1887
Volume 33, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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 . 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21059.pad
2022-10-31
2024-05-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2004 “Interjections in a Contrastive Perspective.” InEmotion in Dialogic Interaction: Advances in the Complex, ed. byEdda Weigand, 99–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.248.09aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.248.09aij [Google Scholar]
  2. Ameka, Felix K.
    1992a “Interjections: The Universal yet Neglected Part of Speech.” Journal of Pragmatics18 (2–3): 101–118. 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90048‑G
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90048-G [Google Scholar]
  3. 1992b “The Meaning of Phatic and Conative Interjections.” Journal of Pragmatics18 (2–3): 245–271. 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90054‑F
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90054-F [Google Scholar]
  4. 2006 “Interjections.” InEncyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. byKeith Brown, 743–746. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00396‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00396-5 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barsalou, Lawrence W.
    1983 “Ad Hoc Categories.” Memory & Cognition111: 211–227. 10.3758/BF03196968
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968 [Google Scholar]
  6. 1987 “The Instability of Graded Structure in Concepts.” InConcepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization, ed. byUlric Neisser, 101–140. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolinger, Dwight
    1983 “Where Does Intonation Belong?” Journal of Semantics2 (2): 101–120. 10.1093/semant/2.2.101
    https://doi.org/10.1093/semant/2.2.101 [Google Scholar]
  8. Carston, Robyn
    1996 “Enrichment and Loosening: Complementary Processes in Deriving the Proposition Expressed.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics81: 61–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2000 “Explicature and Semantics.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics121: 1–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2002aThoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2002b “Metaphor, Ad Hoc Concepts and Word Meaning – More Questions than Answers.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics141: 83–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2010a “Lexical Pragmatics, Ad Hoc Concepts and Metaphor: From a Relevance Theory Perspective.” Italian Journal of Linguistics22 (1): 153–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2010b “Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society110 (3): 295–321. 10.1111/j.1467‑9264.2010.00288.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x [Google Scholar]
  14. 2012 “Metaphor and the Literal/Nonliteral Distinction.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byKeith Allan, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 469–492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.025 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2013a “Word Meaning, What Is Said and Explicature.” InWhat Is Said and What Is Not, ed. byCarlo Penco, and Filippo Domaneschi, 175–204. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013b “Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics.” InThe Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy, ed. byMaite Ezcurdia and Robert J. Stainton, 261–283. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2016 “The Heterogeneity of Procedural Meaning.” Lingua175–1761: 154–166. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carston, Robyn, and Catherine Wearing
    2012 “Metaphor, Hyperbole and Simile: A Pragmatic Approach.” Language and Cognition3 (2): 283–312. 10.1515/langcog.2011.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.010 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2015 “Hyperbolic Language and Its Relation to Metaphor and Irony.” Journal of Pragmatics791: 79–92. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  20. Clark, Billy
    2016 “Relevance Theory and Language Change.” Lingua175–1761: 139–153. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  21. Clark, Billy, and Geoff Lindsey
    1990 “Intonation, Grammar and Utterance Interpretation: Evidence from English Exclamatory-Inversions.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics21: 32–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Clark, Herbert H., and Jean E. Fox Tree
    2002 “Using uh and um in Spontaneous Speaking.” Cognition84 (1): 73–11. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    1986An Introduction to English Prosody. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dámasio, António
    1994Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York: Avon.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria
    1998 “Intonation and Procedural Encoding: The Case of Spanish Interrogatives.” InCurrent Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. byVilly Rouchota, and Andreas H. Jucker, 169–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.58.09esc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.58.09esc [Google Scholar]
  26. Falkum, Ingrid L.
    2019 “Metaphor and Metonymy in Acquisition: A Relevance Theoretic Perspective.” InRelevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. byKate Scott, Robyn Carston, and Billy Clark, 205–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.018 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fodor, Jerry A.
    1983The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fretheim, Thorstein
    1998 “Intonation and the Procedural Encoding of Attributed Thoughts: The Case of Norwegian Interrogatives.” InCurrent Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. byVilly Rouchota, and Andreas H. Jucker, 205–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.58.10fre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.58.10fre [Google Scholar]
  29. Goleman, Daniel
    1995Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Grice, Herbert P.
