Cover not available
Part of
Relevance Theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions
Edited by Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 268] 2016
► pp. 1–29

Three decades of relevance theory

| University of Seville
Published online: 20 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.01cru
References (150)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allot, Nicholas E. 2002. “Relevance and Rationality.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 69–82.Google Scholar
Apperly, Ian. 2012. Mindreaders. The Cognitive Basis of Theory of Mind. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Berbeira Gardón, José L. 1993. “Posibilidad epistémica, posibilidad radical y pertinencia.” Pragmalingüística 1: 53–78.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Relevance and Modality.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1988. “’So’ as a Constraint on Relevance.” In Mental Representations. The Interface between Language and Reality, ed. by Ruth M. Kempson, 183–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. “Denial and Contrast: A Relevance Theoretic Analysis of But .” Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 15–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1993. “The Relevance of Reformulations.” Language and Literature 2: 101–120.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. “Relevance, Poetic Effects and Social Goals: A Reply to Culpeper.” Language and Literature 3: 49–59.Google Scholar
. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “On the Descriptive Ineffability of Expressive Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (14): 3537–3550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blass, Regina. 1989. “Pragmatic Effects of Co-ordination: The Case of ‘and’ in Sissala.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 32–51.Google Scholar
. 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special Reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonhomme, Marc. 2005. “Flou et polyvalence de la question rhétorique: L’exemple des fables de La Fontaine.” In Les états de la question, ed. by C. Rossari et al., 191–209. Québec: Nota Bene.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Word Meaning and Concept Expressed.” The Linguistic Review 29 (4): 607–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “The Heterogeneity of Procedural Meaning.” Lingua 175–176: 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn, and Seiji Uchida (eds). 1998. Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Billy. 1993. “ Let and let’s: Procedural Encoding and Explicature.” Lingua 90: 173–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Relevance Theory and Language Change.” Lingua 175–176: 139–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curcó, Carmen. 1995. “Some Observations on the Pragmatics of Humorous Interpretations: A Relevance Theoretic Approach.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 27–47.Google Scholar
. 1996. “The Implicit Expression of Attitudes, Mutual Manifestness, and Verbal Humour.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 89–99.Google Scholar
. 1997. The Pragmatics of Humorous Interpretations: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach. PhD diss., University of London.Google Scholar
Damasio, Antonio R. 1994. Descartes’ Error. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van, and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Escandell Vidal, M. Victoria. 1996. “Towards a Cognitive Approach to Politeness.” Language Sciences 18: 629–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 45–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Norms and Principles. Putting Social and Cognitive Pragmatics Together.” In Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, ed. by Rosina Márquez-Reiter and M. Elena Placencia, 347-371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell Vidal, M. Victoria, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern (eds). 2011. Procedural Meaning. Problems and Perspectives. Bingley: Emerald/Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2000. “Irony in Talk among Friends.” Metaphor and Symbol 15: 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1957. “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66: 377–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–59. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1995. “ Can, May, Must and Should: A Relevance Theoretic Account.” Journal of Linguistics 31: 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1989. “Translation and Relevance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 75–94.Google Scholar
. 1991. Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Hall, Alison. 2007. “Do Discourse Connectives Encode Concepts or Procedures?” Lingua 117 (1): 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Happé, Francesca G.E. 1994. “An Advanced Test of Theory of Mind: Understanding of Story Characters’ Thoughts and Feelings by Able Autistic, Mentally Handicapped, and Normal Children and Adults.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 24 (2): 129–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Larry. 1996. “Presupposition and Implicature.” In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 299–320. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly. 1992. “Sentential Adverbs and Relevance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 193–214.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Parentheticals and Relevance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 193–210.Google Scholar
. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Pragmatic Competence and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kunihito. 1998. “Intonation and Relevance.” In Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications, ed. by Robyn Carston and Seiji Uchida, 69–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itani, Reiko. 1994. “A Relevance-based Analysis of Hearsay Particles: Japanese Utterance-final tte .” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 379–400.Google Scholar
