Article published in:
Pragmatics
Vol. 9:4 (1999) ► pp. 487517
References
Bach, K.
(1994a) Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 91: 124–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994b) Semantic slack. What is said and more. In S.L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory. Philosophical and linguistic perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 267–291.Google Scholar
(1998) Standardization revisited. In A. Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics. Critical concepts, vol. 4. London: Routledge, pp. 712–720.Google Scholar
Bach, K. & R. Harnish
(1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press (chapter 9: Indirect acts and illocutionary standardization, in A. Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics. Critical concepts, vol. 4. London: Routledge, pp. 682–712).  BoPGoogle Scholar
Barthes, R.
(1977) Image-music-text. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C. & R. Damiano
(1999a) Coherence and misunderstanding in everyday conversations. In Bublitz and Lenk (eds.), Coherence in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Conpany, pp. 175–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999b) The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 311: 817–836. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bertolet, R.
(1994) Are there indirect speech acts? In S.L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory. Philosophical and linguistic perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 335–349.Google Scholar
Bertuccelli Papi, M.
(1999) Implicitness to whom? In J. Verschueren (ed.), Pragmatics in 1998. Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Antwerp: IPrA.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D.
(1989) Linguistic form and pragmatic interpretation: The explicit and the implicit. In L. Hickey (ed.), The pragmatics of style. London: Routledge, pp. 29–51.Google Scholar
(1992) Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Blass, R.
(1990) Relevance relations in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Brooks, L.
(1999) Do you want to come back to my place? The Guardian 13 December 1999, Women.
Cameron, R. & J. Williams
(1997) Senténce to ten cents: A case study of relevance and communicative success in nonnative-native speaker interactions in a medical setting. Applied Linguistics 18.4: 415–445. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R.
(1988) Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In R.M. Kempson (ed.), Mental representations. The interface between language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–181.Google Scholar
(1996) Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 81: 61–88.Google Scholar
(1998a) The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 101: 53–80.Google Scholar
(1998b) Postcript. In A. Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics. Critical Concepts, vol. 4. London: Routledge, pp. 464–477.Google Scholar
(1999) The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from relevance theory. In K. Turner (ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view. Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp. 85–125.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H.
(1979) Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology 111: 430–477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M.
(1999) Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics 311: 753–762. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. & I. Berenstein
(1987) Two modes of understanding: comprehending and grasping. Language & Communication 71: 139–151. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. & O. Gruengard
(1981) Unintentional action and non-action. Manuscrito IV-2: 103–113.Google Scholar
Díez Arroyo, M.L.
(1997) Figurative vs literal meaning in idioms. A comparative study English-Spanish. Atlantis XIX(2): 51–64.Google Scholar
Franken, N.
(1997) Vagueness and approximation in relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics 281: 135–151. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W.
(1979) Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes 21: 1–10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1984) Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science 81: 275–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) The poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1998) The varieties of intentions in interpersonal communication. In S.R. Fussell & R.J. Kreuz (eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication. Mahwah (NJ): LEA, pp. 19–37.Google Scholar
(1999) Speaker=s intuitions and pragmatic theory. Cognition 691: 355–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. & J.F. Moise
(1997) Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition 621: 51–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, B.A.
(1986) Reference identification and reference identification failures. Computational Linguistics 12.4.1: 273–305.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, A.
(1980) Mishearings, misunderstandings and other nonsuccesses in talk: A plea for redress of speaker-oriented bias. Sociological Inquiry 401: 31–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Groefsema, M.
(1992) >Can you pass the salt?=: A short-circuited implicature? Lingua 871: 103–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grossen, M.
(1996) Counselling and gatekeeping: Definitions of the problem and situation in a first therapeutic interview. Text 161: 161–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grossen, M. & D. Apothéloz
(1996) Communicating about communication in a therapeutic interview. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 151: 101–132. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Herman, V.
(1997) Misunderstanding and power: Contests of understandings. In M. Maufort & J.-P. van Noppen (eds.), Voices of power. Brussels: Belgian Association of Anglicists in Higher Education, pp. 33-43.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T.
(1998) Interpersonal foundations of conversational indirectness. In S.R. Fussell & R.J. Kreuz (eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication. Mahwah, NJ.: LEA, pp. 71–89.Google Scholar
Humphreys-Jones, C.
(1986) Make, make do and mend: The role of the hearer in misunderstandings. In G. McGregor (ed.), Language for hearers. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 105–126.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K.M.
(1998) Referring in discourse: referential intention and the >taking for granted= principle. Journal of Literary Semantics XXVII/21: 96–109.Google Scholar
(1999) Default semantics, pragmatics, and intentions. In K. Turner (ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view. Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp. 199–232.Google Scholar
Linell, P.
(1995) Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In I. Marková, C. Graumann & K. Foppa (eds.), Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 176–213.Google Scholar
Maynard, D.W.
(1991) On the interactional and institutional bases of asymmetry in clinical discourse. American Journal of Sociology 971: 448–495. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, S & B. Clark
(1999) Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition 691: 337–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Récanati, F.
(1989) The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 41: 295–329. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Direct reference. From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1995) The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science 191: 207–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salazar Orvig, A.
(1995) Misunderstandings and the construction of dialogue in a clinical interview. International Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics 111: 227–247.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A.
(1987) Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics 251: 201–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 971: 1295–1345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R.
(1978) Literal meaning. Erkenntnis 131: 207–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson
(1990) Spontaneous deduction and mutual knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 131: 179–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986a) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson
(1986b) Loose talk. In S. Davis (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 540–549.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson
(1987) Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition . Behavioral and Brain Sciences 101: 697–754. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
(1997) The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 91: 107–125.Google Scholar
Toolan, M.
(1991) Perspectives on literal meaning. Language & Communication 11.4: 333–351. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Vicente, B.
(1996) Non-literal speech and indirection. Paper presented at the Ipra Conference. Mexico City.
(1998) Against blurring the explicit/implicit distinction. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 111 (special volume devoted to relevance theory): 241–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weigand, E.
(1999) Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics 311: 763–785. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Weizman, E. & S. Blum-Kulka
(1992) Ordinary misunderstanding. In M. Stamenow (ed.), Current advances in semantic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 417–432. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weizman, E.
(1999) Building true understanding via apparent miscommunication: A case study. Journal of Pragmatics 311: 837–846. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
West, C.
(1985) Routine complications: Troubles with talk between doctors and patients. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.
(1994) Relevance and understanding. In: G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer, A. Pollitt & J. Williams (eds.), Language and understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 35–58.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, H.
(1988) How to pull strings with words. Deceptive violations in the garden-path joke. Journal of Pragmatics 121: 323–337. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Yus, F.
(1997a) Cooperación y relevancia. Dos aproximaciones pragmáticas a la interpretación. Alicante: Servicio de Publicaciones.Google Scholar
(1997b) Indirectness in conversation: The theory of sub-continua. Paper presented at the XXI International AEDEAN Conference. Seville (Spain), December 1997.
(1997c) Pragmática del malentendido. Paper presented at the XV International AESLA Conference. Zaragoza (Spain), 14–16 April 1997.
(1997d) La teoría de la relevancia y la estrategia humorística de la incongruencia-resolución. Pragmalingüística 3–4: 497–508.
(1997e) La interpretación y la imagen de masas. Alicante: Instituto de Cultura AJuan Gil-Albert@.Google Scholar
(1998a) A decade of relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics 301: 305–345. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1998b) Relevance: A thematic bibliographical list. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11 (special volume devoted to relevance theory): 261–285.
(1998c) The what-do-you-mean syndrome. A taxonomy of misunderstandings in Harold Pinter=s plays. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 61: 81–100.Google Scholar
(1998d) Relevance theory and media discourse: A verbal-visual model of communication. Poetics 251: 293–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998e) Irony: Context accessibility and processing effort. Pragmalingüística 5–6: 391–411.
(1999) Towards a pragmatic taxonomy of misunderstandings. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 381: 217–239.Google Scholar

Full-text

Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication
Cited by

Cited by 39 other publications

Alizadeh Afrouzi, Omid
2021. Humanitarian behavior across high-/low-context cultures: a comparative analysis between Switzerland and Colombia. Journal of International Humanitarian Action 6:1 Crossref logo
Colley, Mark & Enrico Rukzio
2020.  In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Cruz, Manuel Padilla
2015.  In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Duan, Changming, Clara E. Hill, Guangrong Jiang, Bo Hu, Yujia Lei, Jie Chen & Lixia Yu
2015. The counselor perspective on the use of directives in counseling in China: Are directives different in China as in the United States?. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 28:1  pp. 57 ff. Crossref logo
Duan, De Quan & Chuan Wang
2011. An Open Communication Architecture for Multi-Robots in Complex Environment. Applied Mechanics and Materials 130-134  pp. 162 ff. Crossref logo
Ernstsen, Musharraf & Nazir
2018. Bayesian Model of Operator Challenges in Maritime Pilotage. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 62:1  pp. 1813 ff. Crossref logo
Fellmeth, Aaron & Emily Crawford
2022. “Reason to know” in the international law of command responsibility. International Review of the Red Cross  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Gil, José María
2011. Relevance theory and unintended transmission of information. Intercultural Pragmatics 8:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Haugh, Michael
2002. The intuitive basis of implicature. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 12:2  pp. 117 ff. Crossref logo
Havsteen-Franklin, Dominik
2014. Consensus for using an arts-based response in art therapy. International Journal of Art Therapy 19:3  pp. 107 ff. Crossref logo
Jung, Hee Soo, Charles Warner-Hillard, Ryan Thompson, Krista Haines, Brooke Moungey, Anne LeGare, David Williamson Shaffer, Carla Pugh, Suresh Agarwal & Sarah Sullivan
2018. Why saying what you mean matters: An analysis of trauma team communication. The American Journal of Surgery 215:2  pp. 250 ff. Crossref logo
Kapogianni, Eleni
2011.  In Salience and Defaults in Utterance Processing,  pp. 53 ff. Crossref logo
Kecskes, Istvan
2017.  In Implicitness [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 276],  pp. 201 ff. Crossref logo
Macagno, Fabrizio
2017. Evidence and presumptions for analyzing and detecting misunderstandings. Pragmatics & Cognition 24:2  pp. 263 ff. Crossref logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Maria Grazia Rossi
2019. Metaphors and problematic understanding in chronic care communication. Journal of Pragmatics 151  pp. 103 ff. Crossref logo
Marocchini, Eleonora, Simona Di Paola, Greta Mazzaggio & Filippo Domaneschi
2022. Understanding indirect requests for information in high-functioning autism. Cognitive Processing 23:1  pp. 129 ff. Crossref logo
Mustajoki, Arto & Alla Bajkulova
2020. The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse. Language and Dialogue 10:3  pp. 340 ff. Crossref logo
Oswald, Steve, Sara Greco, Johanna Miecznikowski, Chiara Pollaroli & Andrea Rocci
2020. Argumentation and meaning. Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2012. Epistemic Vigilance, Cautious Optimism and Sophisticated Understanding. Research in Language 10:4  pp. 365 ff. Crossref logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2013. Metapsychological awareness of comprehension and epistemic vigilance of L2 communication in interlanguage pragmatic development. Journal of Pragmatics 59  pp. 117 ff. Crossref logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2014. Pragmatic failure, epistemic injustice and epistemic vigilance. Language & Communication 39  pp. 34 ff. Crossref logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2016.  In Relevance Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 268],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2016.  In Relevance Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 268],  pp. 307 ff. Crossref logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2017. Interlocutors-Related and Hearer-Specific Causes of Misunderstanding: Processing Strategy, Confirmation Bias and Weak Vigilance. Research in Language 15:1  pp. 11 ff. Crossref logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2018. Pragmatic Competence Injustice. Social Epistemology 32:3  pp. 143 ff. Crossref logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2020.  In Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics [Figurative Thought and Language, 8],  pp. 69 ff. Crossref logo
Piskorska, Agnieszka
2014. A relevance-theoretic perspective on humorous irony and its failure. HUMOR 27:4 Crossref logo
Rossi, Maria Grazia & Fabrizio Macagno
2020. Coding Problematic Understanding in Patient–provider Interactions. Health Communication 35:12  pp. 1487 ff. Crossref logo
Rossi, Maria Grazia, Elena Vegni & Julia Menichetti
2021. Misunderstandings in ART Triadic Interactions: A Qualitative Comparison of First and Follow-Up Visits. Frontiers in Psychology 12 Crossref logo
Ruiz-Moneva, Maria Angeles
2020.  In Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics [Figurative Thought and Language, 8],  pp. 327 ff. Crossref logo
Ruiz-Moneva, María Angeles
2019. Ironie, umor și cultură în How to Be a Brit de George Mikes: perspective teoretice ale relevanței. Diacronia :10 Crossref logo
Ruiz-Moneva, María Angeles
2019. Irony, humour and culture in George Mikes’ How to Be a Brit: relevance-theoretical perspectives. Diacronia :10 Crossref logo
Sayer, Inaad Mutlib
2013. Misunderstanding and Language Comprehension. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70  pp. 738 ff. Crossref logo
Soares, Leonardo Antonio & Sumiko Nishitani Ikeda
2020. OS PROCESSOS METONÍMICOS EM PUBLICIDADE VERBO-VISUAL SOB ENFOQUE DA LINGUÍSTICA CRÍTICA E DA MULTIMODALIDADE. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada 59:1  pp. 777 ff. Crossref logo
Sukhov, Alexandre
2018. The role of perceived comprehension in idea evaluation. Creativity and Innovation Management 27:2  pp. 183 ff. Crossref logo
SUKHOV, ALEXANDRE, ANTTI SIHVONEN, LARS E. OLSSON & PETER R. MAGNUSSON
2018. THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME: OPENNESS TO CHANGE AND SENSEMAKING IN IDEA SCREENING. International Journal of Innovation Management 22:08  pp. 1840009 ff. Crossref logo
Yus, Francisco
2001. Review of Dascal (1999): Filosofía del Lenguaje II. Pragmática (Enciclopedia Iberoamericana de Filosofía. Pragmatics & Cognition 9:1  pp. 165 ff. Crossref logo
Zahid, Indirawati
2020. Ketidakpatuhan Maksim Perbualan dan Komunikasi Berkesan dalam “Soal Rakyat”. Issues in Language Studies 9:2  pp. 33 ff. Crossref logo
Zakowski, Samuely
2014.  You didn’t build that. a relevance-theoretic approach to President Obama’s campaign flub. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 24:4  pp. 819 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. 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.