Paralanguage and ad hoc concepts
Ad hoc concept construction is regarded as a case of free pragmatic enrichment, so it is presented as a non-linguistically mandated process that is automatically accomplished during mutual parallel adjustment. Recent research suggests that this lexical pragmatic process may be marked and steered by various linguistic elements. These include evaluative morphemes, lexical and phrasal items adjacent to content words, and stylistic resources like repetition or rewording. This paper argues that paralanguage may fulfil a similar enacting function and finetune the conceptual representations arising from content words on the grounds of idiosyncratic, context-dependent features or shades, as well as propositional and non-propositional information about the speaker’s psychological states. However, the paper restricts this function to expressive interjections, prosodic inputs like pitch, contrastive stress and pace or tempo, and gestural inputs such as language-like gestures, pantomimes and emblems. Conative interjections, intonation and proper gesticulation would be excluded from contributing to lexical pragmatic processes.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Paralanguage: A brief overview
- 2.1Interjections
- 2.2Prosody
- 2.3Kinesics
- 3.Paralanguage in relevance-theoretic pragmatics
- 4.Concepts and ad hoc concepts
- 5.Paralinguistic markers of ad hoc concepts
- 5.1Interjections
- 5.2Prosodic/suprasegmental markers
- 5.3Gestural markers
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (99)
Ameka, Felix K.
1992a “
Interjections: The Universal yet Neglected Part of Speech.”
Journal of Pragmatics 18 (2–3): 101–118.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ameka, Felix K.
1992b “
The Meaning of Phatic and Conative Interjections.”
Journal of Pragmatics 18 (2–3): 245–271.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ameka, Felix K.
2006 “
Interjections.” In
Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by
Keith Brown, 743–746. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barsalou, Lawrence W.
1983 “
Ad Hoc Categories.”
Memory & Cognition 111: 211–227.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barsalou, Lawrence W.
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bolinger, Dwight
1983 “
Where Does Intonation Belong?”
Journal of Semantics 2 (2): 101–120.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn
1996 “
Enrichment and Loosening: Complementary Processes in Deriving the Proposition Expressed.”
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 81: 61–88.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn
2000 “
Explicature and Semantics.”
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 121: 1–44.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn
2002a Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn
2002b “
Metaphor, Ad Hoc Concepts and Word Meaning – More Questions than Answers.”
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 141: 83–105.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn
2010a “
Lexical Pragmatics, Ad Hoc Concepts and Metaphor: From a Relevance Theory Perspective.”
Italian Journal of Linguistics 22 (1): 153–180.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn
2010b “
Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images.”
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110 (3): 295–321.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn
2016 “
The Heterogeneity of Procedural Meaning.”
Lingua 175–1761: 154–166.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn, and Catherine Wearing
2012 “
Metaphor, Hyperbole and Simile: A Pragmatic Approach.”
Language and Cognition 3 (2): 283–312.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn, and Catherine Wearing
2015 “
Hyperbolic Language and Its Relation to Metaphor and Irony.”
Journal of Pragmatics 791: 79–92.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, Billy
2016 “
Relevance Theory and Language Change.”
Lingua 175–1761: 139–153.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, Herbert H., and Jean E. Fox Tree
2002 “
Using uh and um in Spontaneous Speaking.”
Cognition 84 (1): 73–11.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
1986 An Introduction to English Prosody. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dámasio, António
1994 Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York: Avon.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fodor, Jerry A.
1983 The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goleman, Daniel
1995 Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, Herbert P.
1957 “
Meaning.”
Philosophical Review 661: 377–388.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gussenhoven, Carlos
2004 The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. K.
1967 Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hirschberg, Julia, and Gregory Ward
1995 “
The Interpretation of the High-Rise Question Contour in English.”
Journal of Pragmatics 24 (4): 407–412.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
House, Jill
1989 “
The Relevance of Intonation?”
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 3–17.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
House, Jill
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ifantidou, Elly
1992 “
Sentential Adverbs and Relevance.”
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 41: 193–214.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ifantidou, Elly
2009 “
Newspapers Headlines and Relevance: Ad Hoc Concepts in Ad Hoc Contexts.”
Journal of Pragmatics 411: 699–720.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ifantidou, Elly
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ifantidou, Elly, and Anna Hatzidaki
2019 “
Metaphor Comprehension in L2: Meaning, Images and Emotions.”
Journal of Pragmatics 1491: 78–90.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jary, Mark
2016 “
Rethinking Explicit Utterance Content.”
Journal of Pragmatics 1021: 24–37.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jodłowiec, Maria, and Agnieszka Piskorska
2015 “
Metonymy Revisited: Towards a New Relevance-Theoretic Account.”
Intercultural Pragmatics 12 (2): 161–187.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kendon, Adam
2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kleiber, Georges
2006 “
Sémiotique de l’interjection.”
Langages 161 (1): 10–23.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ladd, Robert
1996 Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNeill, David
1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Needham-Didsbury, Isabelle
2014 “
Metaphor in Psychotherapeutic Discourse: Implications for Utterance Interpretation.”
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50 (1): 75–98.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2009a “
Might Interjections Encode Concepts? More Questions than Answers.”
Łodź Papers in Pragmatics 5 (2): 241–270.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2009b “
Towards an Alternative Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Interjections.”
International Review of Pragmatics 1 (1): 182–206.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2020 “
Towards a Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Diminutive Morpheme.”
Russian Journal of Linguistics 24 (4): 774–795.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2022a “
Is Free Enrichment always Free? Revisiting Ad Hoc Concept Construction.”
Journal of Pragmatics 1871: 130–143.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
In press. “
Ad Hoc Concepts, Affective Attitude and Epistemic Stance.”
Pragmatics & Cognition.
Papafragou, Anna
1996 “
On Metonymy.”
Lingua 99 (4): 169–195.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rubio-Fernández, Paula, Catherine Wearing, and Robyn Carston
2015 “
Metaphor and Hyperbole: Testing the Continuity Hypothesis.”
Metaphor and Symbol 30 (1): 24–40.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schourup, Lawrence
2001 “
Rethinking well
.”
Journal of Pragmatics 33 (7): 1025–1060.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1997 “
The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.”
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 91: 107–125.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
2015 “
Beyond Speaker’s Meaning.”
Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44): 117–149.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Światkowska, Marcela
2006 “
L’interjection: Entre deixis et anaphore.”
Langages 161 (1): 47–56.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wałaszewska, Ewa
2010 “
Simile in Relevance Theory: Towards an Alternative Account.”
Acta Philologica 381: 13–19.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wałaszewska, Ewa
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wearing, Catherine
2010 “
Autism, Metaphor and Relevance Theory.”
Mind & Language 25 (2): 196–216.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wearing, Catherine
2014 “
Interpreting Novel Metaphors.”
International Review of Pragmatics 6 (1): 78–102.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wharton, Tim
2001 “
Natural Pragmatics and Natural Codes.”
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 131: 109–161.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wharton, Tim
2009 Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wharton, Tim
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wharton, Tim
2016 “
That Bloody So-and-so Has Retired: Expressives Revisited.”
Lingua 175–1761: 20–35.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wierzbicka, Anna
1991 Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wierzbicka, Anna
1992 “
The Semantics of Interjection.”
Journal of Pragmatics 18 (2–3): 159–192.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilkins, David P.
1992 “
Interjections and Deictics.”
Journal of Pragmatics 18 (2–3): 119–158.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilkins, David P.
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre
2011b “
Parallels and Differences in the Treatment of Metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics.”
Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (2): 177–196.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
2006 “
Metaphor, Relevance and the ‘Emergent Property’ Issue.”
Mind & Language 21 (3): 404–433.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
2019 “
Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.”
Journal of Pragmatics 1451: 31–38.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
2002 “
Relevance Theory.”
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 141: 249–287.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
2004 “
Relevance Theory.” In
The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by
Larry Horn, and
Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
2012 Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton
2006 “
Relevance and Prosody.”
Journal of Pragmatics 38 (10): 1559–1579.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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.