References

Kate Scott

doi:10.1017/9781316822845.009

Abbott, B. 2004. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell, 122–49.Google Scholar

Abbott, B. 2010. Reference. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Acton, E. K. and Potts, C. 2014. That straight talk: Sarah Palin and the sociolinguistics of demonstratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(1), 3–31.CrossRef Google Scholar

Adger, D. and Harbour, D. 2008. Why Phi? In Harbour, D., Adger, D. and Bejar, S. (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces. Oxford University Press, 1–34.Google Scholar

Anderson, S. R. and Keenan, E. L. 1985. Deixis. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, 259–308.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24(1), 65–87.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. Routledge.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 443–63.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1994. Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics 30(1), 3–42.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Sanders, T., Schliperoord, J. and Spooren, W. (eds.), Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. John Benjamins, 29–87.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Atwood, M. 1986. The Handmaid’s Tale. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar

Banks, I. 1996. The Crow Road. Abacus.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S. 1997. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bezuidenhout, A. 1997. Pragmatics, semantic underdetermination and the referential/attributive distinction. Mind 106(423), 375–409.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2000. Indicators and procedures: Nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics 36, 463–86.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2007. Constraints, concepts and procedural encoding. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics. Palgrave MacMillan, 45–66.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2008. Apposition and affective communication. Language and Literature 17(1), 37–58.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2010. Communication and the representation of thought: The use of audience-directed expressions in free indirect thought representation. Journal of Linguistics 46(3), 575–99.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2011. On the descriptive ineffability of expressive meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 3537–50.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2013. The expressive meaning of racial epithets: Towards a non-unitary account of expressive meaning. Faculty of Arts Scholarly and Research Events, 11 December. University of Brighton, Brighton.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2015. Slurs and expressive epithets: A case against a general account of expressive meaning. Language Sciences 52, 22–35.Google Scholar

Borg, E. 2004. Minimal Semantics. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Borthen, K. 2008. Descriptive Content as Higher-level Explicatures. NTNU Working Papers 5, 67–79.Google Scholar

Borthen, K. and Bröseth, H. 2010. The procedural and conceptual meaning of they. In Walaszewska, E., Kisielewska-Krysiuk, M. and Piskorska, A. (eds.), In the Mind and Across Minds. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 86–96.Google Scholar

Brake, D. R. 2012. Who do they think they’re talking to? Framings of the audience by social media users. International Journal of Communication 6, 1056–76.Google Scholar

‘Branston (brand)’ 2018. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branston_(brand) (Accessed 08 November 2018).Google Scholar

Bromberg, H. S. and Wexler, K. 1995. Null subjects in child WH-questions. In Shutze, C. T., Ganger, J. B. and Broihier, K. (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26: 221–47.Google Scholar

Bullokar, W. 1586) Pamphlet for Grammar. Edmund Bollifant.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 1997. Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. John Benjamins, 179–236.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 1999. The relationship between generative grammar and (relevance theoretic) pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 21–40.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2002a. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2002b. Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind & Language 17, 127–48.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2004. Explicature and semantics. In Davis, S. and Gillan, B. S. (eds.), Semantics: A Reader. Oxford University Press, 817–45.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2016. The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua 175–6, 154–66.Google Scholar

Caso, R. 2009. Procedural meaning and definite descriptions. Análisis Filosófico 29(2), 173–84.Google Scholar

Chen, R. 1990. English demonstratives: A case of semantic expansion. Language Sciences 12(2–3), 139–53.Google Scholar

Cheshire, J. 1996. That jacksprat: An international perspective on English that. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 369–93.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.Google Scholar

Clark, B. 1991. Relevance Theory and the Semantics of Non-Declaratives. PhD Dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar

Clark, B. 2012. [Twitter] 27 July. https://twitter.com/billylinguist (Accessed 08 November 2018).Google Scholar

Clark, B. 2013. Relevance Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. 1977. Bridging. In Johnson-Laird, P. and Wason, P. (eds.), Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge University Press, 411–20.Google Scholar

Cornish, F. 2001. ‘Modal’ that as determiner and pronoun: The primacy of the cognitive-interactive dimension. English Language and Linguistics 5(2), 297–315.Google Scholar

Cruse, A. 2011. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Culpepper, J. and Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English Language. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Demme, J. 1991. The Silence of the Lambs [Motion Picture].Google Scholar

Dennett, D. C. 1969. Content and Consciousness. Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Donnellan, K. S. 1966. Reference and descriptions. The Philosophical Review 75(3), 281–304.Google Scholar

Doyle, A. C. 1891/2009. The Adventures and Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. Vintage.Google Scholar

Fahey, J. 2014. Popular orange vegetables and silly synonyms. The Guardian 6 January. www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2014/jan/06/popular-orange-vegetables-silly-synonyms (Accessed 08 November 2018).Google Scholar

