A case of metonymy or M-inference?: The development of counterfactual implicatures in English

Ziegeler, Debra

doi:10.1075/pbns.113.13zie

Part of

Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing
Edited by Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda L. Thornburg
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113] 2003
► pp. 169–203

The development of counterfactual implicatures in English

A case of metonymy or M-inference?

Debra Ziegeler

Published online: 17 July 2003

https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.13zie

Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Order by:

LECLERCQ, BENOÎT & ILSE DEPRAETERE

2022. Making meaning withbe able to: modality and actualisation. English Language and Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 27 ff.

Depraetere, Ilse

2017. The Meanings of have and the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. In Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line [Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, 11], ► pp. 265 ff.

Kulakova, Eugenia & Mante S. Nieuwland

2016. Understanding Counterfactuality: A Review of Experimental Evidence for the Dual Meaning of Counterfactuals. Language and Linguistics Compass 10:2 ► pp. 49 ff.

Verhulst, An & Liesbet Heyvaert

2015. Root Modal Uses ofShould, Ought toandBe Supposed toin Present-Day English: From Patterns and Profiles to Proficiency Guidelines. English Studies 96:5 ► pp. 562 ff.

Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg

2014. Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 27:1 ► pp. 168 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 september 2024. 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.