Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:01:30.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography and other resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2013

Billy Clark
Billy Clark
Affiliation:
Middlesex University, London
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Relevance Theory , pp. 372 - 394
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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

Abras, C. 2002. The principle of relevance and metamessages in online discourse: electronic exchanges in a graduate course. Language, Literacy and Culture Review 1.2: 39–53.Google Scholar
Ackerman, B. 1983. Form and function in children's understanding of ironic utterances. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 35: 487–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. 2003. Core Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aguilar, M. 2008. Metadiscourse in Academic Speech: A Relevance-theoretic Approach. Peter Lang, Berlin.Google Scholar
Allbritton, D.W. and Gerrig, R.J. 1991. Participatory responses in prose understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 603–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allott, N. and Uchida, H. 2009. Natural language indicative conditionals are classical. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 1–17.Google Scholar
Andersen, G. 1999. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Corpus-based Study. PhD thesis, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Astington, J., Harris, P. and Olson, D. (eds.) 1988. Developing Theories of Mind. Cambridge University Press.
Atlas, J.D. 1989. Philosophy Without Ambiguity: A Logico-linguistic Essay. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Atlas, J.D. 2005. Logic, Meaning and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature and their Interface. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, J.D. and Levinson, S.C.. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical Pragmatics, pp. 1–62. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bach, K. 1994a. Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 9: 124–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. 1994b. Semantic slack: what is said and more. In Tsohatzidis, S. (ed.) Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, pp. 267–91. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Bach, K. 1997. The semantics–pragmatics distinction: what it is and why it matters. Linguistische Berichte 8 (Special Issue on Pragmatics): 33–50. Reprinted in K. Turner (ed.) 1999. The Semantics–Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Elsevier Science, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bach, K. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 327–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. 2001. You don't say. Synthése 128: 15–44.Google Scholar
Bach, K. 2004. Pragmatics and the philosophy of language. In Horn and Ward (eds.), pp. 461–87.
Bach, K. 2010. Impliciture vs. explicature: what's the difference? In B. Soria and E. Romero (eds.), pp. 126–37.
Bach, K. and Harnish, R.M. 1982. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. 1995. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Barrett, H.C. and Kurzban, R. 2006. Modularity in cognition: framing the debate. Psychological Review 113.3: 628–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. 1987. The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts. In Neisser, U. (ed.) Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization: 101–40. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. 1989. Intra-concept similarity and its implications for inter-concept similarity. In Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. (eds.) Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, pp. 76–121. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Kittay, E. and Lehrer, A. (eds.) Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, pp. 21–74. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. 1993. Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In Collins, A., Gathercole, S., Conway, A. and Morris, P. (eds.) Theories of Memory, pp. 29–101. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove.Google Scholar
Bekalu, M.A. 2006. Presupposition in news discourse. Discourse & Society 17.2: 147–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, I. 1953. The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy's View of History. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, New York.Google Scholar
Berg, J. 2002. Is semantics still possible?Journal of Pragmatics 34.4: 349–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A. 1997. Pragmatics, semantic underdetermination and the referential–attributive distinction. Mind 106: 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A. 2002. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Philosophical Perspectives 16: 105–34.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A. 2004. Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In Bianchi, C. (ed.) The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction, pp. 101–31. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A. and Sroda, M.S. 1998. Children's use of contextual cues to resolve referential ambiguity: an application of relevance theory. Pragmatics and Cognition 6: 265–99.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1987. Influences of bilingualism on metalinguistic development. Second Language Research 3.2: 154–66.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1991. Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. 1989. Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1991. Performatives and parentheticals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91: 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1995. Relevance theory. In Verschueren, J., Ostman, J.-O. and Blommaert, J. (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 443–52. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1996. Are apposition markers discourse markers?Journal of Linguistics 32: 325–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1997. On non-truth conditional meaning. Linguistische Berichte 8 (Special Issue on Pragmatics): 92–102.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. 2007a. Constraints, concepts and procedural encoding. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 45–66.
Blakemore, D. 2007b. ‘Or’-parentheticals, ‘that is’-parentheticals and the pragmatics of reformulation. Journal of Linguistics 43: 311–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. 2009. Parentheticals and point of view in free indirect style. Language and Literature 18.2: 129–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. 2010. Communication and the representation of thought: the use of audience-directed expressions in free indirect thought representations. Journal of Linguistics 46: 575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R. 1998. Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics 15: 115–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R. and Zeevat, H. 2004. Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boase-Beier, J. 2004a. Knowing and not knowing: style, intention and the translation of a Holocaust poem. Language and Literature 13.1: 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boase-Beier, J. 2004b. Saying what someone else meant: style, relevance and translation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14.2: 276–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boase-Beier, J. 2009. Translation and timelessness. Journal of Literary Semantics 38: 101–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1986. Intonation and its Parts: Melody in Spoken English. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1989. Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
De Boni, M. 2004. Relevance in Open Domain Question Answering: Theoretical Framework and Application. PhD thesis, University of York.Google Scholar
Borg, E. 2004. Minimal Semantics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. 2007. Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics. In Preyer, G. and Peter, G. (eds.) Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism, pp. 339–59. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. 2002. Misunderstandings and unofficial knowledge in institutional discourse. In Walton, D. and Scheu, D. (eds.) Culture and Power, pp. 323–45. Peter Lang, Berlin.Google Scholar
Bouton, L.F. 1988. A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishness 7: 183–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, L.F. 1990. The effective use of implicature in English: why and how it should be taught in the ESL classroom. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, vol.1, pp. 43–51.Google Scholar
Bouton, L.F. 1992a. The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: does it come automatically without being explicitly taught?Pragmatics and Language Learning 3: 53–65.Google Scholar
Bouton, L.F. 1992b. Culture, Pragmatics and Implicature: Acquisition of Language – Acquisition of Culture. AFinLA Yearbook (Publications de l'Association Finlandaise de Linguistique Appliquée) 50, pp. 35–61.Google Scholar
Bouton, L.F. 1994a. Conversational implicature in a second language: learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 157–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, L.F. 1994b. Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, vol. 5, pp. 88–109.Google Scholar
Bouton, L.F. 1999. Developing nonnative speaker skills in interpreting conversational implicatures in English: explicit teaching can ease the process. In Hinkel, E. (ed.) Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning, pp. 47–70. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, C. 2010. The Lost Diaries. Fourth Estate, London.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. (ed.) Questions and Politeness, pp. 56–310. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, G. and Fox Tree, J. 2002. Recognising verbal irony in spontaneous speech. Metaphor and symbol 17: 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckland, W. 1992. Filmic Meaning: The Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. PhD thesis, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
Buckland, W. 1995. Relevance and cognition: towards a pragmatics of unreliable filmic narration. In Müller, J.E. (ed.) Towards a Pragmatics of the Audiovisual, vol. 2, pp. 55–66. Nodus Publikationen, Münster.Google Scholar
Bursey, J. and Furlong, A. 2006. Cognitive gothic: relevance theory, iteration and style. In Tabbi, J. and Shavers, R. (eds.) Paper Empire: William Gaddis and the World System, pp. 118–33. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N.C. 2000. Where and what is phonology? A representational perspective. In Burton-Roberts, N.C., Carr, P. and Docherty, G. (eds.) Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues, pp. 39–66. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N.C. (ed.) 2007. Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N.C. 2010. Cancellation and intention. In B. Soria and E. Romero (eds.), pp. 138–55.
Burton-Roberts, N.C. 2011. On the grounding of syntax and the role of phonology in human cognition. Lingua 121.14: 2089–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. and Poole, G. 2006. ‘Virtual conceptual necessity’, feature-dissociation and the Saussurian legacy in generative grammar. Journal of Linguistics 42.3: 575–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camp, E. 2008. Showing, telling, and seeing: metaphor and ‘poetic’ language. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, vol. 3, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Cann, R., Kempson, R. and Marten, L. 2005. The Dynamics of Language. Elsevier, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cann, R., Kempson, R. and Wedgwood, D. 2012. Representationalism and linguistic knowledge. In Kempson, R., Fernando, T. and Asher, N. (eds.) Philosophy of Linguistics, pp. 357–401. Elsevier, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. 2007. Relevance theory and shared content. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 115–35.
Carruthers, P. 2006. The Architecture of the Mind: Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Thought. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. and Smith, P. (eds.) 1996. Theories of Theories of Mind. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. 1988. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. (ed.) Mental Representation: The Interface between language and reality, pp. 155–81. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 1997. Enrichment and loosening: complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed?Linguistische Berichte 8 (Special Issue on Pragmatics): 103–27.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 1998. Pragmatics and the Explicit–Implicit Distinction. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2002a. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. 2002b. Metaphor, ad hoc concepts and word meaning: more questions than answers. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 83–105.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2004a. Relevance theory and the saying–implicating distinction. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), pp. 633–56.
Carston, R. 2004b. Explicature and semantics. In Davis, S. and Gillon, B. (eds.) Semantics: A Reader, pp. 1–44. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2007. How many pragmatic systems are there? In Frapolli, M.J. (ed.) Saying, Meaning, Referring: Essays on the Philosophy of F. Recanati, pp. 18–48. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2008. Linguistic communication and the semantics–pragmatics distinction. Synthèse 165.3: 321–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. 2009a. The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics 1.1: 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. 2009b. Relevance theory: contextualism or pragmaticism?UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 19–26.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2010. Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In B. Soria and E. Romero (eds.), pp. 217–85.
Carston, R. and Powell, G. 2006. Relevance theory: new directions and developments. In Lepore, E. and Smith, B. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, pp. 341–60. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds). 1998. Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, A.F. 1999. What Is This Thing Called Science? 3rd edn. Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
Chapman, S. 2005. Paul Grice: Philosopher and Linguist. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, C. 2007. Relevance theory and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 3: 269–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language. Praeger, New York.Google ScholarPubMed
Clark, B. 1991. Relevance Theory and the Semantics of Non-Declaratives'. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Clark, B. 1993a. Let and let's: procedural encoding and explicature. Lingua 90: 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. 1993b. Relevance and pseudo-imperatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 16.1: 79–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. 1996. Stylistic analysis and relevance theory. Language and Literature 5.3: 163–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. 2007. ‘Blazing a trail’: moving from natural to linguistic meaning in accounting for the tones of English. In Nilsen, R.A., Appiah Amfo, N.A. and Borthen, K. (eds.) Interpreting Utterances: Pragmatics and its interfaces. Essays in honour of Thorstein Fretheim, pp. 69–81. Novus, Oslo.Google Scholar
Clark, B. 2009. Salient inferences: pragmatics and The Inheritors. Language and Literature 18.2: 173–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. 2011. Recent developments in relevance theory. In Grundy, P. and Archer, D. (eds.) The Pragmatics Reader, pp. 129–37. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Clark, B. 2012. The relevance of tones: prosodic meanings in utterance interpretation and in relevance theory. The Linguistic Review, 29.4: 643–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. and Lindsey, G. 1990. Intonation, grammar and utterance interpretation: evidence from English exclamatory-inversions. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 32–51.Google Scholar
Clark, B. and Owtram, N. 2012. Imagined inference: teaching writers to think like readers. In Burke, M., Czabo, S., Week, L. and Berkowitz, J. (eds.) Current Trends in Pedagogical Stylistics, pp. 126–41. Continuum, London.Google Scholar
Clark, H. and Gerrig, R.J. 1984. On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113: 121–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. and Gerrig, R.J. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66: 764–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V.J. and Newson, M. 2007. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction, 3rd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Coupland, J., Coupland, N. and Robinson, J.D. 1992. ‘How are you?’ Negotiating phatic communion. Language in Society 21: 207–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crook, J. 2004. On covert communication in advertising. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 715–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, G. 2006. Why irony is pretence. In Nichols, S. (ed.) The Architecture of the Imagination, pp. 111–33. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. and Stone, T. (eds.) 1995a. Mental Simulation: Philosophical and Psychological Essays. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Davies, M. and Stone, T. (eds.) 1995b. Folk Psychology. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. 1969. Content and Consciousness. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Desilla, L. 2012. Implicatures in film: construal and functions in Bridget Jones romantic comedies. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 30–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dogan, G. 1992. The Pragmatics of Indirectness of Meaning: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Epigrams and Graffiti in Turkish. PhD thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Dowty, D.R., Wall, R.E. and Peters, S.. 1980. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durán-Martínez, R. 2005. Covert communication in the promotion of alcohol and tobacco in Spanish press advertisements. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 5: 82–102.Google Scholar
Durant, A. 1984. Conditions of Music. Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durant, A. 2010. Meaning in the Media: Discourse, Controversy and Debate. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynell, M. 2008. Wittiness in the visual rhetoric of advertising and the quest for relevance. In Walaszewska, E., Kisielewska-Krysiuk, M., Korzeniowska, A. and Grzegorzewska, M. (eds.) Relevant Worlds: Current Perspectives on Language, Translation and Relevance Theory, pp. 48–66. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.Google Scholar
Elugardo, R. and Stainton, R.J. 2004. Shorthand, syntactic ellipsis, and the pragmatic determinants of what is said. Mind & Language 19.4: 442–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. 1998a. Intonation and procedural encoding: the case of Spanish interrogatives. In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker (eds.), pp. 169–204.CrossRef
Escandell-Vidal, V. 1998b. Politeness: a relevant issue for relevance theory. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. 2002. Echo-syntax and metarepresentations. Lingua 112: 871–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. and Ahern, A. (eds.) 2011. Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.Google Scholar
Evans, V. and Green, M. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. 1995. The density of response: a problem for literary criticism and cognitive science. In Payne, J. (ed.) Linguistic Approaches to Literature: Papers in Literary Stylistics, pp. 143–57. English Language Research, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. 1997. Linguistics and Literature. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. 2002. Language and Literary Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Fiddick, L., Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. 2000. No interpretation without representation: the role of domain-specific representations in the Wason selection task. Cognition 77: 1–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J.A. 1975. The Language of Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1987. Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1990. A Theory of Content and Other Essays. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1994. The Elm and the Expert. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 2008. LOT 2: The Language of Thought Revisited. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. Routledge, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. 2000. Compasses, beauty queens and other PCs: pictorial metaphors in computer advertisements. Hermes 24: 31–55.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. 2002. The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. 2010. Why and how study metaphor, metonymy and other tropes in multimodal discourse? In Caballero, R. and Pinar Sanz, M.J. (eds.) Ways and Modes of Human Communication, pp. 57–76. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Servicio de Publicaciones y AESLA, Ciudad Real.Google Scholar
Foster-Cohen, S.H. 2000. Review article on Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Second Language Research 16.1: 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster-Cohen, S.H. 2004a. Relevance theory and second language learning/ behaviour. Second Language Research 20.3: 189–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster-Cohen, S.H. 2004b. Relevance theory, action theory and second language communication strategies. Second Language Research 20.3: 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. 2006. On the conceptual–procedural distinction. Style 40.1–2. Available at:
Fretheim, T. 1998. Intonation and the procedural encoding of attributed thoughts: the case of Norwegian negative interrogatives. In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker (eds.), pp. 205–36.CrossRef
Furlong, A. 1996. Relevance Theory and Literary Interpretation. PhD. thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Furlong, A. 2001. Is it a classic if no one reads it? In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistics Association (APLA), pp. 54–60. Université de Moncton, Moncton NB.Google Scholar
Furlong, A. 2011. The soul of wit: a relevance-theoretic discussion. Language and Literature 20.2: 136–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrig, R.J. 1993. Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. Yale University Press, New Haven CT.Google Scholar
Gerrig, R.J. and Allbritton, D.W. 1990. The construction of literary character: a view from cognitive psychology. Style 24: 380–91.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. 2001. Evaluating contemporary models of figurative language understanding. Metaphor and Symbol 16: 317–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. and Moise, J. 1997. Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition 62: 51–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, R. and Tendahl, M. 2006. Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind and Language 21.3: 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. and the ABC Research Group 1999. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilman, R. 2003. Introduction. In Gilman, R. (ed.) Anton Chekhov: Plays, pp. vii-xxxii. Penguin, London.Google Scholar
Girotto, V., Kemmelmeier, M., Sperber, D. and van der Henst, J.-B., 2001. Inept reasoners or pragmatic virtuosos? Relevance and the deontic selection task. Cognition, 81: 69–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glucksberg, S. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. 2004. On the automaticity of pragmatic processes: a modular proposal. In I. Noveck and D. Sperber (eds.), pp. 72–93.
Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D. and McGlone, M.S. 1997. Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create new categories. In T. Ward, S. Smith and J. Vaid (eds.), pp. 327–50.
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self In Everyday Life. Anchor Doubleday, Garden City NY.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Doubleday, Garden City NY.Google Scholar
van Gompel, R.P.G. 2006. Sentence processing. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, vol. 11, pp. 251–5. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gow, D.W. and Gordon, P.C. 1995. Lexical and prelexical influences on word segmentation: evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21: 344–59.Google ScholarPubMed
Grice, H.P. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66: 377–88. Reprinted in H. P. Grice (1989), pp. 213–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P. 1967. Logic and Conversation. The William James Lectures. Harvard University. Published as Grice (1975) and reprinted in Grice (1989).Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. Academic Press, New York. Reprinted in Grice (1989), pp. 86–116.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 2007. Concepts and word meaning in relevance theory. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 136–57.
Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutt, E.-A. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Blackwell, Oxford. (2nd edn 2000. St Jerome Publishing, Manchester.)Google Scholar
Gutt, E.-A. 1998. Pragmatic aspects of translation: some relevance-theoretic observations. In Hickey, L. (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation, pp. 41–53. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Google Scholar
Gutt, E.-A. 2004. Translation, metarepresentation and claims of interpretive resemblance. In Arduini, S. and Hodgson, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Similarity and Translation, pp. 93–101. Guaraldi, Rimini.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2006. Register variation: Core grammar and periphery. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, pp. 468–74. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. and Ihsane, T.. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded sentences in English. English Language and Linguistics 3: 117–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. and Ihsane, T.. 2001. Adult null subjects in the non-pro drop languages: two diary dialects. Language Acquisition 9.4: 329–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haicun, L. 2005. Explaining phatic utterance within the theory of relevance. In Korzeniowska, A. and Grzegorzewska, M. (eds.) Relevance Studies in Poland, vol. 2, pp. 81–7. The Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Hall, A. 2009. ‘Free’ enrichment and the nature of pragmatic constraints. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 93–123.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M.. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. Hodder Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. 1997. Emergent attributes in combined concepts. In T. Ward, S. Smith and J. Vaid (eds.), pp. 83–110.
Hann, M. 2007. Meh – the word that's sweeping the internet. The Guardian, 5th March 2007. Available at:
Happé, F. 1993. Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: a test of relevance theory. Cognition 48: 101–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, J.A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27: 405–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C. and von Stechow, A. (eds.) Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pp. 164–89. De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, pp. 11–42. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R. 1988. Pragmatic theory. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.) Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 1: Linguistic Theory: Foundations, pp. 113–45. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R. 1992. The said and the unsaid. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of SALT II: The Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory) 40: 163–202.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R. 1996. Presupposition and implicature. In Lappin, S. (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 299–320. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R. 2004. Implicature. In Horn, L.R. and Ward, G. (eds.), pp. 3–28.
Horn, L.R. and Ward, G. (eds.) 2004. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
House, J. 1990. Intonation structures and pragmatic interpretation. In Ramsaran, S. (ed.) Studies in the Pronunciation of English, pp. 38–57. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
House, J. 2006. Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics 38.10: 1542–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y. 1991. A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27: 301–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y. 2007. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. 2010. Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of conversational implicature. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 607–31. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2006. Corpus linguistics. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, pp. 234–48. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. 2005a. Evidential particles and mind-reading. Pragmatics & Cognition 13.2: 253–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. 2005b. Hearsay devices and metarepresentation. In Marmaridou, S., Antonopoulou, E. and Nikiforidou, V. (eds.) Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging trends in the 21st Century, pp. 401–20. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. 2005c. The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1325–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. 2009. Newspaper headlines and relevance: ad hoc concepts in ad hoc contexts. Journal of Pragmatics 41.4: 699–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. and Tzanne, A. 2006. Multimodality and relevance in the Athens 2004 Olympic Games televised promotion. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 19: 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, K. 1998. Intonation and relevance. In Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds.) Relevance Theory: Applications and implications, pp. 69–86. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iten, C. 2005. Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jary, M. 2008. The relevance of complement choice: a corpus study of ‘believe’. Lingua 118: 1–18.Google Scholar
Jary, M. 2009. Relevance, assertion and possible worlds: a cognitive approach to the Spanish subjunctive. In de Brabanter, P. and Kissine, M. (eds.) Utterance Interpretation and Cognitive Models, pp. 235–77. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jary, M. 2010. Assertion. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jary, M. 2011. Assertion, relevance and the declarative mood. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti and A. Ahern (eds), pp. 267–89.
Jaszczolt, K.M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K.M. 2006. Default semantics. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, 2nd edn, pp. 388–92. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K.M. 2009. Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K.M. 2010. Default semantics. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 193–221. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K.M. 2011. Default meanings, salient meanings and automatic processing. In , K.M.Jaszczolt, and Allan, K. (eds.) Salience and Defaults in Ulterance Processing, pp. 11–33. Mouton de Gruytes, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jodlowiec, M. 2009. Relevance and misunderstanding. In Tarasti, E., Forsell, P. and Littlefield, R. (eds.) Communication: Understanding/Misunderstanding. Proceedings of the 9th Congress of the IASS-AIS, Helsinki-Imatra. Vol. 1: Acta Semiotica Fennica XXXIV, pp. 651–61. International Semiotics Institute/Helsinki: Semiotic Society of Finland, Imatra.Google Scholar
Jodlowiec, M. 2010. The role of relevance theory in SLA studies. In Pütz, M. and Sicola, L. (eds.) Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 49–66. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1983. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. 2004. The history of mental models. In Manktelow, K. and Chung, M.C. (eds.) Psychology of Reasoning: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives, pp. 179–212. Psychology Press, New York.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. 2006. How We Reason. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. and Byrne, R.M.J. 1991. Deduction. Psychology Press, New York.Google Scholar
Jorgensen, J., Miller, G. and Sperber, D. 1984. Test of the mention theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113: 112–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J.A.G., Janssen, T.M.V. and Stokhof, M.J.B. (eds.) Truth, Interpretation and Information, pp. 1–41. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Katz, J.J. and Fodor, J.A. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39.2: 170–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J.J. and Postal, P.M. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Keenan, E.I. 1976. The universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society 5: 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W. and Gabbay, D. 2001. Dynamic Syntax. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
King, J. and Stanley, J. 2005. Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Szabo, Z.G. (ed.) Semantics vs. Pragmatics, pp. 111–64. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kisielewska-Krysiuk, M. 2010. Banter – a case of phatic communication? In Walaszewska, E., Kisielewska-Krysiuk, M. and Piskorska, A. (eds.) In the Mind and across Minds: A relevance-theoretic perspective on communication and translation, pp. 188–207. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.Google Scholar
de Klerk, V. 2005. Procedural meanings of ‘well’ in a corpus of Xhosa English. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1183–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. 1977. Speaker's reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2: 255–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S. and Brown, M. 1995. How about another piece of pie: the allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladd, R. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lagerwerf, L. 2007. Irony and sarcasm in advertisements: effects of relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1702–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landragin, F. 2003. Clues for the identification of implicit information in multimodal referring actions. In Stephanidis, C. and Jacko, J. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 2, pp. 711–15. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ.Google Scholar
Landragin, F., De Aangeli, A., Wolff, F., Lopez, P. and Romary, L. 2002. Relevance and perceptual constraints in multimodal referring actions. In Van Deemter, K. and Kibble, R. (eds.) Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation, pp. 391–410. CSLI Publications, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A. and Asher, N. 2007. Segmented discourse representation theory: dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In Bunt, H. and Muskens, R. (eds.) Computing Meaning, vol. 3, pp. 87–124. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A. and Copestake, A. 1998. Pragmatics and word meaning. Journal of Linguistics 34: 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, J. 1974. Semiotic Aspects of Spoken Communication. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Leslie, A. 1987. Pretense and representation: the origins of ‘theory of mind’. Psychological Review 94: 412–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, A. and Happé, F.. 1989. Autism and ostensive communication: the relevance of metarepresentation. Development and Psychopathology 1: 205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C. 1987a. Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, J. and Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (eds.) The Pragmatic Perspective, pp. 61–129. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C. 1987b. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23: 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C. 1987c. Implicature explicated?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10.4: 722–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C. 1989. A review of ‘Relevance’. Journal of Linguistics 25: 455–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Palmer, F. (ed.) Grammar and Meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, pp. 90–119. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1970. General semantics. Synthèse 22: 18–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMahon, B. 1996. Indirectness, rhetoric and interpretive use: communicative strategies in Browning's ‘My Last Duchess’. Language and Literature 5: 209–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMahon, B. 2001a. The effects of word substitution in slips of the tongue, Finnegans Wake and The Third Policeman. English Studies 3: 231–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMahon, B. 2001b. Relevance theory and the use of voice in poetry. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 15: 11–34.Google Scholar
MacMahon, B. 2007. The effects of sound patterning in poetry: a cognitive pragmatic approach. Journal of Literary Semantics 36.2: 103–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMahon, B. 2009a. Metarepresentation and decoupling in Northanger Abbey: Part I. English Studies 90.5: 518–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMahon, B. 2009b. Metarepresentation and decoupling in Northanger Abbey: Part II. English Studies 90.6: 673–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In Ogden, C.K. and Richards, I.A. (eds.) The Meaning of Meaning, pp. 146–52. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (eds.) 1999. Concepts: Core Readings. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Marten, L. and Kempson, R. 2006. Dynamic syntax. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 4, 2nd edn, pp. 33–37. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martí, L. 2006. Unarticulated constituents revisited. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 135–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascaro, O. and Sperber, D. 2009. The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children's vigilance towards deception. Cognition 112: 367–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsui, T., Yamamoto, T. and McCagg, P.. 2006. On the role of language in children's early understanding of others as epistemic beings. Cognitive Development 21: 158–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsui, T., Rakoczy, H., Miura, Y. and Tomasello, M. 2009. Understanding of speaker certainty and false-belief reasoning: a comparison of Japanese and German preschoolers. Developmental Science 12.4: 602–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McEnery, A.M. and Hardie, A. 2011. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, A.M. and Wilson, A. 2001. Corpus Linguistics, 2nd edn. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. 2009. Intuitive and reflective inferences. In Evans, J. and Frankish, K. (eds.) In Two Minds: Dual processes and beyond, pp. 149–70. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirecki, P. 2005. Misunderstanding: a starting point for successful communication. A view from the relevance-theoretic perspective. In Korzeniowska, A. and Grzegorzewska, M. (eds.) Relevance Studies in Poland, vol. 2, pp. 45–51. The Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Montague, R. 1974. Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague (ed. Thomason, R.H.). Yale University Press, New Haven CT.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. and Green, G. 1987. On the search for relevance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10: 726–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Lyer, F.C. 1889. Optische Urteilstauschungen. Archiv fur Anatomie und Physiologie. Physiologische Abteilung, 2: 263–70.Google Scholar
Navarro, M.P. 2006. Enrichment and loosening: an on-going process in the practice of translation. A study based on some translations of Gulliver's Travels. In Hornero, A.M., Luzón, M.J. and Murillo, S. (eds.) Corpus Linguistics: Applications for the Study of English, pp. 269–86. Peter Lang, Berlin.Google Scholar
Neale, S. 2000. On being explicit. Mind and Language 15: 284–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, S. 2005. Pragmatism and binding. In Szabó, Z. (ed.) Semantics vs. Pragmatics, pp. 165–285. Clarendon Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, S. and Clark, B. 1998. Phatic interpretations: standardisation and conventionalisation. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 183–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, S. and Clark, B. 1999. Experimental pragmatics and what is said: a response to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition 66: 337–54.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78.2: 165–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noveck, I., Bianco, M. and Castry, A. 2001. The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 16: 109–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. 2004. Experimental Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. 2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: the case of ‘scalar inferences’. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 184–212.
Nowik, E.K. 2005. Politeness of the impolite: relevance theory, politeness and banter. In Korzeniowska, A. and Grzegorzewska, M. (eds.) Relevance Studies in Poland, vol. 2, pp. 157–66. The Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Ogden, C.K. and Richards, I.A. 1923. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, London. Also available in a version edited by Gordon, W.T. (1994). Continuum, London.Google Scholar
Owtram, N. 2010. The Pragmatics of Academic Writing. Peter Lang, Berlin.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M. 2007. Metarepresentations and phatic utterances: a pragmatic proposal about the generation of solidarity between interlocutors. In Cap, P. and Nikakowska, J. (eds.) Current Trends in Pragmatics, pp. 110–28. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M. 2008. Three different pragmatic approaches to the teaching of the (im)politeness of phatic utterances in English. In Estébanez, C. and Pérez Ruiz Valladolid, L. (eds.) Language Awareness in English and Spanish, pp. 131–52. University of Valladolid.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M. 2009. Understanding and overcoming pragmatic failure when interpreting phatic utterances. In Gómez Morón, R., Padilla Cruz, M., Fernández Amaya, L. and Hernández López, M.O. (eds.) Pragmatics Applied to Language Teaching and Learning, pp. 87–108. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.Google Scholar
Pajares Tosca, S. 2000. A pragmatics of links. In Proceedings of Hypertext 2000, San Antonio, TX, pp. 77–84. Also in Journal of Digital Information 1.6. Available at: Google Scholar
Peeters, S. 2010. Metaphors in media discourse: from a conceptual metaphor approach to the relevance-theoretic ‘continuity view’ (and back again). In Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (ed.) Pragmatic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. Vol. I: Speech Actions in Theory and Applied Studies, pp. 327–59. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.Google Scholar
Pilkington, A. 1991. Poetic effects: a relevance theory perspective. In Sell, R. (ed.) Literary Pragmatics, pp. 44–61. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Pilkington, A. 1992. Poetic effects. Lingua 87: 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilkington, A. 1996. Introduction: relevance theory and literary style. Language and Literature 5.3: 157–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilkington, A. 2000. Poetic Effects. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilkington, A. 2001. Non-lexicalised concepts and degrees of effability: poetic thoughts and the attraction of what is not in the dictionary. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 15: 1–10.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1997. How The Mind Works. Penguin, London.Google Scholar
Powell, G. 2001. The referential–attributive distinction. Pragmatics and Cognition 9.1: 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. 2002. Underdetermination and the principles of semantic theory. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102.3: 271–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. 2010. Language, Thought and Reference. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Premack, D. and Woodruff, G.. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 515–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, D.A., Gerrig, R.J. and Bailis, D.S. 1997. What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4: 416–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. and Smollensky, P. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinz, J.J. 2009. Is the mind really modular? In Stainton, R. (ed.) Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science, pp. 22–36. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rapp, D.N. and Gerrig, R.J.. In press. Predilections for narrative outcomes: the impact of story contexts and reader preferences. To appear in Journal of Memory and Language.
Recanati, F. 1989. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind & Language 4: 295–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. 1993. Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science 19: 207–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. 2000. Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: The Semantics of Metarepresentations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 2001. What is said. Synthèse 128: 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. 2002a. Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. 2002b. Does linguistic communication rest on inference?Mind & Language 17: 105–26. (Special Issue on Pragmatics and Cognitive Science.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 2007. Indexicality, context and pretence. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 213–29.
Recanati, F. 2010. Pragmatics and logical form. In B. Soria and E. Romero (eds.), pp. 25–41.
Rockwell, P. 2000. Lower, slower, louder: vocal cues of sarcasm. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research 29: 483–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero, E. and Soria, B. 2007. A view of novel metaphor in the light of Recanati's proposals. In Frápolli, M.J. (ed.) Saying, Meaning and Referring: Essays on François Recanati's Philosophy of Language, pp. 145–59. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.Google Scholar
Rosales Sequeiros, X. 2005. Effects of Pragmatic Interpretation on Translation: Communicative Gaps and Textual Discrepancies. Lincom Studies in Pragmatics 13. Lincom, München.Google Scholar
Rouchota, V. 1988. Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In Jucker, A. and Ziv, Y. (eds.) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, pp. 96–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rouchota, V. and Jucker, A. (eds) 1998. Current Issues in Relevance Theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRef
Rubio Fernandez, P. 2001. The inhibition of core features in metaphor interpretation. Cambridge Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 8: 73–100.Google Scholar
Rubio Fernandez, P. 2005. Pragmatic Processes and Cognitive Mechanisms in Lexical Interpretation: The On-line Construction of Concepts. PhD thesis, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Rubio Fernandez, P. 2007. Suppression in metaphor interpretation: differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics 24: 345–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubio Fernandez, P. 2008. Concept narrowing: the role of context-independent information. Journal of Semantics 25.4: 381–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhi, S. and Dogan, G. 2001. Relevance theory and compliments as phatic communication: the case of Turkish. In Bayraktaroglu, A. and Sifianou, M. (eds.) Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries, pp. 341–90. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saad, J. 2010. Explicating the Implicit: An Exploration into the Pragmatic Competence of Arabic-speaking Trainee Translators. PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A. and Sacks, H. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7.4: 289–327.Google Scholar
Schneider, K.P. 1988. Small Talk: Analysing Phatic Discourse. Hitzeroth, Marburg.Google Scholar
Scholl, B. and Leslie, A. 1999. Modularity, development and ‘theory of mind’. Mind and Language 14: 131–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C.T. 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scott, K. 2006. When less is more: implicit arguments and relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 139–70.Google Scholar
Scott, K. 2008. Reference, procedures and implicitly communicated meaning. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 275–301.Google Scholar
Scott, K. 2010. The Relevance of Referring Expressions: The Case of Diary Drop in English. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Scott, K. 2011. Beyond reference: concepts, procedures and referring expressions. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti and A. Ahern (eds.), pp. 183–203.
Searle, J. 1979. Literal meaning. In Searle, J., Expression and Meaning, pp. 117–36. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setton, R. 1999. Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setton, R. 2005a. Pointing to contexts: a relevance-theoretic approach to assessing quality and difficulty in interpreting. In Dam, H.V., Engberg, J. and Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (eds.) Knowledge Systems and Translation, pp. 275–312. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.Google Scholar
Setton, R. 2005b. So what is so interesting about simultaneous interpreting?Skase Journal of Translation and Interpretation 1.1: 70–84.Google Scholar
Setton, R. 2006. Context in simultaneous interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 38.3: 374–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shively, R.L., Menke, R.M. and Manzón-Omundson, S.M. 2008. Perception of irony by L2 learners of Spanish. Issues in Applied Linguistics 16.2: 101–32Google Scholar
Smith, N.V. 2004. Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, S. Forthcoming. The gap between meaning and assertion: why what we literally say often differs from what our words literally mean. In Hackl, M. and Thornton, R. (eds.) Asserting, Meaning, and Implying. Oxford University Press.
Sodian, B. 2004. Theory of mind: the case for conceptual development. In Schneider, W., Schumann-Hengsteler, R. and Sodian, B. (eds.) Young Children's Cognitive Development, pp. 95–131. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Soria, B. and Romero, E. (eds.) 2010. Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston's Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. 1984. Verbal irony: pretense or echoic mention?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113: 130–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. 1994a. The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In Hirschfeld, L.A. and Gelman, S.A. (eds.) Mapping The Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, pp. 39–67. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. 1994b. Understanding verbal understanding. In Khalfa, J. (ed.) What is Intelligence?, pp. 179–98. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 1995. How do we communicate? In Brockman, J. and Matson, K. (eds.) How Things Are: A Science Toolkit for the Mind, pp. 191–9. Morrow, New York.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 2000. Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In Sperber, D. (ed.) Metarepresentations: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 117–37. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 2001. In defense of massive modularity. In Dupoux, E. (ed.) Language, Brain and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler, pp. 47–57. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 2005. Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. and Stich, S. (eds.) The Innate Mind: Structure and contents, pp. 53–68. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., Cara, F. and Girotto, V.. 1995. Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition 57: 31–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperber, D. and Girotto, V. 2002. Use or misuse of the selection task? Rejoinder to Fiddick, Cosmides and Tooby. Cognition 85: 277–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperber, D. and Girotto, V. 2003. Does the selection task detect cheater detection? In Sterleny, K. and Fitness, J. (eds.) From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology, pp. 197–226. Macquarie Monographs in Cognitive Science. Psychology Press, New York and Hove.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Noveck, I.. 2004. Introduction. In I. Noveck and D. Sperber (eds.), pp. 1–22.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.. 1982. Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In Smith, N.V. (ed.) Mutual Knowledge, pp. 61–85. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1985. Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society LXXXVI: 153–71.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford and Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA (2nd edn 1995).Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1987a. Précis of relevance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10.4: 697–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1987b. Presumptions of relevance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10.4: 736–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1990a. Spontaneous deduction and mutual knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13.1: 179–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1990. Rhetoric and relevance. In Bender, J. and Wellbery, D. (eds.) The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice, pp. 140–56. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Postface to the second edition of Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In. Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J. (eds.) Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes, pp. 184–200. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind & Language 17: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2005. Pragmatics. In Jackson, F. and Smith, M. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy, pp. 468–501. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphor. In Gibbs, R. (ed.) Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 84–108. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sroda, M.S. 2000. Relevance Theory and the Markedness Model in SLA: Cognitive Approaches to Pragmatics and Second Language Acquisition. PhD thesis, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Stainton, R. 1994. Using non-sentences: an application of relevance theory. Pragmatics and Cognition 2: 269–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stainton, R. 2006. Words and Thoughts: Subsentences, Ellipsis, and the Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. 2002. Making it articulated. Mind & Language 17 1&2: 149–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. and Szabó, Z.G. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15: 219–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stöver, H. 2011a. Awareness in metaphor understanding: the lingering of the literal. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9.1: 65–82.Google Scholar
Stöver, H. 2011b. Metaphor and Relevance Theory: A New Hybrid Model. PhD thesis, University of Bedfordshire.Google Scholar
Strawson, P.F. 1964[1971]. Intention and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review 73: 439–60. Reprinted in P. F. Strawson (1971) Logico-Linguistic Papers, pp. 170–89. Methuen, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surian, L. and Leslie, A. 1999. Competence and performance in false belief understanding: a comparison of autistic and normal 3-year-old children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 17: 141–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 645–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P. 1993. Connections, competitions and cohorts. In Altmann, G.T.M. and Shillcock, R.C. (eds.) Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: The second Sperlonga Meeting, pp. 277–94. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P., Burani, C. and Scott, D.. 1995. Word identification in fluent speech. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 440–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, K. 1992. The pun in advertising: a pragmatic approach. Lingua 87: 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, K. 1994. Advertising Language: A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements in Britain and Japan. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Tendahl, M. and Gibbs, R. 2008. Complementary perspectives on metaphor: cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics 40.11: 1823–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teubert, W. and Cermakova, A. 2007. Corpus Linguistics: A Short Introduction. Continuum, London.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. Hodder Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2005. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, C. (ed.) 2000. William Carlos Williams: Selected poems. Penguin, London.Google Scholar
Travis, C. 1981. The True and the False: The Domain of the Pragmatic. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, C. 1985. On what is strictly speaking true. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15: 187–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, C. 1991. Annals of analysis: Studies in the Way of Words by H. P. Grice. Mind 100: 237–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Henst, J.-B., Carles, L. and Sperber, D. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance in telling the time. Mind & Language 17.5: 457–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Henst, J.-B. and Sperber, D. 2004. Testing the cognitive and the communicative principles of relevance. In I. Noveck and D. Sperber (eds.), 141–69.
Van der Henst, J.-B., Sperber, D. and Politzer, G. 2002. When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems. Thinking & Reasoning 8: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandepitte, S. 1989. A pragmatic function of intonation. Lingua 79: 265–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vega Moreno, R. 2004. Metaphor interpretation and emergence. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 297–322.Google Scholar
Vega Moreno, R. 2005. Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Vega Moreno, R. 2007. Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, K. 1990. Mimesis as Make-believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Ward, T., Smith, S. and Vaid, J. (eds.) 1997. Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes. American Psychological Association, Washington DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wason, P. 1966. Reasoning. In Foss, B.M. (ed.) New Horizons in Psychology. Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Watts, R.J. 2004. Politeness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wellman, H.M., Cross, D. and Watson, J. 2001. Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about false belief. Child Development 72: 655–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wharton, T. 2003a. Natural pragmatics and natural codes. Mind and Language 18.5: 447–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T. 2003b. Interjections, language and the ‘showing-waying’ continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition 11.1: 39–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T. 2006. Evolution of pragmatics. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, pp. 338–45. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. 1995. Is there a maxim of truthfulness?UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 197–212.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 2000. Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In Sperber, D. (ed.) Metarepresentations: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 411–48. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 2005. New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua 115: 1129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. 2006. The pragmatics of verbal irony: echo or pretence?Lingua 116: 1722–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. 2009. Irony and metarepresentation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 183–226.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 2011a. Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics. Intercultural Pragmatics 8.2: 177–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. 2011b. Conceptual-procedural distinction: past, present and future. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti and A. Ahern (eds.), pp. 3–31.
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the emergent property issue. Mind and Language 21.3: 404–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 230–59.
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. 2008. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ problem. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 3: 1–40.Google Scholar
Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 1981. On Grice's theory of conversation. In Werth, P. (ed.) Conversation and Discourse, pp. 155–78. Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 1986. Pragmatics and modularity. Chicago Linguistic Society 22, Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, pp. 68–74.Google Scholar
Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 1988. Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In Dancy, J., Moravcsik, J. and Taylor, C. (eds.) Human Agency: Language, Duty and Value, pp. 77–101. Stanford University Press. Reprinted in A. Kasher (ed.) 1998, vol. II, pp. 262–89.Google Scholar
Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 1998. Pragmatics and time. In R. Carston and S. Uchida (eds.), pp. 1–22.
Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111: 583–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 2004. Relevance theory. In L.R. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), pp. 607–32.
Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. and Wharton, T. 2006. Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38.10: 1559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, H. and Perner, J. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition 13.1: 103–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamanaka, E.J. 2003. Effect of proficiency and length of residence on the pragmatic comprehension of Japanese ESL. Second Language Studies 22.1: 107–75.Google Scholar
Yus, F. 1998a. Relevance theory and media discourse: a verbal-visual model of communication. Poetics 25: 293–309.Google Scholar
Yus, F. 1998b. 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
Yus, F. 1999a. Towards a pragmatic taxonomy of misunderstandings. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 38: 218–39.Google Scholar
Yus, F. 1999b. Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication. Pragmatics 9.4: 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. 2006. Relevance theory. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 10, 2nd edn, pp. 512–19. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. 2008. Alterations of relevance in cyber-media. Universitas Psychologica 7.3: 623–36.Google Scholar
Yus, F. 2009. Visual metaphor versus verbal metaphor: a unified account. In Forceville, C. and Uriós-Aparisi, E. (eds.) Multimodal Metaphor, pp. 145–72. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
Yus, F. 2010. Relevance theory. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 679–701. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yus, F. 2011. Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajac, M. 2004. Polish quantified sentences. From logical form to explicature: an analysis of selected examples from a corpus of young Poles' everyday conversation. In Mioduszewska, E. (ed.) Relevance Studies in Poland, pp. 143–53. The Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Zaki, M. 2011. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Demonstratives in English and Arabic. PhD thesis, Middlesex University.Google Scholar
Zegarac, V. 1998. What is ‘phatic communication’? In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker (eds.), pp. 327–62.
Zegarac, V. and Clark, B. 1999. Phatic interpretations and phatic communication. Journal of Linguistics 35.2: 321–46.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.

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.

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.

Available formats
×