Fielding, H. 1996. Bridget Jones’ Diary. Picador.Google Scholar

Fielding, H. 2004. Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. Picador.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. 1997. Lectures on Deixis. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. 1975. The Language of Thought. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. 2008. LOT2: The Language of Thought Revisited. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fowler, R. 1977. Linguistics and the Novel. Methuen.Google Scholar

Frege, G. 1948. Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review 57(3), 209–30.Google Scholar

Fretheim, T. 2011. Description as indication: The use of conceptual meaning for a procedural purpose. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. and Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Emerald, 131–55.Google Scholar

Frith, C. and Frith, U. 2005. Theory of mind. Current Biology 15(17), R644–5.Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, M. A. and Shroyer, S. 1989. The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives. Memory and Cognition 17(5), 536–40.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. 2010. Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ginsburg, A. 1995. Journals 1954–1958. Penguin.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: A Functional-Typographical Introduction, Volume 1. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Glover, K. D. 2000. Proximal and distal deixis in negotiation talk. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 915–26.Google Scholar

Greene, G. 2004. Brighton Rock. Vintage.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, 41–58.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. 1979. Complement structure and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10(2), 279–326.Google Scholar

Groefsema, M. 1995. Understood arguments: A semantic/pragmatic approach. Lingua 96, 139–61.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gundel, J. K. 2003. Information structure and referential givenness/newness: How much belongs in the grammar? In Muller, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG03 Conference. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Gundel, J. K. 2010. Reference and accessibility from a Givenness hierarchy perspective. International Review of Pragmatics 2, 148–68.Google Scholar

Gundel, J. K. and Mulkern, A. E. 1998. Quantity implicatures in reference understanding. Pragmatics and Cognition 6(1/2), 21–45.Google Scholar

Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2), 274–307.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1990a. Non-overt subjects in diary contexts. In Mascaro, J. and Nespor, M. (eds.), Grammar in Progress: GLOW Essays for Henk van Reimsdijk. Foris, 167–79.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1990b. Understood subjects in English diaries: On the relevance of theoretic syntax for the study of register variation. Multilingua 9(2), 157–99.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Blackwells.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1997. Register variation, truncation and subject omission in English and French. English Language and Linguistics 1, 233–70.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 2000. Adult null subjects in non-pro-drop languages. In Friedemann, M. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax: Studies in Comparative Development Linguistics. Pearson, 129–69.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. and Guéron, J. 1999. English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. and Ihsane, T. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 3(1), 117–45.Google 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.Google Scholar

Hall, A. 2007. Do discourse markers encode concepts or procedures? Lingua 111(1), 149–74.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. Longman.Google Scholar

Hartley, L. P. 1953/1997. The Go-Between. Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Hedberg, N., Gundel, J. K. and Borthen, K. 2019. On different senses of ‘referential’. In Gundel, J. K. and Abbott, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook on Reference. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hedley, P. 2005. Pronouns, procedures and relevance theory. Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 41–55.Google Scholar

Hedley, P. 2007. Anaphora, Relevance and the Conceptual/Procedural Distinction. DPhil Thesis. Magdalen College, Oxford.Google Scholar

Heim, I. and Kratzer, A. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (GURT ’84). Georgetown University Press, 389–418.Google Scholar

Horsey, R. 1998. Null Arguments in English Registers: A minimalist account. BA Thesis. La Trobe University.Google Scholar

House, J. 2006. Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10), 1542–58.Google Scholar

Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hulme, K. 1985[1984]. The Bone People. Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar

Hussein, M. 2008. The truth-conditional/non-truth-conditional and the conceptual/procedural distinctions revisited. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 61–80.Google Scholar

Iten, C. 2005. Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance: The case of Concessives. Palgrave.Google Scholar

Iten, C., Junker, M.-O., Pyke, A., Stainton, R. and Wearing, C. 2005. Null complements: Licensed by syntax or pragmatics. In Junker, M.-O., McGinnis, M. and Roberge, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Canadian Linguistics Association, 1–5.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantics Structures. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R., Cohn, N. and Griffith, B. 2012. A User’s Guide to Thought and Meaning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. 1989. The Null Subject Parameter. Kluwer.Google Scholar

Janssen, T. J. 1995. Deixis from a cognitive point of view. In Contini-Morava, E. and Goldberg, B. S. (eds.), Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory. Mouton de Gruyter, 245–70.Google Scholar

Jary, M. 2011. Assertion, relevance and the declarative mood. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. and Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Emerald, 267–89.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1940. A Modern English Grammar Part V. Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. 1989. Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Katz, J. and Postal, P. M. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kemmerer, D. 1999. ‘Near’ and ‘far’ in language and perception. Cognition 73(1), 35–63.Google Scholar

