Article published In:
Concepts and Context in Relevance-Theoretic Pragmatics: New Developments
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska and Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics 33:3] 2023
► pp. 343367
References (99)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2004. “Interjections in a Contrastive Perspective.” In Emotion in Dialogic Interaction: Advances in the Complex, ed. by Edda Weigand, 99–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ameka, Felix K. 1992a. “Interjections: The Universal yet Neglected Part of Speech.” Journal of Pragmatics 18 (2–3): 101–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992b. “The Meaning of Phatic and Conative Interjections.” Journal of Pragmatics 18 (2–3): 245–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. “Interjections.” In Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Keith Brown, 743–746. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1983. “Ad Hoc Categories.” Memory & Cognition 111: 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. “The Instability of Graded Structure in Concepts.” In Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization, ed. by Ulric Neisser, 101–140. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1983. “Where Does Intonation Belong?Journal of Semantics 2 (2): 101–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1996. “Enrichment and Loosening: Complementary Processes in Deriving the Proposition Expressed.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 81: 61–88.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Explicature and Semantics.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 121: 1–44.Google Scholar
. 2002a. Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002b. “Metaphor, Ad Hoc Concepts and Word Meaning – More Questions than Answers.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 141: 83–105.Google Scholar
. 2010a. “Lexical Pragmatics, Ad Hoc Concepts and Metaphor: From a Relevance Theory Perspective.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 22 (1): 153–180.Google Scholar
. 2010b. “Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110 (3): 295–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Metaphor and the Literal/Nonliteral Distinction.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Keith Allan, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 469–492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. “Word Meaning, What Is Said and Explicature.” In What Is Said and What Is Not, ed. by Carlo Penco, and Filippo Domaneschi, 175–204. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2013b. “Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics.” In The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy, ed. by Maite Ezcurdia and Robert J. Stainton, 261–283. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
. 2016. “The Heterogeneity of Procedural Meaning.” Lingua 175–1761: 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn, and Catherine Wearing. 2012. “Metaphor, Hyperbole and Simile: A Pragmatic Approach.” Language and Cognition 3 (2): 283–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Hyperbolic Language and Its Relation to Metaphor and Irony.” Journal of Pragmatics 791: 79–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Billy. 2016. “Relevance Theory and Language Change.” Lingua 175–1761: 139–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Billy, and Geoff Lindsey. 1990. “Intonation, Grammar and Utterance Interpretation: Evidence from English Exclamatory-Inversions.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 32–51.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. “Using uh and um in Spontaneous Speaking.” Cognition 84 (1): 73–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1986. An Introduction to English Prosody. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dámasio, António. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York: Avon.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 1998. “Intonation and Procedural Encoding: The Case of Spanish Interrogatives.” In Current Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. by Villy Rouchota, and Andreas H. Jucker, 169–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falkum, Ingrid L. 2019. “Metaphor and Metonymy in Acquisition: A Relevance Theoretic Perspective.” In Relevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. by Kate Scott, Robyn Carston, and Billy Clark, 205–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein. 1998. “Intonation and the Procedural Encoding of Attributed Thoughts: The Case of Norwegian Interrogatives.” In Current Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. by Villy Rouchota, and Andreas H. Jucker, 205–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goleman, Daniel. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1957. “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 661: 377–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Alison. 2017. “Lexical Pragmatics, Explicature and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. by Ilse Depraetere, and Raphael Salkie, 55–100. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia, and Gregory Ward. 1995. “The Interpretation of the High-Rise Question Contour in English.” Journal of Pragmatics 24 (4): 407–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Jill. 1989. “The Relevance of Intonation?UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 3–17.Google Scholar
. 1990. “Intonation Structures and Pragmatic Interpretation.” In Studies in the Pronunciation of English: A Commemorative Volume in Honour of A. C. Gimson, ed. by Susan Ramsaran, 38–57. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly. 1992. “Sentential Adverbs and Relevance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 41: 193–214.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Newspapers Headlines and Relevance: Ad Hoc Concepts in Ad Hoc Contexts.” Journal of Pragmatics 411: 699–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Relevance and Metaphor Understanding in a Second Language.” In Relevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. by Kate Scott, Robyn Carston, and Billy Clark, 218–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly, and Anna Hatzidaki. 2019. “Metaphor Comprehension in L2: Meaning, Images and Emotions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1491: 78–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kunihiko. 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
Jary, Mark. 2016. “Rethinking Explicit Utterance Content.” Journal of Pragmatics 1021: 24–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jodłowiec, Maria, and Agnieszka Piskorska. 2015. “Metonymy Revisited: Towards a New Relevance-Theoretic Account.” Intercultural Pragmatics 12 (2): 161–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 1988. “How Gestures Can Become like Words?” In Cross-Cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication, ed. by Fernando Poyatos, 131–141. Toronto: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, Georges. 2006. “Sémiotique de l’interjection.” Langages 161 (1): 10–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Robert. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Madella, Pauline. 2020. “Prosodic Pointing: From Pragmatic Awareness to Pragmatic Competence in Chinese Hearers of L2 English.” PhD diss. University of Brighton.
Mateo, José, and Francisco Yus. 2021. “Ad Hoc Concepts in Humorous Financial Metaphors: A Pragmatic Approach.” In Metaphor in Economics and Specialised Discourse, ed. by José Mateo, and Francisco Yus. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Needham-Didsbury, Isabelle. 2014. “Metaphor in Psychotherapeutic Discourse: Implications for Utterance Interpretation.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50 (1): 75–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, Daniel C., and Sabine Kowal. 2005. “Where Do Interjections Come from? A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Shaw’s Pygmalion .” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34 (5): 497–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2009a. “Might Interjections Encode Concepts? More Questions than Answers.” Łodź Papers in Pragmatics 5 (2): 241–270.Google Scholar
. 2009b. “Towards an Alternative Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Interjections.” International Review of Pragmatics 1 (1): 182–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “On the Origin and Meaning of Secondary Interjections: A Relevance-Theoretic Proposal.” In Applications of Relevance Theory: From Discourse to Morphemes, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, and Ewa Wałaszewska, 299–326. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2019. “Qualifying Insults, Offensive Epithets, Slurs and Expressive Expletives: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 7 (2): 156–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Towards a Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Diminutive Morpheme.” Russian Journal of Linguistics 24 (4): 774–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022a. “Is Free Enrichment always Free? Revisiting Ad Hoc Concept Construction.” Journal of Pragmatics 1871: 130–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022b. “On the Interpretation of Utterances with Expressive Expletives.” Pragmatics & Cognition 28 (2): 252–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. In press. “Ad Hoc Concepts, Affective Attitude and Epistemic Stance.” Pragmatics & Cognition.
Papafragou, Anna. 1996. “On Metonymy.” Lingua 99 (4): 169–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosier, Laurence. 2000. “Interjection, subjectivité, expressivité et discourse rapport à l’écrit: Petits effets d’un petit discourse.” Cahiers de Praxématique 341: 19–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubio-Fernández, Paula, Catherine Wearing, and Robyn Carston. 2013. “How Metaphor and Hyperbole Differ: An Empirical Investigation of the Relevance-Theoretic Account of Loose Use.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 251: 20–45.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Metaphor and Hyperbole: Testing the Continuity Hypothesis.” Metaphor and Symbol 30 (1): 24–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 2001. “Rethinking well .” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (7): 1025–1060. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1997. “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 91: 107–125.Google Scholar
. 1998. “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” In Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes, ed. by Peter Carruthers, and Jill Boucher, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” In Meaning and Relevance, ed. by Deirdre Wilson, and Dan Sperber, 31–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44): 117–149.Google Scholar
Światkowska, Marcela. 2006. “L’interjection: Entre deixis et anaphore.” Langages 161 (1): 47–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unger, Christoph. 2019. “Allegory in Relation to Metaphor and Irony.” In Relevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. by Kate Scott, Robyn Carston, and Billy Clark, 240–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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. 2010. “Simile in Relevance Theory: Towards an Alternative Account.” Acta Philologica 381: 13–19.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Broadening and Narrowing in Lexical Development: How Relevance Theory Can Account for Children’s Overextensions and Underextensions.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (1): 314–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Category Extension as a Variety of Loose Use.” In Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, 25–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wearing, Catherine. 2010. “Autism, Metaphor and Relevance Theory.” Mind & Language 25 (2): 196–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Interpreting Novel Metaphors.” International Review of Pragmatics 6 (1): 78–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2001. “Natural Pragmatics and Natural Codes.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 131: 109–161.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Interjection, Language and the ‘Showing/Saying’ Continuum.” Pragmatics and Cognition 11 (1): 39–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Pragmatics and Prosody.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Keith Allan, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 567–584. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “That Bloody So-and-so Has Retired: Expressives Revisited.” Lingua 175–1761: 20–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. “The Semantics of Interjection.” Journal of Pragmatics 18 (2–3): 159–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David P. 1992. “Interjections and Deictics.” Journal of Pragmatics 18 (2–3): 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. “Expanding the Traditional Category of Deictic Elements: Interjections as Deictics.” In Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective, ed. by Judith F. Duchan, Gail A. Bruder, and Lynne E. Hewitt, 359–386. Hillsdale: LEA.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011a. “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 Group Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. “Parallels and Differences in the Treatment of Metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (2): 177–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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 Robyn Carston. 2006. “Metaphor, Relevance and the ‘Emergent Property’ Issue.” Mind & Language 21 (3): 404–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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
. 2019. “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 1451: 31–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2002. “Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 141: 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 (10): 1559–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2024. Irina T. Pandarova, Revisiting sentence adverbials and relevance (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 334). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2021. Pp. ix + 254. ISBN 9789027213730.. English Language and Linguistics  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.