oa Has madam read Wilson (2016)?

References

1. Blakemore, Diane
   1987 Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
   1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
3. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman
   1960 “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” InStyle in Language, ed. byThomas Sebeok, 253–276. London and New York: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Carston, Robyn
   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]
5. Casson, Sarah
   2020 “The Greek Connective gar: Different Genres, Different Effects?” InRelevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. byAgnieszka Piskorska, 95–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.8.04cas
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.04cas [Google Scholar]
6. Curcó, Carmen
   2011 “On the Status of Procedural Meaning in Natural Language.” InProcedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. byVictoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 33–54. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025006
   https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025006 [Google Scholar]
7. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria
   1998 “Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses111: 45–57. 10.14198/raei.1998.11.05
   https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.1998.11.05 [Google Scholar]
8. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria
   2004 “Norms and Principles: Putting Social and Cognitive Pragmatics Together.” InCurrent Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, ed. byRosina Márquez-Reiter, and María Elena Placencia, 347–371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.123.27esc
   https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.123.27esc [Google Scholar]
9. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria
   2017 “Notes for a Restrictive Theory of Procedural Meaning.” InDoing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives, ed. byRachel Giora, and Michael Haugh, 79–96. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter/Mouton. 10.1515/9783110546095‑005
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-005 [Google Scholar]
10. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, and Manuel Leonetti
    2011 “The Rigidity of Procedural Meaning.” InProcedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. byVictoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 81–102. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. 10.1163/9780857240941_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780857240941_005 [Google Scholar]
11. Fillmore, Charles. J.
    1997 Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Fodor, Jerry A.
    1983 The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
13. Fraser, Bruce
    1990 “Perspectives on Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics141: 219–236. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90081‑N
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N [Google Scholar]
14. Haugh, Michael
    2013 “Speaker Meaning and Accountability in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics481: 41–56. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009 [Google Scholar]
15. Higashimori, Isao
    1992 “BUT/YET/STILL and Relevance Theory.” InPapers Presented to Professor Yoshimitsu Narita on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, 333–354. Tokyo: Eihosha.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Jary, Mark
    1998 “Relevance Theory and the Communication of Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics301: 1–19. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)80005‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)80005-2 [Google Scholar]
17. Jucker, Andreas H.
    1993 “The Discourse Marker Well: A Relevance-Theoretical Account.” Journal of Pragmatics191: 435–452. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90004‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 [Google Scholar]
18. Kaplan, David
    1989 “Demonstratives.” InThemes from Kaplan, ed. by. Joseph Almog, John Perry, and Howard Wettstein, 481–563. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Kostro, Monika, and Krystyna Wróblewska-Pawlak
    2013 “Formy adresatywne jako środek jawnej i ukrytej deprecjacji kobiet polityków w polskim dyskursie polityczno-medialnym.” (“Addressative Forms as a Means of Overt and Covert Discrimination of Female Politicians in Polish Political and Media Discourse”). Tekst i Dyskurs61: 153–168.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Łaziński, Marek
    2006 O panach i paniach: Polskie rzeczowniki tytularne i ich asymetria rodzajowo–płciowa (On Ladies and Gentlemen: Polish Titulary Nouns and their Gender Asymmetry). Warsaw: PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1979 “Pragmatics and Social Deixis: Reclaiming the Notion of Conventional Implicature.” Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 206–223. 10.3765/bls.v5i0.2162
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v5i0.2162 [Google Scholar]
22. Lubberger, Beate
    2020 “Metarepresentation Markers in Indus Kohistani: A Study with Special Reference to the Marker of Desirable Utterances loo.” InRelevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. byAgnieszka Piskorska, 121–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.8.05lub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.05lub [Google Scholar]
23. Mazzarella, Diana
    2015 “Politeness, Relevance and Scalar Inferences.” Journal of Pragmatics791: 93–106. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.016 [Google Scholar]
24. Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
    2009 “Intuitive and Reflective Inferences.” InIn Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, ed. byJonathan S. B. T. Evans, and Keith Frankish, 149–170. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
25. Nicolle, Stephen
    1998 “A Relevance Theory Perspective on Grammaticalization.” Cognitive Linguistics91: 1–35. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.1 [Google Scholar]
26. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2007 “Politeness: Always Implicated?” InInternational Perspectives on Gender and Language, ed. byJosé Santaemilia, Patricia Bou, Sergio Maruenda, and Gora Zaragoza, 350–372. València: University of València.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2020 “Towards a Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Diminutive Morpheme.” Russian Journal of Linguistics241: 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]
28. de Saussure, Louis
    2011 “On Some Methodological Issues in the Conceptual/Procedural Distinction.” InProcedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. byVictoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 55–79. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025007
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025007 [Google Scholar]
29. Piskorska, Agnieszka
    2016 “Perlocutionary Effects and Relevance Theory.” InRelevance Theory: Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions, ed. byManuel Padilla Cruz, 287–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.268.11pis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.11pis [Google Scholar]
30. Scott, Kate
    2016 “Pronouns and Procedures: Reference and Beyond.” Lingua175–1761: 69–82. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.07.005 [Google Scholar]
31. Sperber, Dan
    1994 “The Modularity of Thought and the Epidemiology of Representations.” InMapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, ed. byLawrence Hirschfield, and Susan Gelman, 39–67. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511752902.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752902.003 [Google Scholar]
32. Sperber, Dan
    2001a “In Defense of Massive Modularity.” InLanguage, Brain and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler, ed. byEmmanuel Dupoux, 47–57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Sperber, Dan
    2001b “An Evolutionary Perspective on Testimony and Argumentation.” Philosophical Topics291: 401–413. 10.5840/philtopics2001291/215
    https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics2001291/215 [Google Scholar]
34. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christoph Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson
    2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind and Language251: 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
35. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Terkourafi, Marina
    2019 “Im/politeness: A 21st Century Appraisal.” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching1 (6): 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Unger, Christoph
    2012a “Procedural Semantics, Metarepresentation, and Some Particles in Behdini Kurdish.” Lingua1221: 1613–1635. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.009 [Google Scholar]
38. Unger, Christoph
    2012b “Epistemic Vigilance and the Function of Procedural Indicators in Communication and Comprehension.” InRelevance Theory: More than Understanding, ed. byEwa Wałaszewska, and Agnieszka Piskorska, 45–73. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Watts, Richard
    2003 Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
40. Wharton, Tim
    2003 “Interjections, Language and the ‘Showing–Saying’ Continuum.” Pragmatics and Cognition111: 39–91. 10.1075/pc.11.1.04wha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.11.1.04wha [Google Scholar]
41. Wharton, Tim
    2009 Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635649
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635649 [Google Scholar]
42. Wilson, Deirdre
    2011 “Procedural Meaning: Past, Present, 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]
43. Wilson, Deirdre
    2016 “Reassessing the Conceptual–Procedural Distinction.” Lingua175–1761: 5–19. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005 [Google Scholar]
44. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua901: 1–25. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]