Cover not available
Part of
Relevance Theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions
Edited by Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 268] 2016
► pp. 1–29

Three decades of relevance theory

| University of Seville
Published online: 20 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.01cru
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allot, Nicholas E.
2002 “Relevance and Rationality.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 69–82.Google Scholar
Apperly, Ian
2012 Mindreaders. The Cognitive Basis of Theory of Mind. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Berbeira Gardón, José L.
1993 “Posibilidad epistémica, posibilidad radical y pertinencia.” Pragmalingüística 1: 53–78.Google Scholar
1998 “Relevance and Modality.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987 Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1988 “’So’ as a Constraint on Relevance.” In Mental Representations. The Interface between Language and Reality, ed. by Ruth M. Kempson, 183–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1989 “Denial and Contrast: A Relevance Theoretic Analysis of But .” Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 15–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1993 “The Relevance of Reformulations.” Language and Literature 2: 101–120.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 “Relevance, Poetic Effects and Social Goals: A Reply to Culpeper.” Language and Literature 3: 49–59.Google Scholar
2002 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “On the Descriptive Ineffability of Expressive Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (14): 3537–3550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blass, Regina
1989 “Pragmatic Effects of Co-ordination: The Case of ‘and’ in Sissala.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 32–51.Google Scholar
1990 Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special Reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonhomme, Marc
2005 “Flou et polyvalence de la question rhétorique: L’exemple des fables de La Fontaine.” In Les états de la question, ed. by C. Rossari et al., 191–209. Québec: Nota Bene.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002 Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Word Meaning and Concept Expressed.” The Linguistic Review 29 (4): 607–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “The Heterogeneity of Procedural Meaning.” Lingua 175–176: 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn, and Seiji Uchida
(eds) 1998 Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Billy
1993 “ Let and let’s: Procedural Encoding and Explicature.” Lingua 90: 173–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Relevance Theory and Language Change.” Lingua 175–176: 139–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curcó, Carmen
1995 “Some Observations on the Pragmatics of Humorous Interpretations: A Relevance Theoretic Approach.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 27–47.Google Scholar
1996 “The Implicit Expression of Attitudes, Mutual Manifestness, and Verbal Humour.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 89–99.Google Scholar
1997 The Pragmatics of Humorous Interpretations: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach. PhD diss., University of London.Google Scholar
Damasio, Antonio R.
1994 Descartes’ Error. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van, and Rob Grootendorst
2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Escandell Vidal, M. Victoria
1996 “Towards a Cognitive Approach to Politeness.” Language Sciences 18: 629–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 “Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 45–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “Norms and Principles. Putting Social and Cognitive Pragmatics Together.” In Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, ed. by Rosina Márquez-Reiter and M. Elena Placencia, 347-371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell Vidal, M. Victoria, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern
(eds) 2011 Procedural Meaning. Problems and Perspectives. Bingley: Emerald/Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry
1983 The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W.
2000 “Irony in Talk among Friends.” Metaphor and Symbol 15: 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1957 “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66: 377–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–59. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein
1995 “ Can, May, Must and Should: A Relevance Theoretic Account.” Journal of Linguistics 31: 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August
1989 “Translation and Relevance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 75–94.Google Scholar
1991 Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Hall, Alison
2007 “Do Discourse Connectives Encode Concepts or Procedures?” Lingua 117 (1): 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Happé, Francesca G.E.
1994 “An Advanced Test of Theory of Mind: Understanding of Story Characters’ Thoughts and Feelings by Able Autistic, Mentally Handicapped, and Normal Children and Adults.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 24 (2): 129–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Larry
1996 “Presupposition and Implicature.” In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 299–320. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly
1992 “Sentential Adverbs and Relevance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 193–214.Google Scholar
1993 “Parentheticals and Relevance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 193–210.Google Scholar
2001 Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Pragmatic Competence and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kunihito
1998 “Intonation and Relevance.” In Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications, ed. by Robyn Carston and Seiji Uchida, 69–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itani, Reiko
1994 “A Relevance-based Analysis of Hearsay Particles: Japanese Utterance-final tte .” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 379–400.Google Scholar
Iten, Corinne
2002 Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance. The Case of Concessives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark
1998a “Is Relevance Theory Asocial?” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 157–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998b “Relevance Theory and the Communication of Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Assertion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Two Types of Implicatures: Material and Behavioural.” Mind & Language 28 (5): 638–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jodłowiec, Maria
1991 The Role of Relevance in the Interpretation of Verbal Jokes: A Pragmatic Analysis. PhD diss., Jagiellonian Uiversity.Google Scholar
2008 “What’s in the Punchline?” In Relevant Worlds: Current Perspectives on Language, Translation and Relevance Theory, ed. by Ewa Wałaszewska, Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk, Aniela Korzeniowska, and Małgorzata Grzegorzewska, 67–86. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.
1993 “The Discourse Marker Well: A Relevance-Theoretical Account.” Journal of Pragmatics 19: 435–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korzeniowska, Aniela, and Małgorzata Grzegorzewska
(eds) 2005 Relevance Studies in Poland, Vol. 2. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T.
1973 “The Logic of Politeness; or, Minding Your P’s and q’s.” In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, ed. by Claudia W. Corum, Thomas C. Smith-Stark, and Ann Weiser, 292–305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leekam, Susan R.
1991 “Jokes and Lies: Children’s Understanding of Intentional Falsehood.” In Natural Theories of Mind. Evolution, Development and Simulation of Everyday Mindreading, ed. by Andrew Whiten, 159–174. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leinonen, Eeva, and Nuala Ryder
2008 “Relevance Theory and Language Disorders.” In The Handbook of Clinical Linguistics, ed. by Martin J. Ball, Michael Perkins, Nicole Müller, and Sara Howard. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000 Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David
1969 Convention. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Maillat, Didier, and Steve Oswald
2009 “Defining Manipulative Discourse: The Pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions.” International Review of Pragmatics 1 (2): 348–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Constraining Context: A Pragmatic Account of Cognitive Manipulation.” In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, ed. by C. Hart, 65–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mascaro, Olivier, and Dan Sperber
2009 “The Moral, Epistemic, and Mindreading Components of Children’s Vigilance towards Deception.” Cognition 112 (3): 367–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateo Martínez, José, and Francisco Yus Ramos
1998 Special Issue on Relevance Theory. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana
2013 “ ‘Optimal Relevance’ as a Pragmatic Criterion: The Role of Epistemic Vigilance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 20–45.Google Scholar
2015 “Pragmatics and Epistemic Vigilance: The Deployment of Sophisticated Interpretative Strategies.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44): 183–199.Google Scholar
Mioduszewska, Ewa
(ed.) 2004 Relevance Studies in Poland, Vol. 1. Warszawa: University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques
1993 “Relevance and Conversation.” Lingua 90: 149–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Pragmatics, Propositional and Non-propositional Effects: Can a Theory of Utterance Interpretation Account for Emotions in Verbal Communication?” Social Science Information 48 (3): 447–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moescheler, Jacques
2016 “Where Is Procedural Meaning Located? Evidence from Discourse Connectives and Tenses.” Lingua 175–176: 122–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noh, Eun-Ju
2000 Metarepresentation. A Relevance-Theory Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, Steve
2010 Pragmatics of Uncooperative and Manipulative Communication. PhD diss., University of Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
2011 “From Interpretation to Consent: Arguments, Beliefs and Meaning.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 806–814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2003 “A Relevance Theoretic Approach to the Introduction of Scandinavian Pronouns in English.” In Interaction and Cognition in Linguistics, ed. by Carlos Inchaurralde and Celia Florén, 123–134. Hamburg: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2005a “On the Phatic Interpretation of Utterances: A Complementary Relevance-theoretic Approach.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 18: 227–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b “Relevance Theory and Historical Linguistics: Towards a Pragmatic Approach to the Morphological Changes in the Preterite from Old English to Middle English.” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 51: 183–204.Google Scholar
