Search Results

Gradual conventionalization of pragmatic inferences

The y/e and o/u alternation in Spanish

Errapel Mejías-Bikandi

pragmatic inferences: presumably the speaker has had the opportunity to observe that the subject picks up the paper every day. Now, a sentence such as (20) is awkward: (20) ?? Está en casa u otra persona ha cogido el periódico . ‘She is at home or another person has picked the paper.’ The awkwardness of

Beáta Gyuris

), respectively, are string-identical to their canonical declarative counterparts, shown in (23a, b), where the negative particle nem ‘not’ is situated in a position immediately preceding the verb. 15 In the b) examples, the subject noun phrase is situated in the topic field of the sentence

Distinctions in procedural meaning

Evidence from Modern Greek contrast

Valandis Bardzokas

(3). (3) John is short but Helen is tall. In this example, but is said to conjoin two semantically opposed attributes predicated of John and Helen, i.e. being short and being tall, respectively (R. Lakoff, 1971). A characteristic feature of semantic opposition is that the subjects of the conjoined

Victoria Escandell-Vidal and Elena Vilinbakhova

generalisable, i.e. they do not explain what interpretations can arise for pseudo-tautologies, whether such interpretations are subject to any constraints, etc. It appears more complicated to investigate affirmative pseudo-tautologies first in order to then draw the analysis of A is not A patterns from the

Classifying Prosocial Lies

An Empirical Approach

Melanie Hornung

deceived counterparts. After being informed about the deception as well as the liar’s motives, the deceived subject had to decide whether her teammate was still trustworthy. 7 The surprising outcome was the high amount of trust despite the previous deception. Levine and Schweitzer (2015) explain that the

Contextual effects on explicature

Optional pragmatics or optional syntax?

Robyn Carston and Alison Hall

and nature of these pragmatic processes has been the subject of much debate: on the one hand, there are those who believe that ‘free’ (that is, pragmatically rather than linguistically motivated) pragmatic processes can contribute constituents of explicature, and, on the other hand, there are those

Gerard O’Grady

mental verb plus subject determines the form of the corresponding tag question, contrast examples (2a) and (2b). Van Bogaert (2010) reports two further tests for distinguishing mental projecting clauses from epistemic comment clauses. These are transparency to negation and transparency to factive

Lying by Promising

A Study on Insincere Illocutionary Acts

Neri Marsili

fluctuations in the subjects’ intuitions, and does not require an explanation. But if an explanation must be given, it can be given in terms of moral judgements . Several authors have suggested that lying is a morally loaded term (Bok, 1978: 14; Williams, 1985: 140), and some of them even contended that

What’s really going on with the ham sandwich?

An investigation into the nature of referential metonymy

Josephine Bowerman

accessible the interpretive hypothesis that the subject of this predicate, i.e. the referent of the definite description ‘ the beard ’, is human, we take the speaker to be using the phrase ‘ the beard ’ interpretively—as a metarepresentation, to represent a representation of the actual intended referent

Christoph Unger

. If the signal exceeds a certain level and becomes conscious, the subject will have ‘a sensation-like experience of this schema-mismatch signal.’ (Reisenzein, 2000: 267) The subjective experience of surprise puts us into a state of mind in which we are conscious of the information that a certain event