Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 11 December 2019

(p. 591) References

(p. 591) References

Abbeduto, Leonard, Murphy, Melissa M., Kover, Sara T., Giles, Nancy D., Karadottir, Selma, Amman, Adrienne, Bruno, Loredana, Kim, Jee-Seon, Schroeder, Susen, Anderson, Julie A., and Nollin, Kathryn A. (2008). ‘Signaling noncomprehension of language: A comparison of Fragile X syndrome and Down syndrome’, American Journal of Mental Retardation, 113: 214–230.Find this resource:

Abbeduto, Leonard, Murphy, Melissa M., Richmond, Erica K., Amman, Adrienne, Beth, Patti, Weissman, Michelle D., Kim, Jee-Seon, Cawthon, Stephanie W., and Karadottir, Selma (2006). ‘Collaboration in referential communication: Comparison of youth with Down syndrome or Fragile X syndrome’, American Journal on Mental Retardation, 111: 170–183.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2000). ‘Presuppositions as nonassertions’, Journal of Pragmatics, 32: 1419–1437.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2008). ‘Presuppositions and common ground’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 31: 523–538.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2010). Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2011). ‘Support for individual concepts’, Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 10: 23–44.Find this resource:

Abney, Steven (1995). Chunks and Dependencies: Bringing Processing Evidence to Bear on Syntax (Computational Linguistics and the Foundations of Linguistic Theory). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Find this resource:

Abrusán, Márta (2010). ‘Triggering verbal presuppositions’, in N. Li and D. Lutz (eds), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, 684–701.Find this resource:

Achiba, Machiko (2003). Learning to Request in a Second Language: A Study of Child Interlanguage Pragmatics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Find this resource:

Adachi, Taeko, Koeda, Tatsuya, Hirabayashi, Shinichi, Maeoka, Yukinori, Shiota, Madoka, Wright, Edward Charles, and Wada, Ayako (2004). ‘The metaphor and sarcasm scenario test: A new instrument to help differentiate High-Functioning Pervasive Developmental Disorder from Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder’, Brain & Development, 26: 301–306.Find this resource:

Adams, Catherine. (2001). ‘Clinical diagnostic and intervention studies of children with Semantic-Pragmatic Language Disorder’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36: 289–305.Find this resource:

Adams, Catherine. (2002). ‘Practitioner review: The assessment of language pragmatics’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43: 973–987.Find this resource:

Adams, Catherine. (2005). ‘Social communication intervention for school-age children: Rationale and description’, Seminars in Speech and Language, 26: 181–188.Find this resource:

Adams, Catherine, Clarke, Elaine, and Haynes, Rebecca (2009). ‘Inference and sentence comprehension in children with specific or pragmatic language impairments’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44: 301–318. (p. 592) Find this resource:

Adamson, Lauren B., and Bakeman, Rodger (2006). ‘Development of displaced speech in early mother–child conversations’, Child Development, 77(1): 186–200.Find this resource:

Adamson, Lauren B., Bakeman, Rodger, and Deckner, Deborah, F. (2004). ‘The development of symbol-infused joint engagement’, Child Development, 75(4): 1171–1187.Find this resource:

Adamson, Lauren B., Bakeman, Rodger, Deckner, Deborah, F., and Nelson, P. Brooke (2013). ‘From interactions to conversations: The development of joint engagement during early childhood’, Child Development, doi: 10.1111/cdev.12189 (published online before inclusion in an issue).Find this resource:

Agha, Asif (1994). ‘Honorification’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 23: 277–302.Find this resource:

Agha, Asif (2007). Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Ahn, René (2001). ‘Agents, objects, and events: A computational approach to knowledge, observation, and communication’. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.Find this resource:

Ahrens, Kathleen, Liu, Ho-Ling, Lee, Chia-Ying, Gong, Shu-Ping, Fang, Shin-Yi, and Hsu, Yuan-Yu (2007). ‘Functional MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese’, Brain & Language, 100(2): 163–171.Find this resource:

Aijmer, Karin (1996). Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2008). The Manambu Language of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Airenti, Gabriella, Bara, Bruno G., and Colombetti, Marco (1993). ‘Conversation and behavior games in the pragmatics of dialogue’, Cognitive Science, 17(2): 197–256.Find this resource:

Aitchison, Jean (2003). A Glossary of Language and Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Akhtar, Nameera (2005). ‘Is joint attention necessary for early language learning?’, in B. D. Homer and C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (eds), The Development of Social Cognition and Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 165–179.Find this resource:

Akman, Varol and Alpaslan, Ferda N. (1999). ‘Strawson on intended meaning and context’, in P. Bouquet et al. (eds), Modeling and Using Context: Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT’99, Proceedings. Heidelberg: Springer, 1–14.Find this resource:

Akman, Varol, Bouquet, Paolo, Thomason, Richmond, and Young, Robert A. (eds) (2001). Modeling and Using Context: Third International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2001, Proceedings. Heidelberg: Springer.Find this resource:

Albert, Ethel (1964). ‘ “Rhetoric”, “logic”, and “poetics” in Burundi: Culture patterning of speech behavior’, in J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), The Ethnography of Communication, Special Issue of American Anthropologist, 66(6), part 2: 35–54.Find this resource:

Alcón, Eva (2013). ‘Mitigating e-mail requests in teenagers’ first and second language academic cyber-consultation’, Multilingua, 32(6): 779–799.Find this resource:

Alexandersson, Jan, Buschbeck, Bianka, Fujinami, Tsutomu, Kipp, Michael, Koch, Stephan, Maier, Elisabeth, Reithinger, Norbert, Schmitz, Birte, and Siegel, Melanie (1998). ‘Dialogue acts in Verbmobil-2—Second edition’, Verbmobil Report 226, DFKI, Saarbrücken.Find this resource:

Allan, Keith (1980). ‘Nouns and countability’, Language, 56: 541–574.Find this resource:

Allan, Keith (2011). ‘Pragmatics in the (English) lexicon’, in K. Allan and K. Jaszczolt (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 227–250.Find this resource:

