scispace - formally typeset
R

Richard Breheny

Researcher at University College London

Publications -  37
Citations -  1291

Richard Breheny is an academic researcher from University College London. The author has contributed to research in topics: Pragmatics & Context (language use). The author has an hindex of 15, co-authored 35 publications receiving 1171 citations. Previous affiliations of Richard Breheny include University of Cambridge.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Are Generalised Scalar Implicatures Generated by Default? An On-Line Investigation into the Role of Context in Generating Pragmatic Inferences.

TL;DR: The results suggest that these scalar implicatures are dependent on the conversational context and that they show none of the autonomy predicted by the Default view.
Journal ArticleDOI

A New Look at the Semantics and Pragmatics of Numerically Quantified Noun Phrases

TL;DR: An independently motivated account of specificity and existential closure involving diagonalization is developed, proposed that where NQNP give rise to at least readings, this is the result of one of the two forms of pragmatic reasoning.
Journal ArticleDOI

Taking the epistemic step: toward a model of on-line access to conversational implicatures.

TL;DR: A visual world study using a new interactive paradigm where two communicators describe visually-presented events to each other as their eye movements are monitored, which shows hearers can access contextually specific particularised implicatures in on-line comprehension.
Journal ArticleDOI

Communication and Folk Psychology

TL;DR: This paper argued that these prominent accounts would be undermined if an adequate more minimal alternative were available, drawing on ideas from relevance theory and situation theory, and proposed a minimalist account of commu- nication.
Journal ArticleDOI

Why we simulate negated information: a dynamic pragmatic account.

TL;DR: It is argued that this finding with negative sentences could be a by-product of the dynamic way that language is interpreted relative to a common ground and not the way that negation is represented, and that some negative sentences are not processed in two steps, but provide support for the alternative, dynamic account.