Volume 33, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barsalou, Lawrence W.
    1983 “Ad Hoc Categories.” Memory & Cognition111: 211–227. 10.3758/BF03196968
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968 [Google Scholar]
  2. Blakemore, Diane
    1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 1992Understanding Utterances. An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2002Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carston, Robyn
    1997 “Enrichment and Loosening: Complementary Processes in Deriving the Proposition Expressed.” Linguistiche Berichte81: 103–127. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑11116‑0_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_7 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2000 “Explicature and Semantics.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics121: 1–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2002aThoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2002b “Metaphor, Ad Hoc Concepts and Word Meaning – More Questions than Answers.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics141: 83–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010 “Lexical Pragmatics, Ad Hoc Concepts and Metaphor: From a Relevance Theory Perspective.” Italian Journal of Linguistics22 (1): 153–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. 2013 “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]
  12. 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]
  13. Carston, Robyn, and Catherine Wearing
    2011 “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]
  14. de Saussure, Louis
    2012 “Temporal Reference in Discourse.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byKeith Allan, and Kasia Jaszczolt, 423–446. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.023
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.023 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2022 “Pragmatic Resolutions of Temporal and Aspectual Mismatches.” Pragmatics & Cognition28 (2): 228–251. 10.1075/pc.21014.sau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21014.sau [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. Grice, Herbert P.
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole, and Jerry Morgan, 41–59. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Grisot, Cristina, Bruno Cartoni, and Jacques Moeschler
    2016 “Conceptual and Procedural Information for Verb Tense Disambiguation: The English Simple Past.” InRelevance Theory. Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions, ed. byManuel Padilla Cruz, 103–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.268.05gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.05gri [Google Scholar]
  20. Hall, Alison
    2007 “Do Discourse Connectives Encode Concepts or Procedures?” Lingua117 (1): 149–174. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2011 “Ad Hoc Concepts: Atomic or Decompositional.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics231: 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. 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]
  24. Jucker, Andreas H.
    1993 “The Discourse Marker Well: A Relevance-theoretical Account.” Journal of Pragmatics19 (5): 435–452. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90004‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 [Google Scholar]
  25. Moeschler, Jacques
    2016 “Where Is Procedural Meaning Located? Evidence from Discourse Connectives and Tenses.” Lingua175–1761: 122–138. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  26. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    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]
  27. 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]
  28. 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]
  29. 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]
  30. Scott, Kate
    2011 “Beyond Reference: Concepts, Procedures and Referring Expressions.” InProcedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. byVictoria Escandell Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 183–203. Bingley: Emerald. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025012
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025012 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2013 “This and That: A Procedural Analysis.” Lingua1311: 49–65. 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1995Relevance. Communication and Cognition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  36. 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]
  37. Wałaszeska, Ewa
    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]
  38. Wilson, Deirdre
    2004 “Relevance and Lexical Pragmatics.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics161: 343–360.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2011a “Procedural Meaning: Past, Present, Future.” InProcedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. byVictoria Escandell Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025005
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025005 [Google Scholar]
  40. 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]
  41. 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]
  42. 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]
  43. 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]
  44. 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]
  45. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua90 (1): 1–25. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2002 “Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics141: 249–287.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2004 “Relevance Theory.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLarry Horn, and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2012Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
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