    1957 “Meaning.” Philosophical Review661: 377–388. 10.2307/2182440
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gussenhoven, Carlos
    2004The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511616983
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616983 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hall, Alison
    2017 “Lexical Pragmatics, Explicature and Ad Hoc Concepts.” InSemantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. byIlse Depraetere, and Raphael Salkie, 55–100. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_6 [Google Scholar]
  33. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1967Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783111357447
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111357447 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hirschberg, Julia, and Gregory Ward
    1995 “The Interpretation of the High-Rise Question Contour in English.” Journal of Pragmatics24 (4): 407–412. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00056‑K
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00056-K [Google Scholar]
  35. House, Jill
    1989 “The Relevance of Intonation?” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics11: 3–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1990 “Intonation Structures and Pragmatic Interpretation.” InStudies in the Pronunciation of English: A Commemorative Volume in Honour of A. C. Gimson, ed. bySusan Ramsaran, 38–57. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ifantidou, Elly
    1992 “Sentential Adverbs and Relevance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics41: 193–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2009 “Newspapers Headlines and Relevance: Ad Hoc Concepts in Ad Hoc Contexts.” Journal of Pragmatics411: 699–720. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.016 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2019 “Relevance and Metaphor Understanding in a Second Language.” InRelevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. byKate Scott, Robyn Carston, and Billy Clark, 218–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.019 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ifantidou, Elly, and Anna Hatzidaki
    2019 “Metaphor Comprehension in L2: Meaning, Images and Emotions.” Journal of Pragmatics1491: 78–90. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  41. Imai, Kunihiko
    1998 “Intonation and Relevance.” InRelevance Theory: Applications and Implications, ed. byRobyn Carston and Seiji Uchida, 69–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.37.06ima
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.06ima [Google Scholar]
  42. Jary, Mark
    2016 “Rethinking Explicit Utterance Content.” Journal of Pragmatics1021: 24–37. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jodłowiec, Maria, and Agnieszka Piskorska
    2015 “Metonymy Revisited: Towards a New Relevance-Theoretic Account.” Intercultural Pragmatics12 (2): 161–187. 10.1515/ip‑2015‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0009 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kendon, Adam
    1988 “How Gestures Can Become like Words?” InCross-Cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication, ed. byFernando Poyatos, 131–141. Toronto: Hogrefe.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2004Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kleiber, Georges
    2006 “Sémiotique de l’interjection.” Langages161 (1): 10–23. 10.3917/lang.161.0010
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.161.0010 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ladd, Robert
    1996Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Madella, Pauline
    2020 “Prosodic Pointing: From Pragmatic Awareness to Pragmatic Competence in Chinese Hearers of L2 English.” PhD diss.University of Brighton.
  49. Mateo, José, and Francisco Yus
    2021 “Ad Hoc Concepts in Humorous Financial Metaphors: A Pragmatic Approach.” InMetaphor in Economics and Specialised Discourse, ed. byJosé Mateo, and Francisco Yus. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b18546
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b18546 [Google Scholar]
  50. McNeill, David
    1992Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Needham-Didsbury, Isabelle
    2014 “Metaphor in Psychotherapeutic Discourse: Implications for Utterance Interpretation.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics50 (1): 75–98. 10.1515/psicl‑2014‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2014-0005 [Google Scholar]
  52. O’Connell, Daniel C., and Sabine Kowal
    2005 “Where Do Interjections Come from? A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Shaw’s Pygmalion.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research34 (5): 497–514. 10.1007/s10936‑005‑6205‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6205-x [Google Scholar]
  53. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2009a “Might Interjections Encode Concepts? More Questions than Answers.” Łodź Papers in Pragmatics5 (2): 241–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2009b “Towards an Alternative Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Interjections.” International Review of Pragmatics1 (1): 182–206. 10.1163/187731009X455884
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455884 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2017 “On the Origin and Meaning of Secondary Interjections: A Relevance-Theoretic Proposal.” InApplications of Relevance Theory: From Discourse to Morphemes, ed. byAgnieszka Piskorska, and Ewa Wałaszewska, 299–326. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2019 “Qualifying Insults, Offensive Epithets, Slurs and Expressive Expletives: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict7 (2): 156–181. 10.1075/jlac.00023.cru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00023.cru [Google Scholar]
  57. 2020 “Towards a Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Diminutive Morpheme.” Russian Journal of Linguistics24 (4): 774–795. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2020‑24‑4‑774‑795
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-4-774-795 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2022a “Is Free Enrichment always Free? Revisiting Ad Hoc Concept Construction.” Journal of Pragmatics1871: 130–143. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2022b “On the Interpretation of Utterances with Expressive Expletives.” Pragmatics & Cognition28 (2): 252–276. 10.1075/pc.21008.pad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21008.pad [Google Scholar]
  60. . In press. “Ad Hoc Concepts, Affective Attitude and Epistemic Stance.” Pragmatics & Cognition.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Papafragou, Anna
    1996 “On Metonymy.” Lingua99 (4): 169–195. 10.1016/0024‑3841(96)00016‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(96)00016-2 [Google Scholar]
  62. Rosier, Laurence
    2000 “Interjection, subjectivité, expressivité et discourse rapport à l’écrit: Petits effets d’un petit discourse.” Cahiers de Praxématique341: 19–49. 10.4000/praxematique.390
    https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.390 [Google Scholar]
  63. 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 Linguistics251: 20–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2015 “Metaphor and Hyperbole: Testing the Continuity Hypothesis.” Metaphor and Symbol30 (1): 24–40. 10.1080/10926488.2015.980699
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.980699 [Google Scholar]
  65. Schourup, Lawrence
    2001 “Rethinking well.” Journal of Pragmatics33 (7): 1025–1060. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00053‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00053-9 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed.Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 1997 “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics91: 107–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 1998 “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” InLanguage and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes, ed. byPeter Carruthers, and Jill Boucher, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597909.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597909.012 [Google Scholar]
  70. 2008 “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. byRaymond W. Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2012 “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” InMeaning and Relevance, ed. byDeirdre Wilson, and Dan Sperber, 31–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.004 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2015 “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy15 (44): 117–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Światkowska, Marcela
    2006 “L’interjection: Entre deixis et anaphore.” Langages161 (1): 47–56. 10.3917/lang.161.0047
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.161.0047 [Google Scholar]
  74. Unger, Christoph
    2019 “Allegory in Relation to Metaphor and Irony.” InRelevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. byKate Scott, Robyn Carston, and Billy Clark, 240–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.021 [Google Scholar]
  75. Vega Moreno, Rosa E.
    2007Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.156
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.156 [Google Scholar]
  76. Wałaszewska, Ewa
    2010 “Simile in Relevance Theory: Towards an Alternative Account.” Acta Philologica381: 13–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 2011 “Broadening and Narrowing in Lexical Development: How Relevance Theory Can Account for Children’s Overextensions and Underextensions.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (1): 314–326. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.017 [Google Scholar]
  78. 2020 “Category Extension as a Variety of Loose Use.” InRelevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. byAgnieszka Piskorska, 25–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.8.01wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.01wal [Google Scholar]
  79. Wearing, Catherine
    2010 “Autism, Metaphor and Relevance Theory.” Mind & Language25 (2): 196–216. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2009.01386.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01386.x [Google Scholar]
  80. 2014 “Interpreting Novel Metaphors.” International Review of Pragmatics6 (1): 78–102. 10.1163/18773109‑00601005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00601005 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wharton, Tim
    2001 “Natural Pragmatics and Natural Codes.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics131: 109–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 2003 “Interjection, Language and the ‘Showing/Saying’ Continuum.” Pragmatics and Cognition11 (1): 39–91. 10.1075/pc.11.1.04wha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.11.1.04wha [Google Scholar]
  83. 2009Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635649
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635649 [Google Scholar]
  84. 2012 “Pragmatics and Prosody.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byKeith Allan, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 567–584. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.031
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.031 [Google Scholar]
  85. 2016 “That Bloody So-and-so Has Retired: Expressives Revisited.” Lingua175–1761: 20–35. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  86. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1991Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783112329764
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112329764 [Google Scholar]
  87. 1992 “The Semantics of Interjection.” Journal of Pragmatics18 (2–3): 159–192. 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90050‑L
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90050-L [Google Scholar]
  88. Wilkins, David P.
    1992 “Interjections and Deictics.” Journal of Pragmatics18 (2–3): 119–158. 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90049‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90049-H [Google Scholar]
  89. 1995 “Expanding the Traditional Category of Deictic Elements: Interjections as Deictics.” InDeixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective, ed. byJudith F. Duchan, Gail A. Bruder, and Lynne E. Hewitt, 359–386. Hillsdale: LEA.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Wilson, Deirdre
    2011a “The Conceptual–Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” InProcedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. byVictoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025005
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025005 [Google Scholar]
  91. 2011b “Parallels and Differences in the Treatment of Metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics.” Intercultural Pragmatics8 (2): 177–196. 10.1515/iprg.2011.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  92. 2012 “Modality and the Conceptual–Procedural Distinction.” InRelevance Theory: More than Understanding, ed. byEwa Wałaszewska, and Agnieszka Piskorska, 23–43. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
    2006 “Metaphor, Relevance and the ‘Emergent Property’ Issue.” Mind & Language21 (3): 404–433. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00284.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x [Google Scholar]
  94. 2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” InPragmatics, ed. byNoel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  95. 2019 “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics1451: 31–38. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  96. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    2002 “Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics141: 249–287.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 2004 “Relevance Theory.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLarry Horn, and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 2012Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
  99. Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton
    2006 “Relevance and Prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics38 (10): 1559–1579. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21059.pad
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error