Abras, C. 2002. The principle of relevance and metamessages in online discourse: electronic exchanges in a graduate course. Language, Literacy and Culture Review 1.2: 39–53.Google Scholar

Ackerman, B. 1983. Form and function in children's understanding of ironic utterances. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 35: 487–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adger, D. 2003. Core Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aguilar, M. 2008. Metadiscourse in Academic Speech: A Relevance-theoretic Approach. Peter Lang, Berlin.Google Scholar

Allbritton, D.W. and Gerrig, R.J. 1991. Participatory responses in prose understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 603–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allott, N. and Uchida, H. 2009. Natural language indicative conditionals are classical. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 1–17.Google Scholar

Andersen, G. 1999. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Corpus-based Study. PhD thesis, University of Bergen.Google Scholar

Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Astington, J., Harris, P. and Olson, D. (eds.) 1988. Developing Theories of Mind. Cambridge University Press.

Atlas, J.D. 1989. Philosophy Without Ambiguity: A Logico-linguistic Essay. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Atlas, J.D. 2005. Logic, Meaning and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature and their Interface. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atlas, J.D. and Levinson, S.C.. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical Pragmatics, pp. 1–62. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Bach, K. 1994a. Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 9: 124–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, K. 1994b. Semantic slack: what is said and more. In Tsohatzidis, S. (ed.) Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, pp. 267–91. Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Bach, K. 1997. The semantics–pragmatics distinction: what it is and why it matters. Linguistische Berichte 8 (Special Issue on Pragmatics): 33–50. Reprinted in K. Turner (ed.) 1999. The Semantics–Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Elsevier Science, Oxford.Google Scholar

Bach, K. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 327–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, K. 2001. You don't say. Synthése 128: 15–44.Google Scholar

Bach, K. 2004. Pragmatics and the philosophy of language. In Horn and Ward (eds.), pp. 461–87.

Bach, K. 2010. Impliciture vs. explicature: what's the difference? In B. Soria and E. Romero (eds.), pp. 126–37.

Bach, K. and Harnish, R.M. 1982. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S. 1995. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Barrett, H.C. and Kurzban, R. 2006. Modularity in cognition: framing the debate. Psychological Review 113.3: 628–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Barsalou, L. 1987. The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts. In Neisser, U. (ed.) Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization: 101–40. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. 1989. Intra-concept similarity and its implications for inter-concept similarity. In Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. (eds.) Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, pp. 76–121. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barsalou, L. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Kittay, E. and Lehrer, A. (eds.) Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, pp. 21–74. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ.Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. 1993. Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In Collins, A., Gathercole, S., Conway, A. and Morris, P. (eds.) Theories of Memory, pp. 29–101. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove.Google Scholar

Bekalu, M.A. 2006. Presupposition in news discourse. Discourse & Society 17.2: 147–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berlin, I. 1953. The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy's View of History. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, New York.Google Scholar

Berg, J. 2002. Is semantics still possible?Journal of Pragmatics 34.4: 349–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bezuidenhout, A. 1997. Pragmatics, semantic underdetermination and the referential–attributive distinction. Mind 106: 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bezuidenhout, A. 2002. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Philosophical Perspectives 16: 105–34.Google Scholar

Bezuidenhout, A. 2004. Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In Bianchi, C. (ed.) The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction, pp. 101–31. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA.Google Scholar

Bezuidenhout, A. and Sroda, M.S. 1998. Children's use of contextual cues to resolve referential ambiguity: an application of relevance theory. Pragmatics and Cognition 6: 265–99.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. 1987. Influences of bilingualism on metalinguistic development. Second Language Research 3.2: 154–66.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. 1991. Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Birdsong, D. 1989. Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 1991. Performatives and parentheticals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91: 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 1995. Relevance theory. In Verschueren, J., Ostman, J.-O. and Blommaert, J. (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 443–52. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 1996. Are apposition markers discourse markers?Journal of Linguistics 32: 325–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakemore, D. 1997. On non-truth conditional meaning. Linguistische Berichte 8 (Special Issue on Pragmatics): 92–102.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2007a. Constraints, concepts and procedural encoding. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 45–66.

Blakemore, D. 2007b. ‘Or’-parentheticals, ‘that is’-parentheticals and the pragmatics of reformulation. Journal of Linguistics 43: 311–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2009. Parentheticals and point of view in free indirect style. Language and Literature 18.2: 129–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakemore, D. 2010. Communication and the representation of thought: the use of audience-directed expressions in free indirect thought representations. Journal of Linguistics 46: 575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blutner, R. 1998. Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics 15: 115–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blutner, R. and Zeevat, H. 2004. Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boase-Beier, J. 2004a. Knowing and not knowing: style, intention and the translation of a Holocaust poem. Language and Literature 13.1: 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boase-Beier, J. 2004b. Saying what someone else meant: style, relevance and translation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14.2: 276–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boase-Beier, J. 2009. Translation and timelessness. Journal of Literary Semantics 38: 101–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, D. 1986. Intonation and its Parts: Melody in Spoken English. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. 1989. Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar

De Boni, M. 2004. Relevance in Open Domain Question Answering: Theoretical Framework and Application. PhD thesis, University of York.Google Scholar

Borg, E. 2004. Minimal Semantics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, D. 2007. Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics. In Preyer, G. and Peter, G. (eds.) Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism, pp. 339–59. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bou-Franch, P. 2002. Misunderstandings and unofficial knowledge in institutional discourse. In Walton, D. and Scheu, D. (eds.) Culture and Power, pp. 323–45. Peter Lang, Berlin.Google Scholar

Bouton, L.F. 1988. A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishness 7: 183–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bouton, L.F. 1990. The effective use of implicature in English: why and how it should be taught in the ESL classroom. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, vol.1, pp. 43–51.Google Scholar

Bouton, L.F. 1992a. The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: does it come automatically without being explicitly taught?Pragmatics and Language Learning 3: 53–65.Google Scholar

Bouton, L.F. 1992b. Culture, Pragmatics and Implicature: Acquisition of Language – Acquisition of Culture. AFinLA Yearbook (Publications de l'Association Finlandaise de Linguistique Appliquée) 50, pp. 35–61.Google Scholar

Bouton, L.F. 1994a. Conversational implicature in a second language: learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 157–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bouton, L.F. 1994b. Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, vol. 5, pp. 88–109.Google Scholar

Bouton, L.F. 1999. Developing nonnative speaker skills in interpreting conversational implicatures in English: explicit teaching can ease the process. In Hinkel, E. (ed.) Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning, pp. 47–70. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, C. 2010. The Lost Diaries. Fourth Estate, London.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. (ed.) Questions and Politeness, pp. 56–310. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bryant, G. and Fox Tree, J. 2002. Recognising verbal irony in spontaneous speech. Metaphor and symbol 17: 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buckland, W. 1992. Filmic Meaning: The Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. PhD thesis, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar

Buckland, W. 1995. Relevance and cognition: towards a pragmatics of unreliable filmic narration. In Müller, J.E. (ed.) Towards a Pragmatics of the Audiovisual, vol. 2, pp. 55–66. Nodus Publikationen, Münster.Google Scholar

Bursey, J. and Furlong, A. 2006. Cognitive gothic: relevance theory, iteration and style. In Tabbi, J. and Shavers, R. (eds.) Paper Empire: William Gaddis and the World System, pp. 118–33. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar

Burton-Roberts, N.C. 2000. Where and what is phonology? A representational perspective. In Burton-Roberts, N.C., Carr, P. and Docherty, G. (eds.) Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues, pp. 39–66. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Burton-Roberts, N.C. (ed.) 2007. Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burton-Roberts, N.C. 2010. Cancellation and intention. In B. Soria and E. Romero (eds.), pp. 138–55.

Burton-Roberts, N.C. 2011. On the grounding of syntax and the role of phonology in human cognition. Lingua 121.14: 2089–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burton-Roberts, N. and Poole, G. 2006. ‘Virtual conceptual necessity’, feature-dissociation and the Saussurian legacy in generative grammar. Journal of Linguistics 42.3: 575–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Camp, E. 2008. Showing, telling, and seeing: metaphor and ‘poetic’ language. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, vol. 3, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

Cann, R., Kempson, R. and Marten, L. 2005. The Dynamics of Language. Elsevier, Oxford.Google Scholar

Cann, R., Kempson, R. and Wedgwood, D. 2012. Representationalism and linguistic knowledge. In Kempson, R., Fernando, T. and Asher, N. (eds.) Philosophy of Linguistics, pp. 357–401. Elsevier, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. 2007. Relevance theory and shared content. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 115–35.

Carruthers, P. 2006. The Architecture of the Mind: Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Thought. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carruthers, P. and Smith, P. (eds.) 1996. Theories of Theories of Mind. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, R. 1988. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. (ed.) Mental Representation: The Interface between language and reality, pp. 155–81. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 1997. Enrichment and loosening: complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed?Linguistische Berichte 8 (Special Issue on Pragmatics): 103–27.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 1998. Pragmatics and the Explicit–Implicit Distinction. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2002a. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, R. 2002b. Metaphor, ad hoc concepts and word meaning: more questions than answers. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 83–105.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2004a. Relevance theory and the saying–implicating distinction. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), pp. 633–56.

Carston, R. 2004b. Explicature and semantics. In Davis, S. and Gillon, B. (eds.) Semantics: A Reader, pp. 1–44. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2007. How many pragmatic systems are there? In Frapolli, M.J. (ed.) Saying, Meaning, Referring: Essays on the Philosophy of F. Recanati, pp. 18–48. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2008. Linguistic communication and the semantics–pragmatics distinction. Synthèse 165.3: 321–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, R. 2009a. The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics 1.1: 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, R. 2009b. Relevance theory: contextualism or pragmaticism?UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 19–26.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2010. Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In B. Soria and E. Romero (eds.), pp. 217–85.

Carston, R. and Powell, G. 2006. Relevance theory: new directions and developments. In Lepore, E. and Smith, B. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, pp. 341–60. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds). 1998. Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chalmers, A.F. 1999. What Is This Thing Called Science? 3rd edn. Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar

Chapman, S. 2005. Paul Grice: Philosopher and Linguist. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Christie, C. 2007. Relevance theory and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 3: 269–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language. Praeger, New York.Google ScholarPubMed

Clark, B. 1991. Relevance Theory and the Semantics of Non-Declaratives'. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar

Clark, B. 1993a. Let and let's: procedural encoding and explicature. Lingua 90: 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, B. 1993b. Relevance and pseudo-imperatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 16.1: 79–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, B. 1996. Stylistic analysis and relevance theory. Language and Literature 5.3: 163–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, B. 2007. ‘Blazing a trail’: moving from natural to linguistic meaning in accounting for the tones of English. In Nilsen, R.A., Appiah Amfo, N.A. and Borthen, K. (eds.) Interpreting Utterances: Pragmatics and its interfaces. Essays in honour of Thorstein Fretheim, pp. 69–81. Novus, Oslo.Google Scholar

Clark, B. 2009. Salient inferences: pragmatics and The Inheritors. Language and Literature 18.2: 173–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, B. 2011. Recent developments in relevance theory. In Grundy, P. and Archer, D. (eds.) The Pragmatics Reader, pp. 129–37. Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Clark, B. 2012. The relevance of tones: prosodic meanings in utterance interpretation and in relevance theory. The Linguistic Review, 29.4: 643–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, B. and Lindsey, G. 1990. Intonation, grammar and utterance interpretation: evidence from English exclamatory-inversions. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 32–51.Google Scholar

Clark, B. and Owtram, N. 2012. Imagined inference: teaching writers to think like readers. In Burke, M., Czabo, S., Week, L. and Berkowitz, J. (eds.) Current Trends in Pedagogical Stylistics, pp. 126–41. Continuum, London.Google Scholar

Clark, H. and Gerrig, R.J. 1984. On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113: 121–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clark, H. and Gerrig, R.J. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66: 764–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cook, V.J. and Newson, M. 2007. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction, 3rd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Coupland, J., Coupland, N. and Robinson, J.D. 1992. ‘How are you?’ Negotiating phatic communion. Language in Society 21: 207–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crook, J. 2004. On covert communication in advertising. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 715–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Currie, G. 2006. Why irony is pretence. In Nichols, S. (ed.) The Architecture of the Imagination, pp. 111–33. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, M. and Stone, T. (eds.) 1995a. Mental Simulation: Philosophical and Psychological Essays. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Davies, M. and Stone, T. (eds.) 1995b. Folk Psychology. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Dennett, D. 1969. Content and Consciousness. Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Desilla, L. 2012. Implicatures in film: construal and functions in Bridget Jones romantic comedies. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 30–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dogan, G. 1992. The Pragmatics of Indirectness of Meaning: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Epigrams and Graffiti in Turkish. PhD thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Dowty, D.R., Wall, R.E. and Peters, S.. 1980. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Durán-Martínez, R. 2005. Covert communication in the promotion of alcohol and tobacco in Spanish press advertisements. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 5: 82–102.Google Scholar

Durant, A. 1984. Conditions of Music. Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Durant, A. 2010. Meaning in the Media: Discourse, Controversy and Debate. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dynell, M. 2008. Wittiness in the visual rhetoric of advertising and the quest for relevance. In Walaszewska, E., Kisielewska-Krysiuk, M., Korzeniowska, A. and Grzegorzewska, M. (eds.) Relevant Worlds: Current Perspectives on Language, Translation and Relevance Theory, pp. 48–66. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.Google Scholar

Elugardo, R. and Stainton, R.J. 2004. Shorthand, syntactic ellipsis, and the pragmatic determinants of what is said. Mind & Language 19.4: 442–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Escandell-Vidal, V. 1998a. Intonation and procedural encoding: the case of Spanish interrogatives. In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker (eds.), pp. 169–204.CrossRef

Escandell-Vidal, V. 1998b. Politeness: a relevant issue for relevance theory. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Escandell-Vidal, V. 2002. Echo-syntax and metarepresentations. Lingua 112: 871–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. and Ahern, A. (eds.) 2011. Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.Google Scholar

Evans, V. and Green, M. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Fabb, N. 1995. The density of response: a problem for literary criticism and cognitive science. In Payne, J. (ed.) Linguistic Approaches to Literature: Papers in Literary Stylistics, pp. 143–57. English Language Research, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Fabb, N. 1997. Linguistics and Literature. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Fabb, N. 2002. Language and Literary Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar

Fiddick, L., Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. 2000. No interpretation without representation: the role of domain-specific representations in the Wason selection task. Cognition 77: 1–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fodor, J.A. 1975. The Language of Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Fodor, J.A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Fodor, J.A. 1987. Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Fodor, J.A. 1990. A Theory of Content and Other Essays. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Fodor, J.A. 1994. The Elm and the Expert. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Fodor, J.A. 2008. LOT 2: The Language of Thought Revisited. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. Routledge, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Forceville, C. 2000. Compasses, beauty queens and other PCs: pictorial metaphors in computer advertisements. Hermes 24: 31–55.Google Scholar

Forceville, C. 2002. The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Forceville, C. 2010. Why and how study metaphor, metonymy and other tropes in multimodal discourse? In Caballero, R. and Pinar Sanz, M.J. (eds.) Ways and Modes of Human Communication, pp. 57–76. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Servicio de Publicaciones y AESLA, Ciudad Real.Google Scholar

Foster-Cohen, S.H. 2000. Review article on Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Second Language Research 16.1: 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foster-Cohen, S.H. 2004a. Relevance theory and second language learning/ behaviour. Second Language Research 20.3: 189–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foster-Cohen, S.H. 2004b. Relevance theory, action theory and second language communication strategies. Second Language Research 20.3: 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraser, B. 2006. On the conceptual–procedural distinction. Style 40.1–2. Available at:

Fretheim, T. 1998. Intonation and the procedural encoding of attributed thoughts: the case of Norwegian negative interrogatives. In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker (eds.), pp. 205–36.CrossRef

Furlong, A. 1996. Relevance Theory and Literary Interpretation. PhD. thesis, University College London.Google Scholar

Furlong, A. 2001. Is it a classic if no one reads it? In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistics Association (APLA), pp. 54–60. Université de Moncton, Moncton NB.Google Scholar

Furlong, A. 2011. The soul of wit: a relevance-theoretic discussion. Language and Literature 20.2: 136–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerrig, R.J. 1993. Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. Yale University Press, New Haven CT.Google Scholar

Gerrig, R.J. and Allbritton, D.W. 1990. The construction of literary character: a view from cognitive psychology. Style 24: 380–91.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. 2001. Evaluating contemporary models of figurative language understanding. Metaphor and Symbol 16: 317–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbs, R. and Moise, J. 1997. Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition 62: 51–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gibbs, R. and Tendahl, M. 2006. Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind and Language 21.3: 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. and the ABC Research Group 1999. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gilman, R. 2003. Introduction. In Gilman, R. (ed.) Anton Chekhov: Plays, pp. vii-xxxii. Penguin, London.Google Scholar

Girotto, V., Kemmelmeier, M., Sperber, D. and van der Henst, J.-B., 2001. Inept reasoners or pragmatic virtuosos? Relevance and the deontic selection task. Cognition, 81: 69–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Glucksberg, S. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glucksberg, S. 2004. On the automaticity of pragmatic processes: a modular proposal. In I. Noveck and D. Sperber (eds.), pp. 72–93.

Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D. and McGlone, M.S. 1997. Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create new categories. In T. Ward, S. Smith and J. Vaid (eds.), pp. 327–50.

Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self In Everyday Life. Anchor Doubleday, Garden City NY.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Doubleday, Garden City NY.Google Scholar

van Gompel, R.P.G. 2006. Sentence processing. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, vol. 11, pp. 251–5. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gow, D.W. and Gordon, P.C. 1995. Lexical and prelexical influences on word segmentation: evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21: 344–59.Google ScholarPubMed

Grice, H.P. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66: 377–88. Reprinted in H. P. Grice (1989), pp. 213–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H.P. 1967. Logic and Conversation. The William James Lectures. Harvard University. Published as Grice (1975) and reprinted in Grice (1989).Google Scholar

Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. Academic Press, New York. Reprinted in Grice (1989), pp. 86–116.Google Scholar

Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Groefsema, Marjolein. 2007. Concepts and word meaning in relevance theory. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 136–57.

Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gutt, E.-A. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Blackwell, Oxford. (2nd edn 2000. St Jerome Publishing, Manchester.)Google Scholar

Gutt, E.-A. 1998. Pragmatic aspects of translation: some relevance-theoretic observations. In Hickey, L. (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation, pp. 41–53. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Google Scholar

Gutt, E.-A. 2004. Translation, metarepresentation and claims of interpretive resemblance. In Arduini, S. and Hodgson, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Similarity and Translation, pp. 93–101. Guaraldi, Rimini.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 2006. Register variation: Core grammar and periphery. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, pp. 468–74. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haegeman, L. and Ihsane, T.. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded sentences in English. English Language and Linguistics 3: 117–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haegeman, L. and Ihsane, T.. 2001. Adult null subjects in the non-pro drop languages: two diary dialects. Language Acquisition 9.4: 329–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haicun, L. 2005. Explaining phatic utterance within the theory of relevance. In Korzeniowska, A. and Grzegorzewska, M. (eds.) Relevance Studies in Poland, vol. 2, pp. 81–7. The Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar

Hall, A. 2009. ‘Free’ enrichment and the nature of pragmatic constraints. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 93–123.Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M.. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. Hodder Arnold, London.Google Scholar

Hampton, J. 1997. Emergent attributes in combined concepts. In T. Ward, S. Smith and J. Vaid (eds.), pp. 83–110.

Hann, M. 2007. Meh – the word that's sweeping the internet. The Guardian, 5th March 2007. Available at:

Happé, F. 1993. Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: a test of relevance theory. Cognition 48: 101–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hawkins, J.A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27: 405–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heim, I. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C. and von Stechow, A. (eds.) Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pp. 164–89. De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar

Horn, L.R. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar

Horn, L.R. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, pp. 11–42. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar

Horn, L.R. 1988. Pragmatic theory. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.) Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 1: Linguistic Theory: Foundations, pp. 113–45. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Horn, L.R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Horn, L.R. 1992. The said and the unsaid. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of SALT II: The Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory) 40: 163–202.Google Scholar

Horn, L.R. 1996. Presupposition and implicature. In Lappin, S. (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 299–320. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Horn, L.R. 2004. Implicature. In Horn, L.R. and Ward, G. (eds.), pp. 3–28.

Horn, L.R. and Ward, G. (eds.) 2004. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

House, J. 1990. Intonation structures and pragmatic interpretation. In Ramsaran, S. (ed.) Studies in the Pronunciation of English, pp. 38–57. Routledge, London.Google Scholar

House, J. 2006. Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics 38.10: 1542–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huang, Y. 1991. A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27: 301–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huang, Y. 2007. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huang, Y. 2010. Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of conversational implicature. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 607–31. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. 2006. Corpus linguistics. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, pp. 234–48. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ifantidou, E. 2005a. Evidential particles and mind-reading. Pragmatics & Cognition 13.2: 253–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ifantidou, E. 2005b. Hearsay devices and metarepresentation. In Marmaridou, S., Antonopoulou, E. and Nikiforidou, V. (eds.) Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging trends in the 21st Century, pp. 401–20. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar

Ifantidou, E. 2005c. The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1325–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ifantidou, E. 2009. Newspaper headlines and relevance: ad hoc concepts in ad hoc contexts. Journal of Pragmatics 41.4: 699–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ifantidou, E. and Tzanne, A. 2006. Multimodality and relevance in the Athens 2004 Olympic Games televised promotion. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 19: 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Imai, K. 1998. Intonation and relevance. In Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds.) Relevance Theory: Applications and implications, pp. 69–86. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iten, C. 2005. Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jary, M. 2008. The relevance of complement choice: a corpus study of ‘believe’. Lingua 118: 1–18.Google Scholar

Jary, M. 2009. Relevance, assertion and possible worlds: a cognitive approach to the Spanish subjunctive. In de Brabanter, P. and Kissine, M. (eds.) Utterance Interpretation and Cognitive Models, pp. 235–77. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jary, M. 2010. Assertion. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jary, M. 2011. Assertion, relevance and the declarative mood. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti and A. Ahern (eds), pp. 267–89.

Jaszczolt, K.M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jaszczolt, K.M. 2006. Default semantics. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, 2nd edn, pp. 388–92. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jaszczolt, K.M. 2009. Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K.M. 2010. Default semantics. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 193–221. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K.M. 2011. Default meanings, salient meanings and automatic processing. In , K.M.Jaszczolt, and Allan, K. (eds.) Salience and Defaults in Ulterance Processing, pp. 11–33. Mouton de Gruytes, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jodlowiec, M. 2009. Relevance and misunderstanding. In Tarasti, E., Forsell, P. and Littlefield, R. (eds.) Communication: Understanding/Misunderstanding. Proceedings of the 9th Congress of the IASS-AIS, Helsinki-Imatra. Vol. 1: Acta Semiotica Fennica XXXIV, pp. 651–61. International Semiotics Institute/Helsinki: Semiotic Society of Finland, Imatra.Google Scholar

Jodlowiec, M. 2010. The role of relevance theory in SLA studies. In Pütz, M. and Sicola, L. (eds.) Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 49–66. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1983. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P.N. 2004. The history of mental models. In Manktelow, K. and Chung, M.C. (eds.) Psychology of Reasoning: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives, pp. 179–212. Psychology Press, New York.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P.N. 2006. How We Reason. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P.N. and Byrne, R.M.J. 1991. Deduction. Psychology Press, New York.Google Scholar

Jorgensen, J., Miller, G. and Sperber, D. 1984. Test of the mention theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113: 112–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J.A.G., Janssen, T.M.V. and Stokhof, M.J.B. (eds.) Truth, Interpretation and Information, pp. 1–41. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Katz, J.J. and Fodor, J.A. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39.2: 170–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Katz, J.J. and Postal, P.M. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Keenan, E.I. 1976. The universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society 5: 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W. and Gabbay, D. 2001. Dynamic Syntax. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

King, J. and Stanley, J. 2005. Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Szabo, Z.G. (ed.) Semantics vs. Pragmatics, pp. 111–64. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kisielewska-Krysiuk, M. 2010. Banter – a case of phatic communication? In Walaszewska, E., Kisielewska-Krysiuk, M. and Piskorska, A. (eds.) In the Mind and across Minds: A relevance-theoretic perspective on communication and translation, pp. 188–207. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.Google Scholar

de Klerk, V. 2005. Procedural meanings of ‘well’ in a corpus of Xhosa English. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1183–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kripke, S. 1977. Speaker's reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2: 255–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S. and Brown, M. 1995. How about another piece of pie: the allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ladd, R. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lagerwerf, L. 2007. Irony and sarcasm in advertisements: effects of relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1702–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landragin, F. 2003. Clues for the identification of implicit information in multimodal referring actions. In Stephanidis, C. and Jacko, J. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 2, pp. 711–15. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ.Google Scholar

Landragin, F., De Aangeli, A., Wolff, F., Lopez, P. and Romary, L. 2002. Relevance and perceptual constraints in multimodal referring actions. In Van Deemter, K. and Kibble, R. (eds.) Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation, pp. 391–410. CSLI Publications, Chicago.Google Scholar

Lascarides, A. and Asher, N. 2007. Segmented discourse representation theory: dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In Bunt, H. and Muskens, R. (eds.) Computing Meaning, vol. 3, pp. 87–124. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar

Lascarides, A. and Copestake, A. 1998. Pragmatics and word meaning. Journal of Linguistics 34: 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laver, J. 1974. Semiotic Aspects of Spoken Communication. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar

Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.Google Scholar

Leslie, A. 1987. Pretense and representation: the origins of ‘theory of mind’. Psychological Review 94: 412–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leslie, A. and Happé, F.. 1989. Autism and ostensive communication: the relevance of metarepresentation. Development and Psychopathology 1: 205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S.C. 1987a. Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, J. and Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (eds.) The Pragmatic Perspective, pp. 61–129. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S.C. 1987b. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23: 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S.C. 1987c. Implicature explicated?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10.4: 722–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S.C. 1989. A review of ‘Relevance’. Journal of Linguistics 25: 455–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S.C. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Palmer, F. (ed.) Grammar and Meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, pp. 90–119. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S.C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1970. General semantics. Synthèse 22: 18–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacMahon, B. 1996. Indirectness, rhetoric and interpretive use: communicative strategies in Browning's ‘My Last Duchess’. Language and Literature 5: 209–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacMahon, B. 2001a. The effects of word substitution in slips of the tongue, Finnegans Wake and The Third Policeman. English Studies 3: 231–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacMahon, B. 2001b. Relevance theory and the use of voice in poetry. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 15: 11–34.Google Scholar

MacMahon, B. 2007. The effects of sound patterning in poetry: a cognitive pragmatic approach. Journal of Literary Semantics 36.2: 103–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacMahon, B. 2009a. Metarepresentation and decoupling in Northanger Abbey: Part I. English Studies 90.5: 518–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacMahon, B. 2009b. Metarepresentation and decoupling in Northanger Abbey: Part II. English Studies 90.6: 673–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Malinowski, B. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In Ogden, C.K. and Richards, I.A. (eds.) The Meaning of Meaning, pp. 146–52. Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (eds.) 1999. Concepts: Core Readings. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

Marten, L. and Kempson, R. 2006. Dynamic syntax. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 4, 2nd edn, pp. 33–37. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martí, L. 2006. Unarticulated constituents revisited. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 135–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mascaro, O. and Sperber, D. 2009. The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children's vigilance towards deception. Cognition 112: 367–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Matsui, T., Yamamoto, T. and McCagg, P.. 2006. On the role of language in children's early understanding of others as epistemic beings. Cognitive Development 21: 158–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matsui, T., Rakoczy, H., Miura, Y. and Tomasello, M. 2009. Understanding of speaker certainty and false-belief reasoning: a comparison of Japanese and German preschoolers. Developmental Science 12.4: 602–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McEnery, A.M. and Hardie, A. 2011. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McEnery, A.M. and Wilson, A. 2001. Corpus Linguistics, 2nd edn. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. 2009. Intuitive and reflective inferences. In Evans, J. and Frankish, K. (eds.) In Two Minds: Dual processes and beyond, pp. 149–70. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mirecki, P. 2005. Misunderstanding: a starting point for successful communication. A view from the relevance-theoretic perspective. In Korzeniowska, A. and Grzegorzewska, M. (eds.) Relevance Studies in Poland, vol. 2, pp. 45–51. The Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar

Montague, R. 1974. Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague (ed. Thomason, R.H.). Yale University Press, New Haven CT.Google Scholar

Morgan, J. and Green, G. 1987. On the search for relevance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10: 726–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller-Lyer, F.C. 1889. Optische Urteilstauschungen. Archiv fur Anatomie und Physiologie. Physiologische Abteilung, 2: 263–70.Google Scholar

Navarro, M.P. 2006. Enrichment and loosening: an on-going process in the practice of translation. A study based on some translations of Gulliver's Travels. In Hornero, A.M., Luzón, M.J. and Murillo, S. (eds.) Corpus Linguistics: Applications for the Study of English, pp. 269–86. Peter Lang, Berlin.Google Scholar

Neale, S. 2000. On being explicit. Mind and Language 15: 284–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neale, S. 2005. Pragmatism and binding. In Szabó, Z. (ed.) Semantics vs. Pragmatics, pp. 165–285. Clarendon Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nicolle, S. and Clark, B. 1998. Phatic interpretations: standardisation and conventionalisation. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 183–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nicolle, S. and Clark, B. 1999. Experimental pragmatics and what is said: a response to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition 66: 337–54.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78.2: 165–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Noveck, I., Bianco, M. and Castry, A. 2001. The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 16: 109–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. 2004. Experimental Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. 2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: the case of ‘scalar inferences’. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 184–212.

Nowik, E.K. 2005. Politeness of the impolite: relevance theory, politeness and banter. In Korzeniowska, A. and Grzegorzewska, M. (eds.) Relevance Studies in Poland, vol. 2, pp. 157–66. The Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar

Ogden, C.K. and Richards, I.A. 1923. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, London. Also available in a version edited by Gordon, W.T. (1994). Continuum, London.Google Scholar

Owtram, N. 2010. The Pragmatics of Academic Writing. Peter Lang, Berlin.Google Scholar

Padilla Cruz, M. 2007. Metarepresentations and phatic utterances: a pragmatic proposal about the generation of solidarity between interlocutors. In Cap, P. and Nikakowska, J. (eds.) Current Trends in Pragmatics, pp. 110–28. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.Google Scholar

Padilla Cruz, M. 2008. Three different pragmatic approaches to the teaching of the (im)politeness of phatic utterances in English. In Estébanez, C. and Pérez Ruiz Valladolid, L. (eds.) Language Awareness in English and Spanish, pp. 131–52. University of Valladolid.Google Scholar

Padilla Cruz, M. 2009. Understanding and overcoming pragmatic failure when interpreting phatic utterances. In Gómez Morón, R., Padilla Cruz, M., Fernández Amaya, L. and Hernández López, M.O. (eds.) Pragmatics Applied to Language Teaching and Learning, pp. 87–108. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.Google Scholar

Pajares Tosca, S. 2000. A pragmatics of links. In Proceedings of Hypertext 2000, San Antonio, TX, pp. 77–84. Also in Journal of Digital Information 1.6. Available at: Google Scholar

Peeters, S. 2010. Metaphors in media discourse: from a conceptual metaphor approach to the relevance-theoretic ‘continuity view’ (and back again). In Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (ed.) Pragmatic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. Vol. I: Speech Actions in Theory and Applied Studies, pp. 327–59. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.Google Scholar

Pilkington, A. 1991. Poetic effects: a relevance theory perspective. In Sell, R. (ed.) Literary Pragmatics, pp. 44–61. Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Pilkington, A. 1992. Poetic effects. Lingua 87: 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pilkington, A. 1996. Introduction: relevance theory and literary style. Language and Literature 5.3: 157–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pilkington, A. 2000. Poetic Effects. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pilkington, A. 2001. Non-lexicalised concepts and degrees of effability: poetic thoughts and the attraction of what is not in the dictionary. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 15: 1–10.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. 1997. How The Mind Works. Penguin, London.Google Scholar

Powell, G. 2001. The referential–attributive distinction. Pragmatics and Cognition 9.1: 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Powell, G. 2002. Underdetermination and the principles of semantic theory. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102.3: 271–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Powell, G. 2010. Language, Thought and Reference. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Premack, D. and Woodruff, G.. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 515–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prentice, D.A., Gerrig, R.J. and Bailis, D.S. 1997. What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4: 416–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prince, A. and Smollensky, P. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prinz, J.J. 2009. Is the mind really modular? In Stainton, R. (ed.) Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science, pp. 22–36. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Rapp, D.N. and Gerrig, R.J.. In press. Predilections for narrative outcomes: the impact of story contexts and reader preferences. To appear in Journal of Memory and Language.

Recanati, F. 1989. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind & Language 4: 295–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recanati, F. 1993. Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. 1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science 19: 207–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recanati, F. 2000. Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: The Semantics of Metarepresentations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. 2001. What is said. Synthèse 128: 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recanati, F. 2002a. Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recanati, F. 2002b. Does linguistic communication rest on inference?Mind & Language 17: 105–26. (Special Issue on Pragmatics and Cognitive Science.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. 2007. Indexicality, context and pretence. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 213–29.

Recanati, F. 2010. Pragmatics and logical form. In B. Soria and E. Romero (eds.), pp. 25–41.

Rockwell, P. 2000. Lower, slower, louder: vocal cues of sarcasm. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research 29: 483–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romero, E. and Soria, B. 2007. A view of novel metaphor in the light of Recanati's proposals. In Frápolli, M.J. (ed.) Saying, Meaning and Referring: Essays on François Recanati's Philosophy of Language, pp. 145–59. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.Google Scholar

Rosales Sequeiros, X. 2005. Effects of Pragmatic Interpretation on Translation: Communicative Gaps and Textual Discrepancies. Lincom Studies in Pragmatics 13. Lincom, München.Google Scholar

Rouchota, V. 1988. Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In Jucker, A. and Ziv, Y. (eds.) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, pp. 96–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rouchota, V. and Jucker, A. (eds) 1998. Current Issues in Relevance Theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRef

Rubio Fernandez, P. 2001. The inhibition of core features in metaphor interpretation. Cambridge Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 8: 73–100.Google Scholar

Rubio Fernandez, P. 2005. Pragmatic Processes and Cognitive Mechanisms in Lexical Interpretation: The On-line Construction of Concepts. PhD thesis, Cambridge University.Google Scholar

Rubio Fernandez, P. 2007. Suppression in metaphor interpretation: differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics 24: 345–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rubio Fernandez, P. 2008. Concept narrowing: the role of context-independent information. Journal of Semantics 25.4: 381–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ruhi, S. and Dogan, G. 2001. Relevance theory and compliments as phatic communication: the case of Turkish. In Bayraktaroglu, A. and Sifianou, M. (eds.) Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries, pp. 341–90. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saad, J. 2010. Explicating the Implicit: An Exploration into the Pragmatic Competence of Arabic-speaking Trainee Translators. PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E.A. and Sacks, H. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7.4: 289–327.Google Scholar

Schneider, K.P. 1988. Small Talk: Analysing Phatic Discourse. Hitzeroth, Marburg.Google Scholar

Scholl, B. and Leslie, A. 1999. Modularity, development and ‘theory of mind’. Mind and Language 14: 131–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schütze, C.T. 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Scott, K. 2006. When less is more: implicit arguments and relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 139–70.Google Scholar

Scott, K. 2008. Reference, procedures and implicitly communicated meaning. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 275–301.Google Scholar

Scott, K. 2010. The Relevance of Referring Expressions: The Case of Diary Drop in English. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar

Scott, K. 2011. Beyond reference: concepts, procedures and referring expressions. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti and A. Ahern (eds.), pp. 183–203.

Searle, J. 1979. Literal meaning. In Searle, J., Expression and Meaning, pp. 117–36. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Setton, R. 1999. Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Setton, R. 2005a. Pointing to contexts: a relevance-theoretic approach to assessing quality and difficulty in interpreting. In Dam, H.V., Engberg, J. and Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (eds.) Knowledge Systems and Translation, pp. 275–312. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.Google Scholar

Setton, R. 2005b. So what is so interesting about simultaneous interpreting?Skase Journal of Translation and Interpretation 1.1: 70–84.Google Scholar

Setton, R. 2006. Context in simultaneous interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 38.3: 374–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shively, R.L., Menke, R.M. and Manzón-Omundson, S.M. 2008. Perception of irony by L2 learners of Spanish. Issues in Applied Linguistics 16.2: 101–32Google Scholar

Smith, N.V. 2004. Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soames, S. Forthcoming. The gap between meaning and assertion: why what we literally say often differs from what our words literally mean. In Hackl, M. and Thornton, R. (eds.) Asserting, Meaning, and Implying. Oxford University Press.

Sodian, B. 2004. Theory of mind: the case for conceptual development. In Schneider, W., Schumann-Hengsteler, R. and Sodian, B. (eds.) Young Children's Cognitive Development, pp. 95–131. Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Soria, B. and Romero, E. (eds.) 2010. Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston's Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. 1984. Verbal irony: pretense or echoic mention?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113: 130–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. 1994a. The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In Hirschfeld, L.A. and Gelman, S.A. (eds.) Mapping The Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, pp. 39–67. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. 1994b. Understanding verbal understanding. In Khalfa, J. (ed.) What is Intelligence?, pp. 179–98. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. 1995. How do we communicate? In Brockman, J. and Matson, K. (eds.) How Things Are: A Science Toolkit for the Mind, pp. 191–9. Morrow, New York.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. 2000. Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In Sperber, D. (ed.) Metarepresentations: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 117–37. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. 2001. In defense of massive modularity. In Dupoux, E. (ed.) Language, Brain and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler, pp. 47–57. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. 2005. Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. and Stich, S. (eds.) The Innate Mind: Structure and contents, pp. 53–68. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D., Cara, F. and Girotto, V.. 1995. Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition 57: 31–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sperber, D. and Girotto, V. 2002. Use or misuse of the selection task? Rejoinder to Fiddick, Cosmides and Tooby. Cognition 85: 277–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sperber, D. and Girotto, V. 2003. Does the selection task detect cheater detection? In Sterleny, K. and Fitness, J. (eds.) From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology, pp. 197–226. Macquarie Monographs in Cognitive Science. Psychology Press, New York and Hove.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Noveck, I.. 2004. Introduction. In I. Noveck and D. Sperber (eds.), pp. 1–22.

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.. 1982. Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In Smith, N.V. (ed.) Mutual Knowledge, pp. 61–85. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1985. Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society LXXXVI: 153–71.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford and Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA (2nd edn 1995).Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1987a. Précis of relevance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10.4: 697–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1987b. Presumptions of relevance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10.4: 736–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1990a. Spontaneous deduction and mutual knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13.1: 179–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1990. Rhetoric and relevance. In Bender, J. and Wellbery, D. (eds.) The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice, pp. 140–56. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Postface to the second edition of Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In. Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J. (eds.) Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes, pp. 184–200. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind & Language 17: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2005. Pragmatics. In Jackson, F. and Smith, M. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy, pp. 468–501. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphor. In Gibbs, R. (ed.) Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 84–108. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sroda, M.S. 2000. Relevance Theory and the Markedness Model in SLA: Cognitive Approaches to Pragmatics and Second Language Acquisition. PhD thesis, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar

Stainton, R. 1994. Using non-sentences: an application of relevance theory. Pragmatics and Cognition 2: 269–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stainton, R. 2006. Words and Thoughts: Subsentences, Ellipsis, and the Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stanley, J. 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stanley, J. 2002. Making it articulated. Mind & Language 17 1&2: 149–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stanley, J. and Szabó, Z.G. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15: 219–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stöver, H. 2011a. Awareness in metaphor understanding: the lingering of the literal. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9.1: 65–82.Google Scholar

Stöver, H. 2011b. Metaphor and Relevance Theory: A New Hybrid Model. PhD thesis, University of Bedfordshire.Google Scholar

Strawson, P.F. 1964[1971]. Intention and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review 73: 439–60. Reprinted in P. F. Strawson (1971) Logico-Linguistic Papers, pp. 170–89. Methuen, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Surian, L. and Leslie, A. 1999. Competence and performance in false belief understanding: a comparison of autistic and normal 3-year-old children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 17: 141–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Swinney, D. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 645–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tabossi, P. 1993. Connections, competitions and cohorts. In Altmann, G.T.M. and Shillcock, R.C. (eds.) Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: The second Sperlonga Meeting, pp. 277–94. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove.Google Scholar

Tabossi, P., Burani, C. and Scott, D.. 1995. Word identification in fluent speech. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 440–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tanaka, K. 1992. The pun in advertising: a pragmatic approach. Lingua 87: 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tanaka, K. 1994. Advertising Language: A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements in Britain and Japan. Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Tendahl, M. and Gibbs, R. 2008. Complementary perspectives on metaphor: cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics 40.11: 1823–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Teubert, W. and Cermakova, A. 2007. Corpus Linguistics: A Short Introduction. Continuum, London.Google Scholar

Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman, London.Google Scholar

Thompson, G. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. Hodder Arnold, London.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2005. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Tomlinson, C. (ed.) 2000. William Carlos Williams: Selected poems. Penguin, London.Google Scholar

Travis, C. 1981. The True and the False: The Domain of the Pragmatic. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Travis, C. 1985. On what is strictly speaking true. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15: 187–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Travis, C. 1991. Annals of analysis: Studies in the Way of Words by H. P. Grice. Mind 100: 237–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van der Henst, J.-B., Carles, L. and Sperber, D. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance in telling the time. Mind & Language 17.5: 457–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van der Henst, J.-B. and Sperber, D. 2004. Testing the cognitive and the communicative principles of relevance. In I. Noveck and D. Sperber (eds.), 141–69.

Van der Henst, J.-B., Sperber, D. and Politzer, G. 2002. When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems. Thinking & Reasoning 8: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vandepitte, S. 1989. A pragmatic function of intonation. Lingua 79: 265–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vega Moreno, R. 2004. Metaphor interpretation and emergence. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 297–322.Google Scholar

Vega Moreno, R. 2005. Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar

Vega Moreno, R. 2007. Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, K. 1990. Mimesis as Make-believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Ward, T., Smith, S. and Vaid, J. (eds.) 1997. Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes. American Psychological Association, Washington DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wason, P. 1966. Reasoning. In Foss, B.M. (ed.) New Horizons in Psychology. Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar

Watts, R.J. 2004. Politeness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wellman, H.M., Cross, D. and Watson, J. 2001. Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about false belief. Child Development 72: 655–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wharton, T. 2003a. Natural pragmatics and natural codes. Mind and Language 18.5: 447–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wharton, T. 2003b. Interjections, language and the ‘showing-waying’ continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition 11.1: 39–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wharton, T. 2006. Evolution of pragmatics. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, pp. 338–45. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wharton, T. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D. 1995. Is there a maxim of truthfulness?UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 197–212.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. 2000. Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In Sperber, D. (ed.) Metarepresentations: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 411–48. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. 2005. New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua 115: 1129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D. 2006. The pragmatics of verbal irony: echo or pretence?Lingua 116: 1722–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D. 2009. Irony and metarepresentation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 183–226.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. 2011a. Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics. Intercultural Pragmatics 8.2: 177–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D. 2011b. Conceptual-procedural distinction: past, present and future. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti and A. Ahern (eds.), pp. 3–31.

Wilson, D. and Carston, R. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the emergent property issue. Mind and Language 21.3: 404–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D. and Carston, R. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N.C. Burton-Roberts (ed.), pp. 230–59.

Wilson, D. and Carston, R. 2008. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ problem. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 3: 1–40.Google Scholar

Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 1981. On Grice's theory of conversation. In Werth, P. (ed.) Conversation and Discourse, pp. 155–78. Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar

Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 1986. Pragmatics and modularity. Chicago Linguistic Society 22, Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, pp. 68–74.Google Scholar

Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 1988. Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In Dancy, J., Moravcsik, J. and Taylor, C. (eds.) Human Agency: Language, Duty and Value, pp. 77–101. Stanford University Press. Reprinted in A. Kasher (ed.) 1998, vol. II, pp. 262–89.Google Scholar

Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 1998. Pragmatics and time. In R. Carston and S. Uchida (eds.), pp. 1–22.

Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111: 583–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 2004. Relevance theory. In L.R. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), pp. 607–32.

Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D. and Wharton, T. 2006. Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38.10: 1559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wimmer, H. and Perner, J. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition 13.1: 103–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yamanaka, E.J. 2003. Effect of proficiency and length of residence on the pragmatic comprehension of Japanese ESL. Second Language Studies 22.1: 107–75.Google Scholar

Yus, F. 1998a. Relevance theory and media discourse: a verbal-visual model of communication. Poetics 25: 293–309.Google Scholar

Yus, F. 1998b. The ‘what-do-you-mean syndrome’: a taxonomy of misunderstandings in Harold Pinter's plays. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 6: 81–100.Google Scholar

Yus, F. 1999a. Towards a pragmatic taxonomy of misunderstandings. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 38: 218–39.Google Scholar

Yus, F. 1999b. Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication. Pragmatics 9.4: 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yus, F. 2006. Relevance theory. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 10, 2nd edn, pp. 512–19. Elsevier, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yus, F. 2008. Alterations of relevance in cyber-media. Universitas Psychologica 7.3: 623–36.Google Scholar

Yus, F. 2009. Visual metaphor versus verbal metaphor: a unified account. In Forceville, C. and Uriós-Aparisi, E. (eds.) Multimodal Metaphor, pp. 145–72. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar

Yus, F. 2010. Relevance theory. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 679–701. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Yus, F. 2011. Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zajac, M. 2004. Polish quantified sentences. From logical form to explicature: an analysis of selected examples from a corpus of young Poles' everyday conversation. In Mioduszewska, E. (ed.) Relevance Studies in Poland, pp. 143–53. The Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar

Zaki, M. 2011. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Demonstratives in English and Arabic. PhD thesis, Middlesex University.Google Scholar

Zegarac, V. 1998. What is ‘phatic communication’? In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker (eds.), pp. 327–62.

Zegarac, V. and Clark, B. 1999. Phatic interpretations and phatic communication. Journal of Linguistics 35.2: 321–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar