Imagine sitting at a bar where someone woefully says, “Some jobs are jails.” This can be readily understood to implicate that some jobs are confining (or dispiriting, demoralizing etc.) and, if one wants to be even more precise, it could be taken to mean some but not all jobs are confining and so on. Both of these propositions go beyond what was literally said and – remarkably – arriving at these interpretations appears relatively routine. However, as is the case for many everyday experiences, it is a challenge to understand how it works. This explains, at least partly why there is a field of study, linguistic-pragmatics, devoted to investigating how such intended interpretations come about. ExperimentalPragmatics can be viewed as a subdiscipline devoted to testing and advancing pragmatic accounts through psychological experiments.
1981“Performative bias in children’s interpretations of ambiguous referential communications.” Child Development 52: 1224–1230.
Ackerman, B.P., J. Szymanski and D. Silver
1990“Children’s use of common ground in interpreting ambiguous referential utterances.” Developmental Psychology 26: 234–245.
Almor, A., S. Arunachalam and B. Strickland
2007“When the creampuff beat the boxer: working memory, cost, and function in reading metaphoric reference.” Metaphor and Symbol 22(2): 169–193. BoP
Bambini, V. and D. Resta
2012“Metaphor and Experimental Pragmatics: When Theory Meets Empirical Investigation.” humana.Mente 23: 37–60. MetBib
Barner, D., N. Brooks and A. Bale
2011“Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference.” Cognition 118(1): 84.
Baron-Cohen, S., S. Wheelwright, R. Skinner, J. Martin and E. Clubley
2001‘The autism spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 31: 5–17.
Bašnáková J., K. Weber, K.M. Petersson, J. Van Berkum and P. Hagoort
in press. “ Beyond the Language Given: The Neural Correlates of Inferring Speaker Meaning.” Cerebral Cortex.
Blasko, D.G. and C.M. Connine
1993“Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of experimental psychology.” Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19(2): 295–308.
Bott, L. and I.A. Noveck
2004“Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences.” Journal of Memory and Language 51(3): 437–457.
Bott, L., T.M. Bailey and D. Grodner
2012“Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures.” Journal of Memory and Language 66: 123–142.
Braine, M. and B. Rumain
1981“Children’s comprehension of ‘or’: Evidence for a sequence of competencies.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 31: 46–70.
Breheny, R., N. Katsos and J. Williams
2006“Are scalar implicatures generated by default?” Cognition 100: 434–463. BoP
Breheny, R., H.J. Ferguson and N. Katsos
2013“Taking the epistemic step: Toward a model of on-line access to conversational implicatures.” Cognition 126(3): 423–440.
Brennan S.E. and H.H. Clark
1996“Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22: 1482–1493.
Brennan, S.E. and J.E. Hanna
2009“Partner-specific adaptation in dialog.” Topics in Cognitive Science 1(2): 274–291.
2009“Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog.” Journal of Memory and Language 61(2): 171–190.
2002Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. MetBib
2010a “Lexical pragmatics, ad hoc concepts and metaphor: from a relevance theory perspective.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 22(1): 153–180.
2010b “Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110(3): 295–321.
Chevallier, C., I. Noveck, L. Bott, V. Lanza, T. Nazir and D. Sperber
2008“Making disjunctions exclusive.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(11): 1741–1760
Chevallier, C., I. Noveck, F. Happé and D. Wilson
2011“What’s in a voice? Prosody as a test case for the Theory of Mind account of autism.” Neuropsychologia 49(3): 507–517.
2001“Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface.” In Structures and beyond, ed. by A. Belleti. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chierchia, G., D. Fox and B. Spector
to appear. “ The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics.” In An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning ed. by P. Portner, C. Maienborn Et Kvon Heusinger. BerlinMouton de Gruyter
1990“On the pragmatics of contrast.” Journal of Child Language 17(2): 417–431. BoP
Clark, H.H. and R.J. Gerrig
1984“On the Pretense Theory of Irony.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(1): 121–126.
Davies, C. and N. Katsos
2010“Over-informative children: Production/comprehension asymmetry or tolerance to pragmatic violations?” Lingua 120(8): 1956–1972.
De Neys, W. and W. Schaeken
2007“When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature.” Experimental Psychology 54: 128–133.
Filik, R. and L. Moxey
2010“The on-line processing of written irony.” Cognition 116(3): 421–436. MetBib
Flavell, J.H., J.R. Speer, F.L. Green, D.L. August and G.J. Whitehurst
1981“The development of comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Chile Development 46(5): 1–65.
Gerrig, R.J. and A.F. Healy
1983“Dual Processes in Metaphor Understanding?: Comprehension and Appreciation.” Cognition 9(4).
2010Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1986“On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115(1): 3–15.
1994The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1999“Interpreting what speakers say and implicate.” Brain and Language 68(3): 466–485.
2002“A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated.”Journal of Pragmatics 34(4): 457–486.
Gibbs, R.J. and R. Gerrig
1989“How context makes metaphor comprehension seem ‘special’.” Metaphor and Symbol 4(3): 145–158. MetBib
Gibbs Jr, R.W. and J.F. Moise
1997“Pragmatics in understanding what is said.” Cognition 62(1): 51–74.
Gildea, P. and S. Glucksberg
1983“On understanding metaphor: The role of context.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22(5): 577–590. MetBib
1997“Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis.” Cognitive Linguistics 8(3): 183–206. MetBib
2002“Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal?” Journal of Pragmatics 34(4): 487–506. BoP
2003On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press. MetBib
Giora, R. and O. Fein
1999“Irony: Context and salience.” Metaphor and Symbol 14(4): 241–257. MetBib
Giora, R., O. Fein, R. Kaufman, D. Eisenberg and S. Erez
2009“Does an ‘ironic situation’ favor an ironic interpretation?” In Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps, ed. by G. Brône and J. Vandaele, 383–399. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
1975“Logic and conversation.” In Pragmatics: A Reader, ed. by S. Davis, 305–315. New York: Oxford University Press. BoP
1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Grodner, D., N.M. Klein, K.M. Carbary and M.K. Tanenhaus
2010“’Some’, and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment.” Cognition 116: 42–55.
Guasti, M.T., G. Chierchia, S. Crain, F. Foppolo, A. Gualmini and L. Meroni
2005“Why Children and Adults Sometimes (But Not Always) Compute Implicatures.” Language and Cognitive Processes 20: 667–696.
1993“Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: a test of relevance theory.” Cognition 48(2): 101–119.
Huang, Y. and J. Snedeker
2009“Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in 5-year-olds: Evidence from real-time spoken language comprehension.” Developmental Psychology 45(6): 1723–1739.
Inhoff, A.W., S.D. Lima and P.J. Carroll
1984“Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading.” Memory and Cognition 12(6): 558–567.
Ironsmith, M. and G. Whitehurst
1978“The development of listeners abilities in communication: How children deal with ambiguous information.” Child Development 49: 348–352.
Janus, R. and T. Bever
1985“Processing of metaphoric language: An investigation of the three-stage model of metaphor comprehension.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 14(5): 473–487. BoP
Jorgensen, J., G. Miller and D. Sperber
1984“Test of the mention theory of irony.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(1): 112–120. MetBib
Katsos, N. and D.V. Bishop
2011“Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature.” Cognition 120(1): 67–81.
Keysar, B., D.J. Barr, J.A. Balin and J.S. Brauner
2000“Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension.” Psychological Science 11(1): 32–38.
Kronmüller, E. and D.J. Barr
2007“Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from-preemption hypothesis.” Journal of Memory and Language 56(3): 436–455.
Krönmuller, E., T. Morisseau and I.A. Noveck
in press. “Show me the pragmatic contribution: A developmental investigation of referential communication.” Journal of Child Language.
Kutas, M. and S.A. Hillyard
1984“Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association.” Nature 307: 161–163.
Lai, V.T., T. Curran and L. Menn
2009“Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: an ERP study.” Brain Research 1284: 145–55. MetBib
2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1982Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Metzing, C. and S.E. Brennan
2003“When conceptual pacts are broken: partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions.” Journal of Memory and Language 49: 201–213.