Kolkmann, J. 2016. The Pragmatics of Possession: Issues in the Interpretation of Pre-Nominal Possessives in English. PhD Thesis. University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G., ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G. and Link, G. (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In Carlson, G. and Pelletier, F. (eds.), The Generic Book. University of Chicago Press, 1–124.Google Scholar

Kruisinga, E. 1925–32. A Handbook of Present Day English: English Accidence and Syntax 2. Kemink.Google Scholar

Ladd, R. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, R. 1974. Remarks on this and that. Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Lee, M. S. 1993. The origin of the turtle body plan: Bridging a famous morphological gap. Science 261(5129), 1716–20.Google Scholar

Leonetti, M. 2000. The Asymmetries between the Definite Article and Demonstratives: A Procedural Account. Paper presented to the 7th International Pragmatics Conference in Budapest.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2004. Deixis. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell, 97–121.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1970/83. General semantics. Synthese 22, 18–67.Google Scholar

Reprinted in Lewis, D. 1983 Philosophical Papers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1979/83. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–59.Google Scholar

Reprinted in Lewis, D. 1983 Philosophical Papers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Liberman, M. 2008. Affective demonstratives. Language Log: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=674 (Accessed 08 November 2018).Google Scholar

Litt, E. 2012. Knock, knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56(3), 330–45.Google Scholar

Ludlow, P. and Neale, S. 1991. Indefinite descriptions: In defense of Russell. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 171–202.Google Scholar

Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maes, A. 1996. Nominal Anaphors, Markedness, and the Coherence of Discourse. Peeters.Google Scholar

Mapstone, L. 2015. Victoria Beckham shares sweet picture of herself with daughter Harper … as she and David host star-studded dinner for the launch of her collection. Daily Mail 15 April. www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3039422/Victoria-Beckham-shares-sweet-picture-daughter-Harper-David-host-star-studded-dinner-launch-collection.html (Accessed 08 November 2018).Google Scholar

Marwick, A. E. and boyd, d. 2010. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society 13, 96–113.Google Scholar

Mason, R., Booth, R and Gentleman, A. 2016. Nigel Farage resigns as Ukip leader after ‘achieving political ambition’ of Brexit. The Guardian 4 July. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/nigel-farage-resigns-as-ukip-leader (Accessed 08 November 2018).Google Scholar

Matsui, T. 2000. Bridging and Relevance. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. 1843. A System of Logic. Harper Brothers.Google Scholar

Morrison, T. 1997. Paradise. Vintage.Google Scholar

Neale, S. 2007. Hands, Heavy, Magic, and scene-reading traps. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3(2), 77–132.Google Scholar

Neeleman, A. and Szendrői, K. (2007). Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 671–714.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. 2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics. Palgrave MacMillan, 184–212.Google Scholar

Nunberg, G. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 12, 109–32.Google Scholar

Nunberg, G. 2004. The pragmatics of deferred interpretation. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell, 344–64.Google Scholar

Oh, S.-Y. 2006. English zero anaphora as an interactional resource II. Discourse Studies 8, 817–46.Google Scholar

Partee, B. H. 1972. Opacity, coreference and pronouns. In Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. D. Reidel, 415–41.Google Scholar

Partee, B. H. 2006. A note on Mandarin possessives, demonstratives and definiteness. In Birner, B. J. and Ward, G. (eds.), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. John Benjamins, 263–80.Google Scholar

Pepys, S. 1825/1985. The Shorter Pepys. Bell & Hyman.Google Scholar

Pihlaja, S. [Twitter] 1 May. https://twitter.com/mysonabsalom (Accessed 03 June 2019).Google Scholar

Powell, G. 2001a. Complex demonstratives. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 13, 43–73.Google Scholar

Powell, G. 2001b. The referential-attributive distinction: A cognitive account. Pragmatics and Cognition 9(1), 69–98.Google Scholar

Powell, G. 2002. Reference and Relevance. PhD Thesis. University College London.Google Scholar

Powell, G. 2010. Language, Thought and Reference. Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman.Google Scholar

Reboul, A. 1997. What (if anything) is accessibility? A relevance-orientated criticism of Ariel’s Accessibility Theory of referring expressions. In Connolly, J. H., Vismans, R. M., Butler, C. S. and Gatward, R. A. (eds.), Discourse and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Mouton de Gruyter, 91–108.Google Scholar

Reboul, A. 1998. A relevance theoretic approach to reference. Acts of the Relevance Theory Workshop. University of Luton, 45–50.Google Scholar

Reboul, A. 1999. Reference, agreement, evolving reference and the theory of mental representations. In Coene, M. (ed.), Traiani Augusti vestigia pressa sequamur: Studia 1 lingvistica in honorem L. Tasmowki. Unipress, 601–16.Google Scholar

Reboul, A. (2019). Pronouns in free indirect discourse: A relevance-theoretic account. In Scott, K., Clark, B., & Carston, R. (eds.), Relevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. 2012. Mental Files. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. 2014. Mental files and identity. In Reboul, A. (ed.), Mind, Values and Metaphysics: Philosophical Essays in Honor of Kevin Mulligan, Volume 2. Springer, 467–86.Google Scholar

Riddle, E. M. 2010. Vantage theory and the use of English demonstrative determiners with proper nouns. Language Science, 32, 225–40.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1994. Early null subjects and root null subjects. In Hoeksta, T. and Schwartz, B. (eds.), Language Acquisition in Generative Grammar. John Benjamins, 151–76.Google Scholar

Rouchota, V. 1992. On the referential/attributive distinction. Lingua 87, 137–67.Google Scholar

Rouchota, V. 1994. On indefinite descriptions. Journal of Linguistics 30, 441–75.Google Scholar

Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14(56), 479–93.Google Scholar

Russell, B. 1911. Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society XI, 108–28.Google Scholar

Sax, D. J. 2011. Sentence stress and the procedures of comprehension. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. and Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspective. Emerald, 349–81.Google Scholar

Schmerling, S. 1972. Subjectless sentences and the notion of surface structure. In Corum, C., Smith, T. C. and Weiser, A. (ed.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. University of Chicago Press, 577–86.Google Scholar

Schmerling, S. 1982. How imperatives are special, and how they aren’t. In Schneider, R, Tuite, K. and Chametzky, R. (ed.), Papers on the Parasession on Nondeclaratives. Chicago Linguistic Society, 202–18.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. 2016. Pronouns and procedures: Reference and beyond. Lingua 175–6, 69–82.Google Scholar

Scott, K. 2017. Prosody, procedures and pragmatics. In Depraetere, I. and Salkie, R. (eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line. Springer, 323–41.Google Scholar

Scott, K., Clark, B. and Carston, R. (eds.) 2019. Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge University Press. Shakespeare, W. 1597/1980. Romeo and Juliet. Methuen & Co.Google Scholar

Smith, N. 2000. Foreward. In Chomsky, N., New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press, vi-xvi.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. 1994. Understanding verbal understanding. In Khalfa, J. (ed.), What Is Intelligence? Cambridge University Press, 179–98.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 Content. Oxford University Press, 53–68.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986/95. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition with postface). Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language 17(1), 3–23.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphor. In Gibbs, R. (ed.), Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, 83–105.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. and Wilson, D. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25, 359–93.Google Scholar

Strauss, S. 1993. Why this and that are not complete without it. Proceedings of the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: The Main Session. Chicago Linguistic Society, 403–17.Google Scholar

Strauss, S. 2002. This, that and it in spoken American English: A demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Sciences 24(2), 131–52.Google Scholar

Sweet, H. 1960. New English Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. In Rudska-Ostyn, B. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins, 165–206.Google Scholar

Thomas, H. S. 1972. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey into the Heart of the American Dream. HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Thorne, J. P. 1966. English imperative sentences. Journal of Linguistics 2(1), 69–78.Google Scholar

Thrasher, R. 1977. One Way to Say More by Saying Less: A Study of So-called Subjectless Sentences. The Eihosha Ltd.Google Scholar

Tomioka, S. 2003. The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures. John Benjamins, 321–39.Google Scholar

Wells, J. C. 2006. English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wharton, T. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. 1992. Reference and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 167–91.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. and Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Emerald, 3–31.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. 2016. Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua 175–6, 5–19.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90, 1–25.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. 1998. Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In Kasher, A. (ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. Routledge, 262–89.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111(443), 583–632.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. 2004. Relevance theory. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell, 607–32.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Wharton, T. 2006. Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10), 1559–79.Google Scholar

Wolter, L. K. 2004. Demonstratives, definiteness and determined reference. In Moulton, K. and Wolf, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 34. GLSA, 603–17.Google Scholar

Woolf, V. 1925. Mrs Dalloway. Harcourt.Google Scholar

Worrell, M. 2018. [Twitter] 19 May. https://twitter.com/gate17marco/ (Accessed 07 November 2018).Google Scholar

Wright, S. E. and Givón, T. 1987. The pragmatics of indefinite reference: Quantified text-based studies. Studies in Language 11(1), 1–33.Google Scholar

Zaki, M. 2009. Demonstratives and the Conceptual/Procedural Distinction. Paper Presented at Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Madrid.Google Scholar

Žegarac, V. 1998. What is phatic communication. In Rouchota, V. and Jucker, A. H. (eds.), Current Issues in Relevance Theory. John Benjamins, 327–61.Google Scholar

Žegarac, V. and Clark, B. 1999. Phatic interpretations and phatic communication. Journal of Linguistics 35(2), 321–46.Google Scholar

Book contents

References

Summary

Access options

References

Book contents

References

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive