BRIDGING'

The i m p l i c a t u r e s I am concerned with

Herbert H. Clark are a consequence of a speaker-listener
Stanford U n i v e r s i t y a g r e e m e n t Susan H a v i l a n d and I have called
the G i v e n - N e w Contract (Clark and Haviland,
1974, in press; H a v i l a n d and Clark, 1974).
Nixon, not long before he was deposed, English assertions draw a distinction
was quoted as saying at a news conference, between two kinds of information they
"I am not a crook." We all saw immediately convey, a d i s t i n c t i o n carried by the syntax
that Nixon shouldn't have said what he said. and i n t o n a t i o n alone. The first kind of
He wanted to assure everyone that he was an information has been called Given
honest man, but the w o r d i n g he used was to information, since it is conventionally
deny that he was a crook. Why should he required to convey i n f o r m a t i o n the listener
deny that? He must have believed that his a l r e a d y knows; and the second kind has been
a u d i e n c e was entertaining the possibility called New information, since it is
that he was a crook, and he was trying to conventionally required to convey
disabuse them of this belief. But in so information that the listener doesn't yet
doing, h e was t a c i t l y a c k n o w l e d g i n g that know but that the speaker would like to get
peoplewere entertaining t h i s possibility, across. The point is, the Given-New
and this was something he had never d i s t i n c t i o n is a syntactic one, i d e n t i f i a b l e
a c k n o w l e d g e d before in public. Here, then, for sentences in isolation, and yet it
was a public admission that he was in serves a pragmatic function, that of
trouble, and this s i g n a l e d a change in his c o n v e y i n g two types of i n f o r m a t i o n as far as
public posture. My i n f e r e n c e s about Nixon's the listener is concerned. For this
u b t e r a n c e stopped about there, but I am sure distinction to be useful as a c o m m u n c a t i v e
that the knowledgeable White House press device, therefore, the speaker and listener
corps went on drawing further inferences. must agree to use it in the c o n v e n t i o n a l
In any event we all took this u t t e r a n c e a way. The speaker must agree to try to
long way. construct his u t t e r a n c e s so that the Given
i n f o r m a t i o n contains i n f o r m a t i o n he believes
This is an example par e x c e l l e n c e of a the listener already knows and so that the
basic problem for theories of u n d e r s t a n d i n g New information contains information he
natural language: How do listeners draw believes the listener doesn't yet know. The
inferences from what they hear, what listener, for his part, agrees to interpret
direction do they take their inferences, and each utterance on the a s s u m p t i o n that the
when do they stop? In this particular speaker is trying to do this.
example, at least most listeners began,
tacitly, drawing the same llne of C o n s i d e r the s e n t e n c e I t was M~rY who
inferences, but at a certain point, the ~e~t. Syntactically, it is Given that
lines diverged and went on to many different someone left, that is, X left, and it is New
s t o p p i n g points. But is this description that that someone was Mary, that is, X =
general? Could listeners go on drawing Mary. To deal with this sentence, the
i n f e r e n c e s ad i n f i n i t u m ? And ultimately, is listener is assumed to use the f o l l o w i n g
drawing inferences as a part of strategy. (I) He i d e n t i f i e s the Given and
comprehension a describable process, one the New. (2) He r e a l i z e s he is e x p e c t e d to
with s p e c i f i a b l e c o n s t r a i n t s ? know a l r e a d y about a unique event of someone
leaving, and so he searches back in m e m o r y
In this brief paper I would llke to for Just such an event. When he finds it,
discuss a certain class of inferences in say E~I left ("some entity labeled E31
c o m p r e h e n s i o n that may provide some general left"), he calls this the Antecedent. (3)
lessons about the problem of drawing Since the listener assumes that X left was
inferences. The i n f e r e n c e s I will discuss meant to refer to the A n t e c e d e n t E~I left,
are ones the speaker intends the listener to he then replaces ~ in ~ ~ Mary by E31 to
draw as an integral part of the message, a n d form the new p r o p o s i t i o n E31 ~ Mary. This
so they are a rather special type. he places in m e m o r y as what the speaker
F o l l o w i n g Grice's (1967) terminology, I will meant to assert in his utterance.
refer to them as implieatures, since they
have all the characteristics of other In the simplest case, the s t r a t e g y Just
implicatures. I will draw three lessons given will work without problems. Consider
about these implicatures. One: I m p l i c a t u r e s s e q u e n c e I:
of this kind originate in an implicit
contract, of quite a specific sort, that the I. John saw someone leave the party
speaker and listener have agreed upon about early. It was Mary who left. To s i m p l i f y
the way they a r e to converse with each things, imagine that the listener hearing
other. TWO: These implicatures, though the second s e n t e n c e has in episodic m e m o r y
conveyed by language and a n e c e s s a r y part of only the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n v e y e d by the first.
the intended message, draw on one's In a p p l y i n g his strategy to the second
k n o w l e d g e of natural objects and events that sentence, the l i s t e n e r will search for an
goes beyond one's knowledge of language Antecedent for X left, find an event of
itself. Three: These i m p l i c a t u r e s are not someone leaving in m e m o r y from the first
indeterminate in length, but have a sentence, and then integrate the New
w e l l - d e f i n e d s t o p p i n g rule. i n f o r m a t i o n into m e m o r y as he should.

