pragmatics. In L. Horn and G. Ward, eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 442-462. Oxford: Blackwell.
60. Robinson, E., S. N. Haigh, and E. Nurmsoo. 2008. Children's working understanding of knowledge sources: Confidence in knowledge gained from testimony. Cognitive Development 23:105-118.
61. Scott, K. 2010. The Relevance of Referring Expressions: the Case of 'Diary Drop' in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London, London.
62. Silver, S. and W. Miller. 1997. American Indian Languages. Cultural and Social Contexts. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
63. Southgate, V., C. Chevallier, and G. Csibra. 2010. Seventeen-month-olds appeal to false beliefs to interpret others' referential communication. Developmental Science 16:907-912.
64. Sperber, D. 2001. An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Philosophical Topics 29:401-413.
65. Sperber, D. 2005. Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context dependent? In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, and S. Stich, eds., The Innate Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
66. Sperber, D., F. Clément, C. Heintz, O. Mascaro, H. Mercier, G. Origgi, and D. Wilson. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25:359-393.
67. Sperber, D. and G. Origgi. 2010. A pragmatic perspective on the evolution of language. In R. Larson, V. Déprez, and H. Yamakido, eds., The Evolution of Human Language: Biolinguistic Perspectives, pp. 124-132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
69. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers and J. Boucher, eds., Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes, pp. 184-200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind & Language 17:3-23.
71. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 2008a. A deflationary account of metaphors. In R. Gibbs, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 84-105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 2008b. The Interpretation of Gradable Adjectives. Talk to University College London Pragmatics Reading Group, March.
73. Surian, L., S. Caldi, and D. Sperber. 2007. Attribution of beliefs by 13-monthold infants. Psychological Science 18:580-586.
74. Takeuchi, M. 1998. Conceptual and procedural encoding: Cause-consequence conjunctive particles in Japanese. In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker, eds., Current Issues in Relevance Theory, pp. 81-108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
75. Takeuchi, M. 2009. Semantics and Pragmatics of Sorede (and/so/but). Paper delivered to 11th IPrA conference, Melbourne.
76. Traugott, E., and Heine, B. (eds.). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
77. Unger, C. 2007. Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
78. Wharton, T. 2003. Interjections, language and the 'showing-saying' continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition 11:39-91.
79. Wharton, T. 2009. Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80. Wilson, D. 1998. Linguistic structure and inferential communication. In B. Caron, ed., Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists. Oxford: Elsevier.
81. Wilson, D. 2000. Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Sperber, ed., Metarepresentations: A Multidisplinary Perspective, pp. 411-433. New York: Oxford University Press.
82. Wilson, D. and R. Carston. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the 'emergent property' issue. Mind & Language 21:404-433.
83. Wilson, D. and R. Carston. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts, ed., Pragmatics, pp. 230-259. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
84. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90:1-25.
85. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111:583-632.
86. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber. (forthcoming). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
87. Wilson, D. and T. Wharton. 2006. Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38:1559-1579.