Sociobiological Bases of Information Structure

| University of Roma Tre
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027204639 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027264688 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
The book tackles the sociobiological bases of Information Structure (IS) inquiring both its evidential and neurobiological underpinnings in human communication. Its purpose is to delve into the epistemic and neurocognitive rationales behind the realization of informational hierarchies in a sentence. The book zooms in on an interplay, that between IS and evidentiality, that has never been explored in IS studies and seeks to recast IS phenomena in an epistemological perspective. The neurocognitive approaches discussed propose neurophysiological investigations on IS processing, both with ERP and ERS vs. ERD measurements. In its overall structure and general purposes, the book is conceived for interested scholars working in the fields of linguistics, neuropragmatics, experimental psychology, philosophy of language and cognitive sciences in general, and it adds some further contribution to ongoing psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic experimental research on the processing of topic-focus and presupposition-assertion dichotomies.
[Advances in Interaction Studies, 9]  2017.  xxi, 193 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.9
Table of Contents
List of tables
xi
List of figures
xiii
Preface
xv–xx
Acknowledgments
xxi
Chapter 1. Presupposition and assertion: Theoretical overviews
1–24
Chapter 2. Topic, focus, given and new: Theoretical overviews
25–50
Chapter 3. Sociobiological perspectives: For a unified account of evidentiality and information structure
51–80
Chapter 4. Experimental perspectives on information structure processing: A literature review
81–109
Chapter 5. Experimental perspectives on information structure processing: Two electrophysiological studies
111–142
Chapter 6. A biolinguistic perspective on information structure
143–172
References
173–188
Index
189–193
“This book opens a new perspective in the studies on both Evidentiality and Information Structure, in that it shows that the two categories are strongly related. Moreover, it is among the first studies accounting for neuroscientific inquiry on Information Structure categories such as presuppositions.”
“By combining together a solid experimental design in neurolinguistics with a fresh look at evidentiality as pragmatic information managing, which goes beyond the traditional restriction to information source, Viviana Masia has produced a thought-provoking piece of research that will be of interest both to linguists and neuro-/psycholinguists.”
“The research presents an updated survey of the main theoretical approaches dedicated to the analysis of Information Structure. The focus is on the relationship between evidentiality and the essential properties of information units, trying a new path for their definition. A specific added value of the work is its strong look to the neurocognitive bases that support the decoding of Information Structure, both in isolated utterances and in the wider social context of the discourse. Coherently with the idea that presupposition is at the basis of topicalization, her experiments show that the best processing of topicalized and focused information is the outcome of expectations derived from the listener’s model. Finding an evolutionistic explanation for Information Structure is the final goal of the research.”
References

References

Aben, B., Stapert, S., & Blokland, A.
(2012) About the distinction between working memory and short-term memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(301). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J. M.
(2006) The performative nature and function of Isaiah 40–55. Norfolk: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alston, W. P.
(2000) Illocutionary acts and sentence meaning. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Amaral, P., & Cummins, C.
(2015) A cross-linguistic study on information backgrounding and presupposition projection. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental perpsectives on presuppositions (pp. 157–172). Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. B.
(1986) Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 273–312). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Andorno, C.
(2005) Che cos’è la pragmatica linguistica. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Annett, M.
(1967) The binomial distribution of right, left and mixed handedness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 327–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arbib, M. A.
(2005) From monkey-like action recognition to human language: An evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 105–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austen, J.
(1811) Sense and sensibility. Reprinted by ESD Cloud Media, 2014. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baker, N. D., & Greenfield, P.
(1988) The development of new and old information in young children’s early language. Language Sciences, 10(1), 3–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bambini, V.
(2010) Neuropragmatics: A foreword. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
(2012) Neurolinguistics. In J-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bambini, V., Resta, D., & Grimaldi, M.
(2014) A dataset of metaphors from the Italian literature: Exploring psycholinguistic variables and the role of context. PLoS ONE, 9, e105634. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bastiaansen, M. C. M., Van Berkum, J. J., & Hagoort, P.
(2002a) Event-related theta power increase in the human EEG during online sentence processing. Neuroscience Letters, 323, 13–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002b) Syntactic processing modulates the theta rhythm of the human EEG. Neuroimage, 17, 1479–1492. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bastiaansen, M. C. M., Van der Linden, M., ter Keurs, M., Dijkstra, T., & Hagoort, P.
(2005) Theta responses are involved in lexical-semantic retrieval during language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(3), 530–541. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bastiaansen, M., & Hagoort, P.
(2006) Oscillatory neural dynamics during language comprehension. Progress in Brain Research, 159, 179–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E.
(1976) Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baumann, S., & Schumacher, B. P.
(2011) (De-)Accentuation and the processing of information status: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Speech, 55(3), 361–381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benatar, A., & Clifton, C. Jr
(2014) Newness, givenness and discourse updating: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 71, 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, E.
(Ed.) (1971[1958]) Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics [Trans. by Mary Elizabeth Meek]. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Berger, H.
(1929) Über das elektrenkephalogramm des menschen. Arch Psychiatr Nervenkr, 87, 527–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T.
(1988) The emergence of cerebral asymmetries in early human development: A literature review and a neuroembryological model. In D. L. Molfese & S. J. Segalowitz (Eds.), Brain lateralization in children (pp. 5–34). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bianchi, C.
(2009) Pragmatica cognitiva. I meccanismi della comunicazione. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D.
(1995) Language and Human Behavior. Washington: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Birch, S., & Rayner, K.
(1997) Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25(5), 653–660. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D.
(1987) Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boas, F.
(1900) Sketch of the Kwakiutl language. American Anthropologist, 2, 708–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1910) Kwakiutl. An illustrative sketch. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Bock, K. J. & Mazzella, J. R.
(1983) Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 11(1), 64–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. L.
(1965) Forms of English: Accent, morpheme, order. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1986) Intonation and its parts. Melody in Spoken English. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schumacher, P. B.
(2016) Towards a neurobiology of information structure. In F. Caroline & I. Sinichiro (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure (pp. 581–598). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bréal, M.
(1964 [1900]) Semantics: Studies in the science of meaning. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Bredart, S. & Modolo, K.
(1988) Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67, 135–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brentano, F.
(1973[1874]) Psychology from an empirical point of view. Translated by Antos C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell and Linda L. McAlister, from Psychologie vom empirischen Standtpunkt , Sections V–IX.Google Scholar
Brodmann, K.
(1909) Vergleichende Lokalisationslehre der Grosshirnrinde in ihren Prinzipien dargestellt auf Grund des Zellenbaues. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag.Google Scholar
Brody, M.
(1990) Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 201–225.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, P.
(2006) Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 98, 159–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) The P600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory. Neuroreport, 18(17), 1851–1854. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, P., & Roehm, D.
(2007) Differential effects of saliency: An event-related brain potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 413, 115–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, P.
(2008) Two types of definites: Evidence for presupposition cost. In A. Grønn (Ed.), Proceedings of SuB12 (pp. 66–80). Oslo: ILOS.Google Scholar
Burmester, J., Spalek, K., & Wartenburger, I.
(2014) Context updating during sentence comprehension: The effect of aboutness topic. Brain and Language, 137, 62–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, D.
(2003) On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 511–545. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y.
(2007) The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(1), 103–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. L., Brooks, P., & Tomasello, M.
(2000) Factors affecting young children’s use of pronouns as referring expressions. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 43, 1337–1349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, T. R., & Volterra, V.
(2007) Le lingue dei segni. Storia e semiotica. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Chafe, W.
(1974) Language and consciousness. Language, 50, 111–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1998) Things we can learn from repeated tellings of the same experience. Narrative Inquiry, 8, 1-17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J.
(Eds.) (1986) Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, W.
(1987) Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Discourse, consciousness and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J.
(1993) Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chemla, E.
(2009) Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Under revision for Semantics and Pragmatics .
Chomsky, N.
(1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1971) Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovitz (Eds.), Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 183–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1980) Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Language and the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N.
(2008) Language as shaped by the brain. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 489–558. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E.
(1977) Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1–40). Norwood: N. J.-Ablex.Google Scholar
Cole, M.
(1992) Context, modularity, and the cultural constitution of development. In L. T. Winegar & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Children’s development within social contexts (pp. 5–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T.
(2005) Working memory, its executive functions, and the emergence of modern thinking. Cambridge Archeological Journal, 15(1), 5–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, E.
(2014) Introduction to dynamic semantics. Slides available at http://​eecoppock​.info​/DynamicSemantics​/Lectures​/why​-dymsem​-part1​.pdf.Google Scholar
Corballis, M. C.
(2003) From hand to mouth: The origins of language. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cory, B., Romoli, J., Schwarz, F., & Crain, S.
(2014) Scalar Implicatures vs. Presuppositions: The View from Acquisition. Topoi, 35(1), 57–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, N.
(2008) What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? Progress in Brain Research, 169, 323–338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowles, H. W., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., & Polinsky, M.
(2007) Violations of information structure. An electrophysiological study of answers to wh-questions. Brain and Language, 102, 228–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cresti, E.
(1987) L’articolazione dell’informazione nel parlato. In AA. VV., Gli italiani parlati (pp. 27–90). Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
(1992) Le unità d’informazione e la teoria degli atti linguistici. In G. Gobber (Ed.), Atti del XXIV Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Linguistica e pragmatica (pp. 501–529). Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
(2000) Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Cresti, E., & Moneglia, M.
(2010) Informational patterning theory and the corpus-based description of spoken language: The compositionality issue in the topic-comment pattern. In M. Moneglia & A. Panunzi (Eds.), Bootstrapping information from corpora in a cross-linguistic perspective. Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Functional approaches to grammar. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 6323–6330). Oxford: Elsevier Sciences. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daneš, F.
(1966) A three-level approach to syntax. In F. Daneš et al. (Eds.), Travaux linguistiques de Prague (pp. 225–240). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
(1974) Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In F. Daneš (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence persepctive (pp. 106–128). Prague: Academia/The Hague-Mouton.Google Scholar
Darwin, C.
(1859) The origin of species. London: Clowes & Sons.Google Scholar
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S.
(2004) EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including indepllendent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J.
(1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C.
(1978) Functional grammar [North-Holland Linguistic Series 37]. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Domaneschi, F., Carrea, E., Penco, C., & Greco, A.
(2014) The cognitive load of presupposition triggers: Mandatory and optional repairs in presupposition failure. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(1), 136–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Domaneschi, F., & Carrea, E.
(2015) Attivatori presupposizionali e failure: uno studio psicolinguistico. Sistemi Intelligenti, 2, 303–322.Google Scholar
Domaneschi, F.
(Ed.) (2015) Special issue of Topoi on presuppositions: Philosophy, linguistics and psychology. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Domaneschi, F., Carrea, E., Penco, C., & Greco, A.
(2016) Selecting presuppositions in conditional clauses. Results from a psycholinguistic experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 2026. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, K.
(1966) Reference and Definite Descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 75(3), 281–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, R., Orita, N., Hacquard, V., & Lidz, J.
(2015)  Three-year-olds’ understanding of know and think. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions (pp. 241–262). Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Dummett, M.
(1981) Frege: Philosophy of language, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Thought and reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J.
(1988) The beginning of social understanding. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E.
(1981) From words to meanings: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 540–551. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N.
(1997) The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Faller, M. T.
(2002) Semantics and pragmatics. Department of Linguistics, University of Stanford, PhD Dissertation Thesis.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1971) Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description. In C. J. Fillmore & T. D. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp. 272–289). New York: Holt-Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Firbas, J.
(1992) Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, J., Green, F. L., & Flavell, E. R.
(1990) Developmental changes in young children’s knowledge about the mind. Cognitive Development, 5, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A.
(2001) Evidentiality, authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(2), 167–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D., & Katzir, R.
(2010) On the characterization of alternatives. Available at: http://​web​.mit​.edu​/linguistics​/people​/faculty​/fox​/FoxKatzir​.pdf.
Frascarelli, M.
(2008) The fine structure of the topic field. In C. De Cat & K. Demuth (Eds.), The Bantu-Romance Connection. A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure (pp. 261–292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A. D.
(2002) Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6(2), 78–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G.
(1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.Google Scholar
(1918) Negation: A logical investigation. In P. T. Geach & M. Black (Eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (2nd ed., pp. 117–135). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. A.
(1986) Evidentiality in the Balkans. Macedonian and Albanian. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 168–187). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, von der G.
(1869) Ideen zu einer vergleichenden Syntax. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft, 6.Google Scholar
Gagliardi, G., Lombardi Vallauri, E., & Tamburini, F.
(2012) A topologic view of topic and focus marking in Italian. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. M. Doğan, M. Bente, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings 8th International Conference on Language Resources and – LREC 2012 (pp. 948–955). Istanbul: LREC.Google Scholar
Geurts, B.
