Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:22:12.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Mira Ariel
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Defining Pragmatics , pp. 293 - 322
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

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

Abbott, Barbara, 2000. Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Barbara, 2006. Where have some of the presuppositions gone? In Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–20.Google Scholar
Agha, Asif, 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith, 1997. On the syntax of obviation. Language 73: 705–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben and Goldberg, Adele E., 2008. The island status of clausal complements: evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 357–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Ducrot, Oswald, 1976. L'argumentation dans la langue. Langages 42: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Ducrot, Oswald, 1977. Deux mais en Français. Lingua 43: 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 1983. Linguistic marking of social prominence: the Hebrew mi she introducer. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 1985a. Givenness marking. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Ariel, Mira, 1985b. The discourse functions of Given information. Theoretical Linguistics 12: 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 1990. Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 1998a. Discourse markers and form–function correlations. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael, eds., Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 223–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 1998b. The linguistic status of the ‘here and now.’Cognitive Linguistics 9: 189–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 1999. Mapping so-called ‘pragmatic’ phenomena according to a ‘linguistic-extralinguistic’ distinction: the case of propositions marked ‘accessible.’ In Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., Newmeyer, Frederick J., Noonan, Michael and Wheatley, Kathleen M., eds., Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol. II: Case studies (Studies in Language Companion Series 41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–38.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 2001. Accessibility theory: an overview. In Sanders, Ted J. M., Schilperoord, Joost and Spooren, Wilbert, eds., Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29–87.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 2002a. The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 361–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 2002b. Privileged interactional interpretations. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1003–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 2004. Most. Language 80: 658–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 2006a. The making of a construction: from reflexive marking to lower transitivity. Unpublished ms., Tel Aviv University.
Ariel, Mira, 2006b. A ‘just that’ lexical meaning for most. In Heusinger, Klaus and Turner, Ken, eds., Where Semantics meets Pragmatics (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface). London: Elsevier, 49–91.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 2007. Relational and independent strategies in interpreting and conjunctions. Unpublished ms., Tel Aviv University.
Ariel, Mira, 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, forthcoming. On order, subordination and freedom. Leshonenu La-am: Special Issue in memory of Shaul Aloni (in Hebrew).
Arnold, Jennifer, Wasow, Thomas A., Losongco, Anthony and Ginstrom, Ryan, 2000. Heaviness versus newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76: 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, Jay David and Levinson, Stephen C., 1981. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Cole, Peter, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1–61.Google Scholar
Austin, John L., 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent, 1994a. Conversational implicature. Mind and Language 9: 124–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent, 1994b. Semantic slack: what is said and more. In Tsohatzidis, Savas L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, 267–291.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent, 1999a. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent, 1999b. The semantics–pragmatics distinction: what it is and why it matters. In Turner, Ken, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 65–84.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent, 2002. Semantic, pragmatic. In Campbell, Joseph Keim, O'Rourke, Michael and Shier, David, eds., Meaning and Truth. New York: Seven Bridges Press, 284–292.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent, 2004a. Minding the gap. In Bianchi, Claudia, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI, 27–43.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent, 2004b. Pragmatics and the philosophy of language. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 463–487.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent and Harnish, Robert M., 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bakht-Rofheart, Maryam, 2004. Not so elite anymore: shifting ideologies and language choice in a Long Island friendship cohort. Paper presented at Third international gender and language association conference, Cornell University, New York.
Balaban, Noga, in progress. Linguistic implications of acquired damage to ‘Theory of Mind’ (in Hebrew). Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Ball, Catherine N. and Ariel, Mira, 1978. Or something, etc. Penn Review of Linguistics 3: 35–45.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, 1970. Aspects of Language: Essays and Lectures on Philosophy of Language, Linguistic Philosophy and Methodology of Linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, 1971. Out of the pragmatic wastebasket. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 401–407.Google Scholar
Bard, Ellen Gurman, 1993. Restrictions on modularity: does ‘would’ prime ‘timber’? Talk given at The Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, 3.5.1993.
Bard, Ellen Gurman, Robertson, Dan and Sorace, Antonella, 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72: 32–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, Ellen Gurman, Anderson, Anne H., Sotillo, Catherine, Aylett, Mattew, Doherty-Sneddon, Gwyneth and Newlands, Alison, 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Stephen, 2003. Truth and conventional implicature. Mind 112: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael, 1992. A Situated Theory of Agreement (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate, 1979. Semantical and pragmatical correctness as basic notions of the theory of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth, Thal, Donna, Finlay, Barbara and Clancy, Barbara, 2003. Early language development and its neural correlates. In Rapin, I. and Segalowitz, S., eds., Handbook of Neuropsychology, vol. VIII: Child neurology (2nd edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 109–176.Google Scholar
Beeman, Mark, Friedman, Rhonda B., Grafman, Jordan, Perez, Enrique, Diamond, Sherri and Lindsay, Miriam Beadle, 1994. Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 6: 26–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bencini, Giulia M. L. and Goldberg, Adele E., 2000. The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43: 640–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, Tom G., 1970. The influence of speech performance on linguistic structure. In Willem, J.Levelt, M. and Flores d'Arcais, Giovanni B., eds., Advances in Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 21–50.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne, 2004. Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In Claudia Bianchi, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI, 101–131.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J., 1994. Information status and word order: an analysis of English inversion. Language 70: 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory L., 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane, 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane, 1992. Understanding Utterances (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 6). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane, 1995. Relevance theory. In Verschueren, Jef, Östman, Jan-Ola, Blommaert, Jan and Bulcaen, Chris, eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 443–452.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane, 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane and Carston, Robyn, 2005. The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua 115: 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard, 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele eds., 1989. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blumstein, Sheila E., 1988. Neurolinguistics: an overview of language-brain relations in aphasia. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. III: Language: Psychological and biological aspects. Cambridge University Press, 210–236.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn J., 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18: 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens, 1998. Beyond Grammar: An Experience-Based Theory of Language (CSLI Lecture Notes 88). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens, 2005. Exemplar-based syntax. Paper presented at the 2005 LSA meeting, Oakland, USA.
Bolinger, Dwight L., 1986. Intonation and its Parts: Melody in Spoken English. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L., 1989. Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Borg, Emma, 2004. Minimal Semantics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borochovsky Bar-Aba, Esther, 2003. Punctuation marks: procedural and conceptual uses. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1031–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowe, Heather J., 1990. Categories, Constituents, and Constituent Order in Pitjantjatjara: An Aboriginal Language of Australia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, 2006. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. Paper presented at International Conference on Linguistic Evidence, Tuebingen.