Iten, Corinne. 2002. Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance. The Case of Concessives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark. 1998a. “Is Relevance Theory Asocial?” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 157–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998b. “Relevance Theory and the Communication of Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Assertion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Two Types of Implicatures: Material and Behavioural.” Mind & Language 28 (5): 638–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jodłowiec, Maria. 1991. The Role of Relevance in the Interpretation of Verbal Jokes: A Pragmatic Analysis. PhD diss., Jagiellonian Uiversity.Google Scholar
. 2008. “What’s in the Punchline?” In Relevant Worlds: Current Perspectives on Language, Translation and Relevance Theory, ed. by Ewa Wałaszewska, Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk, Aniela Korzeniowska, and Małgorzata Grzegorzewska, 67–86. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. “The Discourse Marker Well: A Relevance-Theoretical Account.” Journal of Pragmatics 19: 435–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korzeniowska, Aniela, and Małgorzata Grzegorzewska (eds). 2005. Relevance Studies in Poland, Vol. 2. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T. 1973. “The Logic of Politeness; or, Minding Your P’s and q’s.” In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, ed. by Claudia W. Corum, Thomas C. Smith-Stark, and Ann Weiser, 292–305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leekam, Susan R. 1991. “Jokes and Lies: Children’s Understanding of Intentional Falsehood.” In Natural Theories of Mind. Evolution, Development and Simulation of Everyday Mindreading, ed. by Andrew Whiten, 159–174. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leinonen, Eeva, and Nuala Ryder. 2008. “Relevance Theory and Language Disorders.” In The Handbook of Clinical Linguistics, ed. by Martin J. Ball, Michael Perkins, Nicole Müller, and Sara Howard. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1969. Convention. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Maillat, Didier, and Steve Oswald. 2009. “Defining Manipulative Discourse: The Pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions.” International Review of Pragmatics 1 (2): 348–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Constraining Context: A Pragmatic Account of Cognitive Manipulation.” In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, ed. by C. Hart, 65–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mascaro, Olivier, and Dan Sperber. 2009. “The Moral, Epistemic, and Mindreading Components of Children’s Vigilance towards Deception.” Cognition 112 (3): 367–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateo Martínez, José, and Francisco Yus Ramos. 1998. Special Issue on Relevance Theory. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana. 2013. “‘Optimal Relevance’ as a Pragmatic Criterion: The Role of Epistemic Vigilance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 20–45.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Pragmatics and Epistemic Vigilance: The Deployment of Sophisticated Interpretative Strategies.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44): 183–199.Google Scholar
Mioduszewska, Ewa (ed.). 2004. Relevance Studies in Poland, Vol. 1. Warszawa: University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 1993. “Relevance and Conversation.” Lingua 90: 149–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Pragmatics, Propositional and Non-propositional Effects: Can a Theory of Utterance Interpretation Account for Emotions in Verbal Communication?” Social Science Information 48 (3): 447–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moescheler, Jacques. 2016. “Where Is Procedural Meaning Located? Evidence from Discourse Connectives and Tenses.” Lingua 175–176: 122–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noh, Eun-Ju. 2000. Metarepresentation. A Relevance-Theory Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, Steve. 2010. Pragmatics of Uncooperative and Manipulative Communication. PhD diss., University of Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
. 2011. “From Interpretation to Consent: Arguments, Beliefs and Meaning.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 806–814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2003. “A Relevance Theoretic Approach to the Introduction of Scandinavian Pronouns in English.” In Interaction and Cognition in Linguistics, ed. by Carlos Inchaurralde and Celia Florén, 123–134. Hamburg: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2005a. “On the Phatic Interpretation of Utterances: A Complementary Relevance-theoretic Approach.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 18: 227–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. “Relevance Theory and Historical Linguistics: Towards a Pragmatic Approach to the Morphological Changes in the Preterite from Old English to Middle English.” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 51: 183–204.Google Scholar
. 2007a. “Phatic Utterances and the Communication of Social Information.” In Studies in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics, ed. by Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Reyes Gómez Morón, and Lucía Fernández Amaya, 114–131. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2007b. “Metarepresentations and Phatic Utterances: A Pragmatic Proposal about the Generation of Solidarity between Interlocutors.” In Current Trends in Pragmatics, ed. by Piotr Cap and Joanna Nijakowska, 110–128. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Epistemic Vigilance, Cautious Optimism and Sophisticated Understanding.” Research in Language 10 (4): 365–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. “Understanding and Overcoming Pragmatic Failure in Intercultural Communication: From Focus on Speakers to Focus on Hearers.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 51 (1): 23–54.Google Scholar