(1999) Presuppositions and pronouns. [Current research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 3]. United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(1975) Focus and the scope of assertion: Some Bantu evidence. Studies in African Linguistics, 6, 185–205.Google Scholar
(1979) On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1982) Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language, 6, 23–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1983) Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross language study [Typological Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1984) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989) Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1993) Coherence in context, coherence in mind. Pragmatics and Cognition, 1(2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Syntax: An introduction, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Bio-linguistics. The Santa-Barbara lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glanzberg, M.
(2003) Felicity and presupposition triggers. Workshop in Philosophy and Linguistics . Michigan: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
(2005) Presuppositions, truth values and expressing propositions. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning and truth (pp. 349–396). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, E. B.
(2010) Sensation and perception. USA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Goodnow, J. J., & Warton, P.
(1993) Contexts and cognitions: Taking a pluralistic view. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 157–177). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Grosz, L. A., & Gilliom, L. A.
(1993) Pronouns, names and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Sciences, 17, 311–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. C., & Chan, D.
(1995) Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(2), 2016–2031. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S.
(1982) Exaptation, a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gouvea, A. C., Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Poeppel, D.
(2010) The linguistic processes underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(2), 149–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. H.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge-London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guiard, Y.
(1987) Asymmetric division of labor in human skilled bimanual action: The kinematic chain as a model. Journal of Motor Behavior, 19, 486–517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J.
(1993) The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language & Cognitive Processes, 8, 337–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M.
(2004) Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P., & Levinson, S. C.
(2014) Neuropragmatics. In M. S. Gazzaniga & G. R. Mangun (Eds.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 667–674). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1985) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D.
(1999) Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(2), 194–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S.
(1976) Induction, evolution and accountability. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280, 58–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A.
(2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I.
(1982) The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. University of Massachussetts, Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
(1983) On the projection problem for presuppositions. Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , 114–125.
Heritage, J.
(2012) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hertrich, I., Kirsten, M., Tiemann, S., Beck, S., Whüle, A., Ackermann, H., & Rolke, B.
(2015) Context-dependent impact of presuppositions on early magnetic brain responses during speech perception. Brain and Language, 148, 1–12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J., & Irvine, J.
(Eds.) (1993) Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R.
(1981) Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. North East Linguistic Society (NELS), 11, 125–142.Google Scholar
Hornby, P. A.
(1971) A psychological investigation of presupposition. Talk presented at the 1971 Summer Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America . Buffalo, New York.
(1973) Intonation and syntactic structure in the development of presupposition. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 18 p.
(1974) Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 530–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hruska, C., & Alter, K.
(2004) Prosody in dialogues and single sentences: How prosody can influence speech perception. In A. Steube (Ed.), Language, context and cognition. Information structure: Theoretical and empirical aspects (pp. 211–223). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, D. E., Bock, K. J., & Stanovich, K. E.
(1982) Effects of information structure cues on visual word processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 307–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1957) Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. Cambridge Mass.: Russian Language Project, Department of Slavic Languages and Literature, Harvard University, p. 14. Repub. as SW II, 10 (130-147).Google Scholar
Jayez, J., Mongelli, V., Reboul, A., & Henst van der, J. B.
(2015) Weak and strong triggers. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions (pp. 173–193). Dordrecht: Springers International Publishing.Google Scholar
Jäncke, L., Schlaug, G., & Steinmetz, H.
(1997) Hand skill asymmetry in professional musicians. Brain and Cognition, 34, 424–432. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jäncke, L., Shah, N. J., & Peters, M.
(2000) Cortical activations in primary and secondary motor areas for complex bimanual movements in professional pianists. Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 177–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, L.
(2000) Biolinguistics. Exploring the biology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. N., & Maratsos, M. P.
(1977) Early comprehension of mental verbs: Think and know. Child Development, 48(4), 1743–1747. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jouravlev, O., Stearns, L., Bergen, L., Eddy, M., Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E.
(2016) Processing temporal presuppositions: An event-related potential study. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris A., Gibson E., & Holcomb, P. J.
(2000) The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 159–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kamio, A.
(1994) The theory of territory of information. The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 67–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, H.
(1981) A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, & M. B. J. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts 135.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U.
(1993) From discourse to logic: Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory, Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, H., Van Genabith, J., & Reyle, U.
(2011) Discourse representation theory. Handbook of philosophical logic, Vol. 15 (pp. 125–394). Netherlands: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A.
(1992) Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L.
(1973) Presupposition of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 169–193.Google Scholar
(1974) Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1(1–3), 181-194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan-Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B.
(1976) Topic as a discourse notion: A study of topic in the conversations of children and adults. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 335–384). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M.
(1975) Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.
(1986) L’implicite. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, C., & Kiparsky, P.
(1971) Fact. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovitz (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 345–369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirby, S.
(1999) Function, selection, and innateness. The emergence of language universals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Köhler, W.
(1947) Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
Krifka, M.
(2007) Functional similarities between bimanual coordination and topic/comment structure. In S. Ishihara, S. Jannedy, & A. Schwarz (Eds.). Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure, 8, 61–96.Google Scholar
(2008) Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55(3-4), 243–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A.
(1980) Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D.
(2000) Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., De Long, K. A., & Smith, J. N.
(2011) A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In M. Bar (Ed.), Predictions in the brain. Using our past to generate a future (pp. 190–207). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakens, D.
(2013) Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(1994) Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Extreme subjectification: English tense and modals. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günther Radden [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 243] (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langford, J., & Holmes, V. M.
(1979) Syntactic presupposition in sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 363–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, R. J.
(2003) Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. In G. Thurgood & R. J. LaPolla (Eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (pp. 22–42). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
La Rocca, D., Masia, V., Maiorana, E., Lombardi Vallauri, E., & Campisi, P.
(2016) Brain response to information structure misalignments in linguistic contexts. Neurocomputing, 199, 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lempert, H., & Kinsbourne, M.
(1985) Possible origin of speech in Selective orienting. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 62–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. USA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levy, R.
(2007) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Crossref
Lewis, D.
(1979) Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(3), 339–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, P.
(1984) The biology and evolution of language. USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W.
(1999) The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F.
(1975) Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E.
(1993) Clausole a contenuto presupposto e loro funzione discorsiva in italiano antico. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università degli Studi di Firenze, 4, 71–95.Google Scholar
(1995) Tratti linguistici della persuasione in pubblicità. Lingua Nostra, 2-3, 41–51.Google Scholar
(1996) A simple test for Theme and Rheme in the clause complex. Language Sciences, 17(4), 357–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Grammatica funzionale delle avverbiali italiane. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
(2001) La teoria come separatrice di fatti di livello diverso. L’esempio della struttura informativa dell’enunciato. In Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche, Atti del XXXIII Congresso SLI, Napoli 1999 (pp. 151–173). Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
(2002) La struttura informativa dell’enunciato. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
(2004) The relation between mind and language: The innateness hypothesis and the poverty of the stimulus. The Linguistic Review, 21(3-4), 345–387.Google Scholar
(2009) La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E., & Masia, V.
(2014) Implicitness impact: Measuring texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 161–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E.
(2014) The topologic hypothesis of prominence as a cue to information structure in Italian. In S. Pons Bordería (Ed.), Models of discourse segmentation. Explorations across Romance Languages [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series] (pp. 219–241). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E., & Masia, V.
(2015a) Cognitive constraints on the emergence of topic-focus structure in human communication. In V. Ganfi & A. Chiera (Eds.), Immagine e pensiero. Bilanci nelle scienze cognitive attuali (pp. 180–204). Roma-Messina: Corisco.Google Scholar
(2015b) Context-dependent information processing: Towards an expectation-based parsing model of Information Structure. In H. Christiansen, I. Stojanovic, & G. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Modeling and Using Context [LNAI 9405 Series] (pp. 440–453). Switzerland: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Löbner, S.
(1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics, 4, 279–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luck, S. J., & Kappenman, E. S.
(2012) The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J.
(1982) Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor ergo sum? In R. J. Jarvella & K. Wolfgang (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 101–124). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J.
(2011) What is assertion? In J. Brown & H. Cappelen (Eds.), Assertion: New philosophical essays (pp. 79–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacNeilage, P. F., Studdert-Kennedy, M. G., & Linblom, B.
(1984) Functional precursors to language and its lateralization. The American Journal of Physiology, 246, 912–914.Google Scholar
McCready, E.
(2014) What is evidence in natural language? In E. Mc Cready, K. Yabushita, & K. Yoshimoto (Eds.), Formal approaches to semantics and pragmatics, studies in linguistics and philosophy (pp. 155–180). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Marois, R., & Ivanoff, J.