Nieuwland, M.S., T. Ditman and G.R. Kuperberg
2010“On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities.” Journal of Memory and Language 63(3): 324–346.
2001“When children are more logical than adults: Investigations of scalar implicature.” Cognition 78: 165–188.
Noveck, I.A., M. Bianco and A. Castry
2001“The costs and benefits of metaphor.” Metaphor and Symbol 16(1/2): 109–121. MetBib
Noveck, I.A., R. Guelminger, N. Georgieff and N. Labruyere
2007“What autism can reveal about every… not sentences.” Journal of Semantics 24(1): 73–90.
Noveck, I.A. and A. Posada
2003“Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study.” Brain and Language 85(2): 203–210. BoP
Noveck, I.A. and A. Reboul
2008“Experimental Pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12: 425–431.
Noveck, I.A. and D. Sperber
2007“The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’.” In Pragmatics, ed. by N. Burton-Roberts, 184–212. Basingstoke: Palgrave. BoP
Noveck, I.A. and N. Spotorno
2013 “ Narrowing.” In Brevity, ed. by L. Goldstein. Oxford: OUP.
Ortony, A., D.L. Schallert, R.E. Reynolds and S.J. Antos
1978“Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17(4): 465–477. BoP
1973“Comprehension of language connectives and propositional logical relationships.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 16: 278–291.
Peleg, O., R. Giora and O. Fein
2001“Salience and context effects: Two are better than one.” Metaphor and Symbol 16(3/4): 173–192. BoP
Pijnacker, J., P. Hagoort, J. Buitelaar, J.P. Teunisse and B. Geurts
2009“Pragmatic inferences in high-functioning adults with autism and Asperger syndrome.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 39(4): 607–618.
Pouscoulous, N., I.A. Noveck, G. Politzer and A. Bastide
2007“A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production.” Language Acquisition 14: 347–375. BoP
Pynte, J., M. Besson, F.H. Robichon and J. Poli
1996“The time-course of metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study.” Brain and Language 55(3): 293–316. MetBib
Rubio Fernández, P.
2007“Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction.” Journal of Semantics 24(4): 345–371.
2011The hepatitis called: Electrophysiological Evidence for Enriched Composition.” In Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics, ed. by Jörg Meibauer and Markus Steinbach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1979Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shintel, H. and B. Keysar
2009“Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication.” Topics in Cognitive Science 1(2): 260–273.
Sperber, D. and I.A. Noveck
2004“Introduction.” In Experimental Pragmatics, ed. by I.A. Noveck and D. Sperber, 1–22. London: Palgrave Macmillan. BoP
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson
1981“Irony and the use-mention distinction.” In Radical pragmatics, ed. by P. Cole, 295–318. New York: Academic Press. BoP
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson
1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell; 2nd edition 1995. BoP
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson
2008“A deflationary account of metaphors.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by R.W. Gibbs, 84–105. New York: Cambridge Univesity Press. MetBib
Spotorno, N., E. Koun, J. Prado, J.-B. Van Der Henst and I.A. Noveck
2012“Neural evidence that utterance-processing entails mentalizing: The case of irony.” NeuroImage 63(1): 25–39.
Spotorno, N., J.-B. Van Der Henst, A. Cheylus, and I.A. Noveck
2013“What's behind a p600? Integration operation during irony processing.” pLoS one 63(1):
1979“Developmental patterns in the encoding and combination of logical connectives.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 28(3): 469–498.
Van Der Henst, J.B. and D. Sperber
2004“Testing the cognitive and the communicative principles of relevance.” In Experimental pragmatics, ed. by I. Noveck and D. Sperber, 141–171. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
2009“Irony and metarepresentation.” UCLWPL 21(June): 183–226.
Wilson, D. and R. Carston
2007“A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by N. Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. BoP
Wilson, D. and D. Sperber
2012a “Explaining Irony.” In Meaning and Relevance, ed. by D. Wilson and D. Sperber, 123–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, D. and D. Sperber
2012bMeaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.