Las diferencias de procesamiento de los significados implícitos clásicos: semejanzas y diferencias entre entrañamientos, presuposiciones, ICG e ICP

Références bibliographiques

• ANDRÉS-ROQUETA, Clara; KATSOS, Napoleón (2017): “The contribution of grammar, vocabulary and theory of mind in pragmatic language competence in children with autistic spectrum disorders”, Frontiers in Psychology, 8, pp. 1-5.
• ANTONIOU, Kyriakos; CUMMINS, Chris; KATSOS, Napoleon (2016): “Why only some adults reject under-informative utterances”, Journal of Pragmatics, 99, pp. 78-95.
• ATLAS, Jay David (2004): “Presupposition”, en Laurence R. HORN; Gregory WARD (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 29-52.
• BACH, Kent (1999): “The myth of conventional implicature”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, pp. 327-366.
• BARENDSE, Evelien; HENDRIKS, Marc; JANSEN, Jacobus; BACKES, Walter; HOFMAN, Paul; THOONEN, Geert; KESSELS, Roy; ALDENKAMP, Albert (2013): “Working memory deficits in high-functioning adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: neuropsychological and neuroimaging correlates”, Journal of neurodevelopmental disordersi, 5, pp. 1-11.
• BERGEN, Leon; GRODNER, Daniel (2012): “Speaker knowledge influences the comprehension of pragmatic inferences”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, pp. 1450-1460.
• BLAKEMORE, Diane, (1992): Understanding utterances, Oxford: Blackwell.
• BLASKO, Dawn (1999): “Only the tip of the iceberg: Who understands what about metaphor?”, Journal of Pragmatics, 31, pp. 1675-1683.
• BOUX, Isabella; MARGIOTOUDI, Konstantina; DREYER, Felix; TOMASELLO, Rosario; PULVERMÜLLER, Friedemann (2022): “Cognitive features of indirect speech acts”, Language, Cognition and Neurosciencei, 1, pp. 1-40.
• BOWDLE, Brian; GENTNER, Dedre (2005): “The career of metaphor”, Psychology Review, 112, pp. 193-216
• BREHENY, Ricard; KATSOS, Napoleon; WILLIAMS, John (2006): “Are scalar implicatures generated by default?”, Cognition, 100, pp. 434-463.
• CANAL, Paolo; BISCHETTI, Luca; BERTINI, Chiara; RICCI, Irene; LECCE Serena; BAMBINI, Valentina (2022): “N400 differences between physical and mental metaphors: The role of Theories of Mind”, Brain and Cognition, 161, p. 1058-79. CANN, Ronnie (1993): Formal semantics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• CARSTON, Robyn (1995): “Quantity maxims and generalised implicature”, Lingua, 96.
• CHAMPAGNE-LAVAU, Maud; JOANETTE, Yves (2009): “Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits”, Journal of neurolinguistics, 22 (5), pp. 413-426.
• CHAMPAGNE-LAVAU, Maud; STIP, Emmanuel (2010): “Pragmatic and executive dysfunction in schizophrenia”, Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23 (3), pp. 285-296.
• CHIAPPE, Dan; CHIAPPE, Penny (2007): “The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension”, Journal of Memory and Language, 56(2), pp. 172188.
• CHIERCHIA, Gennaro (2004): “Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface”, en Adriana BELLETTI (ed.), Structures and beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39– 103.
• CHIERCHIA, Gennaro y MCCONNELL-GINET, Sally (2000): Meaning and Grammar. An Introduction to Semantics, Cambridge: MIT press.
• COULSON, Seana (2005): “The Literal/Nonliteral distinction”, en Seana Coulson; Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.): The Literal and the Nonliteral in Language and Thought, Berlín: Peter Lang, pp. 9-22.
• CUMMINS, Chris (2017): “Contextual causes of implicature failure”, Discourse Processes, 54 (3), pp. 207-218.
• CUMMINGS, Louise (2013): Pragmatics: A multidisciplinary perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.
• DE NEYS, Wim; SCHAEKEN, Walter (2007): “When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature”, Experimental Psychology 54 (2), pp. 128– 133.
• DEGEN, Judith; TANENHAUS, Michael (2015): “Processing scalar implicature: A constraint-based approach”, Cognitive science, 39 (4), pp. 667-710.
• DEWS, Shelly; WINNER, Ellen (1999): “Obligatory processing of literal and nonliteral meanings in verbal irony”, Journal of pragmatics, 31 (12), pp. 1579-1599.
• DIEUSSAERT, Kristien; VERKERK, Suzanne; GILLARD, Ellen; SCHAEKEN, Walter (2011): “Some effort for some: Further evidence that scalar implicatures are effortful”, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64 (12), pp. 2352-2367.
• DOMANESCHI, Filippo (2016): Presuppositions and Cognitive processes. Londres: Palgrave MacMillan.
• DOWTY, David; WALL, Robert; PETERS, Stanley (1981): Introduction to Montague semantics. Berlín: Springer Science & Business Media.
• DUPUY, Ludivine; VAN DER HENST, Jean-Baptiste; CHEYLUS, Anne; REBOUL, Anne (2016): “Context in generalized conversational implicatures: the case of some”, Frontiers in Psychology, 7, p. 381.
• EISELE, Julie; LUST, Barbara; ARAM, Dorothy (1998): “Presupposition and Implication of Truth: Linguistic Deficits following Early Brain Lesions”, Brain and Language, 61 (3), pp. 376-394. 10.1006/brln.1997.1883.
• ESCANDELL VIDAL, Mª Victoria (20062): Introducción a la pragmática. Barcelona: Ariel.
• FAIRCHILD, Sarah; PAPAFRAGOU, Anna (2021): “The role of executive function and theory of mind in pragmatic computations”, Cognitive Science, 45 (2).
• FEIMAN, Roman; HARTSHORNE, Joshua; BARNER, David (2019): “Contrast and Entailment: Abstract logical relations constrain how 2-and 3-year-old children interpret unknown numbers”, Cognition, 183, pp. 192-207.
• FERRETTI, Tod; KATZ, Albert; SCHWINT, Christopher; PATTERSON, Courtney; PRADZYNSKI, Dagna (2020): “How discourse constraints influence neurolinguistic mechanisms during the comprehension of proverbs”, Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 20 (3), pp. 604–623.
• FILIK, Ruth; LEUTHOLD, Hartmut; WALLINGTON, Katie; PAGE, Jemma (2014): “Testing theories of irony processing using eye-tracking and ERPs”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40 (3), p. 811.
• FILIK, Ruth; BRIGHTMAN, Emily; GATHERCOLE, Chloe; LEUTHOLD, Hartmut (2017): “The emotional impact of verbal irony: Eye-tracking evidence for a two-stage process”, Journal of Memory and Language, 93, pp. 193–202.
• GAZDAR, Gerald (1979): Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupoosition, and Logical Form. Londres, Oxford, Boston, Nueva York y San Diego: Academic Press.
• GERNSBACHER, Morton; KEYSAR, Necia; ROBERTSON, Rachel; WERNER Necia (2001): “The role of inhibition and enhancement in understanding metaphors”, Journal of Memory and Language, 45, pp. 433–450.
• GEURTS, Bart (2007): “Implicature as a discourse phenomenon”, en Estela PuigWaldmüller; Louise McNally (eds.): Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, pp. 261–275.
• GEURTS, Bart (2010): Quantity implicatures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• GIBBS, Raymond W. (1994): The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• GIBBS, Raymond W. (2000): “Irony in talk among friends”, Metaphor and symbol, 15 (12), pp. 5-27.
• GIBBS, Raymond W. (2002): “A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated”, Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (4), pp. 457–486.
• GIBBS, Raymond W.; COLSTON, Herbert L. (2012): Interpreting figurative meaning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• GIORA, Rachel (1997): “Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis”, Cognition Linguistcs, 8, pp. 183–206.
• GIORA, Rachel (1999): “On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language”, Journal of Pragmatics, 31, pp. 919–929.
• GIORA, Rachel (2002): “Literal vs. Figurative language: Different or equal?”, Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (4), pp. 487–506.
• GIORA, Rachel (2003): On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• GIORA, Rachel; FEIN Ofer (1999): “Irony: Context and salience”, Metaphor and Symbol, 14 (4).
• GLUCKSBERG, Sam; NEWSOME, Mary; GOLDVARG, Yevgeniya (2001): “Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension”, Metaphor & Symbol, 16, pp. 277–293.
• GOODMAN, Noah; STUHLMÜLLER, Andreas (2013): “Knowledge and implicature: modeling language understanding as social cognition”, Topics in Cognitive Science, 5, pp. 173–184.
• GRICE, H. Paul (1975): “Logic and conversation”, en Peter Cole; Jerry L. Morgan (eds.): Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58.
• HAPPÉ, Francesca (1993): “Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: a test of relevance theory”, Cognition, 48, pp. 101–119.
• HAPPÉ, Francesca (1994): “An advanced test of theory of mind: Understanding the story of characters’ thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults”, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, pp. 129–154.
• HORN, Laurence R. (1972): On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English, Los Angeles:Universidad de California.
• HORN, Laurence R. (1984): “Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature”, en Deborah Schiffrin (ed.): Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, pp. 11–42.
• HORN, Laurence R. (1989): A Natural History of Negation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• HORNICK, Shiri; SHETREET Einat (2022): “Pragmatic inferences: Neuroimaging of adhoc implicatures”, Journal of Neurolinguistics, 64, pp. 101090.
• JASINSKAJA, Katja; SALFNER, Fabienne; FREITAG, Constantin (2017): “Discourse-level implicature: A case for QUD”, Discourse Processes, 54 (3), pp. 239-258.
• KALANDADZE, Tamar; NORBURY, Courtenay; NÆRLAND, Terje; NÆSS Kari-Anne (2018): “Figurative language comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analytic review”, Autism, 22, pp. 99–117.
• KAMPA, Alyssa; PAPAFRAGOU Anna (2019): “Four-year-olds incorporate knowledge into pragmatic inferences”, Developmental Science, 23 (2), pp. 1-13.
• KAZMERSKI, Victoria; DAWN, Blasko; DESSALEGN, Banchiamlack (2003): “ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension”, Memory & cognition, 31, pp. 673-689.
• KERCOOD, Suneeta; GRSKOVIC, Janice; BANDA, Devender; BEGESKE, Jasmine (2014): “Working memory and autism: A review of literature”, Research in autism spectrum disorders, 8 (10), pp. 1316-1332.
• KOWATCH, Kristy; WHALEN, Juanita; PEXMAN, Penny (2013): “Irony comprehension in action: A new test of processing for verbal irony”, Discourse Processes, 50 (5), pp. 301-315.
• LANGDON, Robyn; DAVIES, Martin; COLTHEART, Max (2002): “Understanding minds and understanding communicated meanings in schizophrenia”, Mind & Language 17 (1-2), pp. 68-104.
• LEE, Cynthia (2018): “Key Concepts and Issues”, en Cynthia Lee (ed.): Researching and Teaching Second Language Speech Acts in the Chinese Context, Singapur: Springer Singapore, pp. 1-9.
• LEVINSON, Stephen (1983): Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• LEVINSON, Stephen (2000): Presumptive meanings. The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature, Cambridge: MIT press.
• LÓPEZ GARCÍA-MOLINS, Ángel (1989): Fundamentos de lingüística perceptiva, Madrid: Gredos.
• MAROCCHINI, Eleonora; DOMANESCHI, Filippo (2022): “‘Can you read my mind?’ Conventionalized indirect requests and Theory of Mind abilities”, Journal of Pragmatics, 193, pp. 201-221.
• MARTY, Paul; CHEMLA, Emmanuel (2013): “Scalar implicatures: Working memory and a comparison with only”, Frontiers in Psychology, 4, pp. 403– 412.
• MASHAL, Nira; KASIRER, Anat (2011): “Thinking maps enhance metaphoric competence in children with autism and learning disabilities”, Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32 (6), pp. 2045-2054.
• MAYOL, Laia; CASTROVIEJO, Elena (2013): “How to cancel an implicature”, Journal of Pragmatics, 50 (1), pp. 84-104.
• MAZZAGGIO, Greta; FOPPOLO, Francesca; JOB, Remo; SURIAN, Luca (2021): “Ad-hoc and scalar implicatures in children with autism spectrum disorder”, Journal of communication disorders, 90.
• MEIBAUER, Jörg (2019): “What is an indirect speech act? Reconsidering the literal force hypothesis”, Pragmatics and Cognition, 26 (1), pp. 61–84.
• MOGNON, Irene; SPRENGER, Simone; KUIJPER, Sanne; HENDRIKS, Petra (2021): “Complex inferential processes are needed for implicature comprehension, but not for implicature production”, Frontiers in Psychology, 11, pp. 556667.
• OLKONIEMI, Henri; JOHANDER, Eerika; KAAKINEN, Johanna (2019): “The role of lookbacks in the processing of written sarcasm”, Memory & Cognition, 47, pp. 87–105.
• OLKONIEMI, Henri; KAAKINEN Johanna (2021): “Processing of irony in text: A systematic review of eye-tracking studies”, Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 75 (2), pp. 99–106.
• OLKONIEMI, Henri; RANTA, Henri; KAAKINEN, Johanna (2016): “Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, pp. 433–450.
• PASTOR-CEREZUELA, Gemma; TORDERA YLLESCAS, Juan Carlos; GONZÁLEZ-SALA, Francisco; MONTAGUT-ASUNCIÓN, Maite; FERNÁNDEZ-ANDRÉS MaríaInmaculada (2018): “Comprehension of Generalized Conversational Implicatures by Children With and Without Autism Spectrum Disorder”, Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
• PASTOR-CEREZUELA, Gemma; TORDERA YLLESCAS, Juan Carlos; GONZÁLEZ-SALA, Francisco; MONTAGUT-ASUNCIÓN, Maite; FERNÁNDEZ-ANDRÉS, María Inmaculada (2020): “Metaphor comprehension in children with and without autism spectrum disorder”, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorder, 76, pp. 101588.
• PONS BORDERÍA, Salvador (2004): Conceptos y aplicaciones de la Teoría de la Relevancia, Madrid: Arco-Libros.
• PONS BORDERÍA, Salvador (2005): La enseñanza de la pragmática en la clase de ELE, Madrid: Arco-Libros.
• POTTS, Christopher (2015): “Presupposition and implicature”, en Shalom Lappin; Chris Fox (eds.): The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory [2ª edición], Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 168-202.
• POUSCOULOUS, Nausicaa (2011): “Metaphor: For adults only?”, Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 25 (1), pp. 51-79.
• REES, Alice; BOTT Lewis (2018): “The role of alternative salience in the derivation of scalar implicatures”, Cognition, 176, pp. 1-14.
• REYES, Graciela (1995): El abecé de la pragmática, Madrid: Arco-Libros.
• REYNA, Valerie; KIERNAN, Barbara (1995): “Children’s memory and metaphorical interpretation”, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10 (4), pp. 309–331.
• RUBIO-FERNÁNDEZ, Paula (2007): “Inhibition in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction”, Journal of Semantics, 24 (4), pp. 345–371.
• RUYTENBEEK, Nicolas (2021): “The comprehension of ISAs”, en Nicolas Ruytenbeek (ed.): Indirect speech acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107–140.
• SCHWOEBEL, John; DEWS, Shelly; WINNER; Ellen; SRINIVAS, Kavitha (2000): “Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence”, Metaphor & Symbol, 15, pp. 47–61.
• SHETREET, Einat; CHIERCHIA, Gennaro; GAAB, Nadine (2014): “When some is not every: Dissociating scalar implicature generation and mismatch”, Human brain mapping, 35 (4), pp. 1503-1514.
• SOLOMON, Majorie; OZONOFF, Sally; URSU, Stefab; RAVIZZA, Susan; CUMMINGS, Neil; LY, Stanford; CARTER, Cameron (2009): “The neural substrates of cognitive control deficits in autism spectrum disorders”, Neuropsychologia, 47 (12), pp. 2515-2526.
• SPERBER, Dan; WILSON, Deirdre (1995): Relevance. Communication and Cognition [2ª edición], Oxford: Blackwell.
• THOMA, Patrizia; DAUM, Irene (2006): “Neurocognitive mechanisms of figurative language processing–evidence from clinical dysfunctions”, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30 (8), pp. 1182-1205.
• TORDERA YLLESCAS, Juan Carlos (2007): “Trastorno de espectro autista: delimitación lingüística”, ELUA. Estudios de Lingüística, 21, pp. 301-314.
• TORDERA YLLESCAS, Juan Carlos (2022): “Eficacia de procesamiento de los entrañamientos y de las implicaturas conversacionales generalizadas: la lógica deductiva y la lógica por defecto”, Circulo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 90, pp. 109-123.
• TURCAN, Alexandra; FILIK, Ruth (2017): “Investigating sarcasm comprehension using eye-tracking during reading: What are the roles of literality, familiarity, and echoic mention?”, en Angeliki Athanasiado; Herbert L. Colston (eds.): Irony in language use and communication, Berlín: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 55–276.
• WANG, Ya; ZHANG, Yi-bing; LIU, Lu-lu; CUI, Ji-fang; WANG, Jing; SHUM, David; VAN AMELSVOORT, Therese; CHAN, Raymond (2017): “A meta-analysis of working memory impairments in autism spectrum disorders”, Neuropsychology review, 27, pp. 46-61.
• WHITEFORD, Alison P. (2014): Working memory and conceptual metaphor [Tesis doctoral], Universidad de Saint Louis.
• WHITEFORD-DAMERALL, Alison (2021): “The Visual Working Memory Demands of Processing Conventional Metaphoric Language”, The American Journal of Psychology, 134 (1), pp. 13-29.
• ZHAO, Ming; LIU, Xiufeng; DAI, Xiaoxiao; DONG, Shuang; HAN, Zongliang (2021): “Scalar implicature is not a default process: An ERP study of the scalar implicature processing under the effect of focus factor”, Brain Research, 1765, pp. 147499.