Bresnan, Joan and Hay, Jennifer, 2008. Gradient grammar: an effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118: 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana and Baayen, R. Harald, 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene and Zwarts, Joost, eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69–94.Google Scholar
Brockway, Diane, 1981. Semantic constraints on relevance. In Parret, Herman, Sbisà, Marina and Verschueren, Jef, eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (Studies in Language Companion Series 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 57–78.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian and Yule, George, 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, 1995. Politeness strategies and the attribution of intentions: the case of Tzeltal irony. In Goody, Esther N., ed., Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press, 153–174.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C., 1978. Universals of language usage: politeness phenomena. In Goody, Esther N., ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press, 56–311.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownell, Hiram H., Carroll, John J., Rehak, Alexandra and Wingfield, Arthur, 1992. The use of pronoun anaphora and speaker mood in the interpretation of conversational utterances by right hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language 43: 121–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bucholtz, Mary and Hall, Kira, 2005. Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7: 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel, 1987. Pragmatics and Wittgenstein: ostensive and non-descriptive definition. In Verschueren, Jef and Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella, eds., The Pragmatic Perspective (Pragmatics and Beyond Companion Series 5). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 733–753.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel, 1999. Presupposition-cancellation and metalinguistic negation: a reply to Carston. Journal of Linguistics 35: 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., 2001. Phonology and Language Use (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of repetition. In Janda, Richard D. and Joseph, Brian D., eds., Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 602–623.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J., eds., 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (Typological Studies in Language 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. and Pagliuca, William, 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah, 1985. Feminism and Linguistic Theory. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah, McAlinden, Fiona and Kathy, O' Leary, , 1989. Lakoff in context: the social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In Coates, Jennifer and Cameron, Deborah, eds., Women in their Speech Communities. London: Longman, 74–93.Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman and Lepore, Ernest, 2005. Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf, 1938. Foundations of logic and mathematics. In Neurath, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf and Morris, Charles W., eds., International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. University of Chicago Press, 139–214.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn, 1988. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Ruth M. Kempson, ed., Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge University Press, 155–181. (Reprinted in Kasher, 1998b, vol. IV, 436–464).Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn, 1990. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 1–31. (Reprinted in Lingua 96: 213–244).Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn, 1999a. The semantics/pragmatics distinction: a view from relevance theory. In Ken Turner, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 85–125.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn, 1999b. Negation, ‘presupposition’ and metarepresentation: a response to Noel Burton-Roberts. Journal of Linguistics 35: 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn, 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn, 2008. Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese 165: 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L., 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 25–55.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L., 1979. The flow of thought and the flow of language. In Talmy Givón, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XII: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, 159–181.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L., 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell S. Tomlin, ed., Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (Typological Studies in Language 11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–51.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L., 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Consciousness Experience in Speaking and Writing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chiarello, Christine, ed., 1988. RightHemisphere Contributions to Lexical Semantics. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRef
Chierchia, Gennaro, 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Adriana Belletti, ed., Structures and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press, 39–103.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro and McConnell-Ginet, Sally, 1990. Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, 1979. Language and Responsibility. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, 1980. Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, Elaine W., 2001. The construction of white, black and Korean American identities through African American Vernacular English. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11: 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M. and Downing, Pamela A., 1987. The use of wa as a cohesion marker in Japanese oral narratives. In Hinds, John, Iwasaki, Shoichi and Maynard, Senko K., eds., Perspectives on Topicalization: The Case of Japanese wa (Typological Studies in Language 14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–56.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., 1996. Using Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan L., 1971. Some remarks on Grice's view about the logical particles of natural language. In Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, ed., Pragmatics of Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, 50–68.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan L., 1974. Speech acts. In Thomas A. Sebeok, ed., Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. XII: Linguistics and Adjacent Arts and Sciences. The Hague: Mouton, 173–210.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, 1975. The synchronic and diachronic status of the conversational implicature. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 257–288.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter ed., 1978. Syntax and Semantics, vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter ed., 1981. Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. eds., 1975. Syntax and Semantics, vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Cole, Peter, Harbert, Wayne, Hermon, Gabriella and Sridhar, S. N., 1980. The acquisition of subjecthood. Language 56: 719–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter C., 1994. Cleft and Pseudocleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, 1994. Coreference: between grammar and discourse. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Kansai Linguistic Society (1993), 1–10.
Cooper, William E. and Ross, John Robert, 1975. World order. In Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James and Vance, Timothy J., eds., Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Chicago Linguistic Society, 63–111.Google Scholar
Cooreman, Ann, 1992. The pragmatics of word order variation in Chamorro narrative text. In Doris L. Payne, ed., Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 243–264.Google Scholar
Corum, Claudia, 1975. Basques, particles and baby talk: a case for pragmatics. Paper presented at Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Coulson, Seana and Federmeier, Kara D., 2003. Words in context: ERPs and the lexical/postlexical distinction. Unpublished ms., UC San Diego.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, 2009. A sequential approach to affect: the case of ‘disappointment.’ In Haakana, Markku, Laakso, Minna and Lindström, Jan, eds., Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society (SKS), 94–123.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, 1996. Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and prosodic perspective on interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge University Press, 11–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Thompson, Sandra A., 2005. A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: concessive repair. In Hakulinen, Auli and Selting, Margret, eds., Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-In-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 257–288.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nicholas, 1984. Accommodation at work: some phonological data and their implications. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46: 49–70.Google Scholar
Cowles, H. Wind, Polinsky, Maria, Kutas, Marta and Kluender, Robert, 2005. On the nature of information structure violations: an ERP investigation. Paper delivered at the 2005 LSA Meeting, Oakland, USA.
Cruse, Alan, 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan, 2004. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics (2nd edition). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan, 1997. Intonation (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtiss, Susan, 1988. Abnormal language acquisition and the modularity of language. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. II: Linguistic theory: Extensions and implications. Cambridge University Press, 96–116.Google Scholar
Cutica, Ilaria, Bucciarelli, Monica and Bara, Bruno G., 2006. Neuropragmatics: extralinguistic ability is better preserved in left-hemisphere-damaged patients than in right-hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain and Language 98: 12–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dąbrowska, Ewa, 2008. Questions with long-distance dependencies: a usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo and Katriel, Tamar, 1977. Between semantics and pragmatics: the two types of ‘but’ – Hebrew ‘aval’ and ‘ela.’Theoretical Linguistics 4: 143–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald, 1967. Truth and meaning. Synthese 17: 304–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald, 1971. Truth and meaning. In Rosenberg, J. F. and Travis, Charles, eds., Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 450–465. (Reprinted from Synthese XVII: 3: 304–323).Google Scholar
Davis, Steven, 1987. The distinction between pragmatics and semantics. In Verschueren, Jef and Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella, eds., The Pragmatic Perspective (Pragmatics and Beyond Companion Series 5). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 685–693.Google Scholar
Davis, Steven ed., 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Wayne A., 1998. Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Guy, 2005. The Unfolding of Language. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger, 2008. Iconicity of sequence: a corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 465–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele, 2008. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Paper presented at 4th International Conference “New Reflections on Grammaticalization,” Leuven, Belgium, July 17, 2008.
Dijk, Teun A., 1972. Some Aspects of Text Grammars (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 63). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, George L., Coleman, Linda, Fahnestock, Jeanne and Agar, Michael, 1985. Review article of Brown and Yule 1983, Leech 1983 and Levinson 1983. Language 61: 446–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dor, Daniel, 1995. Representations, attitudes and factivity evaluations: an epistemically-based analysis of lexical selection. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
Dostie, Gaétane, 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqeurs discursifs. Analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck, Ducolot.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. In Drew, Paul and Heritage, John, eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge University Press, 470–520.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., 2005. Definite articles. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard, eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford University Press, 154–157.Google Scholar
Bois, Du, John, W., 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bois, Du, John, W., 2001. Stance: intersubjectivity and the pragmatic differential in dialogic interaction. Talk given at the Hebrew department colloquium, December 30 2001.
Bois, Du, John, W., 2003. Discourse and grammar. In Michael Tomasello, ed., The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 47–87.Google Scholar
Bois, Du, John, W., 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson, ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 139–182.Google Scholar
Bois, Du, John, W. in progress. The engaged stance: structure for social action. UC Santa Barbara.
Du Bois, John W., Cumming, Susanna, Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan and Paolino, Danae, 1992. Discourse transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, vol. IV.
Du Bois, John W., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Paolino, Danae and Cumming, Susanna, 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Edwards, Jane A. and Lampert, Martin D., eds., Talking Data: Transcription and Coding Methods for Language Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 45–89.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald, Bourcier, Danièle, Bruxelles, Sylvie and Diller, Anne-Marie, 1980. Les mots du discours. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro, 1992. Language in context and language as context: the Samoan respect vocabulary. In Duranti, Alessandro and Goodwin, Charles, eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 11). Cambridge University Press, 77–99.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro and Goodwin, Charles, eds., 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 11). Cambridge University Press.
Eagleton, Terry, 1982. The Rape of Clarissa. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen D. and Fromkin, Victoria A., 1988. The mental lexicon. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. III: Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects. Cambridge University Press, 124–149.Google Scholar
England, Nora C., 2007. Marking aspect and mood and inferring time in Mam (Mayan). Paper presented at BLS, Berkeley.
Erman, Britt and Kostinas, Ulla-Britt, 1993. Pragmaticalization: the case of ba and you know. Studier i modern sprakvetenskap 10: 76–93.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi, 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi and Lappin, Shalom, 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6: 41–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faust, Miriam and Mashal, Nira, 2007. The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions taken from poetry: a divided visual field study. Neuropsychologia 45: 860–879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, Charles A. and Barlow, Michael, 1988. Introduction. In Barlow, Michael and Ferguson, Charles A., eds., Agreement in Natural Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1–22.Google Scholar
Fillenbaum, Samuel, 1986. The use of conditionals in inducements and deterrents. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, Meulen, Alice, Reilly, Judy Snitzer and Ferguson, Charles A., eds., On Conditionals. Cambridge University Press, 179–195.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., 1981. Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In Cole, Peter, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 143–166.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., 1996. The pragmatics of constructions. In Dan I. Slobin, ed., Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 53–69.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul and O'Connor, Mary Catherine, 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64: 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan, 1964. On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1: 267–280.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan, 1971. On the concept of communicative dynamism in the theory of functional sentence perspective. In Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brnĕnské univerzity A 19, 135–144.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean, 1984. Constraints on gaps: is the parser a significant influence? In Butterworth, Brian, Comrie, Bernard and Dahl, Östen, eds., Explanations for Language Universals. Berlin: Mouton, 9–34.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A., 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin, Jr., 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin, Jr., 1985. Information packaging in the clause. In Timothy Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I: Clause structure. Cambridge University Press, 282–364.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., 1993. Grammar in Interaction. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1986. Conditionals in discourse: a text-based study from English. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, Ferguson, Charles A., Reilly, J. Snitzer and Meulen, A., eds., On Conditionals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1996. Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, 134–184.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A., 2001. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. and Jasperson, Robert, 1995. A syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation. In Davis, Philip W., ed., Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 77–134.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Hayashi, Makato and Jasperson, Robert, 1996. Resources and repair: a cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, 185–237.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E. and Clark, Herbert H., 1997. Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking. Cognition 62: 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frescura, Marina, 2006. Reacting to a context-specific reprimand: a study of an Italian speech community. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 2144–2157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein, 2001. In defense of monosemy. In Enikö, Németh T. and Bibok, Károly, eds., Pragmatics and the Flexibility of Word Meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 79–115.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner, 2004. A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte 198: 153–190.Google Scholar
Friedmann, Naama, 2001. Verb movement in agrammatic comprehension and production. Linguistics Department Colloquium, November 1, 2001.
Fromkin, Victoria A., 1991. Language and brain: redefining the goals and methodology of linguistics. In Kasher, Asa, ed., The Chomskyan Turn. Oxford: Blackwell, 78–103.Google Scholar
Fuerst, Yael, 2004. When information is redundant-redundant: redundancy and cognitive status. Seminar paper, Tel Aviv University.
Gafter, Roey, 2008. Where they linger on: motivating the current distribution of plural feminine pronouns in Hebrew. Dept of Linguistics, Tel Aviv University.
Gamut, L. T. F., 1991. Logic, Language, and Meaning, vol. I: Introduction to Logic. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, Howard, Brownell, Hiram H., Wapner, Wendy and Michelow, Diane, 1983. Missing the point: the role of the right hemisphere in the processing of complex linguistic materials. In Perecman, Ellen, ed., Cognitive Processes in the Right Hemisphere. New York: Academic Press, 169–191.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geis, Michael L, 1984. On semantic and pragmatic competence. In Deborah Schiffrin, ed., Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 71–84.Google Scholar
Geis, Michael L. and Zwicky, Arnold M., 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 561–566.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, 1991. Comprehending conceptual anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 6: 81–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., 1994. The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, 1973. Accent mobility: a model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15: 87–105.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine and Coupland, Nicholas, 1991a. Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Howard, Coupland, Nicholas and Coupland, Justine, 1991b. Accommodation theory: communication, context, and consequence. In Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine and Coupland, Nicholas, eds., Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction). Cambridge University Press, 1–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, 1985a. A text-based analysis of non-narrative texts. Theoretical Linguistics 12: 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, 1985b. Notes towards a theory of text coherence. Poetics Today 6: 699–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, 1997a. Discourse coherence and theory of relevance: stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, 1997b. Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8: 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, 1998. Discourse coherence is an independent notion: a reply to Deirdre Wilson. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, 1999. On the priority of salient meanings: studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 919–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, 2003. On our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, 2006. Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 981–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy, 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 149–188.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy, 1979a. On Understanding Grammar (Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy, 1979b. Preface. In Talmy Givón, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XII: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, xiii–xx.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy ed., 1979c. Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy, 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy, 1989. Mind, Code and Context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy, 1991. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15: 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam and Keysar, Boaz, 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., 1997. The relationship between verbs and constructions. In Verspoor, Marjolijn, Lee, Kee Dong and Sweetser, Eve, eds., Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning: Proceedings of the Bi-Annual ICLA Meeting in Albuquerque, July 1995. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 383–398.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., 2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 427–441.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. and Ackerman, Farrell, 2001. The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language 77: 798–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas, ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, 97–121.Google Scholar
Gordon, David and Lakoff, George, 1971. Conversational postulates. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 63–84. (Reprinted in Cole and Morgan, eds., 1975, 83–106).Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M., 1981. Pragmatics and syntactic description. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11: 27–38.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M., 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M., 2004. Some interactions of pragmatics and grammar. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, 407–426.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. and Morgan, Jerry L., 1981. Pragmatics, grammar and discourse. In Morgan, Jerry L. and Cole, Peter, eds., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 167–181.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul, 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul, 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., 2003. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen A. G. and Stokhof, Martin J. B., 1978. Semantics, pragmatics and the theory of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 2: 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen A. G. and Stokhof, Martin J. B., 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ms. Amsterdam University.
Grundy, Peter, 1995. Doing Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J., 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. and Fretheim, Thorstein, 2004. Topic and focus. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 175–196.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharski, Ron, 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Mutz, Karin, 2004. Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Wiemer, Björn, eds., What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 77–107.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos, 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut and Mey, Jacob L., 1977. Editorial: Linguistics and pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 1: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John, 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54: 564–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John, 1998. Talk is Cheap. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A., 1984. “Subordination” in universal grammar. In Brugman, Claudia and Macaulay, Monica, eds., Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 510–523.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya, 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge and Sag, Ivan A., 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–428.Google Scholar
Harder, Peter, 1996. Functional Semantics: A Theory of Meaning, Structure, and Tense in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnish, Robert M., 1976. Logical form and implicature. In Bever, Tom G., Katz, Jerrold J. and Langendoen, D. Terence, eds., An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability. New York: Crowell, 313–391.Google Scholar
Harnish, Robert M. and Farmer, Ann K., 1984. Pragmatics and the modularity of the linguistic system. Lingua 63: 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael, 2007. The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 84–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A., 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 73). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy and Fadden, Lorna, 2007. The information structure of it-clefts, wh-clefts and reverse wh-clefts in English. In Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharski, Ron, eds., The Grammar-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, 1994. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In William Pagliuca, ed., Perspectives on Grammaticalization (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 255–287.Google Scholar
Heisterkamp, Brian L., 2006. Conversational displays of mediator neutrality in court-based program. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 2051–2064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Theo, 1983. Speech and Situation: A Psychological Conception of Situated Speaking. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, John, 1979. Organizational patterns in discourse. In Givón, Talmy, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XII: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, 135–157.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–497.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., 2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: prototype or family resemblance? In Pütz, Martin, Niemeier, Suzanne and Dirven, Réne, eds., Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition. Berlin: Mouton, 109–129.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A., 2001. Grammatical fragments and social action in conversation. Paper delivered at the 7th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. UC Santa Barbara, July 22–27, 2001.
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 1993/2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Mimeo, Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Horn, Laurence R., 1978. Remarks on neg-raising. In Peter Cole, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 129–220.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 1984. A new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicatures. In Deborah Schiffrin, ed., Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 1988. Pragmatic theory. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. I: Linguistic theory: Foundations. Cambridge University Press, 113–145.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 1989. A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 1991. Given as new: when redundant information isn't. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 2000a. Pick a theory (not just any theory): indiscriminative and free-choice indefinite. In Horn, Laurence R. and Kato, Yasuhiko, eds., Negation and Polarity: Syntactic and Semantic Perspectives. Oxford University Press, 147–192.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 2000b. From if to iff: conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 289–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 2002. Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: The panels, 55–82.
Horn, Laurence R., 2004. Implicature. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–28.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 2006a. The Border Wars: a neo-Gricean perspective. In Turner, Ken and Heusinger, Klaus, eds., Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics. London: Elsevier, 21–48.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 2006b. More issues in neo- and post-Gricean pragmatics: a response to Robyn Carston's response. Intercultural Pragmatics 3: 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 2007. Toward a Fregean pragmatics: Voraussetzung, Nebengedanke, Andeutung. In Kecskes, Istvan and Horn, Laurence R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 39–69.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 2008. On F-implicature: myth-analysis and rehabilitation. Paper presented at Linguistics and Philosophy Workshop, Ann Arbor, available at www.eecs.umich.edu/~rthomaso/lpw08/abstracts.html.
Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., 2004. Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hornstein, Norbert, 1986. Pragmatics and grammatical theory. In Farley, Anne M., Farley, Peter T. and McCullough, Karl-Erik, eds., Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory. Chicago Linguistic Society, 234–247.Google Scholar
House, Jill, 2006. Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1542–1558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan, 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan and Sinclair, John M., 2000. A local grammar of evaluation. In Hunston, Susan and Sinclair, John M., eds., Evaluation in Text. Oxford University Press, 74–101.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. and Comrie, Bernard, 1981. Logophoric reference in Gokana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 3: 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael, 2000. Some and the pragmatics of indefinite construal. In Chang, Steve S., Liaw, Lily and Ruppenhofer, Josef, eds., Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 169–182.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael, 2002. Literally speaking. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi and Tao, Hongyin, 1993. A comparative study of the structure of the intonation unit in English, Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at The 67th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles, CA.
Izre'el, Shlomo, 2002. A corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (CoSIH): text examples. Leshonenu 64: 289–314 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84: 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Jeri J., Lockwood, Alan H., Kemmerer, David L., Valin, Robert D., Jr., Murphy, Brian W. and Khalak, Hanif G., 1996. A positron emission tomographic study of regular and irregular verb morphology in English. Language 72: 451–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, 1983. “Conjunctionals” as overlap vulnerable. Two explorations of the organization of overlapping talk in conversation. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28: 1–33.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael, eds., 1998. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Jung-Beeman, Mark, Bowden, Edward M. and Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, 2000. Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain and Language 71: 310–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit, 2001. Formal Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit, 2009. Some theories of the interpretation of accent placement. Unpublished ms., Tel Aviv University.
Kamp, Hans, 1979. Semantics versus pragmatics. In Guenthner, Franz and Schmidt, S. J., eds., Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages (Synthese Language Library 4). Dordrecht: Reidel, 255–287.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, 2001. Presupposition computation and presupposition justification: one aspect of the interpretation of multi-sentence discourse. In Bras, Myriam and Vieu, Laure, eds., Semantics and Pragmatic Issues in Discourse and Dialogue: Experimenting with Current Dynamic Theories. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 57–84.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe, 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David, 1977/1989. Demonstratives. In Almog, Joseph, Wettstein, Howard K. and Perry, John, eds., Themes from Kaplan. New York: Oxford University Press, 481–563.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, 1991. Beyond modularity: innate constraints and developmental change. In Carey, Susan and Gelman, Rochel, eds., The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 171–197.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri, 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 169–193.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri, 1974. On the pragmatic and semantic aspects of meaning. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Philosophy Colloquium.
Karttunen, Lauri and Peters, Stanley, 1979. Conventional implicature. In Oh, Choon-Kyu and Dinneen, David A., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XI: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, 1–56.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa, 1974. Mood imp's: a logical way of doing generative pragmatics. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 6–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasher, Asa, 1977. What is a theory of use?Journal of Pragmatics 1: 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasher, Asa, 1979. Logical rationalism and formal semantics of natural languages: On conditions of adequacy. In Heny, Frank and Schnelle, Helmut, eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. X: Selections from the third Groningen round table. New York: Academic Press, 257–273.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa, 1982. Gricean inference revisited. Philosophica 29: 25–44.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa, 1991a. Pragmatics and the modularity of mind. In Steven Davis, ed., Pragmatics: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 567–582.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa, 1991b. Pragmatics and Chomsky's research program. In Asa Kasher, ed., The Chomskyan Turn. Cambridge: Blackwell, 122–149.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa, 1994. Rationality and pragmatics. In Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y., eds., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. VI. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 3280–3282.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa, 1998a. Pragmatics, modular. In Jacob L. Mey, ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 738–739.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa ed., 1998b. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts (6 volumes). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa, Batori, Gila, Soroker, Nachum, Graves, David and Zaidel, Eran, 1999. Effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding conversational implicatures. Brain and Language 68: 566–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katriel, Tamar, 2004. Dialogic Moments. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., 1977. Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force: A Study of the Contribution of Sentence Meaning to Speech Acts. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, 1983. Linguistic competence and folk theories of language: two English hedges. In Dahlstrom, Amy, Brugman, Claudia, Macaulay, Monica, Civkulis, Inese, Emanatian, Michele, Sakima, Donna and Teixeira, Raquel, eds., Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 128–137.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, 2004. Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, 675–700.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., 1996. Creating anaphors: an historical study of the English reflexive pronouns. Unpublished ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi, 1995. The epistemic weil. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan, eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, 16–30.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne and Shyldkrot, Hava Bat-Zeev, 1995. The semantics of “empty prepositions” in French. In Eugene H. Cassad, ed., Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 347–388.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M., 1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 15). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M., 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M., 1984. Weak crossover, logical form and pragmatics. Paper presented at GLOW, April 1984.
Kempson, Ruth M., 1986. Ambiguity and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. In Charles Travis, ed., Meaning and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell, 77–103.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M., 1988. Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. II: Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications. Cambridge University Press, 139–163.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M., 2000. Pragmatics: language and communication. In Aronoff, Mark and Rees-Miller, Janie, eds., The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 394–427.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M., Cann, Ronnie and Purver, Matthew, to appear. Talking and listening: dialogue and the grammar–pragmatics interface. In Hackl, Martin and Thornton, Robert, eds., Asserting, Meaning and Implying. Oxford University Press.
Kiefer, Ferenc, 1978. Review of Jens Allwood's Linguistic Communication as Action and Cooperation: A Study in Pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 2: 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Heesoo, 2008. The semantic and pragmatic analysis of South Korean and Australian English apologetic speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein-Andreu, Flora, 1983. Preface. In Flora Klein-Andreu, ed., Discourse Perspectives on Syntax. New York: Academic Press, xv–xvii.Google Scholar
Kopytko, Roman, 2001. From Cartesian towards non-Cartesian pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 783–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koriat, Asher and Greenberg, Seth N., 1996. The enhancement effect in letter detection: further evidence for the structural model of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology 22: 1184–1195.Google Scholar
Kotek, Hadas, 2009. Taking Hebrew into account. Ms., Tel Aviv University.
Krámský, Jirí, 1972. The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 125). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kügler, Frank, Skopeteas, Stavros and Verhoeven, Elisabeth, 2007. Encoding information structure in Yucatec Maya: on the interplay of prosody and syntax. Working Papers of the Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS)SFB 632 8: 187–208.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, 1971. The position of locatives in existential sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 333–378.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, 1972. Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, 1975. Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. In Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James and Vance, Timothy J., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism (1st edition). Chicago Linguistic Society, 276–336.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, 1976. Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy: a reexamination of relativization phenomena. In Charles N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 417–444.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kutas, Marta and Hillyard, S. A., 1980. Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology 11: 99–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuzar, Ron, 2006. Prototype-based semantics of existential constructions. Ms., Haifa University.
Kuzar, Ron, 2009. Sentence patterns in English and Hebrew. Unpublished ms., Haifa University.
Labov, William, 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (Conduct and Communication 3). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William, 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Bailey, Charles-James N. and Shuy, Roger W., eds., New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 340–373.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert, 1990. Intonation: emotion vs. grammar. Language 66: 806–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, William A., 1988. Semantic theory. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. I: Linguistic theory: Foundations. Cambridge University Press, 89–112.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, 1973a. Fuzzy grammar and the performance/competence terminology game. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 9, 271–291.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark, 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin, 1973b. The logic of politeness; or, minding your P's and Q's. In Claudia Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark and Ann Weiser, eds., Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305.
Lambrecht, Knud, 1980. Topic, French style. Remarks about a basic sentence type of modern non-standard French. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 337–360.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud, 1986. Pragmatically motivated syntax: presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. In Proceedings of the Twenty-second Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory. Chicago Linguistic Society, 115–126.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud, 1990. “What, me worry” – Mad magazine sentences revisited. In Hall, Kira, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Meacham, Michael, Reinman, Sondra and Sutton, Laurel A., eds., Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 215–228.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud, 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Barbara and Gleitman, Lila R., 1985. Language and Experience: Evidence from the Blind Child. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred, 2000. Events and Plurality. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W., 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W., 1988. A usage-based model. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, ed., Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 127–161.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W., 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W., 1997. The contextual basis of cognitive semantics. In Nuyts, Jan and Pederson, Eric, eds., Language and Conceptualization (Language, Culture and Cognition 1). Cambridge University Press, 229–252.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, 1989. Essays on Anaphora (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latraverse, François and Leblanc, Suzanne, 1980. On the delimitation of semantics and the characterization of meaning: some remarks. In Parret, Herman, Sbisa, Marina and Verschueren, Jef, eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 399–411.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N., 1980. Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics (Pragmatics and Beyond 5). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leonard, Carol L., Waters, Gloria S. and Caplan, David, 1997. The use of contextual information related to general world knowledge by right brain-damaged individuals in pronoun resolution. Brain and Language 57: 343–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, Willem J. M., 1993. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth and Rapoport, Tova R., 1988. Lexical subordination. In MacLeod, Lynne, Larson, Gary and Brentari, Diane, eds., Papers from the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 275–289.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., 1979. Pragmatics and social deixis: reclaiming the notion of conventional implicature. Paper presented at Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Levinson, Stephen C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, Jef and Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella, eds., The Pragmatic Perspective (Pragmatics and Beyond Companion Series 5). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61–129.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27: 107–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Frank R. Palmer, ed., Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge University Press, 90–115.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K., 1972. General semantics. In Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert, eds., Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 169–218.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N., 1976. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Charles N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 457–489.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson, 1981/1989. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark, 1973. Alternatives. In Chicago Linguistic Society 9. Chicago Linguistic Society, 346–355.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark and Sag, Ivan, 1974. Prosodic form and discourse function. In Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 416–427.
Linzen, Tal, 2009. Hebrew possessive datives: corpus evidence for the role of affectedness. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University.
Local, John and Kelly, John, 1986. Projection and ‘silences’: notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 9: 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, Robert E., 1976. ‘Mystery’ particles and affixes. In Mufwene, Salikoko S., Walker, Carol A. and Steever, Sanford B., eds., Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 468–477.Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert E., 1979. The paragraph as a grammatical unit. In Talmy Givón, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XII: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 115–134.Google Scholar
Lycan, William G., 1991. Even and even if. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 115–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John, 1977. Semantics (2 volumes). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John, 1995. Grammar and meaning. In Frank R. Palmer, ed., Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge University Press, 221–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macmillan, , 2002. Macmillan's English Dictionary for Advanced Learners 2002. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1986. Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes 9: 57–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8: 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Larry W., Bradac, James J. and Elliott, Norman D., 1977. On the empirical basis of linguistics: a multivariate analysis of sentence judgments. In Beach, Woodford A., Fox, Samuel E. and Philosoph, Shulamith, eds., Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 357–371.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael, 2001. Veke'ilu haragláyim sh'xa nitkao'ot bifnim kaze (‘and like your feet get stuck inside like’): Hebrew kaze (‘like’), ke'ilu (‘like’), and the decline of Israeli dugri (‘direct’) speech. Discourse Studies 3: 295–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashal, Nira and Faust, Miriam, 2008. Conventionalization of novel metaphors: a shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Ms., Bar-Ilan University.
Mashal, Nira, Faust, Miriam, Hendler, Talma and Jung-Beeman, Mark, 2008. Hemispheric differences in processing the literal interpretation of idioms: converging evidence from behavioral and fMRI studies. Cortex 44: 848–860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, Peter, 1995. Syntax, semantics, pragmatics. In Frank R. Palmer, ed., Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge University Press, 48–60.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian and Thompson, Sandra A., 1988. The structure of discourse and subordination. In Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 275–329.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D., 1998. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D., 1999. Why surface syntactic structure reflects logical structure as much as it does, but only that much. Language 75: 34–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally, 1998. Why do middles need modifiers? Adverbials reconsidered. Lecture given at Bar Ilan University, Israel, June 1998.
McCrone, John, 1999. States of mind. New Scientist 2178 (20 March): 30–33.Google Scholar
Merkl, Peter H., 2001. A Coup Attempt in Washington?New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L., 1979. Preface. In Jacob L. Mey, ed., Pragmalinguistics: Theory and Practice. The Hague: Mouton, 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L., 1993. Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L., 1998a. Pragmatics. In Jacob L. Mey, ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 716–737.Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. ed., 1998b. Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. and Lambrecht, Knud, 1994. On nominal extraposition: a constructional analysis. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 362–373.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne, 1987. Is basic word order universal? In Russell S. Tomlin, ed., Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 281–328.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne, 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84: 69–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Michael, 1989. Choosing between that and it. In Fasold, Ralph W. and Schiffrin, Deborah, eds., Language Change and Variation (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 241–254.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Julius M., 1990. Thought and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L., 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 261–280.Google Scholar
Morris, Charles W., 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. In Neurath, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf and Morris, Charles W., eds., International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. University of Chicago Press, 77–138.Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean and Thompson, Sandra A., 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Ritva Laury, ed., Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–204.Google Scholar
Naden, Anthony, 1986. Social context and Mampruli greetings. In Huttar, George and Gregerson, Kenneth, eds., Pragmatics in non-Western Perspective (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 73). Arlington, Tex.: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 161–199.Google Scholar
Nemo, François, 1999. The pragmatics of signs, the semantics of relevance, and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In Ken Turner, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 343–417.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J., 1983. Grammatical Theory. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J., 1991. Iconicity and generative grammar. Language 68: 756–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J., 2000. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Noordman, Leo G. M. and Blijzer, Femke, 2000. On the processing of causal relations. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Kortmann, Bernd, eds., Cause-Condition-Concession-Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 35–56.Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R., 1987. Functions of repetitions in conversation. Text 7: 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, Ira A., 2001. When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78: 165–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunberg, Geoffrey D., 1981. Validating pragmatic explanations. In Peter Cole, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 199–222.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey D., 1993. Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nureddeen, Abdurahman Fatima, 2008. Cross cultural pragmatics: apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 279–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan, 1992. Aspects of a Cognitive-pragmatic Theory of Language: On Cognition, Functionalism, and Grammar (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, 1992. Indexing gender. In Duranti, Alessandro and Goodwin, Charles, eds., Rethinking Context. Cambridge University Press, 336–358.Google Scholar
Ochs Keenan, Elinor and Schieffelin, Bambi B., 1976. Topic as a discourse notion: a study of topic in the conversations of children and adults. In Charles N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 335–384.Google Scholar
Õim, Haldur, 1977. Towards a theory of linguistic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 1: 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olshtain, Elite, 1989. Apologies cross languages. In Blumstein, Sheila E., House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele, eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 155–173.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi and Thompson, Sandra A., 1996. Interaction and syntax in the structure of conversational discourse: collaboration, overlap, and syntactic dissociation. In Hovy, Edward H. and Scott, Donia R., eds., Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues – An Interdisciplinary Account (NATO ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences 151). Berlin: Springer, 67–96.Google Scholar
Osterhout, Lee and Holcomb, Phillip J., 1992. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 31: 785–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, Lee, Bersick, Michael and McLaughlin, Judith, 1997. Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory and Cognition 25: 273–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oswalt, Robert L., 1983. Interclausal reference in Kashaya. In Haiman, John and Munro, Pamela, eds., Switch-reference and Universal Grammar (Typological Studies in Language 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 267–290.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda L., 2009. From syntactic coordination to conceptual modification: the case of nice and Adj construction. Constructions and Frames 1: 56–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parret, Herman, Sbisà, Marina and Verschueren, Jef, eds., 1981. Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (Studies in Language Companion Series 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Pawley, Andrew and Snyder, Frances H., 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, Richard W., eds., Language and Communication. London: Longman, 191–225.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L., 1987. Information structuring in Papago narrative. Language 63: 783–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Doris L., 1992. Nonidentifiable information and pragmatic order rules in ‘O'odham. In Doris L Payne, ed., Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peleg, Orna, Giora, Rachel and Fein, Ofer, 2004. Contextual strength: the whens and hows of context effects. In Noveck, Ira A and Sperber, Dan, eds., Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Peregrin, Jaroslav, 1999. The pragmatization of semantics. In Turner, Ken, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 419–442.Google Scholar
Peters, Pamela, 1995. The Pocket Macquarie Writers' Guide. Milton, Queensland: The Jacaranda Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. and Hirschberg, Julia Bell, 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry L. and Pollack, Martha E., eds., Intentions in Communication (System Development Foundation Benchmark Series). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 271–311.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul, 2006. Meaning. In Fasold, Ralph W. and Connor-Linton, Jeff, eds., An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 137–168.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher, 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., 1976. The syntax and semantics of Neg-Raising, with evidence from French. Language 52: 404–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., 1978a. A comparison of WH-clefts and IT-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., 1978b. On the function of existential presupposition in discourse. In Chicago Linguistic Society 14. Chicago Linguistic Society, 362–376.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite this NPs. In Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L. and Sag, Ivan A., eds., Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University Press, 231–250.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., 1988. Discourse analysis: a part of the study of linguistic competence. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. II: Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications. Cambridge University Press, 164–182.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., 1990. Syntax and discourse: a look at resumptive pronouns. In Hall, Kira, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Meacham, Michael, Reinman, Sondra and Sutton, Laurel A., eds., Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 482–497.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In Culicover, Peter W. and McNally, Louise, eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. IXXX: The Limits of Syntax. San Diego: Academic Press, 281–302.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., 2006. Impersonal pronouns in French and Yiddish: semantic reference vs. discourse reference. In Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 295–315.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey N. and Svartvik, Jan, 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raichle, Marcus E., 1998. The neural correlates of consciousness: an analysis of cognitive skill learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B series 353: 1889–1901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Recanati, François, 1987. Meaning and Force. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, François, 1989. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 4: 295–328. (Reprinted in Davis 1991, 97–120).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François, 1993. Direct Reference. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Recanati, François, 1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science 19: 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François, 2001. “What is said.”Synthese 128: 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François, 2002a. Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François, 2002b. Does linguistic communication rest on inference?Mind and Language 17: 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François, 2004a. ‘What is said’ and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. In Bianchi, Claudia and Penco, Carlo, eds., The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Proceedings from WOC 2002. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 45–64.Google Scholar
Recanati, François, 2004b. Pragmatics and semantics. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 442–462.Google Scholar
Reid, Wallis, 1991. Verb and Noun Number in English: A Functional Explanation (Longman Linguistics Library). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R., Mendoza-Denton, Norma, Wasow, Thomas A. and Espinoza, Juli, 1995. Syntactic variation and change in progress: loss of the verbal coda in topic-restricting as far as constructions. Language 71: 102–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne, 1999. Communicating Gender. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne, 2000. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor and Mervis, C. B., 1975. Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7: 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rude, Noel, 1992. Word order and topicality in Nez Perce. In Doris L. Payne, ed., Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 193–208.Google Scholar
Rundquist, Suellen, 2007. Apologies – form and function: “I think it was your foot I was stepping on.” In Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharski, Ron, eds., The Grammar-Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 293–312.Google Scholar
Rutherford, William E., 1970. Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English. Language 46: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Jefferson, Gail, 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., 1974. Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., 1977. Aspects of linguistic pragmatics. In Rogers, Andy, Wall, Bob and Murphy, John P., eds., Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures. Arlington, Va.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 67–78.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., 1978. On testing for conversational implicature. In Peter Cole, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 281–297. (Reprinted in Kasher, 1998b, vol. IV, 315–31. Citations are made to Sadock 1998).Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., 1981. Almost. In Peter Cole, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 257–271.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., 1984. Whither radical pragmatics? In Deborah Schiffrin, ed., Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 139–149.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., 1988. Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. II: Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications. Cambridge University Press, 183–197.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. and Zwicky, Arnold M., 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Timothy Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I: Clause Structure. Cambridge University Press, 155–196.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., 1981. Formal semantics and extralinguistic context. In Peter Cole, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 273–294.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. and Pollard, Carl, 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67: 63–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, Anthony J. and Garrod, Simon C., 1981. Understanding Written Language. Chichester: John Wiley and sons.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand, 1960. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehave, in collaboration with Albert Reidlinger. Translated from French by Wade Baskin. London: Peter Owen.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. I. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah, 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah, 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan F., 1978. Synonymy judgments as syntactic evidence. In Peter Cole, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 299–313.Google Scholar
Schneiderman, Eta I., Murasugi, Kumiko G. and Saddy, J. Douglas, 1992. Story arrangement ability in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language 43: 107–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schütze, Carson T., 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R., 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R., 1980. The background of meaning. In Searle, John R., Kiefer, Ferenc and Bierwisch, Manfred, eds., Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics (Synthese Language Library 10). Boston: Reidel, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segerdahl, Pär, 1996. Language Use: A Philosophical Investigation into the Basic Notions of Pragmatics (Swansea Studies in Philosophy). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sevi, Aldo, 2005. Exhaustivity: a semantic account of ‘quantity’ implicatures. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Silverstein, Michael, 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, Keith and Selby, Henry A., eds., Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 11–55.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael, 1977. Cultural prerequisites to grammatical analysis. In Muriel Saville-Troike, ed., Linguistics and Anthropology. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 139–151.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael, 1985. Language and the culture of gender: at the intersection of structure, usage, and ideology. In Mertz, Elizabeth and Parmentier, Richard, eds., Semiotic Mediation. Orlando: Academic Press, 220–259.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael, 1987. Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description. In Meaning in anthropology. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Reprinted in Ben G. Blount ed., Language, culture, and society. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 187–221.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael, 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In John A. Lucy, ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge University Press, 33–58.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John M., 1987. Grammar in the dictionary. In John M. Sinclair, ed., Looking up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John M., 1991. Corpus, Concordance Collocation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John M., 1992. Trust the text. In Davies, Martin and Ravelli, Louise, eds., Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice (Open Linguistics Series). London: Pinter, 5–19.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John M. and Renouf, Antoinette, 1991. Collocational frameworks in English. In Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt, eds., English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honor of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman, 128–144.Google Scholar
Smith, Vicky L. and Clark, Herbert H., 1993. On the course of answering questions. Journal of Memory and Language 32: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M. and Tiersma, Peter M., 2005. Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice (Chicago Series in Law and Society). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sotaro, Kita and Ide, Sachiko, 2007. Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation: how conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1242–1254.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, 1994. The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In Hirschfield, L. and Gelman, S., eds., Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. Cambridge University Press, 39–67.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, 2002. In defense of massive modularity. In Emmanuel Dupoux, ed., Language, Brain, and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 47–57.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre, 1981. Irony and the use-mention distinction. In Peter Cole, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 295–318.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre, 1986. Pragmatics and modularity. In Farley, Anne M., Farley, Peter T. and McCullough, Karl-Erik, eds., Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory. Chicago Linguistic Society, 67–84.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre, 1986/1995. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre, 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind and Language 17: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre, 2005. Pragmatics. In Jackson, Frank and Michael, Smith, eds., Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 468–501.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C., 1972. Pragmatics. In Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert, eds., Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 380–397.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason, 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Jason, 2005. Review of Francois Recanati's Literal Meaning. Notre Dame Philosophical Review 9.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Gries, Stefan Th., 2003. Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8: 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Lesley, 1993. Switch-reference and Discourse Representation (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 63). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stringaris, Argyris K., Medford, Nicholas C., Giampietro, Vincent, Brammer, Michael J. and Davids, Anthony S., 2007. Deriving meaning: distinct neural mechanisms for metaphoric, literal, and non-meaningful sentences. Brain and Language 100: 150–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundberg Meyer, Karen, 1992. Word order in Klamath. In Doris L. Payne, ed., Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 167–192.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve, 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinney, David A., 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 645–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna, 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Anna Szabolcsi, ed., Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 109–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szatrowski, Polly, 2002. Syntactic projectability and co-participant completion in Japanese conversation. In Larson, Julie and Paster, Mary, eds., Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 315–326.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard, 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, Timothy, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, 36–149.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah, 1987. Repetition in conversation: toward a poetics of talk. Language 63: 574–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taub-Tabib, Hillel, 2009. A multifactorial analysis of subject-verb inversion in Hebrew intransitive clauses. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University.
Taylor, John R., 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Jenny, 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., 1990. Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In Edmondson, Jerold A., Feagin, Crawford and Mühlhäsler, Peter, eds., Development and Diversity: Language Variation across Time and Space (Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics 93). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington, 239–253.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation: towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26: 125–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Longacre, Robert E., 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Timothy Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. II: Complex Constructions. Cambridge University Press, 171–234.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, 2003. Constructing a Language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S. and Rhodes, Richard, 1992. Information distribution in Ojibwa. In Doris L. Payne, ed., Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 117–136.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 406–416.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 2003. Constructions in grammaticalizations. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 624–647.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 2008. Workshop on grammaticalization, pragmaticalization and/or (inter)subjectification: methodological issues for the study of discourse markers: comments. Paper presented at 4th International conference ‘New Reflections on Grammaticalization,’Leuven, Belgium, July 17, 2008.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and König, Ekkehard, 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. I: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues (Typological Studies in Language 19: 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 189–219.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B., 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, Charles, 1997. Pragmatics. In Hale, Bob and Wright, Crispin, eds., A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 87–107.Google Scholar
Tsohatzidis, Savas L., 1992. Pronouns of address and truth conditions. Linguistics 30: 569–575.Google Scholar
Turner, Ken, ed., 1999. The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier.
Ueno, Noriko Fujii, 1987. Functions of the theme marker wa from synchronic and diachronic perspectives. In Hinds, John, Iwasaki, Shoichi and Maynard, Senko K., eds., Perspectives on Topicalization: The Case of Japanese wa (Typological Studies in Language 14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 221–263.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E., 1990. The informational component. Ms., Dept. of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.
Vallée, Richard, 2008. Conventional implicature revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 407–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie, 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie, 2006. On subjectivity and “long distance Wh-movement.” In Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costas and Cornillie, Bert, eds., Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 323–346.Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef, 1978. Reflections on presupposition failure: a contribution to an integrated theory of pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 2: 107–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef, 1995. The pragmatic perspective. In Verschueren, Jef, Östman, Jan-Ola, Blommaert, Jan and Bulcaen, Chris, eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef, Östman, Jan-Ola, Blommaert, Jan and Bulcaen, Chris, eds., 1995. Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Jocelyne M. and Castelfranchi, Cristiano, 1981. On the art of deception: how to lie while saying the truth. In Parret, Herman, Sbisà, Marina and Verschueren, Jef, eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (Studies in Language Companion Series 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 749–777.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory L., 1988. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory L., 1990. The discourse functions of VP preposing. Language 66: 742–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory L. and Hirschberg, Julia Bell, 1985. Implicating uncertainty: the pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language 61: 747–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory L. and Birner, Betty J., 2004. Information structure and non-canonical syntax. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 153–174.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas A., 2002. Postverbal Behavior. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Wei, Li and Mayouf, Ali Mayouf, 2008. The effects of the social status of the elderly in Libya on the way they institutionally interact and communicate with younger physicians. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda, 1998. Contrastive lexical semantics. In Edda Weigand, ed., Contrastive Lexical Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wennerstrom, Ann, 2001. Intonation and evaluation in oral narratives. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1183–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weylman, Sally T., Brownell, Hiram H., Roman, Mary and Gardner, Howard, 1989. Appreciation of indirect requests by left- and right-brain-damaged patients: the effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain and Language 36: 580–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Anne and Blakemore, Diane, eds., 2006. Journal of Pragmatics, Special Issue: Prosody and Pragmatics, 38.
Wierzbicka, Anna, 1987. Boys will be boys: ‘Radical semantics’ vs. ‘radical pragmatics.’Language 63: 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna, 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David, 1988. Switch-reference in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): form, function, and problems of identity. In Peter Austin, ed., Complex Sentence Constructions in Australian Languages (Typological Studies in Language 15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 141–176.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, 1975. Presuppositions and Non-truth-Conditional Semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, 1995. Is there a maxim of truthfulness?UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 197–212.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, 2005. New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua 115: 1129–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan, 1979. Ordered entailments: an alternative to presuppositional theories. In Oh, Choon-Kyu and Dinneen, David A., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XI: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, 299–323.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan, 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Wharton, Tim, 2006. Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1559–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Shali and Keysar, Boaz, 2007. The effect of culture on perspective taking. Psychological Science 18: 600–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Ying Choon and Coulson, Seana, 2005. Meaningful gestures: electrophysiological indices of iconic gesture comprehension. Psychophysiology 42: 654–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Ying Choon and Coulson, Seana, 2007. How iconic gestures enhance communication: an ERP study. Brain and Language 101: 234–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wunderlich, Dieter, 1980. Methodological remarks on speech act theory. In Searle, John R., Kiefer, Ferenc and Bierwisch, Manfred, eds., Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics (Synthese Language Library 10). Boston: Reidel, 291–312.Google Scholar
Yus Ramos, Francisco, 1998. The ‘what-do-you-mean syndrome’. A taxonomy of misunderstandings in Harold Pinter's plays. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 6: 81–100.Google Scholar
Zaidel, Eran, 1985. Language in the right hemisphere. In Benson, D. F. and Zaidel, Eran, eds., The Dual Brain, Hemispheric Specialization in Humans. New York: Guilford Press, 205–231.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Thomas, 1997. The addressing puzzle. In Künne, Wolfgang, Newen, Albert and Anduschus, Martin, eds., Direct Reference, Indexicality, and Propositional Attitudes (CSLI Lecture Notes 70). Stanford: CSLI Publications, 133–153.Google Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley, 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael, 1975. On the relevance of content to the form–function correlation (An examination of extraposed relative clauses). In Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James and Vance, Timothy J., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism (1st edition). Chicago Linguistic Society, 568–579.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael, 1982. Getting more mileage out of existentials in English. Linguistics 20: 747–762.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael, 1994a. Left and right dislocations: discourse functions and anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 629–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziv, Yael, 1994b. Not without you I won't: special utterance types in Functional Grammar. In Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster and Rasmussen, Lone Schack, eds., Function and Expression in Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 317–329.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael, 1997. Conditionals and restrictives on generics. In Athanasiadou, Angeliki and Dirven, Réne, eds., On Conditionals Again (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 223–239.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael, 2008. Codifying apparent inconsistencies in discourse: the case of Hebrew ma. In Armon-Lotem, Sharon, Danon, Gabi and Rothstein, Susan, eds., Generative Approaches to Hebrew Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 353–388.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne, 1989. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65: 695–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubin, David and Li, Naicong, 1986. Topic, contrast, definiteness, and word order in Mandarin. In Nikiforidou, Vassiliki, VanClay, Mary, Niepokuj, Mary and Feder, Deborah, eds., Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 292–304.Google Scholar
Zurif, Edgar B., 1980. Language mechanism: a neuropsycholinguistic perspective. American Scientist 68: 305–311.Google Scholar
Agha, Asif, 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aitchison, Jean and Bailey, Guy, 1979. Unhappiness about not unhappy people. Journal of Linguistics 15: 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 1985. Givenness marking. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Ariel, Mira, 1988. Female and male stereotypes in Israeli literature and media: evidence from introductory patterns. Language and Communication 8: 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 1990. Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 2000. The development of person agreement markers: from pronouns to higher accessibility markers. In Michael Barlow and Kemmer, Suzanne, eds., Usage-based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 197–260.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 2004. Most. Language 80: 658–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira and Giora, Rachel, 1998. Self versus other point of view in language: redefining femininity and masculinity. International Journal of Sociology of Language 129: 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent and Harnish, Robert M., 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bardenstein, Ruti, 2005. The pragmatics of diminutive quantifiers in Modern Hebrew. M.A. Thesis, Linguistics, Tel Aviv University.
Bates, Elizabeth, Thal, Donna, Finlay, Barbara and Clancy, Barbara, 2003. Early language development and its neural correlates. In Rapin, I. and Segalowitz, S., eds., Handbook of Neuropsychology, vol. VIII: Child Neurology (2nd edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 109–176.Google Scholar
Bever, Tom G., 1970. The influence of speech performance on linguistic structure. In Levelt, Willem J. M. and Flores d'Arcais, Giovanni B., eds., Advances in Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 21–50.Google Scholar
Blom, Jan-Petter and Gumperz, John J., 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structure: code-switching in Norway. In Gumperz, John J. and Hymes, Dell, eds., Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 407–434.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, 1995. Politeness strategies and the attribution of intentions: the case of Tzeltal irony. In Goody, Esther N, ed., Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press, 153–174.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel, 1989. The Limits to Debate: A Revised Theory of Semantic Presupposition (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 51). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. and Pagliuca, William, 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn, 1988. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, Ruth M., ed., Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge University Press, 155–181. (Reprinted in Kasher, ed., vol. 4. 436–464).Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn, 1998. Negation, ‘presupposition’ and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Journal of Linguistics 34: 309–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn, 1999. Negation, ‘presupposition’ and metarepresentation: a response to Noel Burton-Roberts. Journal of Linguistics 35: 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn, 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. ed., 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production (Advances in Discourse Processes 3). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, Wallace L., 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Consciousness Experience in Speaking and Writing. University of Chicago Press.
Chierchia, Gennaro and McConnell-Ginet, Sally, 1990. Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun A. and Petöfi, János, 1977. Foreword. In Grammars and Descriptions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. In Drew, Paul and Heritage, John, eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge University Press, 470–520.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., 1980. Beyond definiteness: the trace of identity in discourse. In Chafe, Wallace L., ed., The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 203–274.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., 1985. Competing motivations. In Haiman, John, ed., Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 343–365.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles and Thompson, Sandra A., 2000. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Dubois, Betty Lou, 1987. ‘Something on the order of around forty to forty-four’: imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society 16: 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean, 1984. Constraints on gaps: is the parser a significant influence? In Butterworth, Brian, Comrie, Bernard and Dahl, Östen, eds., Explanations for Language Universals. Berlin: Mouton, 9–34.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob, 1892. On sense and reference. In Geach, Peter and Black, Max, eds., Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, 1952. Oxford: Blackwell, 56–78.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, 1991. Comprehending conceptual anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 6: 81–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giora, Rachel, 1985. Notes towards a theory of text coherence. Poetics Today 6: 699–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel and Fein, Ofer, 1999. Irony: context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol 14: 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. and Ackerman, Farrell, 2001. The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language 77: 798–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia M., 1990. The universality of Gricean interpretation. In Hall, Kira, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Meacham, Michael, Reinman, Sondra and Sutton, Laurel A., eds., Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 411–428.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul, 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Cole, Peter, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 183–198.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul, 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J., 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J., 1996. The linguistic and cultural relativity of conversational inference. In Gumperz, John J. and Levinson, Stephen C., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge University Press, 374–406.Google Scholar
Hall, Kira and O'Donovan, Veronica, 1996. Shifting gender positions among Hindi-speaking hijras. In Bergvall, Victoria L., Bing, Janet M. and Freed, Alice F., eds., Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice. London: Longman, 228–266.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Jennifer L. and Raymond W. Jr. Gibbs, 2003. Processing the meanings of what speakers say and implicate. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal 35: 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnish, Robert M., 1976. Logical form and implicature. In Bever, Tom G., Katz, Jerrold J. and Langendoen, D. Terence, eds., An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability. New York: Crowell, 313–391Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 1993/2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 1984. A new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicatures. In Schiffrin, Deborah, ed., Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 1989. A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 1991. Given as new: when redundant information isn't. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 1996. Presupposition and implicature. In Lappin, Shalom, ed., The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 299–319.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 2004. Implicature. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–28.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith T., 1990. Registering affect: heteroglossia in the linguistic expression of emotion. In Lutz, Catherine A. and Abu-Lughod, Lila, eds., Language and the Politics of Emotion. Cambridge University Press, 126–161.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith T., 1993. Insult and responsibility: verbal abuse in a Wolof village. In Hill, Jane H. and Irvine, Judith T., eds., Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge University Press, 105–134.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael, 2002. Literally speaking. Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies 34: 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan and Girand, Cynthia, 2002. The role of the lemma in form variation. In Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha, eds., Laboratory Phonology VII. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–34.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit, 2001. Formal Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri, 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 169–193.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri, 1974. Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasher, Asa, 1976. Conversational maxims and rationality. In Kasher, Asa, ed., Language in Focus: Foundations, Methods and Systems. Dordrecht: Reidel, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasher, Asa, 1982. Gricean inference revisited. Philosophica 29: 25–44.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa, 1994. Rationality and pragmatics. In Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y., eds., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. VI. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 3280–3282.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa, Batori, Gila, Soroker, Nachum, Graves, David and Zaidel, Eran, 1999. Effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding conversational implicatures. Brain and Language 68: 566–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keenan, Edward L., 1971. Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. In Fillmore, Charles J. and Langendoen, D. Terence, eds., Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 45–52.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M., 1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 15). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M., 1988a. Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. II: Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications. Cambridge University Press, 139–163.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M., ed. 1988b. Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koktová, E., 1998. Implicature, conversational. In Mey, Jacob L., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 371–373.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, 1976. Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy: a reexamination of relativization phenomena. In Li, Charles N., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 417–444.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud, 1980. Topic, French style. Remarks about a basic sentence type of modern non-standard French. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 337–360.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter, 1999. Pragmatic halos. Language 75: 522–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenk, Uta, 1998. Marking Discourse Coherence. Tübingen: Ginter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., 1979a. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17: 365–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., 1979b. Pragmatics and social deixis: reclaiming the notion of conventional implicature. Paper presented at Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Levinson, Stephen C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K., 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. In Bäuerle, Rainer, Egli, Urs and Stechow, Arnim, eds., Semantics from Different Points of View (Springer Series in Language and Communication 6). New York: Springer-Verlag, 172–187.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark, 1973. Alternatives. In Chicago Linguistic Society 9. Chicago Linguistic Society, 346–355.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael, 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23: 325–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael, 1997. Emergent bilingual grammar: the case of contrast. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 279–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateo, José and Ramos, Francisco Yus, 2000. Insults: a relevance-theoretic taxonomical approach to their translation. International Journal of Translation 12: 97–130.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A., 2007. Syntactic parallelism and morphological elaboration in Lahu religious poetry. Paper presented at Linguistics Department colloquium, UC Santa Barbara, 2.1.2007.
McCloskey, James, and Kenneth Hale, 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1: 487–533.Google Scholar
Minning, Heidi, 2004. Qwir-English code-mixing in Germany: constructing a rainbow of identities. In Leap, William and Boellstorff, Tom, eds., Speaking in Queer Tongues: Globalization and Gay Language. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 46–71.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela, 2007. A definite mystery. Paper presented at BLS, Berkeley.
Newmeyer, Frederick J., 1983. Grammatical Theory. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, 1992. Indexing gender. In Duranti, Alessandro and Goodwin, Charles, eds., Rethinking Context. Cambridge University Press, 336–358.Google Scholar
Ochs Keenan, Elinor, 1976. On the universality of conversational implicatures. Language in Society 5: 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, Choon-Kyu and Dinneen, David A., eds., 1979. Syntax and Semantics, vol. XI: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press.
Overstreet, Maryann, 1999. Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., 1978. On the function of existential presupposition in discourse. In Chicago Linguistic Society 14. Chicago Linguistic Society, 362–376.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., 2006. Impersonal pronouns in French and Yiddish: semantic reference vs. discourse reference. In Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 295–315.Google Scholar
Reid, Wallis, 1991. Verb and Noun Number in English: A Functional Explanation (Longman Linguistics Library). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
Robinson, Edward A., 1997. The cognitive foundations of pragmatic principles: implications for theories of linguistic and cognitive representation. In Nuyts, Jan and Pederson, Eric, eds., Language and Conceptualization (Language, Culture and Cognition 1). Cambridge University Press, 253–271.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne, 1999. Communicating Gender. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand, 1905. On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., 1978. On testing for conversational implicature. In Cole, Peter, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 281–297. (Reprinted in Kasher, ed. 1998, vol. IV, 315–31. Citations are made to Sadock 1998).Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah, 1988. Conversation analysis. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. IV: Language: The Socio-cultural Context. Cambridge University Press, 251–276.Google Scholar
Segal, G., 1996. The modularity of theory of mind. In Carruthers, Peter and Smith, Peter K., eds., Theories of Theories of Mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy, 2005. Presupposition and relevance. In Szabó, Zoltán Gendler, ed., Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, 329–355.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Melinda, 1995. Fitting pragmatics into the mind: some issues in mentalist pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 23: 509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M. and Tiersma, Peter M., 2005. Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice (Chicago Series in Law and Society). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre, 1986/1995. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C., 1972. Pragmatics. In Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert, eds., Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 380–397.Google Scholar
Stampe, Dennis W., 1981. Pragmatics and causal theoretic aspects of semantics. In Parret, Herman, Sbisà, Marina and Verschueren, Jef, eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (Studies in Language Companion Series 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 683–712.Google Scholar
Straehle, Carolyn A., 1993. “Samuel?” “Yes, dear?”: teasing and conversational rapport. In Tannen, Deborah, ed., Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, 210–230.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F., 1950. On referring. Mind 59: 320–344.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F., 1964/1974. Identifying reference and truth-values. In Zabeeh, Farhang, Klemke, E. D. and Jacobson, Arthur, eds., Readings in Semantics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 194–216.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony, 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 2004. A critique of Levinson's view of Q- and M-inferences in historical pragmatics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie, 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna, 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, 2005. New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua 115: 1129–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan, 1979. Ordered entailments: an alternative to presuppositional theories. In Oh, Choon-Kyu and Dinneen, David A., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XI: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, 299–323.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan, 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111: 583–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaidel, Eran, Soroker, Nachum, Kasher, Asa, Giora, Rachel, Batori, Gila, Gil, Mali and Korn, Cecilia, 2001. Processing of basic speech acts following localized brain damage: a new light on the neuroanatomy of language. Unpublished ms.
Ziv, Yael, 1994a. Not without you I won't: special utterance types in Functional Grammar. In Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster and Rasmussen, Lone Schack, eds., Function and Expression in Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 317–329.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael, 1994b. Left and right dislocations: discourse functions and anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 629–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckermann, Ghil'ad, 2006. Direct and indirect speech in straight-talking Israeli. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53: 467–481.CrossRefGoogle 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.

  • References
  • Mira Ariel, Tel-Aviv University
  • Book: Defining Pragmatics
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912.016
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.

  • References
  • Mira Ariel, Tel-Aviv University
  • Book: Defining Pragmatics
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912.016
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.

  • References
  • Mira Ariel, Tel-Aviv University
  • Book: Defining Pragmatics
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912.016
Available formats
×