Review article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 8:2 (2000) ► pp.411421
References
Alston, W. P.
1964Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M.
1957Intention. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Austin, John L.
1961 “A plea for excuses”. In J. L. Austin: Philosophical Papers. Oxford, 175–204.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T.
1967The Social Construction of Reality. Harmonds-worth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bergmann, J. and Luckmann, T.
1995 “Reconstructive genres of everyday communication”. In U. Quasthoff (ed.), Aspects of Oral Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter, 289–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandom, R. B.
1994Making it Explicit. Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, L.
1983Dialogue Games. An Approach to Discourse Analysis. Dordrecht/Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dascal, M.
1977 “Conversational relevance”. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 309–328book DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 “The pragmatic structure of conversation”. In H. Parret and J. Verschueren (eds), (On) Searle on Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 35–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M.
1973Frege. Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Fritz, G.
1982Kohärenz. Grundlagen der linguistischen Kommunikationsanalyse. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1995 “Topics in the history of dialogue forms”. In A. H. Jucker (ed), Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 469–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 “Philosophy of language and communication theory”. In M. Dascal, D. Gerhardus, K. Lorenz, and G. Meggle (eds), Philosophy of Language. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 21. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1685–1700.Google Scholar
1999 “Coherence in hypertext”. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, and E. Ventola (eds), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to Create It and How to Describe It. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 221–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gloning, T.
1996Bedeutung, Gebrauch und sprachliche Handlung. Ansätze und Probleme einer handlungstheoretischen Semantik aus linguistischer Sicht. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, C. L.
1970Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Heringer, H.
1978Practical Semantics. A Study in the Rules of Speech and Action. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundsnurscher, F.
1992 “Does a dialogical view of language amount to a paradigm change in linguistics? Language as dialogue”. In S. Stati and E. Weigand (eds) Methodologie der Dialoganalyse. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W.
1989Speaking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D.
1969Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1979 “Scorekeeping in a language game”. Journal of Philosophical Logic 81: 339–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luckmann, T.
1985 “The analysis of communicative genres”. In B. F. Nel, R. Singh, and V. M. Venter (eds), Focus on Quality. Durban: Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Durban-Westville, 48–61.Google Scholar
Kasher, A.
1987 “Justification of speech, acts and speech acts”. In E. Le Pore (ed.), New Directions in Semantics. London: Academic Press, 281–303.Google Scholar
1989 “Dialogues: How basic are they?” In E. Weigand and F. Hundsnurscher (eds.), Dialoganalyse II, Vol. 11. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 71–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strecker, B.
1987: Strategien des kommunikativen Handelns. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, E.
1977The Emergence of Norms. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Weigand, E.
1989Sprache als Dialog. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar