References
Allan, K.
(2009) The connotations of English colour terms: Colour-based x-phemisms. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 626–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allott, N.
(2010) Key terms in pragmatics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Blutner, R.
(1998) Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics, 15, 115–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Some perspectives on lexical pragmatics. In D. Archer & P. Grundy (Eds.), The pragmatics reader (pp. 99–114). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, C. H.
(1990) A survey of category types in natural language. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 17–47). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carston, R.
(1997) Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? Linguistische Berichte, 8, 103–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Metaphor and the literal/non-literal distinction. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 469–492). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Contextual adjustment of meaning. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp. 195–210). London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
(2015) Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 79–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, S.
(1996) Metonymy. In T. Enos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of rhetoric and composition. Communication from ancient times to the information age (pp. 444–446). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M.
(2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Falkum, I. L.
(2015) The how and why of polysemy: A pragmatic account. Lingua, 157, 93–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(1998) Conceptual integration network. Cognitive Science, 22, 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, A.
(2017) Lexical pragmatics, explicature and ad hoc concepts. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 85–100). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, L.
(2007) Neo-Gricean pragmatics: A Manichaean manifesto. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 158–183). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Pragmatics and the lexicon. In P. van Sterkenburg (Ed.), Unity and diversity of languages (pp. 29–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y.
(2009) Neo-Gricean pragmatics and the lexicon. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 118–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E.
(2014) Pragmatic competence and relevance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jodłowiec, M., & Piskorska, A.
(2015) Metonymy revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12, 161–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kronenfeld, D.
(1988) Full bloods and protestants: Semantic extension in complex domains. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar
(1996) Plastic glasses and church fathers: Semantic extension from the ethnoscience tradition. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Cognitive models and prototype theory. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 391–421). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, M.
(2017) A cognitive, usage-based view on lexical pragmatics: Response to Hall. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 101–114). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, M.
(2005, March 27). Liberalism is the new communism. [Web log post]. [URL]Google Scholar
Ludlow, P.
(2014) Living words: Meaning underdetermination and the dynamic lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G.
(2003, October 27). Phrases for lazy writers in kit form. [Web log post]. [URL]Google Scholar
(2004, January 16). Snowclones: Lexicographical dating to the second. [Web log post]. [URL]Google Scholar
Rubio-Fernández, P., Wearing, C., & Carston, R.
(2013) How metaphor and hyperbole differ: An empirical investigation of the relevance-theor etic account of loose use. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 25, 46–65.Google Scholar
Solska, A.
(2017) Degrees of ‘punniness’? A relevance-theoretic account of puns and pun-like utterances. In A. Piskorska & E. Wałaszewska (Eds.), Applications of relevance theory: From discourse to morphemes (pp. 198–222). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2008) A deflationary account of metaphors. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(1989/1995) Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2014) Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. In S. Hancil & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization – theory and data (pp. 87–105). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unger, C.
(2011) Exploring the borderline between procedural encoding and pragmatic inference. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti, & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives (pp. 103–127). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
(2004) When novel sentences spoken or heard for the first time in the history of the universe are not enough: Toward a dual-process model of language. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Cameron, K., Bridges, K., & Sidtis, J. J.
(2015) The formulaic schema in the minds of two generations of native speakers. Ampersand, 2, 39–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vega Moreno, R. E.
(2007) Creativity and convention: The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wałaszewska, E.
(2015) Relevance-theoretic lexical pragmatics: Theory and applications. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2003) Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Rivista di Linguistica, 12, 273–291.Google Scholar
(2004) Relevance and lexical pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 343–360.Google Scholar
(2014) Relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 26, 1–20.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Carston, R.
(2007) A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230–259). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012) Introduction: Pragmatics. In Meaning and relevance (pp. 1–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A.
(2006, March 13). Snowclone mountain? [Web log post]. [URL]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2023. Paralanguage and ad hoc concepts. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:3  pp. 343 ff. DOI logo
Piskorska, Agnieszka
2021. Being ambivalent by exploiting indeterminacy in the explicit import of an utterance. Pragmatics & Cognition 28:2  pp. 376 ff. DOI logo
Wałaszewska, Ewa
2023. Non-literal uses of proper names in XYZ constructions. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:3  pp. 368 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.