2007a “Phatic Utterances and the Communication of Social Information.” In Studies in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics, ed. by Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Reyes Gómez Morón, and Lucía Fernández Amaya, 114–131. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2007b “Metarepresentations and Phatic Utterances: A Pragmatic Proposal about the Generation of Solidarity between Interlocutors.” In Current Trends in Pragmatics, ed. by Piotr Cap and Joanna Nijakowska, 110–128. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2012 “Epistemic Vigilance, Cautious Optimism and Sophisticated Understanding.” Research in Language 10 (4): 365–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a “Understanding and Overcoming Pragmatic Failure in Intercultural Communication: From Focus on Speakers to Focus on Hearers.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 51 (1): 23–54.Google Scholar
2013b “Metapsychological Awareness of Comprehension and Epistemic Vigilance of L2 Communication in Interlanguage Pragmatic Development.” Journal of Pragmatics 59 (A): 117–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Pragmatic Failure, Epistemic Injustice and Epistemic Vigilance.” Language & Communication 39: 34–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papp, Szilvia
2006 “A Relevance-theoretic Account of the Development and Deficits of Theory of Mind in Normally Developing Children and Individuals with Autism.” Theory & Psychology 16 (2): 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pilkington, Adrian
1991 “Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective.” In Literary Pragmatics, ed. by Roger D. Sell, 44–61. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1992 “Poetic Effects.” Lingua 87: 29–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Poetic Effects. A Relevance Theory Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Metaphor Comprehension: Some Questions for Current Accounts in Relevance Theory.” In Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, ed. by 
Esther Romero and Belén Soria, 156–171. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piskorska, Agnieszka
2012a “Cognition and Emotions – A Joint Effort at Obtaining Positive Cognitive Effects?” In Relevance Studies in Poland. Vol. 4. Essays on Language and Communication, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, 102–111. Warsaw: WUW.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2012b Relevance Studies in Poland. Vol. 4. Essays on Language and Communication. Warsaw: WUW.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy
1994 “On Indefinite Descriptions.” Journal of Linguistics 30: 441–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 “Discourse Connectives: What Do They Link?” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 199–212.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy, and Andreas H. Jucker
(eds) 1998 Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz Moneva, María A.
1997 “A Relevance-theory Approach to the Scandinavian Influence upon the Development of the English Language.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 10: 183–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasamoto, Ryoko, and Deirdre Wilson
(eds) 2016 “Little Words: Communication and Procedural Meaning.” Lingua 175–176: 1–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen
1972 Meaning. Oxford: Claredon Press.Google Scholar
Scott, Kate
2016 “Pronouns and Procedures: Reference and Beyond.” Lingua 175–176: 69–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Neil V., and Deirdre Wilson
1992 Special Issue on Relevance Theory. Lingua 87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solska, Agnieszka
2012 “Relevance-theoretic Comprehension Procedure and Processing Multiple Meanings in Paradigmatic Puns.” In Relevance Theory. More than Understanding, ed. by Ewa Wałaszewska and Agnieszka Piskorska, 167-182. New Castle upon Tyne: 
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Soria, Belén, and Esther Romero
(eds) 2010 Explicit Communication. Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan
1994 “Understanding Verbal Understanding.” In What is Intelligence? ed. by Jean Khalifa, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D.
2005 “Modularity and Relevance: How Can a Massively Modular Mind Be Flexible and Context-sensitive?” In The Innate Mind: Structure and Content, ed. by Peter 
Carruthers, Stephen Laurence, and Stephen Stich, 53–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986 Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1987 “Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.”and “Authors’ Response.” Behavioural and Brain Sciences 10: 697–710, 736–754. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Relevance. Communication and Cognition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, 
Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson
2010 “Epistemic vigilance.” Mind and Language 25 (4): 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Kate, Ellen Winner, and Natalie Hopfield
1995 “How Children Tell a Lie from a Joke: The Role of Second-order Mental State Attributions.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 13 (2): 191–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Kate, Ellen Winner, and Helen Tager-Flugsber
2003 “Can Adolescents with Williams Syndrome Tell the Difference between Lies and Jokes?” Developmental Neuropsychology 23 (1–2): 85–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unger, Christoph
2006 Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence. The Pragmatics of Discourse Type. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vega Moreno, Rosa E.
2007 Creativity and Convention. The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wałaszewska, Ewa
2015 Relevance-theoretic Lexical Pragmatics. Newcastle upon Tyne: 
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Wałaszewska, Ewa, Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk, and Agnieszka Piskorska
(eds) 2010 In the Mind and across Minds. A Relevance-Theoretic Perspective on Communication and Translation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Wałaszewska, Ewa, and Agnieszka Piskorska
(eds) 2012 Relevance Theory. More than Understanding. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(eds) In press From Discourse to Morphemes. Applications of Relevance Theory Newcastle upon Tyne Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Wearing, Catherine
2010 “Autism, Metaphor and Relevance Theory.” Mind and Language 25 (2): 196–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim
2009 Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “That Bloody So-and-so Has Retired: Expressives Revisited.” Lingua 175–176: 20–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
1999 “Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 127–161.Google Scholar
2010 “Understanding and Believing.” Plenary talk delivered at the 4th International Conference Intercultural Pragmatics and Communication , Madrid 15–17 November.
2011 “The Conceptual-procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by M. Victoria Escandell Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Irony Comprehension: A Developmental Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 59 (A): 40–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Reassessing the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction.” Lingua 175–176: 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Neil V. Smith
1993 Special issue on relevance theory. Lingua 90.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
1988 “Mood and the Analysis of Non-declarative Sentences.” In Human Agency: Language, Duty and Value, ed. by Jonathan Dancy, J.M.E. 
Moravcsik, and C.C.W. Taylor, 77–101. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991a “Inference and Implicature.” In Pragmatics: A Reader, ed. by Steven Davis, 377–393. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1991b “Pragmatics and Modularity.” In Pragmatics: A Reader, ed. by Steven Davis, 583-595. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 90: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 249–287.Google Scholar
2004 “Relevance Theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Larry Horn and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2012 Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton
2006 “Relevance and Prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1559–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona
2013 From Speech Acts to Speech Actions. Lodz: Lodz University Press.Google Scholar
Yus Ramos, Francisco
1995 “La significación social de las máximas de Grice: el caso del cómic alternativo inglés.” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 30–31: 109–128.Google Scholar
1997 Cooperación y relevancia. Dos aproximaciones pragmáticas a la interpretación. Alicante: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
1998 “A Decade of Relevance Theory.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 305–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999a “Towards a Pragmatic Taxonomy of Misunderstandings.” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 38: 217–239.Google Scholar
1999b “Misunderstandings and Explicit/Implicit Communication.” Pragmatics 9: 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Ciberpragmática. El uso del lenguaje en Internet. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
2003 “Humor and the Search for Relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1295–1331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “A Relevance-theoretic Classification of Jokes.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4: 131–157.Google Scholar
2010 Ciberpragmática 2.0. Nuevos usos del lenguaje en Internet. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
2011 Cyberpragmatics. Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “An Inference-centered Analysis of Jokes: The Intersecting Circles Model of Humorous Communication.” In Irony and Humor: Highlights and Genres, ed. by Leonor Ruiz Gurillo and Beatriz Alvarado, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Žegarac, Vladimir
1998 “What is Phatic Communication?” In Current Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. by Villy Rouchota and Andreas H. Jucker, 327–361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Žegarac, Vladimir, and Billy Clark
1999a “Phatic Interpretations and Phatic Communication.” Journal of Linguistics 35: 321–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999b “Phatic Communication and Relevance Theory: A Reply to Ward & Horn.” Journal of Linguistics 35: 565–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Bogucki, Łukasz
2020. Relevance in Secondary Communication. In A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Decision-Making in Subtitling, ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
de Oliveira Fernandes, Daniel & Steve Oswald
2022. On the Rhetorical Effectiveness of Implicit Meaning—A Pragmatic Approach. Languages 8:1 ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
Leclercq, Benoît
2019. Coercion. Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 270 ff. DOI logo
Stecconi, Ubaldo
2019. How translations are willed into existence. Slovo.ru: Baltic accent 10:3 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 2023. 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.