. 2013b. “Metapsychological Awareness of Comprehension and Epistemic Vigilance of L2 Communication in Interlanguage Pragmatic Development.” Journal of Pragmatics 59 (A): 117–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Pragmatic Failure, Epistemic Injustice and Epistemic Vigilance.” Language & Communication 39: 34–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papp, Szilvia. 2006. “A Relevance-theoretic Account of the Development and Deficits of Theory of Mind in Normally Developing Children and Individuals with Autism.” Theory & Psychology 16 (2): 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pilkington, Adrian. 1991. “Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective.” In Literary Pragmatics, ed. by Roger D. Sell, 44–61. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1992. “Poetic Effects.” Lingua 87: 29–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Poetic Effects. A Relevance Theory Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Metaphor Comprehension: Some Questions for Current Accounts in Relevance Theory.” In Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, ed. by 
Esther Romero and Belén Soria, 156–171. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piskorska, Agnieszka. 2012a. “Cognition and Emotions – A Joint Effort at Obtaining Positive Cognitive Effects?” In Relevance Studies in Poland. Vol. 4. Essays on Language and Communication, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, 102–111. Warsaw: WUW.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2012b. Relevance Studies in Poland. Vol. 4. Essays on Language and Communication. Warsaw: WUW.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy. 1994. “On Indefinite Descriptions.” Journal of Linguistics 30: 441–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. “Discourse Connectives: What Do They Link?” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 199–212.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy, and Andreas H. Jucker (eds). 1998. Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz Moneva, María A. 1997. “A Relevance-theory Approach to the Scandinavian Influence upon the Development of the English Language.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 10: 183–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasamoto, Ryoko, and Deirdre Wilson (eds). 2016. “Little Words: Communication and Procedural Meaning.” Lingua 175–176: 1–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen. 1972. Meaning. Oxford: Claredon Press.Google Scholar
Scott, Kate. 2016. “Pronouns and Procedures: Reference and Beyond.” Lingua 175–176: 69–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Neil V., and Deirdre Wilson. 1992. Special Issue on Relevance Theory. Lingua 87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solska, Agnieszka. 2012. “Relevance-theoretic Comprehension Procedure and Processing Multiple Meanings in Paradigmatic Puns.” In Relevance Theory. More than Understanding, ed. by Ewa Wałaszewska and Agnieszka Piskorska, 167-182. New Castle upon Tyne: 
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Soria, Belén, and Esther Romero (eds). 2010. Explicit Communication. Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 1994. “Understanding Verbal Understanding.” In What is Intelligence? ed. by Jean Khalifa, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 2005. “Modularity and Relevance: How Can a Massively Modular Mind Be Flexible and Context-sensitive?” In The Innate Mind: Structure and Content, ed. by Peter 
Carruthers, Stephen Laurence, and Stephen Stich, 53–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1987. “Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.”and “Authors’ Response.” Behavioural and Brain Sciences 10: 697–710, 736–754. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, 
Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic vigilance.” Mind and Language 25 (4): 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Kate, Ellen Winner, and Natalie Hopfield. 1995. “How Children Tell a Lie from a Joke: The Role of Second-order Mental State Attributions.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 13 (2): 191–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Kate, Ellen Winner, and Helen Tager-Flugsber. 2003. “Can Adolescents with Williams Syndrome Tell the Difference between Lies and Jokes?” Developmental Neuropsychology 23 (1–2): 85–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unger, Christoph. 2006. Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence. The Pragmatics of Discourse Type. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vega Moreno, Rosa E. 2007. Creativity and Convention. The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wałaszewska, Ewa. 2015. Relevance-theoretic Lexical Pragmatics. Newcastle upon Tyne: 
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Wałaszewska, Ewa, Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk, and Agnieszka Piskorska (eds). 2010. In the Mind and across Minds. A Relevance-Theoretic Perspective on Communication and Translation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Wałaszewska, Ewa, and Agnieszka Piskorska (eds). 2012. Relevance Theory. More than Understanding. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(eds). In press. From Discourse to Morphemes. Applications of Relevance Theory. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Wearing, Catherine. 2010. “Autism, Metaphor and Relevance Theory.” Mind and Language 25 (2): 196–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “That Bloody So-and-so Has Retired: Expressives Revisited.” Lingua 175–176: 20–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 1999. “Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 127–161.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Understanding and Believing.” Plenary talk delivered at the 4th International Conference Intercultural Pragmatics and Communication , Madrid 15–17 November.