(2005) Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(6), 296–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A.
(1955) Economie des changements phonétiques, Traité de phonologie diachronique. Bern: Francke. [trad. it, Economia dei mutamenti fonetici, Torino: Einaudi, 1968].Google Scholar
Marty, A.
(1918) Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. II, part 1. Abteilung, Halle: Max Niemeyer, Verlag.Google Scholar
Masia, V., Canal, P., Ricci, I., Lombardi Vallauri, E., & Bambini, V.
(2017) Presupposition of new information as a pragmatic garden path: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 42, 31–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mathesius, V.
(1939) O tak zvaném aktuálním členĕní vĕty (On the So-Called Topic/Comment Articulation of the Sentence). SaS, 5, 171–174.Google Scholar
Mennes, M., Wouters, H., Vanrumste, B., Lagae, L., & Stiers, P.
(2010) Validation of ICA as a tool to remove eye movement artifacts from EEG/ERP. Psychophysiology, 47, 1142–1150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Dunbar, R.
(2006) A bias for social information in human cultural transmission. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 405–423. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molinaro, N., Conrad, M., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M.
(2010) On the functional nature of the N400: Contrasting effects related to visual word recognition and contextual semantic integration. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(1), 1–7. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morey, R. D.
(2008) Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C.
(1938) Foundations of the theory of signs. In C. Morris (Ed.), Writings on the general theory of signs. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Mushin, I.
(2001) Discourse analysis: Evidentiality and epistemological stance. Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Narasimhan, B., & Dimroth, C.
(2008) Word order and information status in child language. Cognition, 107, 317–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K.
(1973) Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38 (Serial No. 149). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A.
(2006) When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1098–1111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J.
(2001) Epistemic modality, language and conceptualization [Human Cognitive Processing 5]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The Expression of Modality [The Expression of Cognitive Categories 1] (pp. 1–26). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Noveck, I., & Sperber, D.
(2004) Experimental pragmatics. UK: MacMillan, Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oldfield, R. C.
(1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh handedness inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ong, W. J.
(1982) Orality and literacy. The technologizing of the word. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., & Schoffelen, J. M.
(2010) FieldTrip: Open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Article ID 156869 Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 9(5), 105–113. Crossref»Google Scholar
Orletti, F.
(2000) La conversazione diseguale. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb P. J.
(1992) Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., Holcomb P. J., & Swinney, D. A.
(1994) Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental and Psychological Learning, 20, 786–803. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Özcan, A., Tulum, Z., Lamia, P., & Başkurt, F.
(2004) Comparison of pressure pain threshold, grip strength, dexterity and touch pressure of dominant and non-dominant hands within and between right- and left-handed subjects. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 19, 874–878. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pagin, P.
(2004) Is assertion social? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 833–859. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Park, H., & Reder, L. M.
(2004) Moses illusion: Implication for human cognition. Available at: http://​www​.psy​.cmu​.edu​/faculty​/reder​/ph​_rlm​.pdf.
Partee, B. H., Hajičová, E., & Sgall, P.
(1998) Topic-focus articulation, tripartite structures, and semantic content. Amsterdam: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pfurtscheller, G., & Lopes da Silva, F. H.
(1999) Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: Basic principles. Clinical Neurophysiology, 110, 1842–1857. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piemontese, E.
(1996) Capire e farsi capire. Teorie e tecniche della scrittura controllata. Napoli: Tecnodid.Google Scholar
Pierce, C. S.
(1934) Belief and judgment. In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected Papers, Vol. V. Cambridge/Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P.
(1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13(4), 707–784. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G.
(1978) Does the chimpanzee have a “theory of mind”? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Price, H.
(1987) Truth and the nature of assertion. Mind, 96, 202–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Puglielli, A., & Frascarelli, M.
(2008) L’analisi linguistica. Dai dati alla teoria. Italia: Caissa.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R.. et al.
(1989) Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3-4), 21–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Récanati, F.
(1987) Meaning and force. The pragmatics of performative utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Regel, S., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D.
(2011) Isn’t it ironic? An electrophysiological exploration of figurative language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 277–293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T.
(1982) Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27(1), 53–94.Google Scholar
Rigal, R. A.
(1992) Which handedness: Preference or performance? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 851–866. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(1997) The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 281–337). Netherlands: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romoli, J., & Schwarz, F.
