Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:14:50.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Theoretical Foundation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2022

Edited by
Istvan Kecskes
Istvan Kecskes
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 9 - 104
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–153.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, face work, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2013). Strategic conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1977). Negation, ambiguity, and presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1979). How linguistics matters to philosophy: Presupposition, truth, and meaning. In Dinneen, D. and Oh, C. K., eds., Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, pp. 265–281.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1989). Philosophy without Ambiguity: A Logico-Linguistic Essay. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (2005). Whatever happened to meaning? A morality tale of Cappelen’s and LePore’s insensitivity to lexical semantics and a defense of Kent Bach, sort of. Paper presented at the International Pragmatics Association Conference, Riva del Garda, Italy, July 10–15.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1994). Semantic slack: What is said and more. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 267–291.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2001). You don’t say?, Synthese, 128, 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. (2004). Minding the gap. In Bianchi, C. (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 27–43.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2006). The excluded middle: Semantic minimalism without minimal propositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73, 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. (2007). Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics). In Burton-Roberts, N., ed., Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 24–44.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blutner, R. and Zeevat, H. (eds.) (2003). Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J. (2002). The Grammar of Time Reference in Yukatek Maya. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Borg, E. (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. M., ed., Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–181.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1998). Postscript (1995) to Carston 1988. In Kasher, A., ed., Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, Vol. IV. London: Routledge, pp. 464–479.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2007). How many pragmatic systems are there? In Frápolli, M. J., ed., Saying, Meaning and Referring: Essays on François Recanati’s Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 18–48.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2012). Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review, 29, 607–623.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. III. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, P. (ed.) (1981). Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davis, W. A. (1998). Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, W. A. (2007). How normative is implicature. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1655–1672.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (1992). Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 913–929.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (2009). The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, C. H. and Haugh, M. (2018). The interactional achievement of speaker meaning: Toward a formal account of conversational inference. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15, 593–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. and Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–492.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. and Matthewson, L. (2008). Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review, 25, 139–201.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: L. Nebert. Part 1, §§1–12 trans. as “Begriffsschrift: a formula language of pure thought modelled on that of arithmetic.” In Beaney, M., ed. and trans. (1997), The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 47–78.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik, eine logisch mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl: Introduction. Breslau: W. Koebner. In Beaney, M., M., ed. and trans. (1997), The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 84–91.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1893). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Vol. I, Preface. Jena: H. Pohle. In Beaney, M., ed. and trans. (1997), The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 194–208.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (1998). Scalars. In Ludewig, P. and Geurts, B., eds., Lexikalische Semantik aus kognitiver Sicht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 95–117.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2009). Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and Language, 24, 51–79.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, G. M. (1996). Ambiguity resolution and discourse interpretation. In van Deemter, K. and Peters, S., eds., Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review 66. Repr. in Grice, H. P. (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 213–223.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions. Philosophical Review, 1978. Repr. in Grice, H. P. (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 86–116.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III. New York: Academic Press. Repr. in H. P. Grice (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In Cole, P., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX. New York: Academic Press. Repr. in H. P. Grice (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2007). The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 84–110.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2009). Intention(ality) and the conceptualisation of communication in pragmatics. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29, 91–113.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1976). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature. In D. Schiffrin, ed. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 11–42.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1988). Pragmatic theory. In Newmeyer, F. J., ed., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–145.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1992). The said and the unsaid. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics (SALT II Proceedings), 40, 163–192.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2006). The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In von Heusinger, K. and Turner, , eds., Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: The Michigan Papers. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 21–48.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (1999). Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic Defaults and Propositional Attitude Ascription. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2002). Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2005). Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2008). Psychological explanations in Gricean pragmatics and Frege’s legacy. In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intentions, Common Ground, and Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 9–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2009). Cancellability and the primary/secondary meaning distinction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 259–289.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2010). Default semantics. In Heine, and Narrog, , eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 215–246.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012a). Cross-linguistic differences in expressing time and universal principles of utterance interpretation. In Filipović, L. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., Space and Time in Languages and Cultures: Linguistic Diversity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–121.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012b). Semantics/pragmatics boundary disputes. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., and Portner, P., eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. III. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Repr. in C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner, eds. (2019), Semantics Interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 368–402.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2016). Meaning in Linguistic Interaction: Semantics, Metasemantics, Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2018). Pragmatics and philosophy: In search of a paradigm. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15, 131–159.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2021a). Functional proposition: A new concept for representing discourse meaning? Journal of Pragmatics, 171, 200–214.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2021b). Default Semantics. In Aronoff, M., ed., Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press (online).Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H., eds., Themes from Kaplan. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.599–616.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019). English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1979). Presupposition, opacity, and ambiguity. In C. K. Oh, and D. A. Dinneen, , eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. XI. New York: Academic Press, pp. 283–297.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1986). Ambiguity and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. In Travis, C., ed., Meaning and Interpretation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 77–103.Google Scholar
King, J. C. and Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Szabó, Z. G., ed., Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, J. P. (1993). Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and interval interpretations. Chicago Linguistic Society, 27, Part 2: The Parasession on Negation, 140–155.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, J. and Bertuccelli-Papi, M., eds., The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, pp. 61–129.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In Palmer, F. R., eds., Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–115.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359.Google Scholar
Marsh, J. (2018). Why say it that way? Evasive answers and politeness theory. Journal of Politeness Research, 15, 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauri, K. and van der Auwera, J. (2012). Connectives. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 377–401.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. (2004). Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Parikh, P. (2010). Language and Equilibrium. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rayo, A. (2013). A plea for semantic localism. Noûs, 47, 647–679.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 4. Repr. in S. Davis, ed. (1991), Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–120.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2001). What is said. Synthese, 128, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. (2002). Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind and Language, 17, 105–126.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2005). Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. In Preyer, G. and Peter, G., eds., Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 171–196.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2007). Reply to Carston. In Frápolli, M. J., ed., Saying, Meaning and Referring: Essays on François Recanati’s Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 49–54.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2012a). Contextualism: Some varieties. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–149.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2012b). Compositionality, flexibility, and context dependence. In Werning, M., Hinzen, W., and Machery, E., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–191.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2012c). Pragmatic enrichment. In Russell, G. and Graff Fara, D., eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. New York: Routledge, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2016). Indexical thought: The communication problem. In García-Carpintero, M. and Torre, S., eds., About Oneself: De Se Thought and Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 141–178.Google Scholar
Saul, J. M. (2002). What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 347–372.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1985). Apparently irrational beliefs. In On Anthropological Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–63.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1997). Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Mind and Language, 12, 67–83.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2000). Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In Sperber, D., ed., Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (eds.) (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2002). Making it articulated. Mind and Language, 17, 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. and Szabó, Z. G. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language, 15, 219–261.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2011). Temporal reference in Paraguayan Guaraní, a tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 257–303.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (2006). Psychologism. In Lepore, E. and Smith, B. C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 103–126.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (2008). Occasion-Sensitivity: Selected Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1975). Presuppositions and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111. Repr. in Sperber, D. and Wilson, D., eds. (2012), Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47–83.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. and Sadock, J. (1975). Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In Kimball, J. P., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IV. New York: Academic Press, pp 1–36.Google Scholar

References

Assimakopoulos, S. (2015). Motivating procedural analysis of logical connectives. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 32, 59–70.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A., and Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21, 37–46.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances: An introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blochowiak, J. and Grisot, C. (2018). The pragmatics of descriptive and metalinguistic negation: Experimental data from French. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3 (1), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.440.Google Scholar
Bonnefon, J.-F., Feeney, A., and Villsjoubert, G. (2009). When some is actually all: Scalar inferences in face threatening contexts. Cognition, 112, 249–258.Google Scholar
Borg, E. (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borg, E. (2012). Pursuing Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breheny, R., Katsos, N., and Williams, J. (2006). Are generalized conversational implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100(3), 434–463.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1996). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 309–330.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Utterances and Thoughts: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2017). Relevance theory and metaphor. In Semino, E. and Demjén, Z., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 42–55.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2019). Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R., eds., Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–162.Google Scholar
Cave, T. and Wilson, D. (2018). Reading Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le Dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Dupuy, L., Stateva, P., Andreetta, S., Cheylus, A., Deprez, V., Van der Henst, J.-B., Jayez, J., Stepanov, A., and Reboul, A. (2018). Pragmatic abilities in bilinguals: The case of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. https://doi 10.1075/lab.17017.dup.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M., and Ahern, A. (eds.) (2011). Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grigoroglou, M. and Papafragou, A. (2019). The development of pragmatic abilities. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R., eds., Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–202.Google Scholar
Grisot, C. (2017). Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Grisot, C. and Moeschler, J. (2014). How do empirical methods interact with theoretical pragmatics? The conceptual and procedural contents of the English Simple Past and its translation into French. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms. Cham: Springer, pp. 7–33.Google Scholar
Happé, F. (1994). Autism: An Introduction of Psychological Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, R. (2019). Relevance and metaphor understanding in a second language. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R., eds., Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 218–230.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jodłowiec, M. and Piskorska, A. (2015). Metonymy revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(2), 161–187. https://doi.10.1515/ip-2015–0009.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–219.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2021a). Intercultural communication and our understanding of language. Langages, 222, 25–42.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2021b). Processing implicatures in English as a Lingua Franca communication. Lingua, 256, 103067. https://doi.10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103067.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Kirner-Ludwig, M. (2019). “Odd structures” in English as a lingua franca discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.007.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: A Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, D. (2015). Politeness, relevance and scalar inference. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 93–106.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason: A New Theory of Human Understanding. London: Allen Press.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2004). Intercultural pragmatics: A cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2007). The role of explicature in communication and in intercultural communication. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 73–94.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2016). Where is procedural meaning? Evidences from discourse connectives and tenses. Lingua, 175–176, 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.006.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2018). A set of semantic and pragmatic criteria for descriptive vs. metalinguistic negation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3 (1), 1–30. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.439.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2019). Non-Lexical Pragmatics: Time, Causality and Logical Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2021). Why Language? What Pragmatics Tells Us about Language and Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. and Reboul, A. (1994). Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I., Politzer, G., and Bastide, A. (2007). A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition, 14, 347–376.Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2013). The social evolution of language and the necessity of implicit communication. In Anderson, S. R., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, F., eds., The Language-Cognition Interface. Geneva: Droz, pp. 253–273.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2017). Cognition and Communication in the Evolution of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1994). Contextualism and anti-contextualism in the philosophy of language. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 156–166.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2004). Context in dynamic interpretation. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 197–220.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. ([1916] 1978). Cours de linguistique Générale: Édition critique préparée par Tullio di Mauro. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Saussure, L. de and Wharton, T. (2020). Relevance, effects and affect. International Review of Pragmatics, 12(2), 183–205.Google Scholar
Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.) (2019). Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scott-Phillips, Th. (2015). Speaking our Minds: Why Human Communication Is Different, and How Language Evolved to Make it Special. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., and Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25, 359–393.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Origgi, G. (2000). Evolution, communication, and the proper function of language. In Carruthers, P. and Chamberlain, A., eds., Evolution and the Human Mind: Language, Modularity and Social Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–169.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1977). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Rogers, A., Wall, B., and Murphy, J. P., eds., Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, pp. 135–147.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M., Weissman, B., and Roy, J. (2020). Different scalar terms are affected by face differently. International Review of Pragmatics, 12, 1–44. doi:10.1163/18773109-01201103.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2003). Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 273–291.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2016). The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. Journal of Pragmatics, 175 –176, 5–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2017). Irony, hyperbole, jokes and banter. In Blochowiak, J., Grisot, C., Durrlemann, S., and Laenzlinger, C., eds., Formal Models in the Study of Language: Applications in Interdisciplinary Contexts. Cham: Springer, pp. 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2006). Metaphor, relevance and the “emergent property” issue. Mind & Language, 21, 406–433.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N., ed., Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 230–259.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2019), Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance Theory. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 607–632.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A. (2019). Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

Banda, Tracy. (2008). Tracy’s Office Services. August 21, www.tracysofficeservices.com/rightbenefits.htm.Google Scholar
Beardsley, M. (1958). Aesthetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Becker, I. and Giora, R. (2018). The Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production. Journal of Pragmatics, 138, 149–164.Google Scholar
Blige, N. (2007). www.streetpoetry.net/id12.html (retrieved on May 3, 2008).Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N., ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–311.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. D. and Katz, A. N. (2012). Are there necessary conditions for inducing a sense of sarcastic irony? Discourse Processes, 49(6), 459–480.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, Larry (2005). Why does my cat bring home her prey? www.articlealley.com/article_19599_54.html.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. (2007). Language experience and fixed expressions: Differences in the salience status of literal and figurative meanings of L1 and L2 idioms. Collocations and idioms, 1, 19–20.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410.Google Scholar
Du Bois, W. J. and Giora, R. (2014). From cognitive-functional linguistics to dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 351–357.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 5–27.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2007). “A good Arab is not a dead Arab – a racist incitement”: On the accessibility of negated concepts. In Kecskes, Istvan and Horn, Laurence R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 129–162.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2011). “Your baby is no longer an infant”: On metaphor as context. In Gluzman, M. and Lubin, O., eds., Intertextuality in Literature and Culture. Tel Aviv: Hakibbuz Hameuchad, pp. 235–247 (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2020). How defaultness shapes our language production: A usage-based study of discoursal resonance with default interpretations of metaphor and sarcasm. In Barnden, J. and Gargett, A., eds., Production of Figurative Language. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Drucker, A., and Fein, O. (2014a). Resonating with default nonsalient interpretations: A corpus-based study of negative sarcasm. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28, 3–18.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., and Mendelson, I. (2015a). Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Metuki, N., and Stern, P. (2010). Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator. In Horn, L., ed., The Expression of Negation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 225–256.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., and Becker, I. (2020). How defaultness affects text production: A corpus-based study of default sarcasm. In Athanasiadou, A. and Colston, H., eds., The Diversity of Irony. CLR book series. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., and Fein, O. (2015b). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290–313.Google Scholar
Giora, R. and Gur, I. (2003). Irony in conversation: Salience, role, and context effects. In Nerlich, B., Todd, Z., Herman, V., and Clarke, D., eds., Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meanings in Language and Mind. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 297–316.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Jaffe, I., Becker, I., and Fein, O. (2018). Strongly attenuating highly positive concepts: The case of default sarcastic interpretations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 19–47.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O., Barnea, A., Zeiman, R., and Berger, I. (2013). Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 89–115.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Raphaely, M. Fein, O., and Livnat, E. (2014b). Resonating with contextually inappropriate interpretations in production: The case of irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 443–455.Google Scholar
Givoni, S. (2019). Marking multiple meanings. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Givoni, S., Giora, R., and Bergerbest, D. (2013). How speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 29–40.Google Scholar
Goldberg, E. A. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.Google Scholar
Goldberg, E. A. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasson, U., Avidan, G., Gelbard, H., Vallines, I., Harel, M., Minshew, N., and Behrmann, M. (2009). Shared and idiosyncratic cortical activation patterns in autism revealed under continuous real‐life viewing conditions. Autism Research, 2(4), 220–231.Google Scholar
HodyYanksFan. 2005. http://forums.nyyfans.com/archive/index.php/t-92160.html (retrieved on February 14th, 2014)Google Scholar
House, J. (2002). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In K. Knapp and C. Meirerkord, eds., Lingua Franca Communication. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 245–267.Google Scholar
Ilie, C. (1994). What Else Can I Tell You? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Joan (2008). 20 Responses to “Bridget Moynahan Must-Have Laughed, or Why I’m Almost Glad the Patriots Lost”. March 28, 2008. www.collegiatetimes.com/blogs/2008/02/05/bridget-moynahan-must-have-laughed-or-why-im-almost-glad-the-patriots-lost/.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (2003). Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1387–1411.Google Scholar
Levant, E., Fein, O., and Giora, R. (2020). Default sarcastic interpretations of attenuated and intensified similes. Journal of Pragmatics, 166, 59–69.Google Scholar
Paolazzi, C. (2013). “Do you really think it?”: Testing hypotheses on default nonliteral interpretations. Unpublished ms., University of Trento.Google Scholar
Partington, A. (2011). Phrasal Irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1786–1800.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. and Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–392.Google Scholar
Raeber, T. (2016). Distinguishing rhetorical questions from ironical questions: A relevance-theoretic account. In Cruz, M. P., ed., Relevance Theory: Recent Developments, Current Challenges, and Future Directions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 173–190.Google Scholar
Rose, G. (2003). On the need to ask how, exactly, is geography ‘“visual”’? Antipode, 35(2), 212–221.Google Scholar
Stephens, G. J., Silbert, L. J., and Hasson, U. (2010). PNAS Early Edition, 1–6. www.pnas.org/content/107/32/14425.Google Scholar
Summerfield, K. A. (1998). A change in time. www.storysite.org/story/changeintime~02.html (retrieved on September 28, 2008).Google Scholar
Veale, T. (2013). Humorous similes. Humour, 26(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
Zuanazzi, A. (2013). Italian affirmative rhetorical questions generate ironic interpretations by default. Unpublished ms., University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.Google Scholar

References

Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–153.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 231–256.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J. and Keysar, B. (2005). Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Colston, Herbert L. and Katz., Albert N., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 21–43.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. and Jason, S. (2019). Toward a non-ideal philosophy of language. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 39(2), 501–545.Google Scholar
Bigi, S. (2016). Communicating (with) Care: A Linguistic Approach to the Study of Doctor–Patient Interactions. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Capone, A. (2020). Presuppositions as pragmemes: The case of exemplification acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 53–77.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Linguistic meaning communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language, 17(1–2), 127–148.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (2009). Context and common ground. In Mey Jacob, L., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 116–119.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., J, Levine, M., and Teasley, S. D., eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 127–149.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R., and Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(2), 245–258.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. and Katz, A. N. (eds.) (2005). Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009). Impoliteness: Using and Understanding the Language of Offence. ESRC project. Retrieved from www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2019). Challenges for knowledge representation: Emergence in linguistic expressions and Internet memes. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E., eds., Perspectives on the Construction of Meaning and Knowledge: The Linguistic, Pragmatic, Ontological and Computational Dimensions. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 22–54.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2020). On the interaction of core and emergent common ground in Internet memes. Internet Pragmatics, 3(2), 223–259.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Elsbach, K. D., Barr, P. S., and Hargadon, A. B. (2005). Identifying situated cognition in organizations. Organization Science, 16(4), 422–433.Google Scholar
Filani, Ibukun (2021). The stand-up comedian as an egocentric communicator. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., and Cannella, B. (2008). Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
García-Gómez, A. (2020). Intercultural and interpersonal communication failures: Analyzing hostile interactions among British and Spanish university students on WhatsApp. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 27–53.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. and Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting Figurative Meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gil, Jose Maria. (2019). A relational account of communication on the basis of slips of the tongue. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(2), 153–185.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Ch. and Duranti, A. (eds.) (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2003). A dynamic model of meaning. In Jordens, Peter, ed., Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Mey, J. (2008). Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, Vol. IV. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Situation-bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013). Why do we say what we say the way we say it? Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 71–83.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics–pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 489–517.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2020). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In Jackson, Jane, ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 138–155.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2021). Processing implicatures in English as a Lingua Franca communication. Lingua, 256, 103067.Google Scholar
Keysar, B. (2007). Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 71–84.Google Scholar
Keysar, B. and Henly, A. S. (2002). Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13(3), 207–212.Google Scholar
Khatib, M. and Shakouri, N. (2013). On situating the stance of socio-cognitive approach to language acquisition. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1590–1595.Google Scholar
La Mantia, F. (2018). “Where is meaning going?” Semantic potentials and enactive grammars. Acta Structuralica, 1, 89–113.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In Dedre, G. and Goldin-Meadow, S., eds., Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 25–46.Google Scholar
Liu, P. and You, X. (2019). Metapragmatic comments in web-based intercultural peer evaluation. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(1), 57–85.Google Scholar
Macagno, F. (2018). A dialectical approach to presuppositions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2), 291–313.Google Scholar
Macagno, F. and Capone, A. (2017). Presuppositions as cancellable Inferences. In Allan, K., Capone, A., and Kecskes, I., eds., Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Cham: Springer, pp. 45–68.Google Scholar
Macagno, F. and Bigi, S. (2017). Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148–168.Google Scholar
Martin de la Rosa, M. V. and Romero, E. D. (2019). A modality-based approach to the United Nations Security Council’s ambiguous positioning in the resolutions on the Syrian armed conflict. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(4), 363–389.Google Scholar
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Mildorf, J. (2013). Reading fictional dialogue: Reflections on a cognitive-pragmatic reception theory. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 24(2), 105–116.Google Scholar
Moss, M. (2013). Rhetoric and time: Cognition, culture and interaction. Doctoral thesis, Chase Western University, Cleveland, OH.Google Scholar
Nolan, Brian. (2017). Computing the meaning of the assertive speech act by a software agent. Journal of Computer-Assisted Linguistic Research, 1(1), 20–39.Google Scholar
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (1), 187–206.Google Scholar
Ortaçtepe, H. D. and Seçil, O. (2021). Common ground and positioning in teacher-student interactions: Second language socialization in EFL classrooms. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 53–82.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. and Maguire, L. (2011). Adaptive context: The fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 3(2), 228–241.Google Scholar
Rossi, M. G. (2016). Metaphors for patient education: A pragmatic-argumentative approach applying to the case of diabetes care. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 10(2), 34–48.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. London: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2018). Precis of how propaganda works. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96(2), 470–474.Google Scholar
Starbuck, W. H. and Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executive’s perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In Hambrick, D. C., ed., The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Managers. Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 35–65.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wayne, A. D. (2021). Cognitive propositions and semantic expressions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(3), 337–358.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. (2021). Language and dialogue in philosophy and science. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 533–561Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2004). Relevance and lexical pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 343–360.Google Scholar
Wojtaszek, A. (2016). Multimodel integration in the perception of press advertisements within the dynamic model of meaning. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 12(1), 77–101.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Theoretical Foundation
  • Edited by Istvan Kecskes, State University of New York, Albany
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
  • Online publication: 29 September 2022
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Theoretical Foundation
  • Edited by Istvan Kecskes, State University of New York, Albany
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
  • Online publication: 29 September 2022
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Theoretical Foundation
  • Edited by Istvan Kecskes, State University of New York, Albany
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
  • Online publication: 29 September 2022
Available formats
×