Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 38, 2017
Connaissances et Usages en L2 / Knowledge and Usage in L2
Article Number 00005
Number of page(s) 11
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173800005
Published online 01 December 2017
  1. Antoniou, K., Grohmann, K., Kambanaros, M., & Katsos, N. (2013). Does multilingualism confer an advantage for pragmatic abilities?. In S. Baiz, N. Goldman, and R. Hawkes (eds.), Online Proceedings Supplement of the 37th Boston University Conference on Language Development, http://www.bu.edu/bucld/supplementvol37/ [Google Scholar]
  2. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for the mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16(4), 240-250. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blutner, R. (2007). Optimality theoretic pragmatics and the explicature/implicature distinction. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in Pragmatics (pp. 67-89), Basingstoke: Palgrave. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bott, L., Bailey, T.M., & Grodner, D. (2012). Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of Memory and Language 66, 123-142. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chemla, E., & Spector, B. (2011). Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 28, 359-400. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chierchia, G., Vrain, S., Guasti, M.T., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2001) The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In A.H.J. Do, L. Dominguez, and A. Johansen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Costa, A., Miozzo M., & Caramazza A. (1999). Lexical Selection in Bilinguals: Do Words in the Bilingual's Two Lexicons Compete for Selection? Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 365–397. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Feeney, A., Scrafton, S., Duckworth, A., & Handley, S.J. (2004). The story of some: Everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 121-132. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Foppolo, F., & Guasti, M.T. (2012). Scalar implicatures in child language: give children a chance. Language Learning and Development 8, 365-394. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Green, D.W. (1986). Control, activation and resource. Brain & Language, 27, 210-223. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Green, D.W. (1993). “Towards a model of L2 comprehension and production”. In R.Schreuder and B. Weltens (Ed.), The Bilingual Lexicon, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 249-277. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hilbe, Joseph M. (2009). Logistic Regression Models. Chapman and Hall, CRC Texts in Statistical Science, Boca Raton. [Google Scholar]
  15. Horn, L.R. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles. [Google Scholar]
  16. Horn, L.R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (pp. 11–42). Washington: Georgetown University Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Horn, L.R. (2004). Implicature. In L.R. Horn & G. Ward (Ed.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 3-28). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  18. Huang, Y.T., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology 58, 376-415. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Levinson, S.C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Language, Speech, and Communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Noveck, I.A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition 78, 165-188. [Google Scholar]
  21. Noveck, I.A., & Sperber, D. (2007). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in Pragmatics (pp. 184-212). Basingstoke: Palgrave. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I.A., Politzer, G., & Bastide, A. (2007). A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition, 14(4), 347-375. [Google Scholar]
  23. Slabakova, R. (2010) Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua 120, 2444-2462. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  25. Stateva, P., Déprez, V., Dupuy, L., Reboul, A., & Stepanov, A. (submitted) Proportional modifiers and semantic universals. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.