Article published in:
Relevance Theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions
Edited by Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 268] 2016
► pp. 287305
References

References

Austin, John
1956–1957 “A Plea for Excuses: The Presidential Address.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. 57: 1–30. Oxford: Blackwell on behalf of The Aristotelian Society. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1962/98 “ How to Do Things with Words .” In Pragmatics. Critical concepts, Vol. 2, ed. by A. Kasher, 7–64. London: Routlege.Google Scholar
Barrett, Karen, and Joseph Campos
1987 “Perspectives on Emotional Development II: A Functionalist Approach to Emotions.” In Handbook of Infant Development, ed. by Joy D. Osofsky, 555–578. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1991 “Performatives and Parentheticals.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91:197–213.
2011 “On the Descriptive Ineffability of Expressive Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (14): 3537–3550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clore, Gerald L.
1992 “Cognitive Phenomenology: Feelings and the Construction of Judgment.” In The Construction of Social Judgment, ed. by Leonard. L. Martin and Abraham Tesser, 133–163. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clore, Gerald L., and Karen Gasper
2000 “Feeling is Believing: Some Affective Influences on Belief.” In Emotions and Beliefs: How Feelings Influence Thoughts, ed. by Nico. H. Frijda, Antony S.R. Manstead, and Sandra Bem, 10–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clore, Gerald L., and W. Gerrod Parrott
1991 “Moods and Their Vicissitudes: Thoughts and Feelings as Information.” In Emotion and Social Judgment, ed. by Joseph P. Forgas, 107–123. Oxford: Pergamon.Google 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 (1996): 89–99.Google Scholar
1997The Pragmatics of Humorous Interpretations: A Relevance-Theoretic Account. PhD diss., University College London.Google Scholar
1998 “Indirect Echoes and Verbal Humour.” In Current Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. by Villy Rouchota and Andreas Jucker, 305–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, Antonio R.
1994Descartes’ Error. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
Escandell Vidal, Maria V.
1998 “Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 45–57. CrossrefGoogle 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 Maria E. Placencia, 347–371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frijda, Nico H., and Batja Mesquita
1994 “The Social Roles and Functions of Emotions.” In Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influence, ed. by Shinobu Kitayama and Hazel Rose Markus, 51–87. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jodłowiec, Maria
1991 “What Makes Jokes Tick.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 241–253. 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: 
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Lazarus, Richard. S.
1991Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. C.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve
2000 “Communicated and Non-communicated Acts in Relevance Theory.” Pragmatics 10: 233–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oatley, Keith, and Philip. N.
. Johnson-Laird. “Towards a Cognitive Theory of Emotions.” Cognition and Emotion 1 (1987): 29–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oatley, Keith, and Philip N. Johnson-Laird
1995 “The Communicative Theory of Emotions: Empirical Tests, Mental Models, and Implications for Social Interaction.” In Striving and Feeling: Interactions among Goals, Affect, and Self Regulation, ed. by Leonard. L. Martin and Abraham Tesser, 363–393. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Oatley, Keith, Dacher Keltner, and Jennifer M. Jenkins
2006Understanding Emotions. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2001 “The Relevance of What Seems Irrelevant: Remarks on the Relationship between Phatic Utterances and Sociopragmatic Failure.” Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada 2: 199–212.Google Scholar
2004 “On the Social Importance of Phatic Utterances: Some Considerations for a Relevance Theoretic Approach.” In Current Trends in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics, ed. by Pilar Garcés Conejos, Reyes Gómez Morón, Lucía 
Fernández Amaya, and Manuel Padilla Cruz, 199–216. Seville: Intercultural Pragmatics Research Group.Google Scholar
2007a “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. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2007b “Phatic Utterances and the Communication of Social Information: A Relevance-theoretic Approach.” In Studies in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics, ed. by Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Reyes Gómez Morón, and Lucía Fernández Amaya, 105–118. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2009a.“Towards an Alternative Relevance-theoretic Approach to Interjections.” International Review of Pragmatics 1 (1): 182–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009b “Might Interjections Encode Concepts? More Questions than Answers.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5 (2): 241–270.Google Scholar
2010 “What do Interjections Contribute to Communication and How Are They Interpreted? A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach.” In Pragmatic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. Volume I: Speech Actions in Theory and Applied Studies, ed. by Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka, 39–68. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2012 “Metarepresentation, Attitudinal Utterances and Attitude Combination: A Relevance-theoretic Approach.” In Relevance Studies in Poland. Vol. 4. Essays on Language and Communication, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, 75–88. Warsaw: WUW.Google Scholar
Pilkington, Adrian
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piskorska, Agnieszka
2012 “Cognition and Emotions – Jointly Contributing to 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
Sbisà, Marina
2009 “Uptake and Conventionality in Illocution.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5 (1): 33–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5 (1): 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Solska, Agnieszka
2012a “Relevance-theoretic Comprehension Procedure and Processing Multiple Meanings in Paradigmatic Puns.” In Relevance Theory. More than Understanding, ed. by E. Wałaszewska and A. Piskorska, 167–182. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2012b “The Relevance-based Model of Context in Processing Puns.” Research in Language 10 (4): 387–404. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan
1997 “Intuitive and Reflective Beliefs.” Mind and Language 12: 67–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson
2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language 25: 359–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 
Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2002 “Pragmatics, Modularity and Mindreading.” Mind & Language 17: 3–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Introduction: Pragmatics.” In Meaning and Relevance, 1–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taillard, Marie
2000 “Persuasive Communication: The Case of Marketing.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 145–172.Google Scholar
Unger, Christoph
2012 “Epistemic Vigilance and the Function of Procedural Indicators in Communication and Comprehension.” In Relevance Theory. More than Understanding, ed. by Ewa Wałaszewska, and Agnieszka Piskorska, 45–73. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Vega Moreno, R.E.
2007Creativity and Convention. The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim
2009The Pragmatics of Non-verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
2005“New Directions for Research on Pragmatics and Modularity.” Lingua 115 (8): 1129–1146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011a “The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface), ed. by Victoria Escandell Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011b “Understanding and Believing.” Lecture delivered at the Relevance Round Table Conference , University of Warsaw, June 2011.
2012 “Modality and the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction.” In Relevance theory. More than understanding, ed. by Ewa Wałaszewska and Agnieszka Piskorska, 23–43. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.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, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 90: 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Relevance Theory.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Gregory Ward, and Laurence Horn, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2012Relevance and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton
2006 “Relevance and Prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (10): 1559–1579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona
2013From Speech Acts to Speech Actions. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2003 “Humor and the Search for Relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (9): 1295–1331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Pragmatics of Humorous Strategies in El club de la comedia.” In Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, ed. by Rosina Márquez-Reiter and Maria E. Placencia, 320–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “A Relevance-theoretic Classification of Jokes.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4 (1): 131–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012a “Strategies and Effects in Humorous Discourse. The Case of Jokes.” In Studies in Linguistics and Cognition, ed. by Barbara Eizaga Rebollar, 271–296. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012b “Relevance, Humour and Translation.” In Relevance Theory. More than Understanding, ed. by E. Wałaszewska and A. Piskorska, 117–145. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2013a “Analyzing Jokes with the Intersecting Circles Model of Humorous Communication.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 9 (1): 3–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b “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 M-B. Alvarado Ortega, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, Robert B.
1980 “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need no Inferences.” American Psychologist 35: 151–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Žegarac, Vladimir, and Billy Clark
1999 “Phatic Interpretations and Phatic Communication.” Journal of Linguistics 35: 321–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Beyond Meaning [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 324], Crossref logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2020.  In Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics [Figurative Thought and Language, 8],  pp. 69 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2021. 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.