Cover not available
Part of
Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual
Edited by Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman
[Handbook of Pragmatics M2] 2022
► pp. 1–26

The pragmatic perspective

Article outline
  • 1.Pragmatics and its formative traditions
  • 2.Pragmatics as a repository of interesting topics
  • 3.The problem of delimitation
  • 4.On dimensions, perspectives, methodology, and evidence
  • 5.A functional perspective on language
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m2.prag
References (197)
References
Anscombre, J.-C. 1979. “Délocutivité benvenistienne, délocutivité généralisée et performativité.” Langue française 42: 69–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apel, K.-O. 1989. “Linguistic meaning and intentionality.” In Semiotics and Pragmatics, ed. by G. Deledalle, 19–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. and J. Heritage (eds.). 1984. Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, P. and A. Di Luzio (eds.) 1992. The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Authier-Revuz, J., M. Doury and S. Reboul-Touré (eds.) 2003. Parler des mots: Le fait autonymique en discours. Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bara, B. G. 2010. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y. (ed.) 1971. Pragmatics of natural languages. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and J. Perry 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E. 1976. Language and context. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. Worcester, MA: Chandler.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L. 1992. “Sociology.” Society 30 (1): 12–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernicot, J. 1992. Les actes de langage chez l'enfant. Paris: Presses University de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernicot, J., A. Trognon, M. Guidetti and M. Musiol (eds.) 2002. Pragmatique et psychologie. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berrendonner, A. 1981. Eléments de pragmatique linguistique. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Bertuccelli Papi, M. 1993. Che cos’è la pragmatica. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Birnbacher, D. and A. Burkhardt (eds.) 1985. Sprachspiel und methode. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (ed.). 1999. Language ideological debates. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper (eds.) 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1968. Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1982. Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Briggs, C. 1986. Learning how to ask. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bronowski, J. 1973. The ascent of man. New York: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and S. Levinson 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bublitz, W. and A. Hübler (eds.) 2007. Metapragmatics in use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Frankfurt: Fischer.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.). 2007. Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (ed.) 1980. The pear stories. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1980. Rules and representations. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cicourel, A. V. 1982. “Interviews, surveys, and the problem of ecological validity.” The American Sociologist 17: 11–20.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. and E. V. Clark. 1977. Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (ed.) 1981. Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cornulier, B. De 1985. Effets de sens. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. and A. Johnson 2007. An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummings, L. 2005. Pragmatics: A multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
2009. Clinical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutting, J. 2008. Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students, (2nd ed). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (ed.). 1977. Logic, pragmatics and grammar. Sweden: Göteborg University, Dept. of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Daneš, F. (ed.) 1974. Papers on functional sentence perspective. Prague: Academia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. 1983. Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. and G. Harman (eds.). 1972. Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, S. (ed.). 1991. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deledalle, G. (ed.). 1989. Semiotics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijk, T. A. Van 1978. Taal en handelen. Bussum: Coutinho.Google Scholar
1981. Studies in the pragmatics of discourse. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. 1978. Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. and V. Fried 1987. Functionalism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
1973. La preuve et le dire. Paris: Mame.Google Scholar
1980. Les échelles argumentatives. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. and C. Goodwin (eds.) 1992. Rethinking context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. 2010. Human sociality at the heart of language [Inaugural lecture]. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. and S. C. Levinson (eds.) 2006. Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Errington, J. J. 1988. Structure and style in javanese. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. 1973. Language acquisition and communicative choice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and E. Oishi (eds.) 2011. Context and contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1971. “Types of lexical information.” In ed. by D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits, 370–392.Google Scholar
1972. “Subjects, speakers, and roles.” In ed. by D. Davidson and G. Harman, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. “An alternative to checklist theories of meaning.” Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 123–131.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. 1983. “On the concepts of scene and perspective in fillmore’s approach and in that of functional sentence perspective.” In Languages in function, ed. by S. Rot, 101–107. Budapest.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1964. The tongues of men [1937] and speech [1930]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1966. Les mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice-Hall. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. J. M. 1979. Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ghiglione, R. and A. Trognon 1993. Où va la pragmatique? Grenoble: Presses University de Grenoble.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1989. Mind, code and context. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Golopentia, S. 1988. Les voies de la pragmatique. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Green, G. 1996. Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, ed. by P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guenthner, F. and S. J. Schmidt (eds.) 1979. Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages. Dolrdrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. and D. H. Hymes (eds.). 1972. Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Haberland, H. and J. Mey. 1977. “Editorial: Linguistics and pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 1 (1): 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1971. “Vorbereitende bemerkungen zu einer theorie der kommunikativen kompetenz.” In ed. by J. Habermas and N. Luhmann, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie. Berlin: Suhrkamp. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979. “What is universal pragmatics?” In J. Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, 1–68. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F., S. Ide and Y. Katagiri (eds.) 2009. “Towards an emancipatory pragmatics.” Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics 41 (1): 1–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heringer, H. J. 1978. Practical semantics. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, L. (ed.) 1989. The pragmatics of style. London. Routledge.Google Scholar
Hilbert, R. A. 1992. The classical roots of ethnomethodology. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holden, C. 1993. “New life ahead for social sciences.” Science 261: 1796–1798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. and R. Wooffitt 1998. Conversation analysis: Principles, practices, and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1972. “On communicative competence.” In Sociolinguistics, ed. by J. B. Pride and J. Holmes, 269–293. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1960. “Concluding remarks: Linguistics and poetics.” In Style in language, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1970. Main Trends in the Science of Language. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. 2005. Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, A., N. Coupland and D. Galasiński (eds.). 2004. Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansen, J. D. and H. Sonne (eds.) 1986. Pragmatics and linguistics. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Kates, C. A. 1980. Pragmatics and semantics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R. M. 1975. Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 1980. L’énonciation. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
1986. L'implicite. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
Kroskrity, P., B. Schieffelin and K. Woolard (eds.) 1992. “Language ideologies.”Special issue of Pragmatics 2 (3): 235–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1972. “Linguistics and natural logic.” In ed. by D. Davidson and G. Harman, 545–665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1989. “The way we were.” Journal of Pragmatics 13 (6): 939–988. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Latraverse, F. 1987. La pragmatique. Brussels: Mardaga. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A. (ed.) 1993. Reflexive language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, R. M. 1979. Pragmatics, truth, and language. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mathesius, V. 1928. “On linguistic characterology with illustrations from modern English.” Proceedings of the 1st International Congress of Linguists 56–63.
Mccawley, J. D. 1972. “A program for logic.” In ed. by D. Davidson and G. Harman, 498–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. “« generative semantics.»” In Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual, ed. by J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman and J. Blommaert, 311–319. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. 1985. Whose language? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. 1977. “Frame-system theory.” In Thinking, ed. by P. N. Johnson-Laird and P. C. Wason, 355–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. 1996. Théorie pragmatique et pragmatique conversationnelle. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. and A. Reboul 1994. Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Montague, R. 1974. Formal philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, C. 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs (= Foundations of the unity of science I:2). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1971. Writings on the general theory of signs. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, B. and D. D. Clarke. 1996. Language, action and context: The early history of pragmatics in europe and america, 1780-1930. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, S. and R. H. Jones. 2005. Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A. and D. Sperber (eds.). 2004. Experimental pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. and J. Verschueren. 1987. A comprehensive bibliography of pragmatics ( 4 vols.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. 1988. Culture and language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. 1986. Pragmatics as implicitness. Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Parret, H. 1983. Semiotics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980. Le langage en contexte. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parret, H., M. Sbisà and J. Verschueren (eds.) 1981. Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perkins, M. 2007. Pragmatic impairment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pratt, M. L. 1977. Toward a speech act theory of literary discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. and J. Moeschler 2005. Pragmatique du discours: De l'interprétation de l’énoncé à l'interprétation du discours. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 1979. La transparence et l’énonciation. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
1981. Les énoncés performatifs. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. 2006. Introducing performative pragmatics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1972. “Act.” In ed. by D. Davidson and G. Harman, 70–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roulet, E. 1980. “Modalité et illocution.” Communications 32: 216–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salazar Orvig, A. 1999. Les mouvements du discours: Style, référence et dialogue dans les entretiens cliniques. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1929. “The status of linguistics as a science.” Language 5: 207–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1966. Culture, language and personality. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sbisà, M. 1989. Linguaggio, ragione, interazione. Milan: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlieben-Lange, B. 1975. Linguistische pragmatik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. J. (ed.) 1974. Pragmatik I. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. “Indirect speech acts.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, ed. by P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R., H. Parret and J. Verschueren. 1992. (On) searle on conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R., F. Kiefer and M. Bierwisch (eds.). 1980. Speech act theory and pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sgall, P. and E. Hajičová. 1977. “Focus on focus.” Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 28: 5–54.Google Scholar
Sherzer, J. 1987. “A discourse-centered approach to language and culture.” American Anthropologist 89 (2): 295–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1979. “Language structure and linguistic ideology.” In The Element, ed. by P. R. Clyne, W. F. Hanks and C. L. Hofbauer, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Smith, B. R. and E. Leinonen. 1992. Clinical pragmatics. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stati, S. 1990. Le transphrastique. Paris: Presses University de France.Google Scholar
Steinberg, D. D. and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.). 1971. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, E. H. and R. Veltman (eds.) 1988. Pragmatics, discourse and text. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1978. “Figure and ground in complex sentences.” In Universals of Human Language, vol. 4, ed. by J. H. Greenberg, 625–649. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Thayer, H. S. (ed.) 1970. Pragmatism. New York: Mentor.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Todorov, T. 1981. Mikhaïl bakhtine. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vanderveken, D. 1988. Les actes de discours. Brussels: Mardaga. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. 1978. “Reflections on presupposition failure.” Journal of Pragmatics 2 (2): 107–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985. “Review article on Geoffrey N. Leech, Principles of pragmatics, and Stephen C. Levinson, Pragmatics .” Journal of Linguistics 21: 459–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. “Meaning in a theory of pragmatics.” Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 553–562 DOI logo
1995a. “The pragmatic return to meaning.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 5: 127–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995b. “Linguistic pragmatics and semiotics.” Semiotica 104 (1/2): 45–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Understanding pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. “Context and structure in a theory of pragmatics.” Studies in Pragmatics 10: 14–24.Google Scholar
2011. “IPrA, the international pragmatics association, at 25.” SemiotiX New Series [URL].Google Scholar
2012. Ideology in language use: Pragmatic guidelines for empirical research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. “The european perspective view.” In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatic, ed. by Y. Huang.
(ed.). 1991a. Pragmatics at issue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 1991b. Levels of linguistic adaptation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. and M. Bertuccelli Papi (eds.) 1987. The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., J. Beavin Bavelas and D. D. Jackson 1967. Pragmatics of human communication. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Weiser, A. 1974. “Deliberate ambiguity.” Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: 723–731.
Wilson, D. and D. Sperber 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winch, P. 1958. The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Winkin, Y. 1981. La nouvelle communication. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophische untersuchungen. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D. (ed.) 1972. Linguistische pragmatik. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar