Theoretical Foundation

Part I - Theoretical Foundation

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2022

Edited by

Istvan Kecskes

Show author details

Istvan Kecskes: Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 9 - 104

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108884303 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–153.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, face work, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–2105.CrossRef Google Scholar

Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2013). Strategic conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 1–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

Atlas, J. D. (1977). Negation, ambiguity, and presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 321–336.CrossRef Google Scholar

Atlas, J. D. (1979). How linguistics matters to philosophy: Presupposition, truth, and meaning. In Dinneen, D. and Oh, C. K., eds., Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, pp. 265–281.Google Scholar

Atlas, J. D. (1989). Philosophy without Ambiguity: A Logico-Linguistic Essay. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Atlas, J. D. (2005). Whatever happened to meaning? A morality tale of Cappelen’s and LePore’s insensitivity to lexical semantics and a defense of Kent Bach, sort of. Paper presented at the International Pragmatics Association Conference, Riva del Garda, Italy, July 10–15.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (1994). Semantic slack: What is said and more. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 267–291.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (2001). You don’t say?, Synthese, 128, 15–44.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bach, K. (2004). Minding the gap. In Bianchi, C. (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 27–43.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (2006). The excluded middle: Semantic minimalism without minimal propositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73, 435–442.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bach, K. (2007). Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics). In Burton-Roberts, N., ed., Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 24–44.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Blutner, R. and Zeevat, H. (eds.) (2003). Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, J. (2002). The Grammar of Time Reference in Yukatek Maya. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Borg, E. (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRef Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. M., ed., Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–181.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1998). Postscript (1995) to Carston 1988. In Kasher, A., ed., Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, Vol. IV. London: Routledge, pp. 464–479.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2007). How many pragmatic systems are there? In Frápolli, M. J., ed., Saying, Meaning and Referring: Essays on François Recanati’s Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 18–48.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2012). Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review, 29, 607–623.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. III. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39–103.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cole, P. (ed.) (1981). Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Davis, W. A. (1998). Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davis, W. A. (2007). How normative is implicature. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1655–1672.Google Scholar

DeRose, K. (1992). Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 913–929.Google Scholar

DeRose, K. (2009). The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Elder, C. H. and Haugh, M. (2018). The interactional achievement of speaker meaning: Toward a formal account of conversational inference. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15, 593–625.CrossRef Google Scholar

Evans, N. and Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–492.Google Scholar

von Fintel, K. and Matthewson, L. (2008). Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review, 25, 139–201.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: L. Nebert. Part 1, §§1–12 trans. as “Begriffsschrift: a formula language of pure thought modelled on that of arithmetic.” In Beaney, M., ed. and trans. (1997), The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 47–78.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik, eine logisch mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl: Introduction. Breslau: W. Koebner. In Beaney, M., M., ed. and trans. (1997), The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 84–91.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1893). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Vol. I, Preface. Jena: H. Pohle. In Beaney, M., ed. and trans. (1997), The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 194–208.Google Scholar

Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. (1998). Scalars. In Ludewig, P. and Geurts, B., eds., Lexikalische Semantik aus kognitiver Sicht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 95–117.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. (2009). Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and Language, 24, 51–79.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Green, G. M. (1996). Ambiguity resolution and discourse interpretation. In van Deemter, K. and Peters, S., eds., Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review 66. Repr. in Grice, H. P. (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 213–223.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions. Philosophical Review, 1978. Repr. in Grice, H. P. (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 86–116.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III. New York: Academic Press. Repr. in H. P. Grice (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In Cole, P., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX. New York: Academic Press. Repr. in H. P. Grice (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 41–57.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2007). The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 84–110.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–85.CrossRef Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2009). Intention(ality) and the conceptualisation of communication in pragmatics. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29, 91–113.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. and Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–112.CrossRef Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1976). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature. In D. Schiffrin, ed. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 11–42.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1988). Pragmatic theory. In Newmeyer, F. J., ed., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–145.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1992). The said and the unsaid. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics (SALT II Proceedings), 40, 163–192.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (2006). The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In von Heusinger, K. and Turner, , eds., Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: The Michigan Papers. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 21–48.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (1999). Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic Defaults and Propositional Attitude Ascription. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2002). Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2005). Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2008). Psychological explanations in Gricean pragmatics and Frege’s legacy. In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intentions, Common Ground, and Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 9–44.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2009). Cancellability and the primary/secondary meaning distinction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 259–289.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2010). Default semantics. In Heine, and Narrog, , eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 215–246.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012a). Cross-linguistic differences in expressing time and universal principles of utterance interpretation. In Filipović, L. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., Space and Time in Languages and Cultures: Linguistic Diversity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–121.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012b). Semantics/pragmatics boundary disputes. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., and Portner, P., eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. III. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Repr. in C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner, eds. (2019), Semantics Interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 368–402.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2016). Meaning in Linguistic Interaction: Semantics, Metasemantics, Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2018). Pragmatics and philosophy: In search of a paradigm. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15, 131–159.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2021a). Functional proposition: A new concept for representing discourse meaning? Journal of Pragmatics, 171, 200–214.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2021b). Default Semantics. In Aronoff, M., ed., Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press (online).Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H., eds., Themes from Kaplan. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2012). Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.599–616.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2019). English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Kempson, R. M. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kempson, R. M. (1979). Presupposition, opacity, and ambiguity. In C. K. Oh, and D. A. Dinneen, , eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. XI. New York: Academic Press, pp. 283–297.Google Scholar

Kempson, R. M. (1986). Ambiguity and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. In Travis, C., ed., Meaning and Interpretation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 77–103.Google Scholar

King, J. C. and Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Szabó, Z. G., ed., Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–164.CrossRef Google Scholar

Koenig, J. P. (1993). Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and interval interpretations. Chicago Linguistic Society, 27, Part 2: The Parasession on Negation, 140–155.Google Scholar

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, J. and Bertuccelli-Papi, M., eds., The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, pp. 61–129.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In Palmer, F. R., eds., Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–115.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359.Google Scholar

Marsh, J. (2018). Why say it that way? Evasive answers and politeness theory. Journal of Politeness Research, 15, 55–76.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mauri, K. and van der Auwera, J. (2012). Connectives. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 377–401.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. (2004). Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Parikh, P. (2010). Language and Equilibrium. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rayo, A. (2013). A plea for semantic localism. Noûs, 47, 647–679.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 4. Repr. in S. Davis, ed. (1991), Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–120.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2001). What is said. Synthese, 128, 75–91.CrossRef Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2002). Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind and Language, 17, 105–126.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2005). Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. In Preyer, G. and Peter, G., eds., Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 171–196.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2007). Reply to Carston. In Frápolli, M. J., ed., Saying, Meaning and Referring: Essays on François Recanati’s Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 49–54.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2012a). Contextualism: Some varieties. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–149.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2012b). Compositionality, flexibility, and context dependence. In Werning, M., Hinzen, W., and Machery, E., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–191.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2012c). Pragmatic enrichment. In Russell, G. and Graff Fara, D., eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. New York: Routledge, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2016). Indexical thought: The communication problem. In García-Carpintero, M. and Torre, S., eds., About Oneself: De Se Thought and Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 141–178.Google Scholar

Saul, J. M. (2002). What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 347–372.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. (1985). Apparently irrational beliefs. In On Anthropological Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–63.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. (1997). Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Mind and Language, 12, 67–83.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. (2000). Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In Sperber, D., ed., Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–138.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (eds.) (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stanley, J. (2002). Making it articulated. Mind and Language, 17, 149–168.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stanley, J. and Szabó, Z. G. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language, 15, 219–261.Google Scholar

Tonhauser, J. (2011). Temporal reference in Paraguayan Guaraní, a tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 257–303.Google Scholar

Travis, C. (2006). Psychologism. In Lepore, E. and Smith, B. C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 103–126.Google Scholar

Travis, C. (2008). Occasion-Sensitivity: Selected Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (1975). Presuppositions and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111. Repr. in Sperber, D. and Wilson, D., eds. (2012), Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47–83.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. and Sadock, J. (1975). Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In Kimball, J. P., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IV. New York: Academic Press, pp 1–36.Google Scholar

References

Assimakopoulos, S. (2015). Motivating procedural analysis of logical connectives. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 32, 59–70.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A., and Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21, 37–46.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances: An introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blochowiak, J. and Grisot, C. (2018). The pragmatics of descriptive and metalinguistic negation: Experimental data from French. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3 (1), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.440.Google Scholar

Bonnefon, J.-F., Feeney, A., and Villsjoubert, G. (2009). When some is actually all: Scalar inferences in face threatening contexts. Cognition, 112, 249–258.Google Scholar

Borg, E. (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borg, E. (2012). Pursuing Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Breheny, R., Katsos, N., and Williams, J. (2006). Are generalized conversational implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100(3), 434–463.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1996). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 309–330.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2002). Utterances and Thoughts: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2017). Relevance theory and metaphor. In Semino, E. and Demjén, Z., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 42–55.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2019). Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R., eds., Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–162.Google Scholar

Cave, T. and Wilson, D. (2018). Reading Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Ducrot, O. (1984). Le Dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar

Dupuy, L., Stateva, P., Andreetta, S., Cheylus, A., Deprez, V., Van der Henst, J.-B., Jayez, J., Stepanov, A., and Reboul, A. (2018). Pragmatic abilities in bilinguals: The case of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. https://doi 10.1075/lab.17017.dup.Google Scholar

Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M., and Ahern, A. (eds.) (2011). Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Grigoroglou, M. and Papafragou, A. (2019). The development of pragmatic abilities. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R., eds., Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–202.Google Scholar

Grisot, C. (2017). Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Grisot, C. and Moeschler, J. (2014). How do empirical methods interact with theoretical pragmatics? The conceptual and procedural contents of the English Simple Past and its translation into French. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms. Cham: Springer, pp. 7–33.Google Scholar

Happé, F. (1994). Autism: An Introduction of Psychological Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Ifantidou, R. (2019). Relevance and metaphor understanding in a second language. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R., eds., Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 218–230.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jodłowiec, M. and Piskorska, A. (2015). Metonymy revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(2), 161–187. https://doi.10.1515/ip-2015–0009.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–219.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2021a). Intercultural communication and our understanding of language. Langages, 222, 25–42.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2021b). Processing implicatures in English as a Lingua Franca communication. Lingua, 256, 103067. https://doi.10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103067.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. and Kirner-Ludwig, M. (2019). “Odd structures” in English as a lingua franca discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.007.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: A Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mazzarella, D. (2015). Politeness, relevance and scalar inference. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 93–106.Google Scholar

Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason: A New Theory of Human Understanding. London: Allen Press.Google Scholar

Moeschler, J. (2004). Intercultural pragmatics: A cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 49–70.Google Scholar

Moeschler, J. (2007). The role of explicature in communication and in intercultural communication. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 73–94.Google Scholar

Moeschler, J. (2016). Where is procedural meaning? Evidences from discourse connectives and tenses. Lingua, 175–176, 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.006.Google Scholar

Moeschler, J. (2018). A set of semantic and pragmatic criteria for descriptive vs. metalinguistic negation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3 (1), 1–30. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.439.Google Scholar

Moeschler, J. (2019). Non-Lexical Pragmatics: Time, Causality and Logical Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Moeschler, J. (2021). Why Language? What Pragmatics Tells Us about Language and Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Moeschler, J. and Reboul, A. (1994). Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I., Politzer, G., and Bastide, A. (2007). A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition, 14, 347–376.Google Scholar

Potts, C. 2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reboul, A. (2013). The social evolution of language and the necessity of implicit communication. In Anderson, S. R., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, F., eds., The Language-Cognition Interface. Geneva: Droz, pp. 253–273.Google Scholar

Reboul, A. (2017). Cognition and Communication in the Evolution of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (1994). Contextualism and anti-contextualism in the philosophy of language. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 156–166.Google Scholar

Roberts, C. (2004). Context in dynamic interpretation. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 197–220.Google Scholar

Saussure, F. de. ([1916] 1978). Cours de linguistique Générale: Édition critique préparée par Tullio di Mauro. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar

Saussure, L. de and Wharton, T. (2020). Relevance, effects and affect. International Review of Pragmatics, 12(2), 183–205.Google Scholar

Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.) (2019). Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Scott-Phillips, Th. (2015). Speaking our Minds: Why Human Communication Is Different, and How Language Evolved to Make it Special. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., and Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25, 359–393.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Origgi, G. (2000). Evolution, communication, and the proper function of language. In Carruthers, P. and Chamberlain, A., eds., Evolution and the Human Mind: Language, Modularity and Social Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–169.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1977). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Rogers, A., Wall, B., and Murphy, J. P., eds., Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, pp. 135–147.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M., Weissman, B., and Roy, J. (2020). Different scalar terms are affected by face differently. International Review of Pragmatics, 12, 1–44. doi:10.1163/18773109-01201103.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (2003). Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 273–291.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (2016). The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. Journal of Pragmatics, 175 –176, 5–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (2017). Irony, hyperbole, jokes and banter. In Blochowiak, J., Grisot, C., Durrlemann, S., and Laenzlinger, C., eds., Formal Models in the Study of Language: Applications in Interdisciplinary Contexts. Cham: Springer, pp. 201–219.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2006). Metaphor, relevance and the “emergent property” issue. Mind & Language, 21, 406–433.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N., ed., Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 230–259.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2019), Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance Theory. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 607–632.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A. (2019). Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

Banda, Tracy. (2008). Tracy’s Office Services. August 21, www.tracysofficeservices.com/rightbenefits.htm.Google Scholar

Beardsley, M. (1958). Aesthetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar

Becker, I. and Giora, R. (2018). The Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production. Journal of Pragmatics, 138, 149–164.Google Scholar

Blige, N. (2007). www.streetpoetry.net/id12.html (retrieved on May 3, 2008).Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N., ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–311.Google Scholar

Campbell, J. D. and Katz, A. N. (2012). Are there necessary conditions for inducing a sense of sarcastic irony? Discourse Processes, 49(6), 459–480.Google Scholar

Chamberlain, Larry (2005). Why does my cat bring home her prey? www.articlealley.com/article_19599_54.html.Google Scholar

Cieślicka, A. (2007). Language experience and fixed expressions: Differences in the salience status of literal and figurative meanings of L1 and L2 idioms. Collocations and idioms, 1, 19–20.Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410.Google Scholar

Du Bois, W. J. and Giora, R. (2014). From cognitive-functional linguistics to dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 351–357.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 5–27.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (2007). “A good Arab is not a dead Arab – a racist incitement”: On the accessibility of negated concepts. In Kecskes, Istvan and Horn, Laurence R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 129–162.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (2011). “Your baby is no longer an infant”: On metaphor as context. In Gluzman, M. and Lubin, O., eds., Intertextuality in Literature and Culture. Tel Aviv: Hakibbuz Hameuchad, pp. 235–247 (In Hebrew).Google Scholar

Giora, R. (2020). How defaultness shapes our language production: A usage-based study of discoursal resonance with default interpretations of metaphor and sarcasm. In Barnden, J. and Gargett, A., eds., Production of Figurative Language. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Giora, R., Drucker, A., and Fein, O. (2014a). Resonating with default nonsalient interpretations: A corpus-based study of negative sarcasm. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28, 3–18.Google Scholar

Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., and Mendelson, I. (2015a). Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200.Google Scholar

Giora, R., Fein, O., Metuki, N., and Stern, P. (2010). Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator. In Horn, L., ed., The Expression of Negation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 225–256.Google Scholar

Giora, R., Givoni, S., and Becker, I. (2020). How defaultness affects text production: A corpus-based study of default sarcasm. In Athanasiadou, A. and Colston, H., eds., The Diversity of Irony. CLR book series. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Giora, R., Givoni, S., and Fein, O. (2015b). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290–313.Google Scholar

Giora, R. and Gur, I. (2003). Irony in conversation: Salience, role, and context effects. In Nerlich, B., Todd, Z., Herman, V., and Clarke, D., eds., Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meanings in Language and Mind. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 297–316.Google Scholar

Giora, R., Jaffe, I., Becker, I., and Fein, O. (2018). Strongly attenuating highly positive concepts: The case of default sarcastic interpretations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 19–47.Google Scholar

Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O., Barnea, A., Zeiman, R., and Berger, I. (2013). Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 89–115.Google Scholar

Giora, R., Raphaely, M. Fein, O., and Livnat, E. (2014b). Resonating with contextually inappropriate interpretations in production: The case of irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 443–455.Google Scholar

Givoni, S. (2019). Marking multiple meanings. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar

Givoni, S., Giora, R., and Bergerbest, D. (2013). How speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 29–40.Google Scholar

Goldberg, E. A. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.Google Scholar

Goldberg, E. A. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hasson, U., Avidan, G., Gelbard, H., Vallines, I., Harel, M., Minshew, N., and Behrmann, M. (2009). Shared and idiosyncratic cortical activation patterns in autism revealed under continuous real‐life viewing conditions. Autism Research, 2(4), 220–231.Google Scholar

HodyYanksFan. 2005. http://forums.nyyfans.com/archive/index.php/t-92160.html (retrieved on February 14th, 2014)Google Scholar

House, J. (2002). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In K. Knapp and C. Meirerkord, eds., Lingua Franca Communication. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 245–267.Google Scholar

Ilie, C. (1994). What Else Can I Tell You? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar

Joan (2008). 20 Responses to “Bridget Moynahan Must-Have Laughed, or Why I’m Almost Glad the Patriots Lost”. March 28, 2008. www.collegiatetimes.com/blogs/2008/02/05/bridget-moynahan-must-have-laughed-or-why-im-almost-glad-the-patriots-lost/.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73.Google Scholar

Kotthoff, H. (2003). Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1387–1411.Google Scholar

Levant, E., Fein, O., and Giora, R. (2020). Default sarcastic interpretations of attenuated and intensified similes. Journal of Pragmatics, 166, 59–69.Google Scholar

Paolazzi, C. (2013). “Do you really think it?”: Testing hypotheses on default nonliteral interpretations. Unpublished ms., University of Trento.Google Scholar

Partington, A. (2011). Phrasal Irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1786–1800.Google Scholar

Pickering, M. J. and Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–392.Google Scholar

Raeber, T. (2016). Distinguishing rhetorical questions from ironical questions: A relevance-theoretic account. In Cruz, M. P., ed., Relevance Theory: Recent Developments, Current Challenges, and Future Directions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 173–190.Google Scholar

Rose, G. (2003). On the need to ask how, exactly, is geography ‘“visual”’? Antipode, 35(2), 212–221.Google Scholar

Stephens, G. J., Silbert, L. J., and Hasson, U. (2010). PNAS Early Edition, 1–6. www.pnas.org/content/107/32/14425.Google Scholar

Summerfield, K. A. (1998). A change in time. www.storysite.org/story/changeintime~02.html (retrieved on September 28, 2008).Google Scholar

Veale, T. (2013). Humorous similes. Humour, 26(1), 3–22.Google Scholar

Zuanazzi, A. (2013). Italian affirmative rhetorical questions generate ironic interpretations by default. Unpublished ms., University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.Google Scholar

References

Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–153.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 231–256.Google Scholar

Barr, D. J. and Keysar, B. (2005). Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Colston, Herbert L. and Katz., Albert N., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 21–43.Google Scholar

Beaver, D. and Jason, S. (2019). Toward a non-ideal philosophy of language. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 39(2), 501–545.Google Scholar

Bigi, S. (2016). Communicating (with) Care: A Linguistic Approach to the Study of Doctor–Patient Interactions. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Capone, A. (2020). Presuppositions as pragmemes: The case of exemplification acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 53–77.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2002). Linguistic meaning communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language, 17(1–2), 127–148.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (2009). Context and common ground. In Mey Jacob, L., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 116–119.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., J, Levine, M., and Teasley, S. D., eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 127–149.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R., and Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(2), 245–258.Google Scholar

Colston, H. L. and Katz, A. N. (eds.) (2005). Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2009). Impoliteness: Using and Understanding the Language of Offence. ESRC project. Retrieved from www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, E. (2019). Challenges for knowledge representation: Emergence in linguistic expressions and Internet memes. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E., eds., Perspectives on the Construction of Meaning and Knowledge: The Linguistic, Pragmatic, Ontological and Computational Dimensions. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 22–54.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, E. (2020). On the interaction of core and emergent common ground in Internet memes. Internet Pragmatics, 3(2), 223–259.Google Scholar

Durkheim, E. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar

Elsbach, K. D., Barr, P. S., and Hargadon, A. B. (2005). Identifying situated cognition in organizations. Organization Science, 16(4), 422–433.Google Scholar

Filani, Ibukun (2021). The stand-up comedian as an egocentric communicator. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 1–23.Google Scholar

Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., and Cannella, B. (2008). Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

García-Gómez, A. (2020). Intercultural and interpersonal communication failures: Analyzing hostile interactions among British and Spanish university students on WhatsApp. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 27–53.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. and Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting Figurative Meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gil, Jose Maria. (2019). A relational account of communication on the basis of slips of the tongue. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(2), 153–185.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, Ch. and Duranti, A. (eds.) (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar

Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2003). A dynamic model of meaning. In Jordens, Peter, ed., Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. and Mey, J. (2008). Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, Vol. IV. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2012). Situation-bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2013). Why do we say what we say the way we say it? Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 71–83.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2019). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics–pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 489–517.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2020). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In Jackson, Jane, ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 138–155.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2021). Processing implicatures in English as a Lingua Franca communication. Lingua, 256, 103067.Google Scholar

Keysar, B. (2007). Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 71–84.Google Scholar

Keysar, B. and Henly, A. S. (2002). Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13(3), 207–212.Google Scholar

Khatib, M. and Shakouri, N. (2013). On situating the stance of socio-cognitive approach to language acquisition. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1590–1595.Google Scholar

La Mantia, F. (2018). “Where is meaning going?” Semantic potentials and enactive grammars. Acta Structuralica, 1, 89–113.Google Scholar

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2003). Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In Dedre, G. and Goldin-Meadow, S., eds., Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 25–46.Google Scholar

Liu, P. and You, X. (2019). Metapragmatic comments in web-based intercultural peer evaluation. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(1), 57–85.Google Scholar

Macagno, F. (2018). A dialectical approach to presuppositions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2), 291–313.Google Scholar

Macagno, F. and Capone, A. (2017). Presuppositions as cancellable Inferences. In Allan, K., Capone, A., and Kecskes, I., eds., Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Cham: Springer, pp. 45–68.Google Scholar

Macagno, F. and Bigi, S. (2017). Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148–168.Google Scholar

Martin de la Rosa, M. V. and Romero, E. D. (2019). A modality-based approach to the United Nations Security Council’s ambiguous positioning in the resolutions on the Syrian armed conflict. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(4), 363–389.Google Scholar

Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Mildorf, J. (2013). Reading fictional dialogue: Reflections on a cognitive-pragmatic reception theory. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 24(2), 105–116.Google Scholar

Moss, M. (2013). Rhetoric and time: Cognition, culture and interaction. Doctoral thesis, Chase Western University, Cleveland, OH.Google Scholar

Nolan, Brian. (2017). Computing the meaning of the assertive speech act by a software agent. Journal of Computer-Assisted Linguistic Research, 1(1), 20–39.Google Scholar

Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (1), 187–206.Google Scholar

Ortaçtepe, H. D. and Seçil, O. (2021). Common ground and positioning in teacher-student interactions: Second language socialization in EFL classrooms. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 53–82.Google Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J. and Maguire, L. (2011). Adaptive context: The fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 3(2), 228–241.Google Scholar

Rossi, M. G. (2016). Metaphors for patient education: A pragmatic-argumentative approach applying to the case of diabetes care. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 10(2), 34–48.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. London: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.Google Scholar

Stanley, J. (2018). Precis of how propaganda works. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96(2), 470–474.Google Scholar

Starbuck, W. H. and Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executive’s perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In Hambrick, D. C., ed., The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Managers. Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 35–65.Google Scholar

Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wayne, A. D. (2021). Cognitive propositions and semantic expressions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(3), 337–358.Google Scholar

Weigand, E. (2021). Language and dialogue in philosophy and science. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 533–561Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (2004). Relevance and lexical pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 343–360.Google Scholar

Wojtaszek, A. (2016). Multimodel integration in the perception of press advertisements within the dynamic model of meaning. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 12(1), 77–101.Google Scholar

Book contents

Part I - Theoretical Foundation

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive