Noncooperative Communication

Literature Cited

1. Anscombre J-C, Ducrot O. 1983.. L'argumentation dans la langue. Brussels:: Mardaga
   [Google Scholar]
2. Asher N, Lascarides A. 2013.. Strategic communication. . Semant. Pragmat. 6::2
   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
3. Barth H, Kanwisher N, Spelke E. 2003.. The construction of large number representations in adults. . Cognition 86::201–21
   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
4. Benz A, Stevens J. 2018.. Game-theoretic approaches to pragmatics. . Annu. Rev. Linguist. 4::173–91
   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
5. Breheny R. 2008.. A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases. . J. Semant. 25::93–139
   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
6. Carson TL. 2006.. The definition of lying. . Noûs 40::284–306
   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
7. Chemla E, Bott L. 2013.. Processing presuppositions: dynamic semantics versus pragmatic enrichment. . Nat. Lang. Semant. 17::299–340
   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
8. Chierchia G. 2004.. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. . In Structures and Beyond, ed. A Belletti , pp. 39–103. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
   [Google Scholar]
9. Coleman L, Kay P. 1981.. Prototype semantics: the English word lie. . Language 57::26–44
   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
10. Cummins C. 2022.. Uncertainty, quantity and relevance inferences from modified numerals. . In Measurements, Numerals and Scales: Essays in Honour of Stephanie Solt, ed. N Gotzner, U Sauerland , pp. 59–74. Cham, Switz:.: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
11. Cummins C. 2025.. Inferences from, and about, context in a joint inference model of utterance interpretation. . In Patterns of Context: Modelling Cultural and Contextual Influence in Utterance Interpretation, ed. E Diedrichsen, F Liedtke . Amsterdam:: John Benjamins. In press
    [Google Scholar]
12. Cummins C, Franke M. 2021.. Rational interpretation of numerical quantity in argumentative contexts. . Front. Commun. 6::662027
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
13. Cummins C, Sauerland U, Solt S. 2012.. Granularity and scalar implicature in numerical expressions. . Linguist. Philos. 35::135–69
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
14. Davidson D. 1974.. On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. . Proc. Addresses Am. Philos. Assoc. XLVII::5–20
    [Google Scholar]
15. Degen J. 2015.. Investigating the distribution of ‘some’ (but not ‘all’) implicatures using corpora and web-based methods. . Semant. Pragmat. 8::11
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
16. Degen J. 2023.. The Rational Speech Act framework. . Annu. Rev. Linguist. 9::519–40
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
17. Dulcinati G. 2018.. Cooperation and pragmatic inferences. PhD Diss. , Univ. Coll. London, London:
    [Google Scholar]
18. Dynel M. 2011.. A web of deceit: a neo-Gricean view on types of verbal deception. . Int. Rev. Pragmat. 3::139–67
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
19. Fallis D. 2009.. What is lying?. J. Philos. 106::29–56
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
20. Fallis D. 2012.. Lying as a violation of Grice's Maxim of Quality. . Dialectica 66::563–81
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
21. Franke M, de Jager T, van Rooij R. 2012.. Relevance in cooperation and conflict. . J. Logic Comput. 22::23–54
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
22. Franke M, Dulcinati G, Pouscoulous N. 2020.. Strategies of deception: under-informativity, uninformativity, and lies—misleading with different kinds of implicature. . Top. Cogn. Sci. 12::583–607
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
23. Franke M, van Rooij R. 2015.. Strategies of persuasion, manipulation and propaganda: psychological and social aspects. . In Models of Strategic Reasoning: Logics, Games and Communities, ed. J van Benthem, S Gosh, R Verbrugge , pp. 255–91. Heidelberg, Ger:.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
24. Geurts B, van Tiel B. 2013.. Embedded scalars. . Semant. Pragmat. 6::9
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
25. Gilbert DT, Krull DS, Malone PS. 1990.. Unbelieving the unbelievable: some problems in the rejection of false information. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 59::601–13
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
26. Glucksberg S, Keysar B. 1990.. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: beyond similarity. . Psychol. Rev. 97::3–18
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
27. Grice HP. 1989.. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
28. Hazlett A. 2010.. The myth of factive verbs. . Philos. Phenomen. Res. 80::497–522
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
29. Heim I. 1983.. On the projection problem for presuppositions. . In Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. M Barlow, D Flickinger, MT Wescoat , pp. 114–25. Stanford, CA:: Stanford Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Hesse C, Benz A. 2020.. Scalar bounds and expected values of comparatively modified numerals. . J. Mem. Lang. 111::104068
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
31. Holton R. 1994.. Deciding to trust, coming to believe. . Australas. J. Philos. 72::63–76
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
32. Horn LR. 1972.. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD Diss. , Univ. Calif., Los Angeles:
    [Google Scholar]
33. Horn LR. 2017.. Telling it slant: toward a taxonomy of deception. . In The Pragmatic Turn in Law, ed. D Stein, J Giltrow , pp. 23–55. Berlin:: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
34. Huang YT, Spelke E, Snedeker J. 2013.. What exactly do numbers mean?. Lang. Learn. Dev. 9::105–29
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
35. Katzir N, Ariel M. 2024.. A few or several? Construal, quantity, and argumentativity. . Lang. Cogn. 16::148–75
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
36. Levinson SC. 2000.. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
37. Lorson A, Cummins C, Rohde H. 2019.. When objecting to presupposed content comes easily. . In Proceedings of the 23rd Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial 2019), ed. C Howes, J Hough, C Kennington , pp. 54–60. London:: SemDial
    [Google Scholar]
38. Loy J, Rohde H, Corley M. 2018.. Cues to lying may be deceptive: speaker and listener behaviour in an interactive game of deception. . J. Cogn. 1::42
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
39. Macuch Silva V, Lorson A, Franke M, Cummins C, Winter B. 2024.. Strategic use of English quantifiers in the reporting of quantitative information. . Discourse Process. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2024.2413311
    [Google Scholar]
40. Mazzarella D. 2015.. Inferential pragmatics and epistemic vigilance. PhD Diss. , Univ. Coll. London, London:
    [Google Scholar]
41. Mazzarella D, Reinecke R, Noveck I, Mercier H. 2018.. Saying, presupposing and implicating: how pragmatics modulates commitment. . J. Pragmat. 133::15–27
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
42. Meibauer J. 2014.. Lying at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Berlin:: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
43. Meibauer J. 2018.. The linguistics of lying. . Annu. Rev. Linguist. 4::357–75
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
44. Meibauer J. 2023.. On commitment to untruthful implicatures. . Intercult. Pragmat. 20::75–98
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
45. Merin A. 1999.. Information, relevance, and social decision-making: some principles and results of decision-theoretic semantics. . In Logic, Language, and Computation, ed. LS Moss, J Ginzburg, M de Rijke , pp. 179–221. Stanford, CA:: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Michaelson E. 2016.. The lying test. . Mind Lang. 31::470–99
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
47. Roberts C. 2012.. Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. . Semant. Pragmat. 5::6
    [Google Scholar]
48. Saul JM. 2012.. Lying, Misleading, and What Is Said: An Exploration in Philosophy of Language and Ethics. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
49. Solan LM, Tiersma PM. 2005.. Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago:: Chicago Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
50. Sperber D, Clément F, Heintz C, Mascaro O, Mercier H, et al. 2010.. Epistemic vigilance. . Mind Lang. 25::359–93
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
51. Sperber D, Wilson D. 1986.. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
52. Stalnaker RC. 1999 (1978).. Assertion. . In Context and Content, pp. 78–95. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
53. Stokke A. 2016.. Lying and misleading in discourse. . Philos. Rev. 125::83–134
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
54. Turri A, Turri J. 2015.. The truth about lying. . Cognition 138::161–68
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
55. van Tiel B, Franke M, Sauerland U. 2021.. Probabilistic pragmatics explains gradience and focality in natural language quantification. . PNAS 118:(9):e2005453118
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
56. van Tiel B, van Miltenburg E, Zevakhina N, Geurts B. 2016.. Scalar diversity. . J. Semant. 33::137–75
    [Google Scholar]
57. Weissman B, Terkourafi M. 2019.. Are false implicatures lies? An empirical investigation. . Mind Lang. 34::221–46
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
58. Wiegmann A, Samland J, Waldmann MR. 2016.. Lying despite telling the truth. . Cognition 150::37–42
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
59. Wiegmann A, Willemsen P. 2017.. How the truth can make a great lie: an empirical investigation of lying by falsely implicating. . In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2017), ed. G Gunzelmann, A Howes, T Tenbrink, EJ Davelaar , pp. 3516–21. London:: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Williams B. 2002.. Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
61. Wilson D, Sperber D. 2004.. Relevance theory. . In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. LR Horn, G Ward , pp. 607–32. Oxford, UK:: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]