Allen, James F. (1979). A Plan-Based Approach to Speech Act Recognition. Toronto: University of Toronto.Find this resource:

Allen, James F. and Core, Mark (1997). ‘Draft of DAMSL: Dialogue Act Markup in Several Layers’, DRI: Discourse Research Initiative, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. (p. 593) Find this resource:

Allen, James F. and Perrault, Raymond C. (1980). ‘A plan-based analysis of indirect speech acts’, Journal of Computational Linguistics, 6: 167–182.Find this resource:

Allen, James F., Schubert, Lenhart, Ferguson, George, Heeman, Peter, Hwang, Chung Hee, Kato, Tsuneaki, Light, Marc, Martin, Nathaniel, Miller, Bradford, Poesio, Massimo, and Traum, David (1994). ‘The TRAINS Project: A case study in building a conversational planning agent’, TRAINS Technical Note 94-3, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester.Find this resource:

Allerton, David John and Cruttenden, Alan (1979). ‘Three reasons for accenting a definite subject’, Journal of Linguistics, 15(1): 49–53.Find this resource:

Allwood, Jens (1992). ‘On dialogue cohesion’, Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 65: 1–12. Göteborgs Universitet, Department of Linguistics.Find this resource:

Aloni, Maria (2005a). ‘Expressing ignorance or indifference: Modal implicatures in BiOT’, in Balder D. ten Cate and Henk W. Zeevat (eds), Logic, Language, and Computation: 6th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation, TbiLLC 2005, Batumi, Georgia, September 12–16, 2005: Revised Selected Papers. Berlin, Heidelberg, and NewYork: Springer, 1–20.Find this resource:

Aloni, Maria (2005b). ‘A formal treatment of the pragmatics of questions and attitudes’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(5): 505–539.Find this resource:

Aloni, Maria, Alastair Butler, and Darrin Hindsill (2007). ‘Nuclear accent in bidirectional optimality theory’, in Maria Aloni, Alastair Butler, and Paul Dekker (eds), Questions in Dynamic Semantics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Find this resource:

Alonso, Amado (1933/1961). ‘Noción, emoción, acción y fantasía en los diminutivos’, in Amado Alonso (ed.), Estudios lingüísticos: Temas españoles. Madrid: Gredos, 161–189.Find this resource:

Altenberg, Bengt (1987). Prosodic Patterns in Spoken English: Studies in the Correlation between Prosody and Grammar for Text-to-Speech Conversion (Lund Studies in English 76). Lund: Lund University Press.Find this resource:

Altmann, Gerry T. M. and Kamide, Yuki (1999). ‘Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference’, Cognition, 73: 247–264.Find this resource:

Alxatib, Sam and Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (2011). ‘The psychology of vagueness: Borderline cases and contradictions’, Mind and Language, 26: 287–326.Find this resource:

Ambrazaitis, Gilbert (2006). ‘Prosodic signalling of (un)expected information in South Swedish—an interactive manipulation experiment’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006, Dresden: TUDPress, paper no. 173.Find this resource:

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV-Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Find this resource:

Anchimbe, E. A. and Janney, R. W. (eds) (2011). Journal of Pragmatics: Special Issue on Postcolonial Pragmatics, 43(6).Find this resource:

Andersen, Gisle (2011). ‘Corpus-based pragmatics I: Qualitative studies’, in W. Bublitz and N. Norrick (eds), Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 587–628.Find this resource:

Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Anderson, Stephen R. and Keenan, Edward L. (1985). ‘Deixis’, in Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 259–308.Find this resource:

Angeleri, Romina, Bosco, Francesca M., Gabbatore, Ilaria, Bara, Bruno G., and Sacco, Katiuscia (2012). ‘Assessment Battery for Communication (ABaCo): Normative data’, Behavior Research Methods, 44(3): 845–861. (p. 594) Find this resource:

Angeleri, Romina, Bosco, Francesca M., Zettin, Marina, Sacco, Katiuscia, Colle, Livia, and Bara, Bruno G. (2008). ‘Communicative impairment in traumatic brain injury: A complete pragmatic assessment’, Brain and Language, 107(3): 229–245.Find this resource:

Annaz, Dagmara, Van Herwegen, Jo, Thomas, Michael, Fishman, Roza, Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, and Rundblad, Gabriella (2009). ‘Comprehension of metaphor and metonymy in children with Williams syndrome’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44: 962–978.Find this resource:

Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot (1977). ‘Deux mais en français’, Lingua, 43: 23–40.Find this resource:

Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue. Liège, Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.Find this resource:

Applebaum, Ayla Bozkurt (2010). ‘Perceptual cues to yes/no question intonation in Kabardian’, Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 854.Find this resource:

Armstrong, Meghan E. (2010). ‘Intonational encoding of pragmatic meaning in Puerto Rican Spanish interrogatives’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 412.Find this resource:

Armstrong, Meghan E., Bergmann, Anouschka, and Tamati, Terrin (2008). ‘The prosody of negation in Brazilian Portuguese’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008. Campinas: Unicamp, 489–492.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira. (1985). ‘The discourse functions of Given information’, Theoretical Linguistics, 12: 99–113.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (1988). ‘Referring and accessibility’, Journal of Linguistics, 24: 65–87.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (1990). Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (1999). ‘Mapping so-called “pragmatic” phenomena according to a “linguistic–extralinguistic” distinction: The case of propositions marked “accessible” ’, in Michael Darnell, Edith A. Moravcsik, Frederick J. Newmeyer, Michael Noonan, and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol. II: Case Studies (Studies in Language Companion Series 41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–38.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (2001). ‘Accessibility theory: An overview’, in Ted J. M. Sanders, Joost Schilperoord, and Wilbert Spooren (eds), Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29–87.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (2004). ‘Most’, Language, 80: 658–706.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (2008). Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (2010). Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (2012). ‘Research paradigms in pragmatics’, in Allan Keith and Kasia Jaszczolt (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–46.Find this resource:

Aronoff, Mark (1976). Word-Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Aronsson, Karin (1991). ‘Facework and control in multiparty talk: A pediatric case study’, in I. Marková and K. Foppa (eds), Asymmetries in Dialogue. New York: Harvester, 49–74.Find this resource:

