Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:53:51.158Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Second Language Acquisition

Pragmatics, Grammar and Meaning in SLA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2024

Aoife K. Ahern ,
José Amenós-Pons  and
Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes
Aoife K. Ahern
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense, Madrid
José Amenós-Pons
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense, Madrid
Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes
Affiliation:
Universitat de les Illes Balears

Summary

This Element explores the role of pragmatics, and its relationship with meaning and grammar, in second language acquisition. Specifically, this Element examines the generative paradigm, with its focus on purely linguistic aspects, in contrast with, and complemented by, the view of language adopted in the wider perspective on communication that Relevance Theory offers. It reviews several theoretical standpoints on how linguistic phenomena that require combining semantic, pragmatic and syntactic information are acquired and developed in second languages, illustrating how these perspectives are brought together in analysing data in different linguistic scenarios. It shows that the notion of procedural meaning casts light on the range of interpretative effects of grammatical features and how they vary across languages, suggesting ways to complete the picture of the interface factors that affect second language development.
Get access

Keywords

relevance theorygenerative grammarsecond language acquisitionpragmaticssemantics
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Second Language Acquisition
Online ISBN: 9781009026888
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 18 April 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adger, D. (2021). On doing theoretical linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 47, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. (1993). The licensing of Quasi-arguments. In Ackema, P. and Schoorlemmer, M. (eds.), Proceedings of Console, vol. 1, pp. 1–18. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Adger, D. and Svenonius, P. (2011). Features in minimalist syntax. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, pp. 27–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ahern, A., Amenós-Pons, J., and Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2014). Interfaces in the interpretation of mood alternation in L2 Spanish: Morpho-phonology, semantics and pragmatics. In Roberts, L., Vedder, I. and Hulstijn, J. H. (eds.), EuroSLA Yearbook 2014, pp. 173–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ahern, A., Amenós-Pons, J., and Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2016). Mood interpretation in Spanish: Towards an encompassing view of L1 and L2 interface variability. Guijarro-Fuentes, In P. and and Juan-Garau, M. (eds.), Acquisition of Romance Languages. Old Acquisition Challenges and New Explanations from a Generative Perspective, pp. 141–170. Berlín: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahern, A., Amenós-Pons, J., and Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2020). Future tense acquisition by French-speaking learners of L2 Spanish: Chronology, conjecture and concession. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P. and Suárez-Gómez, C. (eds.), New Trends in Language Acquisition Within the Generative Perspective. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol. 49, pp. 27–48. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ahern, A., Amenós-Pons, J., and Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2023a). Conjectural future in French and in Spanish: An L2 acquisition perspective. In M. Carretero, J. Marín-Arrese, E. Dominguez-Romero and V. Martín de la Rosa (eds.), Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: Conceptual and Descriptive Issues, pp. 172–199. Berna: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ahern, A., Amenós-Pons, J., and Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2023b). Relevance theory and the study of linguistic interfaces in second language acquisition. Intercultural Pragmatics 20(4), 429–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahern, A., Amenós-Pons, J., and Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2023c). Expressing evidentiality in two languages: Conjectural future in Catalan/Spanish bilinguals, In Arrese, J. Marín, Hidalgo-Downing, L. and Zamorano-Mansilla, J. R. (eds.), Stance, Inter/Subjectivity and Identity in Discourse, pp. 127–150. Berna: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Allott, N. and Wilson, D. (2021). Chomsky and pragmatics. In Allott, N., Lohndal, T. and Rey, G. (eds.), A Companion to Chomsky, pp. 433–448. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amenós-Pons, J. (2010). Los tiempos de pasado del español y el francés: semántica, pragmática y aprendizaje de E/LE. PhD dissertation. Madrid, UNED.Google Scholar
Amenós-Pons, J. (2011). Cross-linguistic variation in procedural expressions: Semantics and pragmatics. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. and Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, pp. 235–266. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amenós-Pons, J. (2015). Spanish ‘imperfecto’ vs. French ‘imparfait’ in hypothetical clauses: A procedural account. Cahiers Chronos 27, 235–66.Google Scholar
Amenós-Pons, J. (2023). Significados procedimentales, enriquecimiento contextual y variación geolectal: en torno al perfecto compuesto (y el perfecto simple). Revista Española de Lingüística 53/2, 81–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amenós-Pons, J., Ahern, A. and Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2019). Feature reassembly across closely related languages: L1 French vs. L1 Portuguese learning of L2 Spanish Past Tenses. Language Acquisition 26(2), 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amenós-Pons, J. and Ahern, A. (2017). La pragmática cognitiva. Aportaciones para la formación de profesores de ELE. In Nikleva, D. G. (ed.), Necesidades y tendencias en la formación del profesorado de español como lengua extranjera, pp. 155–202. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Amenós-Pons, J., Ahern, A., and Escandell-Vidal, V. (2019). Comunicación y cognición en ELE: la perspectiva pragmática. Madrid: Edinumen.Google Scholar
