LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Sztencel, Magdalena (2014)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: P1
There is a growing body of research which undermines the traditional dual-processing model of utterance interpretation, whereby pragmatic inference is preceded by the context-independent process of linguistic decoding. This body of research suggests that utterance interpretation is a wholly pragmatic inferential process. In this paper, I seek to defend a wholly pragmatic approach by investigating the role of the purported process of context-independent decoding and the process of pragmatic inference in determining when a conditional is false. I show that material conditionality, like all kinds of conditionality, lies in pragmatically derived holistic thought, i.e. not in any putative linguistic semantics.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Akatsuka, N. 1986. Conditionals are discourse-bound. In Traugott, E. C., ter Meulen, A., Reilly, J. S. & Ferguson, C.A. (eds).
    • Barsalou, L. 2005. Abstraction as dynamic interpretation in perceptual symbol systems. In: Gershkoff-Stowe, L. and Rakison, D. (eds.), Building Object Categories. Carnegie Symposium Series, Majwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 389-431.
    • Beller, S. 2002. Conditional promises and threats - cognition and emotion. In: Gray, W.D. and Schunn, C.D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 113-118.
    • Beller, S., Bender, A. & Kuhnmünch, G. 2005. Understanding conditional promises and threats. Thinking and Reasoning 11(3), 209-238.
    • Beller, S., Bender, A., & Song, J. (2009). Conditional promises and threats in Germany, China, and Tonga: Cognition and Emotion. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 9, 115- 139.
    • Bilgrami, A. 1992. Belief and Meaning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
    • Block, N. 1995. An argument for holism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, 95, 151-169.
    • Block, N. 1998. Holism, mental and semantic. In: Craig, E. (ed.), The Routledge Enclyclopaedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
    • Burton-Roberts, N. 2007. Varieties of semantics and encoding: negation, narrowing/loosening and numericals. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 90-114.
    • Burton-Roberts, N. 2011. On the grounding of syntax and the role of phonology in human cognition. Lingua, 121 (14), 2089-2102.
    • Burton-Roberts, N. 2013. Meaning, semantics and semiotics. In Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F. & Carapzza, M. (eds.), Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Springer. 1-22.
    • Burton-Roberts, N. & Poole, G. 2006a. Syntax vs. phonology: A representational approach to stylistic fronting and verb-second in Icelandic. Lingua 116(5), 562-600.
    • Burton-Roberts, N. and Poole, G. 2006b. Virtual conceptual necessity‟, fea ture-dissociation and the Saussurian legacy in generative grammar. Journal of Linguistics, 42, 575- 628.
    • Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
    • Chevallier, C., Noveck, I., Bott, L., Lanzetti, V., Nazir T. & Sperber, D. 2008. Making disjunctions exclusive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(11), 1741- 1760.
    • Chomsky, N. 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1), 1-22.
    • Clark, H. 1994. Discourse in production. In Gernsbacher, M.A. (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 985-1021.
    • Comrie, B. 1986. Conditionals: a typology. In: Traugott, E. et al. (eds.), On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77-99.
    • DeRose, K. and Grandy, R.E. 1999. Conditional Assertions and Biscuit Conditionals. Noûs 33 (3), 405-420.
    • Edgington, D. 1995. On conditionals. Mind, 104, 235-329.
    • Edgington, D. 2008. Conditionals. In: Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    • Fodor, J. 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Fodor, J. 2001. Language, thought and compositionality. Mind and Language, 16, 1-15.
    • Fodor, J. 2008. LOT2: Language of Thought Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Fodor, J. & Lepore, E. 1992. Holism: A Shoppers Guide . Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
    • Geis, M. and Zwicky, A. 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry, 2 (4), 561-566.
    • Gerrig, R., Horton, W. & Stent, A. 2011. Production and Comprehension of Unheralded Pronouns: A Corpus Analysis. Discourse Processes 48:161-182.
    • Gibbs, R. 2002. A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 457-486.
    • Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
    • Hintzman, D. 1984. Episodic versus semantic memory: A distinction whose time has come - and gone? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 240-241.
    • Hintzman, D. 1986. Schema abstraction in a multiple trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411-28.
    • Hintzman, D. 1988. Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528-551.
    • Hintzman, D. 2008. Memory from the outside, memory from the inside. In: Gluck, M.A., Anderson, J.R. & Kosslyn, S.M. (eds.), Memory and Mind. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 15-30.
    • Horn, L. 1989. Natural History of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Horn, L. 2000. From if to iff: conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (3), 289-326.
    • Horton, W. 2008. A memory-based approach to common ground and audience design. In: Kecsekes, I. and Mey, J. (eds.), Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 189-222.
    • Horton, W. and Gerrig, R. 2005. Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes, 40 (1), 1-35.
    • Horton, W. & Slaten, D. 2012. Anticipating who will say what: The influence of speakerspecific memory associations on reference resolution. Memory and Cognition 40, 113-126.
    • Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Mauri, C. & van der Auwera, J. 2012. Connectives. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K.M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 377- 401.
    • Noh, E-J. 2000. Metarepresentation: A Relevance-Theory Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
    • Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. 2003. Conditional probability and the cognitive science of conditional reasoning. Mind & Language, 18, 359-379.
    • Pagin, P. 2006. Meaning holism. In: Lepore, E. & Smith, B. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 213-232.
    • Pateman, T. 1987. Language in Mind and Language in Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Politzer, G. 1981. Differences in interpretation of implication. American Journal of Psychology, 94, 461-477.
    • Recanati, F. 1998. Pragmatics. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 7. London: Routledge. 620-633.
    • Recanati, F. 2005. Literalism and Contextualism: Some Varieties. In: Preyer, G. and Peter, G. (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Searle, J. R. 1971. What is a speech act? In Searle, J.R. (ed.), The Philosophy of Language. London: Oxford University Press, 39-53.
    • Smith, N. 1983. On interpreting conditionals. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3, 1-23.
    • Smith, N.and Smith, A. 1988. A Relevance-theoretic Account of Conditionals. In: Hyman, L. and Charles, N. (eds.), Language, Speech and Mind: Studies in Honour of Victoria A. Fromkin. London, New York: Routledge, 322 -352.
    • Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, second edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
    • Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language, 17, 3-23.
    • Stalnaker, R. 1975. Indicative conditionals. Philosophia, 5, 269-86.
    • Tulving, E. 1984. Precis of Elements of Episodic Memory. The Behavioral And Brain Sciences, 7, 223-268.
    • Urquiza, C. 2011. Lexical pragmatics and memory traces. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 23, 47-68.
    • Van der Auwera, J. 1997. Pragmatics in the last quarter century: The case of conditional perfection. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 261-274.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article