(2015) An experimental comparison between presupposition and indirect scalar implicatures. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions [Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics Series] (pp. 215–240). Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Rooth, M.
(1985) Association with focus. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, GLSA, Dept. of Linguistics, South College, UMASS, Amherst MA 01003.Google Scholar
(1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E.
(1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Roth, J.
(1979) Die indirekten Erlebnisformen im Bulgarischen: Eine Untersuchung zu ihrem Gebrauch in der Umgangssprache [Slavistische Beiträge 130]. Wiesbaden: Sagner.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D.
(2011) Explaining presupposition projection with dynamic semantics. Semantics & Pragmatics, 4(3), 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B.
(1905) On denoting. Mind, 14(56), 479–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E.
(1922) The fundamental elements of Northern Yana. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Linguistics, 13, 215–234.Google Scholar
Sasse, H-J.
(1987) The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics, 25, 511–580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, L. de. & Oswald, S.
(2009) Argumentation et engagement du locuteur pour un point de vue subjectiviste. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française, 29, 215–243.Google Scholar
Saussure, L. de
(2013) Background relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 178–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Présuppositions discursives, assertion d’arrière-plan et persuasion. In T. Herman & S. Oswald (Éds), Rhétorique et cognition: perspectives théoriques et stratégies persuasives/Rhetoric & Cognition theoretical perspectives and persuasive strategies (pp. 279–311). Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sbisà, M.
(2007) Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W.
(1984) Theoretical note: Automatic and controlled processing revisited. Psychological Review, 91(2), 269–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, P. B.
(2012) Context in neurolinguistics: Time-course data from electrophysiology. In R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer, & P. B. Schumacher (Eds.), What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges (pp. 33–53). Amsterdam: Jonh Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, P. B., & Hung, Y-C.
(2012) Positional influences on information packaging: Insights from topological fields in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(2), 295–310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, F.
(2014) Presuppositions are fast, whether hard or soft – Evidence from the visual world. Proceedings of SALT , 24, 1–22.
Schwarz, F., & Tiemann, S.
(2015) Presupposition projection in online processing. Available at: http://​florianschwarz​.net​/wp​-content​/uploads​/papers​/PresupProjectionProcessing​.pdf.
Schwarz, F.
(2015) Presuppositions vs. Asserted content in online processing. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental perspectives on presupposition. Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics (pp. 89–108). Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1975) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind and knowledge (pp. 344–369). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajičová, E., & Benešová, E.
(1973) Topic, focus, and generative semantics. Michigan: Scriptor Verlag.Google Scholar
Simone, R., & Lombardi Vallauri, E.
(2010) Natural constraints on language. Nature and consequences. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, 63, 205–224.Google Scholar
(2011) Natural constraints on language. The ergonomics of the software. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, 64, 119–141.Google Scholar
Simons, M.
(2001) On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), SALT XI (pp. 431–448). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil, Backwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D.
(2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C.
(1973) Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 447–457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1974) Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. K. Milton & U. K. Peter (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy (pp. 471–482). New York: University Press.Google Scholar
(1978) Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Pragmatics 9 (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stoica, P., & Moses, R.
(2005) Spectral analysis of signals. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. C.
(1960) Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics, [Occasional papers, No. 8]. University of Buffalo: Department of Anthropology and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F.
(1949) Truth. Analysis, 8, 83–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1950) On referring. Mind, 59, 320–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P., Sandford, A. J., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E.
(2004) Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 882–888. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J.
(2003) Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of learning and motivations: Advances in research and theory 43 (pp. 215–266). USA: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Tallerman, M.
(2007) Did our Ancestors speak a holistic protolanguage? Lingua, 117(3), 579–604. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., Morgan-Short, K., & Luck, S. J.
(2015) How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects and incorrect conclusions in ERP studies of language and cognition. Psychophysiology, 52(8), 997–1009. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A.
(1985) Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final purpose clauses in English. Text, 5(1/2), 55–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tiemann, S., Schmid, M., Bade, N., Rolke, B., Hertrich, I., Ackermann, H.., et al.
(2011) Psycholinguistic evidence for presuppositions: On-line and off-line data. In I. Reich, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung, Vol. 15 (pp. 581–595). Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press.Google Scholar
Toga, A. W., & Thompson, P. M.
(2003) Mapping brain asymmetry. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 37–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S.
(1995) Focal attention, voice, and word order: An experimental cross-linguistics study. In P. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp. 517–554). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2006) Grammaticalization, emergent constructions, and the notion of “newness”. Paper presented at HDLS, Albuquerque, Nov. German trans. [to appear] as “Grammatikalisierung und emergente Konstruktionen". In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Kerstin Fischer (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik und grammatische Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2010) Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–70). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trent, N.
(1997) Linguistic coding of evidentiality in Japanese spoken discourse and Japanese politeness. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Foreign Language Education. Austin, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E.
(1993) Information packaging: A survey. Paper presented at the WOP IS (Word Order, Prosody, and Information Structure), Center for Cognitive Science & Human Communication Research Center, University of Edinburgh.
Vallduví, E., & Engdahl, E.
(1996) The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 34(3), 459–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Van den Brink, D., Tesink, C. M. J. Y., Kos, M., & Hagoort, P.
(2008) The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 580–591. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Holleman, B., Nieuwland, M. S., Otten, M., & Murre, J.
(2009) Right or wrong? The brain's fast response to morally objectionable statements. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1092–1099. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A.
(2010) The brain is a prediction machine that cares about good and bad – any implications for neuropragmatics? Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22, 181–208.Google Scholar
Van der Sandt, R. A.
(1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora. Journal of Semantics, 9, 333–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Oers, B.
(1998) From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 473–488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Osstendorp, H., & Kok, I.
(1990) Failing to noticing errors in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 105–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M.
(1990) Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18(4), 380–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Molinaro, N., Fonda, S., & Cacciari, C.
(2010) Predictive mechanisms in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1682–1700. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visconti, J.
(2005) On the origins of scalar particles in Italian. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 6(2), 237–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walton, D.
(1993) Commitment, types of dialogues, and fallacies. Informal Logic, XIV(2–3), 93–103.Google Scholar
Wang, L., Bastiaansen, M., Yang, Y., & Hagoort, P.
(2011) The influence of information structure on the depth of semantic processing: How focus and pitch accent determine the size of the N400 effect. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 813–820. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, L., Jensen, O., Van den Brink, D., Weder, N., Schoffelen, J-M., Magyari, L., Hagoort, P., & Bastiaansen, M.
(2012) Beta oscillations relate to the N400 during language comprehension. Human Brain Mapping, 33(12), 2898–2912. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, L., & Schumacher, P. B.
(2013) New is not always costly: Evidence from online processing of topic and contrast in Japanese. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 363. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ward, P., & Sturt, P.
(2007) Linguistic focus and memory: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 73–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weil, H.
(1844) De l’ordre des mots dans les langages anciennes comparées aux langues modernes. Paris: Joubert. [En. tr. By Charles William Super as The order of words in the ancient languages compared with that of the modern languages, 1978, Amsterdam, Benjamins].Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J.
(2001) Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655–684. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, F., & Molfese, D. L.
(1992) The processing of presuppositional information contained in sentences: Electrohpysiological correlates. Brain and Language, 42, 286–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, J. M., Butcher, S. J., Lee, C., & Hyle, M.
(2003) Changing your mind: On the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for features singletons. Journal pf Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 483–502. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
(1998) Protolanguage as a holistic system for social interaction. Language and Communication, 18, 47–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Holistic utterances in protolanguage: The link from primates to humans. In C. Knight, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & J. Hurford (Eds.), The evolutionary emergence of language (pp. 285–302). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In The Manipulative Disguise of Truth [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 322], Crossref logo
Cresti, Emanuela & Massimo Moneglia
2018. The definition of the TOPIC within Language into Act Theory and its identification in spontaneous speech corpora. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature. International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures 53:1 ► pp. 30 ff. Crossref logo
Langsford, Steven, Rachel G. Stephens, John C. Dunn & Richard L. Lewis
2019. In Search of the Factors Behind Naive Sentence Judgments: A State Trace Analysis of Grammaticality and Acceptability Ratings. Frontiers in Psychology 10 Crossref logo
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
2021. Manipulative Shallow Processing Induced by Presuppositions and Topics: Theoretical Perspectives and Experimental Evidence. Frontiers in Communication 6 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects & Metadata

Linguistics

Discourse studies
Pragmatics
Psycholinguistics
Semantics
Syntax
Theoretical linguistics
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2017041493 | Marc record