Article published in:
Evidentiality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface
Edited by Bert Cornillie and Juana I. Marín-Arrese
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 29] 2015
► pp. 6182


Ahern, Aoife
2004El subjuntivo: significado e inferencia. Un análisis basada en la teoría de la relevancia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Madrid: UNED.Google Scholar
2006 “Spanish mood, propositional attitudes and metarepresentation.” In Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: the Michigan State University Papers, ed. by Ken Turner and Klaus von Heusinger, 445–470. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ahern, Aoife, Amenós-Pons, José and Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro
2014 “Interfaces in the interpretation of mood alternation in L2 Spanish: Morpho-phonology, semantics and pragmatics.” EUROSLA Yearbook 2014: 173–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. “Mood interpretation in Spanish: towards an encompassing view of L1 and L2 interface variability.” In The Acquisition of Romance languages ed. by Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes, María Juan Garau and Pilar Larrañaga Berlin – New York Mouton De Gruyter
Amenós-Pons, José
2015 “Spanish ‘Imperfecto’ vs. French ‘Imparfait’ in Hypothetical Clauses: A Procedural Account.” Cahiers Chronos 27: 243–271.Google Scholar
Belletti, Andrea, Elisa Bennati and Antonella Sorace
2007 “Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: evidence from near-native Italian.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 657–689. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Bott, Oliver
2010The Processing of Events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bres, Jacques
2005L’imparfait dit narratif. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1959 “A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour.” Language 35: 26–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1965Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Saussure, Louis and Bertrand Sthioul
1999“L’imparfaif narratif : point de vue (et images du monde).” Cahiers de Praxématique 32: 167–188.Google Scholar
2005 “Imparfait et enrichissement pragmatique.” Cahiers Chronos 14: 103–120.Google Scholar
De Saussure, Louis
2003Temps et pertinence. Éléments de pragmatique cognitive du temps. Bruxelles: De Boeck – Duculot.Google Scholar
2013 “Perspectival Interpretation of Tenses.” In Time, Language, Cognition and Reality, ed. by Kasia M. Jaszcolt and Louis de Saussure, 46–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Swart, Henriette
1998 “Aspect shift and coercion.” Natural language and linguistic theory 16: 347–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “Tense, aspect and coercion in a cross-linguistic perspective.” In Proceedings of the Berkeley Formal Grammar conference University of California. Berkeley, ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. CSLI Publications.http://​web​.stanford​.edu​/group​/cslipublications​/cslipublications​/LFG​/5​/bfg00​/bfg00deswart​.pdf (September 2015)Google Scholar
Egg, M.
2005Flexible Semantics for Reinterpretation Phenomena. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria and Manuel Leonetti
2003 “On the quotative readings of Spanish Imperfecto.” Cuadernos de Lingüística X: 135–154.Google Scholar
2000 “Categorías funcionales y semántica procedimental.” In Cien años de investigación semántica: De Michel Bréal a la actualidad, vol. 1, ed. by Marcos Martínez, et al., 363–378. Madrid: Coord. Clásicas.Google Scholar
2011 “On the Rigidity of Procedural Meaning.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern (eds.), 81–103. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Escandell, Victoria, Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern
(eds.) 2011Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gili Gaya, Samuel
1943Curso superior de sintaxis española. Barcelona: Biblograf.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly
2001Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1974 “Dialogues with… George Lakoff.” In Discussing language, ed. by Herman Parrett, 151–178. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel
2004 “Por qué el imperfecto es anafórico.” In El pretérito imperfecto, ed. by Luis García Fernández and Bruno Camus Bergareche, 481–510. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques
1994 “Anaphore et déixis temporelles. Sémantique et pragmatique de la référence temporelle.” In Langage et pertinence. Référence temporelle, anaphore, connecteurs et métaphore, ed. by Jacques Moeschler, et al., 39–105. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
1998 “Pragmatique de la référence temporelle.” In Le temps des événements, ed. by Jacques Moeschler, 157–180. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
2002“Pragmatics and linguistic encoding. Evidence from the conceptual/procedural distinction.”Unpublished manuscript. http://​www​.unige​.ch​/lettres​/linguistique​/moeschler (January 2010).
Moeschler Jacques, Cristina Grisotet and Bruno Cartoni
2012 “Jusqu’où les temps verbaux sont-ils procéduraux?Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 30: 119–139.Google Scholar
Montrul, Silvina and Roumyana Slabakova
2002 “On aspectual shifts in L2 Spanish.” In BUCLD 26 Proceedings, ed. by Barbora Skarabela, et al.(eds.), 631–42. Somerville: MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
2003 “Competence similarities between natives and near-native speakers: An investigation of the Preterit/Imperfect contrast in Spanish.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 351–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve
1997 “A Relevance-theoretic account of be going to.” Journal of Linguistics 33: 355–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 “A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization.” Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1): 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olmos, Susana and Aoife Ahern
2009 “Contrast and propositional attitude. A relevance-theoretic analysis of contrast connectives in Spanish and English.” Lingua 119 (1): 51–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Michel
2001/2009 “Cerebral division of labour in verbal communication.” In Cognition and Pragmatics, ed. by Dominiek Sandra, Jan-Ola Östman and Jeff Verschueren, 53–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Neil
1990 “Observations on the pragmatics of tense.” University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 82–94.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella and Francesca Filiaci
2006 “Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian.” Second Language Research 22: 339–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella
2011 “Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1: 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Danand and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sthioul, Bertrand
1998Temps verbaux et point de vue. In Le temps des événements, ed. by Jacques Moeschler, 197–220. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria and Antonella Sorace
2006 “Differentiating Interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena.” In Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. by David Bamman, Tatiana Magnitskaia, and Colleen Zaller, 653–664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Vetters, Carl and Walter De Mulder
2000 “Passé simple et imparfait: contenus conceptual et procédural.” Cahiers Chronos 6: 13–36.Google Scholar
Vetters, Carl
2003 “L’aspect global: un effet secondaire d’un contenu procédural?Cahiers Chronos 11: 113–131.Google Scholar
Vicente, Begoña
2010 “The role of pragmatic inferencing in compositional semantics.” In Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, ed. by Esther Romero and Belén Soria, 58–74. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
White, Lydia
2009 “Grammatical Theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge.” In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, ed. by William Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, 49–67. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber
1993 “Linguistic form and Relevance.” Lingua 90: 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar