Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alas, Reet, and Anu Treikelder
2010 “Some Remarks on Reported Evidentiality in French and in Estonian: A Contrastive Approach.” Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu Aastaraamat [Yearbook of the Estonian Association for Applied Linguistics] 6: 7–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blass, Regina
Grammaticalisation of Interpretive Use: the Case of in Sissala.” Lingua 79 : 299–326. DOI logo
1990Relevance Relations in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz
(ed.) 1911Handbook of American Indian Languages. Part 1. Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulleting 40. Washington: Government Print Office.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L., and Johanna Nichols
(eds) 1986Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Davis, Christopher, Christopher Potts, and Margaret Speas
2007 “The Pragmatic Values of Evidential Sentences.” In Proceedings of SALT 17: 71–88.
Erelt, Mati, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Henno Rajandi, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja Tael, and Silvi Vare
1993Eesti Keele Grammatika. [Grammar of Estonian.], Vol. 2. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina
2002Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD diss., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1989Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Itani, Reiko
1998 “A Relevance-based Analysis of Hearsay Particles: With Special Reference to Japanese Sentence-final Particle tte .” In Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications, ed. by Robyn Carston and S. Uchida, 47–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaas, Birute
1997 “The Quotative Mood in the Baltic Sea Areal.” In Estonian Typological Studies II, ed. by M. Erelt, 73–97. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Mascaro, Olivier, and Dan Sperber
2009 “The Moral, Epistemic, and Mindreading Components of Children’s Vigilance towards Deception.” Cognition 112: 367–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
2009 “Intuitive and Reflective Inferences.” In In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, ed. by J. Evans and K. Frankish, 149–170. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noh, Eun-Ju
2000Metarepresentation: A Relevance Theory Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank
1986Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna
2000Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna, Peggy Li, Youngon Choi, and Chung-hye Han
2007 “Evidentiality in Language and Cognition.” Cognition 103 (2): 253–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan
1996Explaining Culture. A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2000 “Metarepresentations in an Evolutionary Perspective.” In Metarepresentations, ed. by D. Sperber, 117–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2001 “An Evolutionary Perspective on Testimony and Argumentation.” Philosophical Topics 29: 401–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1995Relevance. Communication and Cognition, 2nd edition. [1st edition 1986.] Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson
2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language 25: 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unger, Christoph
2006Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “The Argumentation Module and the Cognitive Role of Genre.” Paper presented at the Intercultural Pragmatics Conference , Madrid.
2011 “Exploring the Borderline between Procedural Encoding and Pragmatic Inference.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by M. Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 103–127. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
2012 “Epistemic Vigilance and the Function of Procedural Indicators in Communication and Comprehension.” In Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, ed. by A. Piskorska and E. Wałaszewska, 45–73. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Willett, T.
1988 “A Cross-linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality.” Studies in Language 12: 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
2000 “Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication.” In Metarepresentation, ed. by Dan Sperber, 411–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2011 “The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
1988 “Mood and the Analysis of Non-declarative Sentences.” In Human agency: Language, Duty and Value, ed. by J. Dancy, J. Moravcsik and C. Taylor, 77–101. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2004 “Relevance Theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Figueras Bates, Carolina
2019. Razonamiento y Vigilancia Epistémica: Una Explicación Relevantista de los Evidencialespor lo vistoyse ve que. Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics 7:1  pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Lubberger, Beate
2020. Chapter 5. Metarepresentation markers in Indus Kohistani. In Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics [Figurative Thought and Language, 8],  pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2020. Chapter 3. Evidential participles and epistemic vigilance. In Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics [Figurative Thought and Language, 8],  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.