Aramon i Serra, R. (1957). Notes sobre alguns calcs sintàctics en l’actual català literari. Syntactica 1957, 1–31.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. (1988). Underspecification in phonology. Phonology 5, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do Things with Words, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2008). The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, pp. 351–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (2005). The empathizing system: A revision of the 1994 model of the mindreading system. In Ellis, B. and Bjorklund, D. (eds.), Origins of the Social Mind, pp. 468–492. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Belleti, A., Bennati, E., and Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. (2004). Structures and Beyond: Volume 3: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benati, A. (2021). Focus on Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (2003) . Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In Moore, J. and Polinsky, M. (eds.), The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory, pp. 31–65. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Borgonovo, C., Bruhn de Garavito, J., and Prévost, P. (2005). Acquisition of mood distinctions in L2 Spanish. In Burgos, A., Clark-Cotton, M. R. and Ha, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 97–108. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Borgonovo, C., Bruhn de Garavito, J., and Prévost, P. (2006). Is the semantics/syntax interface vulnerable in L2 acquisition? Focus on mood distinctions clauses in L2 Spanish. In Torrens, V. and Escobar, L. (eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages, pp. 353–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Borgonovo, C., Bruhn de Garavito, J., Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Prévost, P., and Valenzuela, E. (2006). Specificity in Spanish: The syntax/semantics interface in SLA. In Foster-Cohen, S. and Krajnovic, M. Medved (eds.), Eurosla Yearbook 2006, pp. 57–78. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bos, P. Hollebrandese, B., and Sleeman, P. (2004). The pragmatics-syntax and the semantics-syntax interface in acquisition. IRAL 42, 101–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosque, I. (2016). Los rasgos gramaticales. In Gallego, A. (ed.), Perspectivas de sintaxis formal, pp. 309–87. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Bott, L. and Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 51(3), 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breheny, R. (2006). Communication and Folk Psychology. Mind and Language 21–1, 74–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breheny, R. (2011). Experimental pragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N. R. (eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics, pp. 551–86. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J. and Valenzuela, E. (2006). Interpretive deficit? Evidence from the future tense in L2 Spanish. In J. Camacho, , Flores-Ferrán, N., Sánchez, L., Déprez, V. and Cabrera, M. J. (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, pp. 43–56. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Caink, A. and Clark, B. (2012). Inference and implicature in literary interpretation. Special Issue of Journal of Literary Semantics 41(2), 88–191.Google Scholar
Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canestrelli, A., Mak, W. and Sanders, T. (2013). Causal connectives in discourse. How differences in subjectivitiy are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes 28/9, 1394–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carminati, M. N. (2002). The Processing of Italian Subject Pronouns. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Carminati, M. N. (2005). Processing reflexes of the feature hierarchy (Person>Number>Gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 115, 259–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2006). The case for massively modular models of mind. In Stainton, R. J. (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science, pp. 3–21. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1997). Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? Linguistische Berichte 8, 103–127.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2000). The relationship between generative grammar and (relevance-theoretic) pragmatics. Language and Communication 20, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2012). Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review 29(4), 607–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2016). Linguistic conventions and the role of pragmatics. Mind and Language 31(5), 612–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. A. (2013). Word meaning, what is said and explicature. In Penco, C. and Domaneschi, F. (eds.), What Is Said and What Is Not, pp. 175–203. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Chapman, S. and Clark, B. (eds.) (2014). Pragmatic Literary Stylistics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G., Guasti, M. T., Gualmini, A., Meroni, L., Crain, S. and Foppolo, F. (2004). Semantic and pragmatic competence in children’s and adults’ Comprehension of or. In Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. (eds.), Experimental Pragmatics, pp. 283–300. New York: Palgrave McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications .Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), Step by Step. Minimalist Essays in Honor of Howard Lasnik, pp. 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 20, 1–28.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowics, (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, pp. 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, U. and Gärtner, H.-M. (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Grammar? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax- Semantics, vol. 89, pp. 1–30. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. and Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93–119.Google Scholar
Clark, B. (2013). Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. and Hume, E. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 245–306. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2, 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Cummins, C., and Katsos, N. (eds.) (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, L., and Morency, P. (2012). A cognitive-pragmatic view of the French epistemic future. French Language Studies 22, 207–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, L. (2003). Temps et pertinence: éléments de pragmatique cognitive du temps. Brussels: De Boeck/Duculot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, L. (2011). On some methodological issues in the conceptual/procedural distinction. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M., and Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, pp. 55–79. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
de Saussure, L. (2013). Perspectival interpretations of tenses. In Jaszczolt, K. M. and de Saussure, L. (eds.), Time, Language, Cognition and Reality, pp. 46–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., and Wulff, S., (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 83–104. New York, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L. and Sprouse, R. A. (2001). Mental design and (second) language epistemology: Adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research 17, 1–35.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A. and Thyre, R. (1999/2000). The interpretation of quantification at a distance in English-French interlanguage: Domain specificity and second language acquisition. Language Acquisition 8, 265–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demonte, V. (2008). Meaning-form correlations and the order of adjectives in Spanish. Kennedy, En C. and McNally, L. (eds.), The Semantics of Adjectives and Adverbs, pp. 71–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dervin, F. (2016). Interculturality in Education: A Theoretical and Methodological Toolbox. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaubalick, T. and Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2019). The strength of L1-effects on tense and aspect: How German learners of L2 Spanish deal with acquisitional problems. Language Acquisition 26(3), 282–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domínguez, L., Arche, M. J., and Myles, F. (2017). Spanish Imperfect revisited: Exploring L1 influence in the reassembly of imperfective features onto new L2 forms. Second Language Research 33(4), 431–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J . (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction, pp. 206–57. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S., Flynn, S., and Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 677–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (2000). Categorías funcionales y semántica procedimental. In Hernández, M. Martínez (ed.), Cien años de investigación semántica. De Michel Breal a la actualidad, pp. 363–78. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (2004). Norms and Principles. Putting social and cognitive pragmatics together. In Márquez-Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E. (eds.), Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, pp. 347–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.123.27esc.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (2006). La teoría de la relevancia y sus implicaciones para la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. In Falk, J., Gille, J. and Bermúdez, F. Wachtmeister (eds.), Discurso, interacción e identidad. Homenaje a Lars Fant, pp. 231–54. Stockholm: Stockholm Universitet.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (2010). Futuro y evidencialidad. Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica XXVI, 9–34.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (2014). Evidential futures: The case of Spanish. In Brabanter, P. De, Kissine, M. and Sharifzadeh, S. (eds.), Future Times, Future Tenses, pp. 219–247. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (2016). Notes for a restrictive theory of procedural meaning. In Giora, R. and Haugh, M. (eds.), Doing Pragmatics Interculturally, pp. 79–96. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (2019a). El futuro del español. Sistema natural frente a usos cultivados. Verba Hispánica 26, 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (2019b). Evidential implicatures and mismatch resolution. In, R. Carston, B. Clark and Scott, K. (eds.), Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation, pp. 66–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (2020). Léxico, pragmatica y comunicación lingüística. In Escandell, M.V., Amenós-Pons, J. and Ahern, A. (eds.), Pragmática, pp. 39–59. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. and Leonetti, M. (2011). On the rigidity of procedural meaning. In Escandell-Vidal, M. V., Leonetti, M. and Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, pp. 81–102. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V. and Leonetti, M., (2012). El significado procedimental: rutas hacia una idea. In Horno, M. C. and Mendívil, J. L. (eds.), La sabiduría de Mnemósine: Ensayos de historia de la lingüística ofrecidos a José Francisco Val Álvaro, pp. 157–67. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M., and Ahern, A. (eds.) (2011). Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (2021). The semantics of the simple future in romance: Core meaning and parametric variation. In Baranzini, L. and Saussure, L. De (ed.), Aspects of Tenses, Modality and Evidentiality. Cahiers Chronos 31, 9–31. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. and Leonetti, M. (2002). Coercion and the stage / individual distinction. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (ed.), From Words to Discourse: Trends in Spanish Semantics and Pragmatics, pp. 159–80. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. and Leonetti, M. (2011). On the rigidity of procedural meaning. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. and Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueras, C. (2020). La puntuación y el significado del texto. In Escandell, M. V., Amenós-Pons, J. and Ahern, A. (eds.), Pragmática, pp. 303–22. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster-Cohen, S. (2000). Relevance theory and language acquisition: A productive paradigm shift? Bulletin of the International Association for the Study of Child Language 20(1), 5–19.Google Scholar
Foster-Cohen, S. (2004). Relevance theory, action theory and second language communication strategies. Second Language Research 20(3), 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos, P. and Bou-Franch, P. (2004). A pragmatic account of listenership: Implications for foreign/second language teaching. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 17, 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2017). Experimental pragmatics. In Huang, Y. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 310–26. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2020). Pragmatic development in L2: An overview. In Schneider, K. P. and Ifantidou, E. (eds.), Developmental and Clinical Pragmatics, pp. 237–68. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol.3, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grinstead, J. (2004). Subjects and interface delay in child Spanish and Catalan. Language, 80 (1), 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grisot, C. (2015). Temporal Reference: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives: Converging Evidence from English and Romance. Geneva: University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Grisot, C. and Moeschler, J.. (2014). How do empirical methods interact with theoretical pragmatics? The conceptual and procedural contents of the English simple past and its translation into French. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms, pp. 7–33. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grisot, C. (2018). Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo, F., Gualmini, A. and Meroni, L. (2005). Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 20(5), 667–96.Google Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. and Rothman, J. (eds.) (2012). Interfaces in child language acquisition: Special issue. First Language 32(1– 2).Google Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Ahern, A., and Amenós-Pons, J. (2020). La interfaz gramática/pragmática y su papel en el aprendizaje de segundas lenguas. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Pons, J. Amenós and Ahern, A. (eds.), Pragmática, pp. 713–28. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. and Pires, A. (2023). Feature acquisition: Object drop in L2 Spanish. Probus 35(2), 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Happé, F., Cook, J. L. and Bird, G. (2017). The structure of social cognition: In(ter)dependence of sociocognitive processes. Annual Review of Psychology 68, 243–267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, R. and Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R. and Franceschina, F. (2004). Explaining the acquisition of and non acquisition of determiner-noun gender concord in French and Spanish. In Prévost, P. and Paradis, J. (eds.), The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts: Focus on Functional Categories, pp. 175–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R. and Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research 22, 269–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, H. E. (2020). The evolution of intercultural communicative competence: conceptualisations, critiques and consequences for 21st century classroom practice. Intercultural Communication Education 3(2), 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form and Text in Context: Linguistic Applications, pp. 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (2004). Implicature. In L. R. Horn, and G. Ward, (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1992). A reanalysis of null subjects in child language. In Weissenborn, J., Goodluck, H., and Roeper, T. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition: Continuity and Change in Development, pp. 249–67. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2014). Pragmatic Competence and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2022). Pragmatic competence. In Kecskes, I. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics, pp. 741–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In Bardori-Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, C., and Omar, A. (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, pp. 281–314. National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language Learning 52 (Suppl. 1), 1–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katsos, N. y Bishop, D. V. M. (2011). Pragmatic Tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition 120, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2016). Can intercultural pragmatics bring some new insight into pragmatic theories? In Capone, A., and Mey, J. L. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, pp. 43–71. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolaiti, P. and Wilson, D. (2014). Corpus analysis and lexical pragmatics: An overview. International Review of Pragmatics 6, 211–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, Mind and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundation of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1). Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 2). Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 25, 171–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, L. (2008). Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In Liceras, J., Zobl, H. and Goodluck, H. (eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition, pp. 106–40. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Le Querler, N. (1996). Typologie des modalités. Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2004). Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3(1), 75–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2007). Clitics do not encode specificity. In Kaiser, G. and Leonetti, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop «Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages», Arbeitspapier – Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz, pp. 111–39. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. and Escandell-Vidal, V. (2003). On the quotative readings of Spanish imperfecto. Cuadernos de Lingüística 10, 135–154.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (ed.). (1993). Lexical Access in Speech Production. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987a). Minimization and conversational inference. In J. Verschueren, and M. Bertucceli-Papi, (eds.), The Pragmatics Perspective, pp. 61–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987b). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 23, 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1991). Pragmatic reductions of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27, 107–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In Palmer, F. R. (ed.), Grammar and Meaning, pp. 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J. M. (1996). La adquisición de las lenguas segundas y la gramática universal. Madrid, Síntesis.Google Scholar
Liszka, S. (2004). Exploring the effects of first language influence on second language pragmatic processes from a syntactic deficit perspective. Second Language Research 20(3), 213–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LoCastro, V. (2003). An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2014). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Loureda, O., Cruz, A., Recio, I., and Rudka, M. (2021). Comunicación, cognición y pragmática experimental. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Lozano, C. (2006a). Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research 22, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lozano, C. (2006b). The development of syntax-discourse interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In Torrens, V. and Escobar, L. (eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages, pp. 371–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. (2009). Distributive quantifier scope in English–Japanese and Korean–Japanese interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 16, 135–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzarella, D. (2013). Optimal relevance as a pragmatic criterion: the role of epistemic vigilance. University College Working Papers in Linguistics 25, 20–45.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2), 94–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2019). Précis of The Enigma of Reason. Teorema 38(1), 69–76.Google Scholar
Moens, M. and Steedman, M. (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14(2), 15–28.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (1998a). Ordre temporel, causalité et relations de discours: une approche pragmatique. In Vogeleer, S., Borillo, A., Vetters, C., and Vuillaume, M. (eds.), Temps et discours, pp. 45–64. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (1998b). Pragmatique de la référence temporelle. In Moeschler, J., Jayez, J., Kozlowska, M., et al. (eds.), Le temps des événements, pp. 157–80. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2000a). Le modèle des inférences directionnelles. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 22, 57–100.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2000b). L’ordre temporel est-il naturel? In Moeschler, J. and Béguelin, M.-J. (eds.), Référence temporelle et nominale, pp. 71–105. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2015). Argumentation and connectives. In Capone, A. and Mey, J. L. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, Perspectives in Pragmatics, pp. 405–36. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2016). Where is procedural meaning located? Evidence from discourse connectives and tenses. Lingua 175, 122–38.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2019). Non-Lexical Pragmatics. Time, Causality, and Logical Words. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, J., Grisot, C., and Cartoni, B. (2012). Jusqu’où les temps verbaux sont-ils procéduraux? Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 30, 119–39.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5, 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 125–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, N. and Hulk, D. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nizegorodcew, A. (2007). Input for Instructed L2 Learners. The Relevance of Relevance. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. A. and Posada, A. (2003). Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85, 203–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. (eds.) (2004). Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2005b). Syntactic Carpentry: An Emergentist Approach to Syntax. Mahah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2005a). How Children Learn Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Origgi, G. and Sperber, D. (2000). Evolution, communication, and the proper function of language. In Carruthers, P. and Chamberlain, A. (eds.), Evolution and the Human Mind: Language, Modularity and Social Cognition, pp. 140–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paiva, B.-M. (2003). Pragmatic interaction in a second language. In Grant, C. (ed.), Rethinking Communicative Interaction: New Interdisciplinary Horizons, pp. 187–206. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paiva, B.-M. and Foster-Cohen, S. (2004). Exploring the relationships between theories of second language acquisition and relevance theory. Second Language Research 20(3), 281–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. and Tantalou, N. (2004). Children’s computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition 12(1), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J. and Navarro, S. (2003). Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of the input? Journal of Child Language 30(2), 371–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez Saldanya, M. (2008). Les relacions temporals i aspectuals. In Solà, J. (dir.), Lloret, M. R., Mascaró, J. and Pérez-Saldanya, M. (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 3, 2567–662. Barcelona: Empúries.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2007). The Language Instinct. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.Google Scholar
Pouscoulous, N. (2013). Early pragmatics with words. In Liedtke, F. and Schulze, C. (eds.), Beyond Words. Content, Context and Inference, pp. 121–144. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastelli, S. (2023). Noncombinatorial grammar: A challenge for memory research on second language acquisition and bilingualism. Journal of Neurolinguistics 65, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2022.101112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasuki, M. (2017). Processing instruction: A review of issues. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies 5(3), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reboul, A. (2015). Why language really is not a communication system: A cognitive view of language evolution. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reboul, A. (2017). Cognition and Communication in the Evolution of Language. Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recio Fernández, I. (2020). The Impact of Procedural Meaning on Second Language Processing: A Study on Connectives. PhD dissertation. Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L. Wexler, K. and Hershberger, S. (1998). Tense over time: The longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41(6), 1412–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Risager, K. (2018) Representations of the World in Language Textbooks. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Rocci, A. (2000). L’interprétation épistemique du futur en italien et en français: une analyse procédurale. Cahiers de linguistique française 22, 241–74.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. and Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In Gass, S. and Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, pp. 73–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaden, G. (2009a). Present perfects compete. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(2), 115–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaden, G. (2009b). Composés et surcomposés: Le ‘parfait’ en français, allemand, anglais et espagnol. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2012). Generalising the apparently ungeneralizable: Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the construal of meaning-in-context. In Schmid, H.-J. (ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics, pp. 3–22. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. and Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (2019). Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott-Phillips, T. (2015). Speaking Our Minds: Why Human Communication is Different, and How Language Evolved to Make it Special. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1972). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Mind 81(323), 458–68.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., and Paoli, S. 2004. Transfer at the syntax-pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in Italian-English bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. and Truscott, J. (2014). The Multilingual Mind: A Modular Processing Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sharwood-Smith, M. (2017). Introducing Language and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (2021a). Language transfer: A useful or pernicious concept? Second Language Research 37(3), 409–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (2021b). The cognitive status of metalinguistic knowledge in speakers of one or more languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 24, 185–96.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for the acquisition of semantics? Second Language Research 22, 302–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the Second Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R., Leal, T. and Liskin-Gasparro, J. (2014). We have moved on: Current concepts and positions in generative SLA. Applied Linguistics, 35, 601–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. and Tsimpli, I. M. (1995). The Mind of a Savant: Language Learning and Modularity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smith, N., Tsimpli, I., Morgan, G. and Woll, B. (2011). The Signs of a Savant: Language against the Odds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 143–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In Cornips, L. and Corrigan, K. P. (eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social, pp. 55–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2006). Possible manifestations of shallow processing in advanced second language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 88–91.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2012). Pinning down the concept of interface in bilingualism: A reply to peer commentaries. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2–2, 209–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. and Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22, 339–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soria, B. and Romero, E. (eds.) (2010). Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave/MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (1994). The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A. (eds.), Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, pp. 39–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (1994). Understanding verbal understanding. In Khalfa, J. (ed.), What is Intelligence? pp. 179–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2000). Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In Sperber, D. (ed.), Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, pp. 117–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (2005). Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., and Stich, S. (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Content, pp. 53–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (2006). Why a deep understanding of cultural evolution is incompatible with shallow psychology. In Enfield, N. and Levinson, S. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality, pp. 431–49. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1987). Précis of relevance communication and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 697–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1998). The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J. (eds.), Thought and Language, pp. 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language 17, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2005). Pragmatics. In Jackson, F. and Smith, M. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, pp. 468–501. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., et al. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language 25(4), 359–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1996). Clitic constructions. In J. Rooryck, and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol. 33, pp. 213–66.Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. (1988). The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3), 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2021). Prepositions with CP and their implications for extended projections. Linguistic Variation 21(1), 11–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tasmowski, L. and Dendale, P. (1998). Must/will and doit/futur simple as epistemic modal markers. Semantic value and restrictions of use. In van der Auwera, J. E. (ed.), English as a Human Language: To honour Louis Goossens, pp. 325–36. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (ed.) (2019). The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. New York: Taylor and Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. and Roever, C. (2017). Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (2015). Consciousness and Second Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2022). Working Memory in the Modular Mind. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. and Sharwood-Smith, M. (2019). The Internal Context of Bilingual Processing and Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. and Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh -interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. and Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T., and Zaller, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 653–64. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 8, 257–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M. and Mastropavlou, M. (2008). Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. In Liceras, J. H. and Goodluck, H. (eds.), The Role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 143–83. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In Hickok, G., Small, S. (eds.), Neurobiology of Language, pp. 953–68. Elsevier: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult SLA. IIn, B. VanPatten and Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, pp. 115–35. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (ed). (2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. and Smith, M. (2022). Explicit and Implicit Learning in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Smith, M. and Benati, A. (2020). Key Questions in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua. 106(1–4), 23–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T. (2016). That bloody so-and-so has retired: Expressives revisited. Lingua, 175, 20–3.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2009). Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, pp. 49–68. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wigger, L.-G. (2005). Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der romanischen Vergangenheitstempora am Beispiel des Pretérito Perfeito Composto im Portugiesischen. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2000/2012). Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (eds.), Meaning and Relevance, 123–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. (2005). New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua 115(8), 1129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. (2011). The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Escandell-Vidal, V., M. Leonetti, M and Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, pp. 3–31. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. (2016). Reassessing the conceptual–procedural distinction. Lingua 175–6, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. (2016). Relevance theory. In Huang, Y. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2017). Relevance theory. In, Y. Huang (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 79–100. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics, pp. 230–60. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance Theory. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 607–32. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, S. (2010). Lexical Pragmatics and Theory of Mind. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, S. (2015). Acquiring Pragmatics: Social and Cognitive Perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. (2020). Pragmatic development in L1. An overview. In Schneider, K.P. and Ifantidou, W., Developmental and Clinical Pragmatics, pp. 33–60. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Pragmatics, Grammar and Meaning in SLA
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Pragmatics, Grammar and Meaning in SLA
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Pragmatics, Grammar and Meaning in SLA
Available formats
×