. 2011. “The Conceptual-procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by M. Victoria Escandell Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Irony Comprehension: A Developmental Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 59 (A): 40–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Reassessing the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction.” Lingua 175–176: 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2007. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Neil V. Smith. 1993. Special issue on relevance theory. Lingua 90.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1988. “Mood and the Analysis of Non-declarative Sentences.” In Human Agency: Language, Duty and Value, ed. by Jonathan Dancy, J.M.E. 
Moravcsik, and C.C.W. Taylor, 77–101. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991a. “Inference and Implicature.” In Pragmatics: A Reader, ed. by Steven Davis, 377–393. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991b. “Pragmatics and Modularity.” In Pragmatics: A Reader, ed. by Steven Davis, 583-595. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 90: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 249–287.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Relevance Theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Larry Horn and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton. 2006. “Relevance and Prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1559–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2013. From Speech Acts to Speech Actions. Lodz: Lodz University Press.Google Scholar
Yus Ramos, Francisco. 1995. “La significación social de las máximas de Grice: el caso del cómic alternativo inglés.” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 30–31: 109–128.Google Scholar
. 1997. Cooperación y relevancia. Dos aproximaciones pragmáticas a la interpretación. Alicante: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
. 1998. “A Decade of Relevance Theory.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 305–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999a. “Towards a Pragmatic Taxonomy of Misunderstandings.” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 38: 217–239.Google Scholar
. 1999b. “Misunderstandings and Explicit/Implicit Communication.” Pragmatics 9: 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Ciberpragmática. El uso del lenguaje en Internet. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Humor and the Search for Relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1295–1331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “A Relevance-theoretic Classification of Jokes.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4: 131–157.Google Scholar
. 2010. Ciberpragmática 2.0. Nuevos usos del lenguaje en Internet. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
. 2011. Cyberpragmatics. Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “An Inference-centered Analysis of Jokes: The Intersecting Circles Model of Humorous Communication.” In Irony and Humor: Highlights and Genres, ed. by Leonor Ruiz Gurillo and Beatriz Alvarado, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Žegarac, Vladimir. 1998. “What is Phatic Communication?” In Current Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. by Villy Rouchota and Andreas H. Jucker, 327–361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Žegarac, Vladimir, and Billy Clark. 1999a. “Phatic Interpretations and Phatic Communication.” Journal of Linguistics 35: 321–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999b. “Phatic Communication and Relevance Theory: A Reply to Ward & Horn.” Journal of Linguistics 35: 565–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

de Oliveira Fernandes, Daniel & Steve Oswald
2022. On the Rhetorical Effectiveness of Implicit Meaning—A Pragmatic Approach. Languages 8:1 ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
Bogucki, Łukasz
2020. Relevance in Secondary Communication. In A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Decision-Making in Subtitling, ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Leclercq, Benoît
2019. Coercion. Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 270 ff. DOI logo
Stecconi, Ubaldo
2019. How translations are willed into existence. Slovo.ru: Baltic accent 10:3 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.