Why some children accept under-informative utterances

References

1. Barner, David, Neon Brooks & Alan Bale
   2011 Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition118(1). 84–93. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010 [Google Scholar]
2. Bott, Lewis & Ira A. Noveck
   2004 Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language51(3). 437–457. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 [Google Scholar]
3. Clark, Eve V.
   1990 On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language17(2). 417–431. 10.1017/S0305000900013842
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900013842 [Google Scholar]
4. Davies, Catherine & Napoleon Katsos
   2010 Over-informative children: Production/comprehension asymmetry or tolerance to pragmatic violations?Lingua120(8). 1956–1972. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.005
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.005 [Google Scholar]
5. Feeney, Aidan, Susan Scrafton, Amber Duckworth & Simon J. Handley
   2004 The story of some: Everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology58(2). 121. 10.1037/h0085792
   https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085792 [Google Scholar]
6. Foppolo, Francesca, Maria Teresa Guasti & Gennaro Chierchia
   2012 Scalar implicatures in child language: Give children a chance. Language Learning and Development8(4). 365–394. 10.1080/15475441.2011.626386
   https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.626386 [Google Scholar]
7. Geurts, Bart
   2010 Quantity implicature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975158
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975158 [Google Scholar]
8. Guasti, Maria Teresa, Gennaro Chierchia, Stephen Crain, Francesca Foppolo, Andrea Gualmini & Luisa Meroni
   2005 Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes20(5). 667–696. 10.1080/01690960444000250
   https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000250 [Google Scholar]
9. Grice, Herbert Paul
   1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol.3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press (Reprinted inGrice, Herbert Paul 1989 Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
   [Google Scholar]
10. Huang, Yi Ting & Jesse Snedeker
    2009 Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology58(3). 376–415. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001 [Google Scholar]
11. Katsos, Napoleon
    2014 Scalar implicature. InDanielle Matthews (ed), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition, 183–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Katsos, Napoleon & Dorothy V. Bishop
    2008 Pragmatic Tolerance. Paper presented at theXI International Congress for the Study of Child Language (IASCL), Edinburgh, UK, 28 July–1 August.
13. Katsos, Napoleon & Dorothy V. Bishop
    2011 Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition120(1). 67–81. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015 [Google Scholar]
14. Katsos, Napoleon & Nafsika Smith
    2010 Pragmatic Tolerance and speaker-comprehender asymmetries. InKatie Franich, Kate M. Iserman & Lauren L. Keil (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Boston University Conference in Language Development, 221–232. Cascadilla Press, MA, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Marchena, Ashley de, Inge-Marie Eigsti, Amanda Worek, Kim Emiko Ono & Jesse Snedeker
    2011 Mutual exclusivity in autism spectrum disorders: Testing the pragmatic hypothesis. Cognition119(1). 96–113. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.011 [Google Scholar]
16. Neys, Wim De & Walter Schaeken
    2007 When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology54(2). 128–133. 10.1027/1618‑3169.54.2.128
    https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.128 [Google Scholar]
17. Noveck, Ira A.
    2001 When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition78(2). 165–188. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00114‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 [Google Scholar]
18. Noveck, Ira A. & Andres Posada
    2003 Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language85(2). 203–210. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00053‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1 [Google Scholar]
19. Noveck, Ira A. & Anne Reboul
    2008 Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences12(11). 425–431. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.009 [Google Scholar]
20. Papafragou, Anna & Julien Musolino
    2003 Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition86(3). 253–282. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00179‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8 [Google Scholar]
21. Papafragou, Anna & Niki Tantalou
    2004 Children’s computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition12(1). 71–82. 10.1207/s15327817la1201_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1201_3 [Google Scholar]
22. Pouscoulous, Nausicaa, Ira A. Noveck, Guy Politzer & Anne Bastide
    2007 A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition14(4). 347–375. 10.1080/10489220701600457
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220701600457 [Google Scholar]
23. Skordos, Dimitrios & Anna Papafragou
    2016 Children’s derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance. Cognition153. 6–18.10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.006 [Google Scholar]