Volume 9, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bach, K.
    (1994a) Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language9: 124–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1994.tb00220.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.x [Google Scholar]
  2. (1994b) Semantic slack. What is said and more. In S.L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory. Philosophical and linguistic perspectives. London: Routledge, pp.267–291.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1998) Standardization revisited. In A. Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics. Critical concepts, vol. 4. London: Routledge, pp.712–720.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bach, K. & R. Harnish
    (1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press (chapter 9: Indirect acts and illocutionary standardization, in A. Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics. Critical concepts, vol. 4. London: Routledge, pp.682–712).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barthes, R.
    (1977) Image-music-text. London: Fontana.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bazzanella, C. & R. Damiano
    (1999a) Coherence and misunderstanding in everyday conversations. In Bublitz and Lenk (eds.), Coherence in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Conpany, pp.175–187. doi: 10.1075/pbns.63.13baz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.13baz [Google Scholar]
  7. (1999b) The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics31: 817–836. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00058‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00058-7 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bertolet, R.
    (1994) Are there indirect speech acts?In S.L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory. Philosophical and linguistic perspectives. London: Routledge, pp.335–349.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bertuccelli Papi, M.
    (1999) Implicitness to whom?In J. Verschueren (ed.), Pragmatics in 1998. Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Antwerp: IPrA.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blakemore, D.
    (1989) Linguistic form and pragmatic interpretation: The explicit and the implicit. In L. Hickey (ed.), The pragmatics of style. London: Routledge, pp.29–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1992) Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Blass, R.
    (1990) Relevance relations in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511586293
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511586293 [Google Scholar]
  13. Brooks, L.
    (1999) Do you want to come back to my place?The Guardian, 13December1999, Women.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cameron, R. & J. Williams
    (1997) Senténce to ten cents: A case study of relevance and communicative success in nonnative-native speaker interactions in a medical setting. Applied Linguistics18.4: 415–445. doi: 10.1093/applin/18.4.415
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.4.415 [Google Scholar]
  15. Carston, R.
    (1988) Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In R.M. Kempson (ed.), Mental representations. The interface between language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.155–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1996) Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics8: 61–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1998a) The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics10: 53–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1998b) Postcript. In A. Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics. Critical Concepts, vol. 4. London: Routledge, pp.464–477.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1999) The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from relevance theory. In K. Turner (ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view. Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp.85–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Clark, H.H.
    (1979) Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology11: 430–477. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(79)90020‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(79)90020-3 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dascal, M.
    (1999) Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics31: 753–762. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00059‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00059-9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dascal, M. & I. Berenstein
    (1987) Two modes of understanding: comprehending and grasping. Language & Communication7: 139–151. doi: 10.1016/0271‑5309(87)90004‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(87)90004-8 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dascal, M. & O. Gruengard
    (1981) Unintentional action and non-action. ManuscritoIV-2: 103–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Díez Arroyo, M.L.
    (1997) Figurative vs literal meaning in idioms. A comparative study English-Spanish. AtlantisXIX(2): 51–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Franken, N.
    (1997) Vagueness and approximation in relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics28: 135–151. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(96)00082‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00082-3 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gibbs, R.W.
    (1979) Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes2: 1–10. doi: 10.1080/01638537909544450
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638537909544450 [Google Scholar]
  28. (1984) Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science8: 275–304. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0803_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0803_4 [Google Scholar]
  29. (1994) The poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (1998) The varieties of intentions in interpersonal communication. In S.R. Fussell & R.J. Kreuz (eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication. Mahwah (NJ): LEA, pp.19–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1999) Speaker=s intuitions and pragmatic theory. Cognition69: 355–359. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00071‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00071-7 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gibbs, R.W. & J.F. Moise
    (1997) Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition62: 51–74. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(96)00724‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00724-X [Google Scholar]
  33. Goodman, B.A.
    (1986) Reference identification and reference identification failures. Computational Linguistics12.4.: 273–305.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Grimshaw, A.
    (1980) Mishearings, misunderstandings and other nonsuccesses in talk: A plea for redress of speaker-oriented bias. Sociological Inquiry40: 31–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00016.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00016.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Groefsema, M.
    (1992) >Can you pass the salt?=: A short-circuited implicature?Lingua87: 103–135. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90028‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90028-H [Google Scholar]
  36. Grossen, M.
    (1996) Counselling and gatekeeping: Definitions of the problem and situation in a first therapeutic interview. Text16: 161–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Grossen, M. & D. Apothéloz
    (1996) Communicating about communication in a therapeutic interview. Journal of Language and Social Psychology15: 101–132. doi: 10.1177/0261927X960152001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X960152001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Herman, V.
    (1997) Misunderstanding and power: Contests of understandings. In M. Maufort & J.-P. van Noppen (eds.), Voices of power. Brussels: Belgian Association of Anglicists in Higher Education, pp.33-43.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Holtgraves, T.
    (1998) Interpersonal foundations of conversational indirectness. In S.R. Fussell & R.J. Kreuz (eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication. Mahwah, NJ.: LEA, pp.71–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Humphreys-Jones, C.
    (1986) Make, make do and mend: The role of the hearer in misunderstandings. In G. McGregor (ed.), Language for hearers. Oxford: Pergamon, pp.105–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Jaszczolt, K.M.
    (1998) Referring in discourse: referential intention and the >taking for granted= principle. Journal of Literary SemanticsXXVII/2: 96–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (1999) Default semantics, pragmatics, and intentions. In K. Turner (ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view. Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp.199–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Linell, P.
    (1995) Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In I. Marková , C. Graumann & K. Foppa (eds.), Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.176–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Maynard, D.W.
    (1991) On the interactional and institutional bases of asymmetry in clinical discourse. American Journal of Sociology97: 448–495. doi: 10.1086/229785
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229785 [Google Scholar]
  45. Nicolle, S & B. Clark
    (1999) Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition69: 337–354. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00070‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00070-5 [Google Scholar]
  46. Récanati, F.
    (1989) The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language4: 295–329. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1989.tb00258.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00258.x [Google Scholar]
  47. (1993) Direct reference. From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1995) The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science19: 207–232. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1902_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1902_2 [Google Scholar]
  49. Salazar Orvig, A.
    (1995) Misunderstandings and the construction of dialogue in a clinical interview. International Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics11: 227–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Schegloff, E.A.
    (1987) Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics25: 201–218. doi: 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201 [Google Scholar]
  51. (1992) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology97: 1295–1345. doi: 10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  52. Searle, J.R.
    (1978) Literal meaning. Erkenntnis13: 207–224. doi: 10.1007/BF00160894
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160894 [Google Scholar]
  53. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson
    (1990) Spontaneous deduction and mutual knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences13: 179–184. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00078237
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00078237 [Google Scholar]
  54. (1986a) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson
    (1986b) Loose talk. In S. Davis (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.540–549.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson
    (1987) Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition . Behavioral and Brain Sciences10: 697–754. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00055345
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00055345 [Google Scholar]
  57. (1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (1997) The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics9: 107–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Toolan, M.
    (1991) Perspectives on literal meaning. Language & Communication11.4: 333–351. doi: 10.1016/0271‑5309(91)90036‑U
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(91)90036-U [Google Scholar]
  60. Vicente, B.
    (1996) Non-literal speech and indirection. Paper presented atthe Ipra Conference. Mexico City.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (1998) Against blurring the explicit/implicit distinction. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses11 (special volume devoted to relevance theory): 241–258.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Weigand, E.
    (1999) Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics31: 763–785. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00068‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00068-X [Google Scholar]
  63. Weizman, E. & S. Blum-Kulka
    (1992) Ordinary misunderstanding. In M. Stamenow (ed.), Current advances in semantic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.417–432. doi: 10.1075/cilt.73.34wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.73.34wei [Google Scholar]
  64. Weizman, E.
    (1999) Building true understanding via apparent miscommunication: A case study. Journal of Pragmatics31: 837–846. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(96)00057‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00057-4 [Google Scholar]
  65. West, C.
    (1985) Routine complications: Troubles with talk between doctors and patients. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wilson, D.
    (1994) Relevance and understanding. In: G. Brown , K. Malmkjaer , A. Pollitt & J. Williams (eds.), Language and understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.35–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Yamaguchi, H.
    (1988) How to pull strings with words. Deceptive violations in the garden-path joke. Journal of Pragmatics12: 323–337. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90036‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90036-7 [Google Scholar]
  68. Yus, F.
    (1997a) Cooperación y relevancia. Dos aproximaciones pragmáticas a la interpretación. Alicante: Servicio de Publicaciones.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. (1997b) Indirectness in conversation: The theory of sub-continua. Paper presented atthe XXI International AEDEAN Conference. Seville (Spain), December 1997.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. (1997c) Pragmática del malentendido. Paper presented atthe XV International AESLA Conference. Zaragoza (Spain), 14–16 April 1997.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. (1997d) La teoría de la relevancia y la estrategia humorística de la incongruencia-resolución. Pragmalingüística3–4: 497–508.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. (1997e) La interpretación y la imagen de masas. Alicante: Instituto de Cultura AJuan Gil-Albert@.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (1998a) A decade of relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics30: 305–345. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00015‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00015-0 [Google Scholar]
  74. (1998b) Relevance: A thematic bibliographical list. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses11 (special volume devoted to relevance theory): 261–285.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. (1998c) The what-do-you-mean syndrome. A taxonomy of misunderstandings in Harold Pinter=s plays. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense6: 81–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. (1998d) Relevance theory and media discourse: A verbal-visual model of communication. Poetics25: 293–309. doi: 10.1016/S0304‑422X(97)00020‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(97)00020-X [Google Scholar]
  77. (1998e) Irony: Context accessibility and processing effort. Pragmalingüística5–6: 391–411.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. (1999) Towards a pragmatic taxonomy of misunderstandings. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses38: 217–239.
    [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