Atlas, J.D. and Levinson, S.C., 1981, “It-clefts, informativeness and logical form,” in Radical Pragmatics
, P. Cole, ed., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., “Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface,” Manuscript, University of Milan.
Gazdar, G., 1979, Pragmatics
, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, M., 1995, “Quantity, volubility, and some varieties of discourse,” Linguistics and Philosophy
18: 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P., 1967, “Logic and Conversation,” typescript from the William James Lectures, Harvard University. Published in P. Grice (1989), Studies in the Way of Worlds
, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1984, “Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Halpern, J.Y. and Moses, Y., 1984, “Towards a theory of knowledge and ignorance,” pp. 165–193 in Proceedings of 1984 Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, New Paltz, NY.
Harnisch, R.M., 1976, “Logical form and implicature,” pp. 313–391 in An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability
, T.G. Bever, eds., New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Heim, I., 1982, “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hirschberg, J., 1985, “A theory of scalar implicature,” Ph.D. Thesis, UPenn.
Horn, L., 1972, “The semantics of logical operators in English,” Ph.D. Thesis, UCLA.
Horn, L., 1989, A Natural History of Negation
, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., 1981, “A theory of truth and semantic representation,” pp. 277–322 in Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Groenendijk, eds., Amsterdam.
Landman, F., 2000, Events and Plurality: The Jeruzalem Lectures
, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Leech, G.N., 1983, Principles of Pragmatics
, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C., 1983, Pragmatics
, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C., 2000, Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature
, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y., 1995, “The conversational condition on Horn scales,” Linguistics and Philosophy
18: 21–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J., 1980, “Circumscription – a form of non-monotonic reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence
13: 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merin, A., 1994, Decision–Theoretic Pragmatics, Lecture Notes read in Course BA 5, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.
Sauerland, U., 2004, “Scalar implicatures of complex sentences,” Linguistics and Phiolosophy
, 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, K., 2003, “You may read it now or later,” Master Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Soames, S., 1982, “How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem,” Linguistic Inquiry
13: 483–545.Google Scholar
Spector, B., 2003, “Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning?,” in Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2003 Student session, B. ten Cate, ed., Vienna.
van Benthem, J., 1989, “Semantic parallels in natural language and computation,” pp. 331–375 in Logic Colloquium ‘87
, H. D. Ebbinghaus, et al., eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
van der Hoek, W., Jaspers, J., and Thijsse, E., 1999, “Persistence and minimality in epistemic logic,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
27: 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Hoek, W., Jaspers J., and Thijsse, E., 2000, “A general approach to multiagent minimal knowledge,” pp. 254–268 in Proceedings JELIA 2000
, M. Ojeda-Aciego, et al. eds., Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
van Rooij, R. and Schulz, K., “Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation,” submitted, University of Amsterdam.
von Stechow, A. and Zimmermann, T.E., 1984, “Term answers and contextual change,” Linguistics
22: 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainer, J., 1991, “Uses of nonmonotonic logic in natural language understanding: Generalized implicatures,” Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University.
Zimmermann, T.E., 2000, “Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility,” Natural Language Semantics
8: 255–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar