Article published in:
Pragmatics and its Interfaces as related to the Expression of Intention
Edited by Istvan Kecskes
[Pragmatics & Cognition 26:1] 2019
► pp. 6184
References

[ p. 80 ]References

Allan, Keith
2006Clause-type, primary illocution, and mood-like operators in English. Language Sciences 28(1). 1–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Hans
1993Satzmodus. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, vol. 2, 1006–1029. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira
2008Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
2001Indirect Speech Acts. Synthese 128(1–2). 183–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent
1975Performatives are statements too. Philosophical Studies 28(4). 229–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent & Robert M. Harnish
1979Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1992How performatives really work: A reply to Searle. Linguistics and Philosophy 15(1). 93–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bara, Bruno
2010Cognitive pragmatics: The mental process of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef
2012From modal particle to interrogative marker: A study of German denn . In Laura Brugé, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro & Cecilia Poletto (eds), Functional heads: Papers presented to Guglielmo Cinque on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 13–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bertolet, Rod
1994Are there indirect speech acts? In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, 335–349. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2017On the arguments for indirect speech acts. Philosophia 45(2). 533–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clapp, Lenny
2009The rhetorical relations approach to indirect speech acts. Pragmatics & Cognition 17 (1). 43–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo
1994Speech act theory and Gricean pragmatics: Some differences of detail that make a difference. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory. Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, 323–334. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta
2018Irony, deception and humour: Seeking the truth about overt and covert untruthfulness. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita & Jörg Meibauer
(eds) 2016aSatztypen und Konstruktionen. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2016b Richtig gut, das Paper! Satz, non-sententiale/ unartikulierte Konstituente, Konstruktion? In Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 296–325. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2016cSatztyp und/oder Konstruktion? In Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 1–22. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita, Jörg Meibauer & Petra Schumacher
(eds) 2012What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald
1981Speech act assignment. In Aravind K. Joshi, Ivan A. Sag & Bonnie L. Webber (eds.), Elements of discourse understanding, 64–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 81 ]
Gibbs, Raymond W.
1986What makes some indirect speech acts conventional? Journal of Memory and Language 25(2). 181–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gretsch, Petra
2013Satztyp und Spracherwerb. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds), Satztypen des Deutschen, 815–845. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul
1989Logic and conversation. In Paul Grice, Studies in the way of words, 22–40. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein
1992‘Can you pass the salt?’: A short-circuited implicature. Lingua 87(1). 103–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles
1987Imperatives. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye
2011Imperatives. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 2, 1785–1804. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Harnish, Robert M.
1982Katz as Katz can. The Journal of Philosophy 79(3). 168–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994Mood, meaning and speech acts. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, 407–459. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
1997Performatives and standardization: A Progress Report. In Eckard Rolf (ed.), Pragmatik: Implikaturen und Sprechakte (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 8/1997), 161–175. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Are performative utterances declarations? In Günther Grewendorf & Georg Meggle (eds.), Speech Acts, mind, and social reality: Discussions with John R. Searle, 41–54. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Performatives as constatives vs. declarations. In Frank Brisard, Michael Meeuwis & Bart Vandenabeele (eds.), Seduction, Community, Speech: A Festschrift for Herman Parret, 43–74. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan
2012The Oxford dictionary of pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim
2016Satztypkonstruktionen und Satztypsensitivität. In Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 23–71. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark
2013Are explicit performatives assertions? Linguistics and Philosophy 30(2). 207–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M.
2019Rethinking being Gricean: New challenges for metapragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 145. 15–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J.
1977Propositional structure and illocutionary force: A study of the contribution of sentence meaning to Speech Acts. Hassocks: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Magda
2013Satztyp und Semantik. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds), Satztypen des Deutschen, 680–711. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail
2012Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. In Keith Allan & Kasia Jaszczolt (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 169–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2011Questions. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 2, 1742–1784. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
[ p. 82 ]
Lee, James L. & Steven Pinker
2010Rationales for indirect speech: the theory of strategic speaker. Psychological Review 117(3). 785–807. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leezenberg, Michiel
2006Gricean and Confucian pragmatics: A contrastive analysis. Journal of Foreign Languages 2006 (November), 2–21.Google Scholar
Lepore, Ernie & Michael Stone, M.
2015Imagination and convention: Distinguishing grammar and inference in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lepore, Ernie & Michael Stone
2018Explicit indirection. In Daniel Fogal, Daniel W. Harris, & Matt Moss (eds), New work on Speech Acts, 360–383. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGowan, Mary Kate, Shan Shan Tam & Margaret Hall
2009On indirect speech acts and linguistic communication. Philosophy 84(4). 495–513. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg
1986Rhetorische Fragen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012What is a context? Theoretical and empirical evidence. In Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer & Petra B. Schumacher (eds), What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges, 9–32. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Satztyp und Pragmatik. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds), Satztypen des Deutschen, 711–736. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann, H.
(eds) 2013aSatztypen des Deutschen. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann
2013bKontroversen in der Forschung zu Satztyp und Satzmodus. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds.): Satztypen des Deutschen, 1–19. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L.
1978Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, 261–280. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munro, Allen
1979Indirect speech acts are not strictly conventional. Linguistic Inquiry 10(2). 353–356.Google Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen
2016Satztyp und kommunikative Intention. In Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 406–432. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven
2007The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(4). 437–461. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Indirect speech, politeness, deniability, and relationship negotiation: Comment on Marina Terkourafi’s “The puzzle of indirect speech”. Journal of Pragmatics 43(11). 2866–2868. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven, Martin A. Nowak & James J. Lee
2008The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(3). 833–838. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul
2009Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, François
1987Meaning and force: The pragmatics of performative utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reimer, Marga
1995Performative utterances: A reply to Bach and Harnish. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(6). 655–675. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 83 ]
Reis, Marga
1999On sentence types in german: An enquiry into the relationship between grammar and pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 4 (2). 195–236.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas
2017The comprehension of indirect requests: Previous work and future directions. In Ilse Depraetere & Raphael Salkie (eds), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line, 293–323. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas, Ekaterina Ostashchenko & Mikhail Kissine
2017Indirect request processing, sentence types and illocutionary forces. Journal of Pragmatics 119. 46–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. and Zwicky, Arnold
1985Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979Indirect speech acts. In John R. Searle, Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of Speech Acts, 3–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John Rogers
1989How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5). 535–558. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Amy M. & Gregory L. Murphy
1993Can you answer a question for me? Processing indirect speech acts. Journal of Memory and Language 32(2). 211–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siemund, Peter
2018Speech Acts and clause types: English in a cross-linguistic context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sökeland, Werner
1980Indirektheit von Sprechhandlungen: Eine linguistische Untersuchung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Soltys, Jessica, Marina Terkourafi & Napoleon Katsos
2014Disentangling politeness theory and the strategic speaker approach. Intercultural Pragmatics 11(1). 31–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2003A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Linda L. Thornburg (eds), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing, 105–126. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2011aThe puzzle of indirect speech. Journal of Pragmatics 43(11). 2861–2865. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011bWhy indirect speech is not a natural default: Rejoinder to Steven Pinker’s ‘Indirect Speech, Politeness, Deniability, and Relationship Negotiation’. Journal of Pragmatics 43(11). 2869–2871. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Re-assessing the speech act schema: Twenty-first century reflections. International Review of Pragmatics 5(2). 197–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014The importance of being indirect: A new nomenclature for indirect speech acts. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 28: 45–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim
2010Context. In Louise Cummings (ed.), The Pragmatics encyclopedia, 74–75. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandra
2015Acquiring pragmatics: Social and cognitive perspectives. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
[ p. 84 ]
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Becker, Matthias J.
2021.  In Antisemitism in Reader Comments,  pp. 33 ff. Crossref logo
Becker, Matthias J.
2021.  In Antisemitism in Reader Comments,  pp. 153 ff. Crossref logo
Finkbeiner, Rita
2021. Sprechakttheoretische Überlegungen zur Typographie – am Beispiel von Presseüberschriften. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 49:2  pp. 244 ff. Crossref logo
Podosky, Paul-Mikhail Catapang
2021. Agency, Power, and Injustice in Metalinguistic Disagreement. The Philosophical Quarterly Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 november 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.