Article published in:
Relevance Theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions
Edited by Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 268] 2016
► pp. 3358
Blakemore, Diane
1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2002Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blutner, Reinhard
2007 “Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics and the Explicature/Implicature Distinction.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 67–89. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Blutner, Reinhard, and Henk Zeevat
(eds) 2004Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2012 “Word Meaning and Concept Expressed.” The Linguistic Review 29: 607–623. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dommelen, Wim A. van, and Thorstein Fretheim
2013 “Intonational Cues to the Identification of Propositional Form and Speech-act Type in Norwegian.” In Nordic Prosody: Proceedings of the XIth Conference, ed. by Eva Liina Asu and Pärtel Lippus, 401–410. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein
1978 “When Syntax Fails to Determine Semantic Scope.” In Nordic Prosody, ed. by Eva Gårding, Gösta Bruce, and Robert Bannert, 5–14. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
1981 “Intonational Phrasing in Norwegian.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 4: 111–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 “Themehood, Rhemehood and Norwegian Focus Structure.” Folia Linguistica XXVII: 111–150.Google Scholar
2011 “Description as Indication: The Use of Conceptual Meaning for a Procedural Purpose.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by 
Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 131–156. Bingley, UK: 
Emerald Group.Google Scholar
2012 “Relevance Theory and Direct Reference Philosophy: A Suitable Match?” In Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, ed. by Ewa Wałaszewska and 
Agnieszka Piskorska, 331–352. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein, and Wim A. van Dommelen
2012 “A Pragmatic Perspective on the Phonological Values of Utterance-final Boundary Tones in East Norwegian.” The Linguistic Review 29: 663–677. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Intonation as a Guide to a Parenthetical vs. a Non-parenthetical Interpretation of a Norwegian Cognitive Verb.” Paper presented at the 19th International Congress of Linguists , Geneva, July 21–27.
Gundel, Jeanette K
2011 “Child Language, Theory of Mind, and the Role of Procedural Markers in Identifying Referents of Nominal Expressions.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 205–231. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski
1993 “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse.” Language 69: 274–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C
2000Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Powell, George
2010Language, Thought and Reference. Basingstoke: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 
Oxford: Blackwell. (2nd edition with a Postface)Google 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 90: 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Kate Scott, Billy Clark & Robyn Carston
2019.  In Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation, Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2022. 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.