Giveq-New Co~tr~ot In the more typical case, however, the

Istener will fall at Step 2 of the s t r a t e g y
-- he won't find such an A n t e c e d e n t d i r e c t l y
in memory. When this happens, he is forced
169
to construct an Antecedent, by a series of Varieties of Imp~icature
I
inferences, from something he already knows.
C o n s i d e r sequence 2:

2. In the group there was one person

intended
B r i d g i n g from previous k n o w l e d g e to the
Antecedent can take many forms.
will here give a brief t a x o n o m y of bridges I
have found in n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g discourse.
I
I
missing. It was Mary who left. In this
s e q u e n c e the first sentence doesn't mention As before I will i l l u s t r a t e the bridges with
anyone s leaving, so there is no direct
A n t e c e d e n t for the Given i n f o r m a t i o n X
of the second sentence. The listener must
left
two

available
sentence
c o n s t i t u t e s the
sequences
entire
in which the first
episodic
for b r i d g i n g to the second.
knowledge
What
I
t h e r e f o r e bridge the gap from what he knows I say here, however, is meant to apply just
to the intended Antecedent.
that it would follow that one person in
group would
He might note

be m i s s i n g if that person had

the
as much to episodic i n f o r m a t i o n derived from
non-llnguistlc
sequences
One more caveat.
sources; the two-sentence
are just an e x p o s i t i o n a l gimmick.
As with any taxonomy, this
I
left. It must be that the speaker was
referring to that person by the Given one is hardly complete. Indeed, it cannot
i n f o r m a t i o n X l~ft and that the listener was
supposed
inference.
to figure this out by drawing this
In short, the listener assumes
be until one has a theory to account for the
t a x o n o m y itself. I
the speaker meant to convey two things: (I) Dire~t re~erence. Given information
the i m p l i c a t u r e The Q~e person
because that person left, and (2) the latter
clause contains the intended
was missin~

Antecedent of
often
event,
always
makes
or
force
even though
direct r e f e r e n c e to an object,
state

it
an
may
Just mentioned. These
i m p l i c a t u r e of some sort,
be trivially simple.
I
the Given i n f o r m a t i o n in the second s e n t e n c e
l~ft. This class of b r i d g i n g is well known:

In its most general form, then, the

G i v e n - N e w C o n t r a c t goes something llke this:
Identity: I
!
I. I met a man yesterday. The man
G i v e n - N e w Contract: The speaker agrees told me a story.
to try to c o n s t r u c t the Given and 2. I ran two miles the othe# day.
New i n f o r m a t i o n of each u t t e r a n c e in The run did me good.
context (a) so that the listener is 3. Her house was large. The size
able to compute from m e m o r y the s u r p r i s e d me.
unique A n t e c e d e n t that was intended
for the Given information,
so that he will not already have the
and (b). Pronominali~ation: I
New information attached to the 4. I met a man yesterday. He told
Antecedent.

The l i s t e n e r in turn knows, then, that the

me a story.
5. I ran two miles
It did me good.
6. Her house was
the other

large.
day.

That
I
speaker expects him to have the k n o w l e d g e
s u r p r i s e d me.

I
and mental wherewithal to compute the
intended A n t e c e d e n t in that context, and so
for him it becomes a matter of solving a Epithets:
problem. What bridge can he construct (I)
that the speaker could plausibly have 7. I met a man yesterday. The
e x p e c t e d him to be able to construct and (2)
that
intended?
the speaker could plausibly
The first part makes the l i s t e n e r
have
bastard stole all my money.
8. I ran two miles the other
The w h o l e stupid business bored me.
9. Her house was large.
day,

The
I
assess p r i n c i p a l l y what facts he knows and
i m m e n s i t y made me Jealous.

I
the second what impllcatures he could
p l a u s i b l y draw.

B r i d g i n g -- the c o n s t r u c t i o n of these The implicature for these direct

i m p l i c a t u r e s -- is an o b l i g a t o r y part of the references is straightforward. For the
process
takes
of
it
comprehension.
as a necessary
The

u n d e r s t a n d i n g an u t t e r a n c e in context
listener
part of
that
identity in
a p p r o x i m a t e l y this:
I, the

I ° . The A n t e c e d e n t for
implicature

the entity r e f e r r e d to by "a man".

the man is
is
I
he be able to identify the intended
This implicature, though obvious, must be

I
referents (in memory) for all referring
expressions. All r e f e r r i n g e x p r e s s i o n s are drawn for the second sentence in I to be
Given information, and so the listener feels complete; conceivably, ~ _ g man could have
it necessary to succeed in a p p l y i n g the referred to some other object, and so the
s t r a t e g y o u t l i n e d above, since it i d e n t i f i e s l i s t e n e r is m a k i n g a leap -- perhaps only a
millimeter leap -- in drawing this
the

listener
intended referents.
the success of this
to bridge,
strategy
In most instances,
requires the
to c o n s t r u c t c e r t a i n
implicature.
2 and 3.
The same i m p l i c a t u r e s arise in
As for the p r o n o m i n a l l z a t i o n in 4,
the p r i n c i p l e is the same, but the pronoun
I
implicatures, and so he takes these
implicatures too as a necessary part of (he) uses only a subset of the p r o p e r t i e s
comprehension. In short, he
i m p l i c a t u r e s to be intrinsic to the i n t e n d e d
message, since without them the
considers

utterance
that c h a r a c t e r i z e the
man. Indeed, there
previously
is a continuum
p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n , as for the noun phrase an
mentioned
of I
could not refer. elderly ~ : ~he el der~y ~ l e m a n ,
the e l d e r l y man, ~he ~
oldster, the adult, the oerson, and he.
, the ~ , the
The I
17o
I
"pronouns" here range from full to sparse P r o b a b l e parts:
specification, but o t h e r w i s e work like I and
I". The epithets, on the other hand, add 16. I w a l k e d into the room. The
information about the referent, as in the windows looked out to the bay.
i m p l i c a t u r e for 7: 17. I went shopping yesterday. The
7". The a n t e c e d e n t for the bastard walk did me good.
is the entity referred to by "a 18. I left at 8 p.m. The darkness
man"; that entity is also a bastard. made me jumpy.
Epithets are surprisingly restricted in
productivity, for not Just a n y t h i n g will do, There is no guarantee that the room has
Replace the bastard in 7 by the rancher, or windows, that going shopping means walking,
even by the robber, and the b r i d g i n g doesn't or that it is dark at 8 p.m., but these are
go through; the cancher and robber seem ,to all probable or at least reasonable. The
refer to someone other than the man. i m p l i c a t u r e of 16 is simply this:
16". The room m e n t i o n e d has windows;
One can also make direct reference to they are the Antecedent for the
one or more members of a set, as in these windows,
examples:
There a r e , however, associated parts
Set membership: that one would n o r m a l l y not think of and are
only induced by the need for an Antecedent:
10. I met two people yesteday. The
woman told me a story. Inducible p~rts:
11. I met two doctors yesterday.
The tall one told me a story. 19. I walked into the room. The
12. I swung three times. The first c h a n d e l i e r s s p a r k l e d brightly.
swing m i s s e d by a mile. 20. I went s h o p p i n g yesterday. The
climb did me good.
Here the Given i n f o r m a i o n has an Antecedent 21. I left at 8 p.m. The haste was
that must be picked out uniquely from a n e c e s s a r y given the circumstances.
p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d set, and to pick it
out, one must draw an implieature with Here we come to infer that the room had
several parts. For 10, the implicature is chandeliers, that going shopping i n c l u d e d
a p p r o x i m a t e l y this: some climbing, and that the d e p a r t u r e at 8
10". One of the entities referred to p.m. was hasty, but these were c e r t a i n l y
by "two people" is a w o m a n and the not necessary parts of these objects,
other is not; this woman is the events, or states. For 19, the i m p l i c a t u r e
Antecedent of the woman. would be this:
The listener of 10 infers that the other 19". The room mentioned had
person is not a woman since that is the o n l y chandeliers; they are the A n t e c e d e n t
way the speaker could have picked out "the for the ~ .
woman" uniquely. There are similar Here, then is a clear case in which the
i m p l i c a t u r e s for 11 and 12. search for an Antecedent induced the
p r o p o s i t i o n that a p a r t i c u l a r part must be
Indirect reference by association. present. In normal comprehension, after
Given information often has as its reading ~ w a l k e ~ into ~ h e room, we wouldn't
A n t e c e d e n t some piece of information not spontaneously think of a c h a n d e l i e r in the
directly mentioned, but closely a s s o c i a t e d room. The first part of 19" clearly only
with the object, event, or situation arises because of the second s e n t e n c e in 19.
mentioned (see Chafe, 1972). These On the other hand, notice that 19" is an
"associated" pieces of i n f o r m a t i o n vary in implicature of precisely the same form as
their p r e d i c t a b i l i t y from the object, event, 16". It is Just that the first half of the
or s i t u a t i o n m e n t i o n e d -- from absolutely implicature in 19" cannot be assumed either
n e c e s s a r y to quite u n n e c e s s a r y -- a l t h o u g h I a u t o m a t i c a l l y or even probably.
will list only three levels:
I n d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e by c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n "
N e c e s s a r y Darts: Often the Given i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e s a
role that s o m e t h i n g i m p l i c i t l y plays ~ in an
13. I looked into the room. The event or c i r c u m s t a n c e m e n t i o n e d before, and
ceiling was very high. these have a tremendous variety. First
14. I hit a home run. The swing had there are the n e c e s s a r y roles:
been a good one.
15. I looked into the room. The ees ~ roles:
size was overwhelming.
20. John was murdered yesterday.
In 13, since all rooms have ceilings, and The m u r d e r e r got away
only one ceiling each, the ceiling can be 21. I went ~s h o p p i n g yesterday.
" The
definite with the f o l l o w i n g implicature: time I started was 3 p.m.
13". The room mentioned has a 22. I trucked the goods to New York.
ceiling; that ceiling is the The truck was full.
A n t e c e d e n t of the ceiling.
The i m p l i c a t u r e for these is u n c o m p l i c a t e d ,
Next c o n s i d e r a s s o c i a t e d parts that are as i l l u s t r a t e d for 20:
only probable: 20". Some one person performed
John's murder; that person is the
A n t e c e d e n t for the murderer.

171
 class of Antecedents gives reasons for,
I
The first s e n t e n c e in 20 does not claim that
there was only one murderer, but the second causes of, c o n s e q u e n t s to, or c o n c u r r e n c e s
sentence
Similarly,
forces
the verb
this implicature.
trucked in 22 doesn't
say there is only one truck, but the second
of p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d events or states.

The first class are reasons:

1
sentence, as part of its implicature, forces
this to be the case.

Then come the s t r i c t l y optional roles:

Reasons:

26. John fell, what he wanted to

was scare Mary.
do I
Optional rolgs: 27. John came to the party. The one

23. John died

m u r d e r e r got away.
yesterday. The
he e x p e c t e d to m e e t was Mary.
28. John had a suit on.
he hoped to impress.
It was Jane i
24. John was murdered yesterday.

i
The knife lay nearby. In each case the Antecedent of the Given
25. John went walking at noon. The information in the second sentence is
park was beautiful. c o n t a i n e d in a reason for the first event.
So the i m p l i c a t u r e for 26 is s o m e t h i n g like
In 23, the implicature is something like this:
this:
23". Some one person caused John
die; that one person is
to
the
26". John fell for the
he w a n t e d to do
reason
something;
that
that
I
A n t e c e d e n t of the murderer. s o m e t h i n g is the A n t e c e d e n t to what

i
In 24, the implicature is that John was he w a n t e d t_go do.
stabbed to death with a knife, the
i n s t r u m e n t r e f e r r e d to by the knife, and in Reasons • always answer the question "what
25 the i m p l i c a t u r e is that where Jo~n went for?" and the A n t e c e d e n t s in 26 through 28
w a l k i n g was in a park, the place referred to all make use of this kind of reason to
by the park.

These two c a t e g o r i e s -- necessary and

bridge
state.
from the first s e n t e n c e ' s event or
i
optional roles -- cover a lot of ground. Unlike reasons, causes answer the
Most noun phrases, for example,
c h a r a c t e r i z i n g , in that they contain as Raft
of their s p e c i f i c a t i o n how they relate
are

to
q u e s t i o n "How come?"

C~qses:
il
!
other events. I have given u n a d o r n e d noun
phrases here, but of course they can become 29. John fell. What he did was trip
quite elaborate. The m u r d e r e r could have on a rock.
been the person whQ murdered John; the 30. John came to the party. The one
knife, which is implicitly defined as a who invited him was Mary.
tool, could have been t~e knife with which 31. John had a suit on. It was Jane
it was do~e; and so on.
range of cleft and
English contains a
pseudo-cleft
that often fill Just this purpose, as in The
sentences
who told him to wear it.

The i m p l i c a t u r e in 29
this:
goes something like
II
one that m u r d e r e d John £o~ away, and It was
29". John fell because he did

i
that man who m u r d e r e d John. A d j e c t i v e s can
carry out this c h a r a c t e r i z i n g funcion too, something; that something is the
as in The g q i l t v party g_q~ away. What these A n t e c e d e n t for what h e dld.
a d j e c t i v e s (e.g. ~uiltv), relative clauses This type of i m p l i c a t u r e works for 30 and 31

|
(e.g. th~$ murdered John), and derived as well. In each case we infer a causal
nouns (e.g. the m u r d e r e r ) do is pick out r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n the event presupposed by
the role the i n t e n d e d A n t e c e d e n t plays in the Given i n f o r m a t i o n of the second s e n t e n c e
the p r e v i o u s l y named events. and the event mentioned in the first
sentence.
It is not easy to separate "parts" from
"roles" in every instance. For example, the
knife in 24 is c o n c e i v e d of not as a part of
the action of murdering, as, say, "stabbing"
Then there are c o n s e q u e n c e s :

Conseouences:
I
would be, but
action, as an instrument.
the word knife to have
rather as a role in the
I have c o n s i d e r e d
implicit within it
32. John fell.
b r e a k his arm.
33. John came to
What

the
he

party
did was

early.
|
the notion that it is an instrument, so it
is a c h a r a c t e r i z i n g noun, like murderer, not The one he saw first was Mary.
34. John met Sally. What he did was

I
s i m p l y a name of a n o n - f u n c t i o n a l class llke
man. Ultimately, however, this distinction tell her about Bill. '
may be i m p o s s i b l e to maintain.
The a p p r o x i m a t e i m p l i c a t u r e for 32 is as
Reasons. causesL conseouences. ~q~ follows:
concurrences. The A n t e c e d e n t to the G i v e n
i n f o r m a t i o n of a s e n t e n c e is often an
and not an object, and then it
event
plays
32". John did s o m e t h i n g
fell; that something
A n t e c e d e n t to what he did.
because
is
he
the I!
different types of rols with respect to The s e q u e n c e s in 33 and 34 have similar

ii
previous events. Instead of being agents, implicatures, ones that also depend on the
objects, or i n s t r u m e n t s characterized with A n t e c e d e n t ' s being taken as the consequence
respect to p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d events, this of the event mentioned in the first

172
i
 to a party he gets drunk, for this
sentence.
implicature makes the fewest assumptions yet
is consistent with previous knowledge of
Last of all are the concurrences:
parties; dringking, and even Alex. In
short, the listener takes as the intended
ConcurreDces: implicature the one that requires the fewest
33. John is a R e p u b l i c a n . Mary is
assumptions, yet whose assmptions are all
slightly daft too. plausible given the listener's knowledge of
34. John is a Republican. Mary
the speaker, the situation, and facts about
isn't so smart either.
35. Alex went to a party last night. the world.
He's going to get drunk again
The implicatures I have discussed here
tonight.
differ from the inferences we drew from
For 33 the implicature is approximately this N!xon's "I am not a crook" in one important
way. The implicatures I took up were
(see Lakoff, 1971):
33". All Republicans are slightly intended b y t h e speaker to be constructed by
daft; therefore, John is slightly the l i s t e n e r , whereas the inferences from
daft, which is the Antecedent to the Nixon's blunder were not. With the
Given information someone other than implicatures, as with every other intended
Mary is slightly daft. meaning, the speaker had a unique bridge in
In all three of these sequences, the mind, and so the listener had something
listener is expected to draw the implicature unique to try to figure out. But for
that being in one state, or doing one event, Nixon's bobble, after the first unique and
necessarily entails the c o n c u r r e n c e of legitimate inference -- denials presuppose
another state, or event. that the audience does or could believe what
iS being denied -- the inferences were
These are four general ways, then, in completely unauthorized by the speaker. So
w h i c h the listener can bridge from an event bridging is determinate with a definite
or state mentioned in the first sentence to stopping rule, whereas Unauthorized
an Antecedent in the second. These bridging inferences typically are not.
relations turn out to be very common~
especially in narratives. The most common, This brings US, finally, to the issue
perhaps, is the consequence, which pops up of forward vs. backward inferences. When
between one sentence and the next every t i m e we hear the phrase the room in 19, we may
chronological order is conveyed. The Given begin imagining all sorts of things about
information of the second sentence is taken this room, some necessary, but many others
as a consequence to the event mentioned in optional. A l l but the n e c e s s a r y l n f e r e n c e s
the first. here, of course, are unauthorized. .These
"forward" inferences differ radically from
Det~rmlnacv i n ~ / . l ~ the "backward" inferences forced by the
phrase the f ~ in 19, for the speaker
In principle, bridges n e e d . not be intended the listener to infer that the room
deteminate. One could, if one had the time had a chandelier. Both types of inferences
and inclination, build an infinitely long occur, I'm sure, but only the latter type
bridge, or sequence of assumptions, to link are fully determinate, I suggest that we
one event to the Antecedent of the next. In might do well to study the determinate
35, for example# we a s s u m e d t h a t every time Inferences first, for'they may well give us
Alex goes to a party he gets drunk. But w e a clue as to what sorts of unauthorized
could h a v e assumed instead that every time Inferences would be likely to be drawn for
he goes to a party he meets women, a n d ,all the typical utterance.
women speak in high voices, and high voices
always remind him of his mother, and
thinking about hhs mother always makes him REFERENCES
angry, and whenever he gets angry, he gets
drunk, It takes very llttle imagination to Chafe, W. D i s c o u r s e structure and human
add span after span to a bridge of this knowledge. In J.B. Carroll and R.O.
type. Freedle (eds.), LanRua~e ComDrehenslon
and the ~ of Knowledg@.
Yet in a natural discourse, bridges are Washington: Winston and Sons, 1972.
always determinate. Indeed, I suggest that
they have a stopping rule that goes Clark, H.H., and Haviland, S.E.
something llke this: Build the shortest Psychological processes as llnguistic
possible bridge that is consistent with the explanation. In D. Cohen (ed.),
Given-New Contract. The listener assumes, ~ Phenomena.
based on this contract, that the speaker Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.,
intended him to be able to compute a unique 1974.
bridge from his previous knowledge to the
intended antecedent of the present Given Clark, H.H. and Haviland, S.E.
information. If the speaker was certain Comprehension and the Given-New
that the listener could do this, he must Contract. In R. Freedle (ed.)
have intended the listener to take the Discourse ~ and ~ / I ~ U ~ .
shortest possible bridge consistent with Hillslde NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
previous knowledge, for that would make the Associates, in press.
bridge unique, as required. So in 35 the
listener assumes the speaker intended him to Haviland, S.E. and Clark, H.H. What's new?
infer no more than that every time Alex goes Acquiring new information as a process

173
 in comprehension. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, I~,
512-521.

Grice, H.P. Logic and conversation.

William James Lectures, Harvard
University, 1967. In P. Cole and J.L.
Morgan (eds.), Studies in SYntax, Volume
III. New York: Seminar Press, 1975.

Lakoff, G. The role of deduction in

grammar. In C.J. Fillmore and D.T.
Langendoen (eds.), Studies 'in
Linguistics Semantics. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1971.

174