Arundale, Robert B. (1999). ‘An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory’, Pragmatics, 9: 119–153.Find this resource:

Arundale, Robert B. (2006). ‘Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework and politeness’, Journal of Politeness Research, 2(2): 193–216. (p. 595) Find this resource:

Ashby, Simone, Bourban, Sebastien, Carletta, Jean, Flynn, Mike, Guillemot, Mael, Hain, Thomas, Kadlec, Jaroslav, Karaiskos, Vasilis, Kraaij, Wessel, Kronenthal, Melissa, Lathoud, Guillaume, Lincoln, Mike, Lisowska, Agnes, McCowan, Iain, Post, Wilfried, Reidsma, Dennis, and Wellner, Pierre (2005). ‘The AMI Meeting Corpus: A pre-announcement’, in S. Renals and S. Bengio (eds), MLMI’05: Proceedings of the Workshop on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3869). Berlin: Springer, 28–39.Find this resource:

Asher, Nicholas (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse: A Philosophical Semantics for Natural Language Metaphysics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Asher, Nicholas and Lascarides, Alex (2008). ‘Commitments, beliefs and intentions in dialogue’, in Jonathan Ginzburg, Pat Healey, and Yo Sato (eds), Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (LONDIAL). London, 35–42.Find this resource:

Asher, Nicholas and Wada, Hajime (1988). ‘A computational account of syntactic, semantic and discourse principles for anaphora resolution’, Journal of Semantics, 6: 309–344.Find this resource:

Atlas, Jay David (2005). Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and their Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Atlas, Jay David and Levinson, Stephen C. (1981). ‘It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics’, in Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. London and New York: Academic Press, 1–61.Find this resource:

Auer, Peter (1996). ‘On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations’, in E. Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting (eds), Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–100.Find this resource:

Austin, John L. (1962a). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Austin, John L. (1962b). Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Find this resource:

Austin, John L. (1976). How to Do Things with Words, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Avesani, Cinzia and Vayra, Mario (1988). ‘Discorso, segmenti di discorso e un’ ipotesi sull’ intonazione’, in Corso di stampa negli Atti del Convegno Internazionale ‘Sull’Interpunzione’. Firenze: Vallecchi, 8–53.Find this resource:

Axelrod, Robert (1984). The Evolution of Co-operation. London: Penguin.Find this resource:

Ayers, Gayle M. (1992). ‘Discourse functions of pitch range in spontaneous and read speech’. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting.Find this resource:

Aziz-Zadeh, Lisa and Damasio, Antonio (2008). ‘Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging’, Journal of Physiology—Paris, 102(1–3): 35–39.Find this resource:

Aziz-Zadeh, Lisa, Wilson, Stephen M., Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Iacoboni, Marco (2006). ‘Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions’, Current Biology, 16(18): 1818–1823.Find this resource:

Baart, Joan L. G. (1987). ‘Focus, syntax and accent placement’. PhD thesis, University of Leyden, Leyden.Find this resource:

Bach, Emmon (1986). ‘Natural language metaphysics’, in Ruth Barcan Marcus, Georg J. W. Dorn, and Paul Weingartner (eds), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, VII: Proceedings of the 7th International Congress. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 573–595.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1994). ‘Conversational impliciture’, Mind & Language, 9: 124–162.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1995). ‘Standardization vs. conventionalization’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 18: 677–686.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1997). ‘The semantics–pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters’, Linguistische Berichte, 8: 33–50.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1998). ‘Review of Reference and Referent Accessibility, edited by Thorstein Fretheim and Jeanette K. Gundel’, Pragmatics and Cognition, 8: 335–338. (p. 596) Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1999). ‘The myth of conventional implicature’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 22: 327–366.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2001). ‘You don’t say?’, Synthèse, 127: 11–31.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2004). ‘Pragmatics and the philosophy of language’, in L. R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 463–487.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2006a). ‘The top ten misconceptions about implicature’, in B. J. Birner and G. Ward (eds), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honour of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–30.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2006b). ‘What does it take to refer?’, in Ernest Lepore and Barry C. Smith (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 516–554.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2006c). ‘The excluded middle: Semantic minimalism without minimal propositions’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(2): 435–442.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2007). ‘Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics)’, in N. Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 24–44.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2010a). ‘Impliciture vs explicature: What’s the difference?’ in B. Soria and E. Romero (eds), Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 126–137.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2010b). ‘Getting a thing into a thought’, in Robin Jeshion (ed.), New Essays on Singular Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–63.Find this resource:

Bach Kent (2012). ‘Saying, meaning, and implicating’, in K. Allan and K. M. Jaszczolt (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 47–68.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent and Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Bachenko, Joan and Fitzpatrick, Eileen (1990). ‘A computational grammar of discourse-neutral prosodic phrasing in English’, Computational Linguistics, 16(3): 155–170.Find this resource:

Bader, Markus and Meng, Michael (1999). ‘Subject–object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28: 121–143.Find this resource:

Bainbridge, W. S. (1998). ‘Sociology of language’, in J. L. Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 1st edn. Oxford: Pergamon, 904–916.Find this resource:

Bak, Per (1996). How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality. New York: Copernicus.Find this resource:

Bakeman, Roger and Adamson, Lauren, B. (1984). ‘Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother–infant and peer–infant interaction’, Child Development, 55: 1278–1289.Find this resource:

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1994). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, trans. Vern W. McGee. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (1st edn 1986.)Find this resource:

Baldwin, Dare (1993). ‘Infants’ ability to consult the speaker for clues to word reference’, Journal of Child Language, 20: 395–418.Find this resource:

Ball, Catherine N. and Ellen F. Prince (1977). ‘A note on stress and presupposition’, Linguistic Inquiry, 8(3): 585.Find this resource:

Baltaxe, Christiane A. M. and Simmons, James Q. III (1995). ‘Speech and language disorders in children and adolescents with schizophrenia’, Schizophrenia Bulletin, 21: 677–692.Find this resource:

Bambini, Valentina, Gentili, Claudio, Ricciardi, Emiliano, Bertinetto, Pier Marco, and Pietrini, Pietro (2011). ‘Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging’, Brain Research Bulletin, 86(3–4): 203–216.Find this resource:

Bara, Bruno G. (1995). Cognitive Science: A Developmental Approach to the Simulation of the Mind. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. (p. 597) Find this resource:

Bara, Bruno G. (2010). Cognitive Pragmatics: The Mental Processes of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Bara, Bruno G., Bosco, Francesca M., and Bucciarelli, Monica (1999). ‘Simple and complex speech acts: What makes the difference within a developmental perspective’, in M. Hahn and S. C. Stoness (eds), Proceedings of the XXI Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Wahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 55–60.Find this resource:

Bara, Bruno G., Ciaramidaro, Angela, Walter, Henrick, and Adenzato, Mauro (2011). ‘Intentional minds: A philosophical analysis of intention tested through fMRI experiments involving people with schizophrenia, people with autism, and healthy individuals’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(7): 1–11.Find this resource:

Bara, Bruno G., Cutica, Ilaria, and Tirassa, Maurizio (2001). ‘Neuropragmatics: Extralinguistic communication after closed head injury’, Brain and Language, 77(1): 72–94.Find this resource:

Bara, Bruno G. and Tirassa, Maurizio (2010 [1999]). ‘A mentalist framework for linguistic and extralinguistic communication’, Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 9: 182–193.Find this resource:

Bara, Bruno G., Tirassa, Maurizio, and Zettin, Marina (1997). ‘Neuropragmatics: Neuropsychological constraints on formal theories of dialogue’, Brain and Language, 59(1): 7–49.Find this resource:

Bard, Ellen and Aylett, Matthew (1999). ‘The dissociation of deaccenting, givenness, and syntactic role in spontaneous speech’, in Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco. Berkeley: Linguistics Department, University of California, 1753–1756.Find this resource:

Bardaneh, Muhammad A. (2010). ‘The pragmatics of diminutives in colloquial Jordanian Arabic’, Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 153–167.Find this resource:

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (1983a). ‘Pronouns: When “given” and “new” coincide’, in Papers from the 18th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 15–26.Find this resource:

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (1983b). ‘A functional approach to English sentence stress’. PhD thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago.Find this resource:

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (1999). ‘Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics’, Language Learning, 49: 677–713.Find this resource:

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (2001). ‘Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics?’, in G. Kasper and K. Rose (eds), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–32.Find this resource:

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (2010). ‘Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by design’, in W. Bublitz, A. H. Jucker, K. P. Schneider (series eds), and A. Trosborg (vol. ed.), Handbook of Pragmatics, vol. 7: Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 219–259.Find this resource:

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (2013). ‘Developing L2 pragmatics’, Language Learning, 63(s1): 68–86.Find this resource:

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen and Bastos, Maria-Thereza (2011). ‘Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmaticsʼ, Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3): 347–384.Find this resource:

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen and Hartford, Beverly S. (1993). ‘Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15: 279–304.Find this resource:

Bardov-Harlig, Kathleen and Salsbury, Tom (2004). ‘The organization of turns in the disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective’, in D. Boxer and A. D. Cohen (eds), Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 199–227. (p. 598) Find this resource:

Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca (2003). ‘Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts)’, Journal of Pragmatics, 35: 1453–1469.Find this resource:

Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Kádár, Dániel Z. (2011). Politeness across Cultures. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (1971). ‘Out of the pragmatic wastebasket’, Linguistic Inquiry, 2(3): 401–407.Find this resource:

Barker, Carl (2011). ‘Disagreement and its role in semantic theory’. Paper presented at the 3rd Workshop on Semantic Content and Context Dependence, LOGOS, University of Barcelona, November.Find this resource:

Barker, Chris (1998). ‘Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation’, Language, 74: 695–727.Find this resource:

Barker, Stephen (2003). ‘Truth and conventional implicature’, Mind, 112: 1–34.Find this resource:

Barner, David and Bachrach, Asaf (2010). ‘Inference and exact numerical representation in early language development’, Cognitive Psychology, 60: 40–62.Find this resource:

Barnes, Scott and Armstrong, Elizabeth (2010). ‘Conversation after right-hemisphere brain damage: Motivations for applying conversation analysis’, Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 24: 55–69.Find this resource:

Baron-Cohen, Simon (1989). ‘Perceptual role taking and proto-declarative pointing in autism’, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7: 113–127.Find this resource:

Barr, Dale J. (2004). ‘Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary?’, Cognitive Science, 28: 937–962.Find this resource:

Barr, Dale J. (2008). ‘Pragmatic expectations and linguistic evidence: Listeners anticipate but do not integrate common ground’, Cognition, 109: 18–40.Find this resource:

Barr, Dale J. and Keysar, Boaz (2004). ‘Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use’, in H. L. Colston and A. N. Katz (eds), Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Find this resource:

Barr, Dale J. and Keysar, Boaz (2005). ‘Mindreading in an exotic case: The normal adult human’, in Bertram Malle and Sara Hodges (eds), Other Minds: How Humans Bridge the Divide between Self and Other. New York: Guilford Press, 271–283.Find this resource:

Barrett, Leslie and Hata, Kazue (2006). ‘F0 characteristics of yes–no question intonation in Arabic and English: Disambiguation techniques for use in ASR’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden: TUDPress, paper no. 047.Find this resource:

Barron, Anne and Schneider, Klaus P. (2009). ‘Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction’, Intercultural Pragmatics: Special Issue on Variational Pragmatics, 6(4): 425–442.Find this resource:

Barsalou, Lawrence W. (2008). ‘Grounded cognition’, Annual Review of Psychology, 59: 617–645.Find this resource:

Barsalou, Lawrence W. (2010). ‘Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future’, Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4): 716–724.Find this resource:

Barwise, Jon and Cooper, Robin (1981). ‘Generalized quantifiers and natural language’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 4: 159–219.Find this resource:

Basso, Ellen (2007). ‘The Kalapalo affinal civility register’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 17(2): 161–183.Find this resource:

Bataller, Rebeca (2010). ‘Making a request for a service in Spanish: Pragmatic development in the study abroad setting’, Foreign Language Annals, 43(1): 160–175.Find this resource:

Bates, Daniel G. and Plog, Fred (1980). Cultural Anthropology, 2nd edn. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Find this resource:

Bates, Elizabeth (1976). Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. (p. 599) Find this resource:

Bates, Elizabeth, Benigni, Laura, Bretherton, Inge, Luigia, Camaioni, and Volterra, Virginia (1979). The Emergence of Symbols: Cognition and Communication in Infancy. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Bates, Elizabeth, Camaioni, Luigia, and Volterra, Virginia (1975). ‘The acquisition of performatives prior to speech’, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 21: 205–224.Find this resource:

Bateson, Gregory (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Chandler Publishing Company.Find this resource:

Bateson, Mary Catherine (1975). ‘Mother–infant exchanges: The epigenesist of conversation interaction’, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 263: 101–113.Find this resource:

Baumann, Stefan, Grice, Martine, and Steindamm, Susanne (2006). ‘Prosodic marking of focus domains—categorical or gradient?’ in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden: TUDPress, paper no. 065.Find this resource:

Bavin, Edith (1995). ‘Language acquisition in crosslinguistic perspective’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 24: 373–396.Find this resource:

Bayraktaroglu, Arin (1991). ‘Politeness and interactional imbalance’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 92: 5–34.Find this resource:

Bayraktaroglu, Arin and Sifianou, Maria (eds) (2001). Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bazzanella, Carla, Caffi, Claudia, and Sbisà, Marina (1991). ‘Scalar dimensions of illocutionary force’, in I. Žagar (ed.), Speech Acts: Fiction or Reality? Ljubljana: Institute for Social Sciences, 63–76.Find this resource:

Beach, Cheryl (1991). ‘The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations’, Journal of Memory and Language, 30: 644–663.Find this resource:

Beaver, David (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Beaver, David (2004). ‘The optimization of discourse anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(1): 3–56.Find this resource:

Beaver, David and Geurts, Bart (2010). ‘Presupposition’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, <plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/>.Find this resource:

Beaver, David and Lee, Hanjung (2004). ‘Input-output mismatches in OT’, in Reinhard Blutner and Henk Zeevat (eds), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 112–153.Find this resource:

Beaver, David and Zeevat, Henk (2007). ‘Accommodation’, in G. Ramchand and C. Reiss (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 503–538.Find this resource:

Beebe, Leslie M. and Cummings, Martha C. (1996). ‘Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance’, in S. M. Gass and J. New (eds), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 65–86.Find this resource:

Beebe, Leslie M., Takahashi, Tomoko, and Uliss-Weltz, Robin (1990). ‘Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals’, in R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, and S. D. Krashen (eds), Developing Communicative Competence in Second Language. New York: Newbury House, 55–73.Find this resource:

Beebe, Leslie M. and Waring, Hansun Z. (2005). ‘Pragmatic development in responding to rudeness’, in J. M. Frodeson and C. A. Holten (eds), The Power of Context in Language Teaching and Learning: Festschrift in Honor of Marianne Celce-Murcia. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle, 67–79. (p. 600) Find this resource:

Beeke, Suzanne, Maxim, Jane, and Wilkinson, Ray (2007). ‘Using conversation analysis to assess and treat people with aphasia’, Seminars in Speech and Language, 28: 136–147.Find this resource:

Beeman, Mark (1998). ‘Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension’, in Mark Beeman and Christine Chiarello (eds), Right Hemisphere Language Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 255–284.Find this resource:

Benner, Gregory J., Nelson, J. Ron, and Epstein, Michael H. (2002). ‘Language skills of children with EBD: A literature review’, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10: 43–56.Find this resource:

Benoit, Pamela (1982). ‘Formal coherence production in children’s discourse’, First Language, 3(9): 161–179.Find this resource:

Benthem, Johan van (2008). ‘ “Games that make sense”: Logic, language, and multi-agent interaction’, in Krzysztof R. Apt and Robert van Rooij (eds), New Perspectives on Games and Interaction. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 197–209.Find this resource:

Benus, Stefan, Gravano, Agustin, and Hirschberg, Julia (2007). ‘The prosody of backchannels in American English’, in Proceedings of the 2007 International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes, 1065–1068.Find this resource:

Benz, Anton (2003). ‘Partial blocking, associative learning, and the principle of weak optimality’, in J. Spenader, A. Eriksson, and Ö. Dahl (eds), Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, 150–159.Find this resource:

Benz, Anton (2006). ‘Partial blocking and associative learning’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 29: 587–615.Find this resource:

Benz, Anton, Jäger, Gerhard, and Rooij, Robert van (2005). ‘An introduction to game theory for linguists’, in Anton Benz, Gerhard Jäger, and Robert van Rooij (eds), Game Theory and Pragmatics. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–82.Find this resource:

Benz, Anton, Jäger, Gerhard, and Rooij, Robert van (2006). Game Theory and Pragmatics. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Benz, Anton and Mattausch, Jason (eds) (2011). Bidirectional Grammar and Bidirectional Optimization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Berg, Jonathan (2002). ‘Is semantics still possible?’, Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 349–359.Find this resource:

Bergmann, Anouschka, Armstrong, Meghan E., and Maday, Kristine (2008). ‘Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish: A production study’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008. Campinas: Unicamp, 437–440.Find this resource:

Bergson, Henri (2008 [1885]). La Politesse. Paris: Rivages.Find this resource:

Berkum, Jos J. A. van (2010). ‘The brain is a prediction machine that cares about good and bad—any implication for neuropragmatics?’, Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1): 181–208.Find this resource:

Berthiaume, Kristen S., Lorch, Elizabeth P., and Milich, Richard (2010). ‘Getting clued in: Inferential processing and comprehension monitoring in boys with ADHD’, Journal of Attention Disorders, 14: 31–42.Find this resource:

Beun, Robbert-Jan (1989). ‘The recognition of declarative questions in information dialogues’. PhD thesis, Tilburg University.Find this resource:

Bezuidenhout, Anne (2002). ‘Truth-conditional pragmatics’, Philosophical Perspectives, 16: 105–134.Find this resource:

Bezuidenhout, Anne (2004). ‘Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface’, in C. Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford, CA: CSLI: 101–131.Find this resource:

Bezuidenhout, Anne (2006). ‘The coherence of contextualism’, Mind & Language, 21: 1–10.Find this resource:

Bezuidenhout, Anne (2009). ‘Contextualism and the role of contextual frames’, Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia, 32: 59–84. (p. 601) Find this resource:

Bezuidenhout, Anne (2010). ‘Contextualism and information structure: Towards a science of pragmatics’, in Luca Baptista and Erich Rast (eds), Meaning and Context. Bern: Peter Lang, 65–96.Find this resource:

Bezuidenhout, Anne and Cutting, J. Cooper (2002). ‘Literal meaning, minimal propositions and pragmatic processing’, Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 433–456.Find this resource:

Bezuidenhout, Anne and Morris, Robin (2004). ‘Implicature, relevance and default pragmatic inferences’, in Dan Sperber and Ira Noveck (eds), Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 257–282.Find this resource:

Bezuidenhout, Anne, Morris, Robin, and Widmann, Cintia (2009). ‘The DE-blocking hypothesis: The role of grammar in scalar reasoning’, in Uli Sauerland and Kazuko Yatsushiro (eds), Semantics and Pragmatics: From Experiment to Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 145–165.Find this resource:

Biadsy, Fadi, Rosenberg, Andrew, Carlson, Rolf, Hirschberg, Julia, and Strangert, Eva (2008). ‘A cross-cultural comparison of American, Palestinian, and Swedish perception of charismatic speech’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008. Campinas: Unicamp, 479–482.Find this resource:

Bickel, Balthasar, Bisang, Walter, and Yadava, Yogendra P. (1999). ‘Face vs. empathy: The social foundation of Maithili verb agreement’, Linguistics, 37(3): 481–518.Find this resource:

Bierwisch, Manfred (1980). ‘Semantic structure and illocutionary force’, in John R. Searle, Ferenc Kiefer, and Manfred Bierwisch (eds), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1–35.Find this resource:

Bignell, Simon and Cain, Kate (2007). ‘Pragmatic aspects of communication and language comprehension in groups of children differentiated by teacher ratings of inattention and hyperactivity’, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25: 499–512.Find this resource:

Bing, Janet (1979). ‘Aspects of English prosody’. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst.Find this resource:

Birch, Stacey and Clifton, Charles (1995). ‘Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension’, Language and Speech, 38(4): 365–391.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. (1994). ‘Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion’, Language, 70: 233–59.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. (1996). The Discourse Function of Inversion in English. New York: Garland.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. (2006). ‘Inferential relations and noncanonical word order’, in Betty J. Birner and Gregory Ward (eds), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 31–51.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory (1994). ‘Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English’, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20: 93–102.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory (1998). Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bishop, Dorothy V. M. (1998). ‘Development of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC): A method for assessing qualitative aspects of communicative impairment in children’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39: 879–891.Find this resource:

Bishop, Dorothy V. M. (2000). ‘Pragmatic language impairment: A correlate of SLI, a distinct subgroup, or part of the autistic continuum?’, in D. V. M. Bishop and L. B. Leonard (eds), Speech and Language Impairments in Children: Causes, Characteristics, Intervention and Outcome. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 99–113.Find this resource:

Bishop, Dorothy V. M. (2003). Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC-2). London: Psychological Corporation. (p. 602) Find this resource:

Bishop, Dorothy V. M. and Baird, Gillian (2001). ‘Parent and teacher report of pragmatic aspects of communication: Use of the Children’s Communication Checklist in a clinical setting’, Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 43: 809–818.Find this resource:

Bishop, Dorothy V. M., Chan, Janet, Adams, Catherine, Hartley, Joanne, and Weir, Fiona (2000). ‘Conversational responsiveness in specific language impairment: Evidence of disproportionate pragmatic difficulties in a subset of children’, Development and Psychopathology, 12: 177–199.Find this resource:

Black, Elizabeth (2006). Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Blackburn, Patrick, Ghidini, Chiara, Turner, Roy M., and Giunchiglia, Fausto (eds) (2003). Modeling and Using Context: 4th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, Context 2003, Proceedings. Heidelberg: Springer.Find this resource:

Blake, Margaret Lehman (2006). ‘Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right-hemisphere brain damage’, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15: 255–267.Find this resource:

Blakemore, Diane (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Blakemore, Diane (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Blakemore, Diane (2004). ‘Discourse markers’, in L. R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 221–240.Find this resource:

Blakemore, Diane (2011). ‘On the descriptive ineffability of expressive meaning’, Journal of Pragmatics, 43: 3337–3350.Find this resource:

Blakemore, Diane (2014). ‘Slurs and expletives: A case against a general account of expressive meaning’, Language Sciences, doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.018.Find this resource:

Blank, Marion and Franklin, Eleanor (1980). ‘Dialogue with preschoolers: A cognitively-based system of assessment’, Applied Psycholinguistics, 1(2): 127–150.Find this resource:

Bloch, Steven (2011). ‘Anticipatory other-completion of augmentative and alternative communication talk: A conversation analysis study’, Disability and Rehabilitation, 33: 261–269.Find this resource:

Blommaert, Jan (1998). ‘Different approaches to intercultural communication: A critical survey’. Plenary lecture, Lernen und Arbeiten in einer international vernetzten und multikulturellen Gesellschaft, Expertentagung Universitat Bremen, Institut für Projektmanagement und Witschaftsinformatik (IPMI), 27–28 February.Find this resource:

Blommaert, Jan (2001). ‘Investigating narrative inequality: African asylum seekers’ stories in Belgium’, Discourse and Society, 12(4): 413–449.Find this resource:

Bloom, Kathleen, Russell, Ann, and Wassenberg, Karen (1987). ‘Turn taking affects the quality of infant vocalizations’, Journal of Child Language, 14: 211–227.Find this resource:

Bloom, Louis, Rocissano, Lorraine, and Hood, Lois (1976). ‘Adult–child discourse: Developmental interaction between information processing and linguistic knowledge’, Cognitive Psychology, 8: 521–522.Find this resource:

Bloom, Paul (2000). How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Bloom, Ronald L., Borod, Joan C., Obler, Loraine K., and Gerstman, Louis J. (1993). ‘Suppression and facilitation of pragmatic performance: Effects of emotional content on discourse following right and left brain damage’, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36: 1227–1235.Find this resource:

Bloomfield, Leonard (1933). Language. New York: H. Holt.Find this resource:

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1982). ‘Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language’, Applied Linguistics, 3(1): 29–59. (p. 603) Find this resource:

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1987). ‘Indirectness and politeness: Same or different?’, Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2): 131–146.Find this resource:

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1989). ‘Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness’, in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 37–71.Find this resource:

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Blondheim, Menahem, House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele, and Wagner, Johannes (2008). ‘Intercultural pragmatics, language and society’, in Piet van Sterkenburg (ed.), Unity and Diversity of Languages. Amsterdam and Philadephia: John Benjamins, 155–173.Find this resource:

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, and Kasper, Gabriele (eds) (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Find this resource:

Blutner, Reinhard (1998). ‘Lexical pragmatics’, Journal of Semantics, 15: 115–162.Find this resource:

Blutner, Reinhard (2000). ‘Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation’, Journal of Semantics, 17: 189–216.Find this resource:

Blutner, Reinhard (2004). ‘Pragmatics and the lexicon’, in Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 488–514.Find this resource:

Blutner, Reinhard (2006). ‘Embedded implicatures and optimality-theoretic pragmatics’, in Torgim Solstad, Atle Grønn, and Dag Haug (eds), A Festschrift for Kjell Johan Sæbø: In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Celebration of his 50th Birthday. Oslo: University of Oslo, 11–29.Find this resource:

Blutner, Reinhard (2007). ‘Optimality-theoretic pragmatics and the explicature/implicature distinction’, in Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 67–89.Find this resource:

Blutner, Reinhard (2010). ‘Some experimental aspects of optimality-theoretic pragmatics’, in T. Eniko Nemeth and Karoly Bibok (eds), The Role of Data at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 161–204.Find this resource:

Blutner, Reinhard, Borra, Erik, Lentz, Tom, Uijlings, Arnold, and Zevenhuijzen, Reinier (2002). ‘Signalling games: Hoe evolutie optimale strategieen selecteert’, in Handelingen van de 24ste Nederlands-Vlaamse Filosofiedag. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Find this resource:

Blutner, Reinhard, Hoop, Helen de, and Hendriks, Petra (2005). Optimal Communication. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Blutner, Reinhard and Solstad, Torgrim (2000). ‘Dimensional designation: A case study in lexical pragmatics’, in Reinhard Blutner and Gerhard Jäger (eds), Studies in Optimality Theory. Potsdam: University of Potsdam, 30–40.Find this resource:

Blutner, Reinhard and Zeevat, Henk (eds) (2004). Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Bohrn, Isabel C., Altmann, Ulrike, and Jacobs, Arthur M. (2012). ‘Looking at the brains behind figurative language: A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing’, Neuropsychologia, 50: 2669–2683.Find this resource:

Bolin, Inge (2006). Growing Up in a Culture of Respect: Child Rearing in Highland Peru. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1961). ‘Contrastive accent and contrastive stress’, Language, 37: 83–96.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1972). ‘Accent is predictable (if you’re a mindreader)’, Language, 48: 633–644.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1986). Intonation and its Parts: Melody in Spoken English. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1989). Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. London: Edward Arnold. (p. 604) Find this resource:

Bontly, Thomas (2005). ‘Modified Occam’s Razor: Parsimony arguments and pragmatic explanations’, Mind & Language, 20: 288–312.Find this resource:

Booij, Geert (1996). ‘Inherent vs. contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis’, in Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Springer, 1–16.Find this resource:

Booth, Susan and Perkins, Lisa (1999). ‘The use of conversation analysis to guide individualized advice to carers and evaluate change in aphasia: A case study’, Aphasiology, 13: 283–303.Find this resource:

Booth, Susan and Swabey, Donna (1999). ‘Group training in communication skills for carers of adults with aphasia’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 34: 291–309.Find this resource:

Borg, Emma (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Borg, Emma (2007). ‘Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics’, in G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds), Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 339–359.Find this resource:

Bornkessel, Ina and Schlesewsky, Matthias (2006). ‘The role of contrast in the local licensing of scrambling in German: Evidence from online comprehension’, Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 18(1): 1–43.Find this resource:

Bornkessel, Ina, Schlesewsky, Matthias, and Friederici, Angela D. (2002). ‘Grammar overrides frequency: Evidence from the online processing of flexible word order’, Cognition, 85: B21–B30.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina and Friederici, Angela D. (2007). ‘Neuroimaging studies of sentence and discourse comprehension’, in G. Gaskell (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 407–424.Find this resource:

Borod, Joan C., Rorie, Kashemi D., Pick, Lawrence H., Bloom, Ronald L., Andelman, Fani, Campbell, Alfonso L., Obler, Loraine K., Tweedy, James R., Welkowitz, Joan, and Sliwinski, Martin (2000). ‘Verbal pragmatics following unilateral stroke: Emotional content and valence’, Neuropsychology, 14: 112–124.Find this resource:

Bosanquet, Bernard (1888). Logic, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Find this resource:

Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, Monica, and Bara, Bruno G. (2006). ‘Recognition and repair of communicative failures: A developmental perspective’, Journal of Pragmatics, 38(9): 1398–1429.Find this resource:

Bott, Lewis, Bailey, Todd, and Grodner, Daniel (2012). ‘Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures’, Journal of Memory and Language, 66: 123–142.Find this resource:

Bott, Lewis and Noveck, Ira (2004). ‘Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences’, Journal of Memory and Language, 51: 437–457.Find this resource:

Botting, Nicola and Adams, Catherine (2005). ‘Semantic and inferencing abilities in children with communication disorders’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 40: 49–66.Find this resource:

Boula de Mareüil, Philippe and d’Alessandro, Christophe (1998). ‘Text chunking for prosodic phrasing in French’, in Proceedings of the Third ESCA/COCOSDA Workshop on Speech Synthesis, Jenolan Caves, Australia. ISCA Archive, 127–131.Find this resource:

Boulenger, Véronique, Hauk, Olaf, and Pulvermüller, Friedemann (2009). ‘Grasping ideas with the motor system: Semantic somatotopy in idiom comprehension’, Cerebral Cortex, 19(8): 1905–1914.Find this resource:

Bouquet, Paolo, Brezillon, Patrick, Benerecetti, Massimo, Castellani, Francesca, and Serafini, Luciano (eds) (1999). Modeling and Using Context: Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context, CONTEXT’99, Proceedings. Heidelberg: Springer. (p. 605) Find this resource:

Bourdieu, Pierre (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally French: Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique. Paris: Droz, 1972.)Find this resource:

Bourdieu, Pierre (1991). Language and Symbolic Power, ed. J. B. Thompson, trans. G. Raymond and M. Adamson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Originally French: Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard, 1982.)Find this resource:

Bousfield, Derek (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bousfield, Derek and Grainger, Karen (2010). ‘Politeness research: Retrospect and prospect’, Journal of Politeness Research, 6: 161–182.Find this resource:

Bousfield, Derek and Locher, Miriam A. (2008). Impoliteness in Language: Studies in its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Bouton, Lawrence F. (1982). ‘Stem polarity and tag intonation in the derivation of the imperative tag’, in R. Schneider, K. Tuite, and R. Chametzky (eds), Parasession on Nondeclaratives of the Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 23–42.Find this resource:

Bouton, Lawrence F. (1992). ‘Culture, pragmatics and implicature’, AFinLa Yearbook 1992: 35–61.Find this resource:

Bouton, Lawrence F. (1994). ‘Conversational implicature in the second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught’, Journal of Pragmatics, 22: 157–167.Find this resource:

Bouton, Lawrence F. (1999). ‘Developing nonnative speaker skills in interpreting conversational implicatures in English: Explicit teaching can ease the process’, in E. Hinkel (ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 47–70.Find this resource:

Boxer, Diana (2002). ‘Discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22: 150–167.Find this resource:

Brady, M., Armstrong, L., and Mackenzie, C. (2005). ‘Further evidence on topic use following right-hemisphere brain damage: Procedural and descriptive discourse’, Aphasiology, 19(8): 731–747.Find this resource:

Brandom, Robert B. (1994). Making it Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Bransford, John (1979). Human Cognition: Learning, Remembering, and Understanding. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Find this resource:

Braun, Bettina and Chen, Aoju (2008). ‘Now move x to cell y: Intonation of “now” in on-line reference resolution’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008. Campinas: Unicamp, 477–480.Find this resource:

Braun, Friederike (1988). Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Brazelton, T. Berry, Koslowski, Barbara, and Main, Mary (1974). ‘The origins of reciprocity: The early mother–infant interaction’, in M. Lewis and L. A. Rosenblum (eds), The Effect of the Infant on its Caregiver. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 49–76.Find this resource:

Bréal, Michel (1897). Essai de sémantique, trans. Mrs Henry Cust as Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning. London: W. Heinemann, 2000.Find this resource:

Breheny, Richard, Ferguson, Heather, and Katsos, Napoleon (2013). ‘Investigating the time course of accessing conversational implicatures during incremental sentence interpretation’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 28: 443–467.Find this resource:

Breheny, Richard, Katsos, Napoleon, and Williams, John (2006). ‘Are generalized scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences’, Cognition, 100: 434–463.Find this resource:

Brennan, Susan (1998). ‘The grounding problem in conversation with and through computers’, in S. R. Fussell and R. J. Kreuz (eds), Social and Cognitive Psychological Approaches to Interpersonal Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 201–225. (p. 606) Find this resource:

Brennan, Susan E., Friedman, Marilyn W., and Pollard, Carl J. (1987). ‘A centering approach to pronouns’, in Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 155–162.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan (1971). ‘Sentence stress and syntactic transformations’, Language, 47: 257–281.Find this resource:

Brinton, Bonnie and Fujiki, Martin (1984). ‘Development of topic manipulation skills in discourse’, Journal of Speech Hearing Research, 27(3): 350–358.Find this resource:

Brody, Jill (1991). ‘Indirection in the negotiation of self in everyday Tojolab’al women’s conversation’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 1(1): 78–96.Find this resource:

Broeders, Mark, Geurts, Hilde, and Jennekens-Schinkel, Aag (2010). ‘Pragmatic communication deficits in children with epilepsy’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45: 608–616.Find this resource:

Brown, Gillian (1983). ‘Prosodic structure and the given/new distinction’, in D. R. Ladd and A. Cutler (eds), Prosody: Models and Measurements. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 67–78.Find this resource:

Brown, Gillian, Currie, Karen, and Kenworthy, Joanne (1980). Questions of Intonation. Baltimore: University Park Press.Find this resource:

Brown, Jason W. (2002). The Self-Embodying Mind: Process, Brain Dynamics, and the Conscious Present. Barrytown, NY: Station Hill Press.Find this resource:

Brown, Lucien (2013). ‘Teaching “casual” and/or “impolite” language through multimedia: The case of non-honorific panmal speech styles in Korean’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(1): 1–18.Find this resource:

Brown, Penelope (1980). ‘How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community’, in S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, and N. Furman (eds), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger, 111–136.Find this resource:

Brown, Penelope (1990). ‘Gender, politeness and confrontation in Tenejapa’, Discourse Processes, 13: 122–141.Find this resource:

Brown, Penelope (1995). ‘Politeness strategies and the attribution of intentions: The case of Tzeltal irony’, in E. Goody (ed.), Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153–174.Find this resource:

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. (1978). ‘Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena’, in E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–311.Find this resource:

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1st edn 1978.)Find this resource:

Brown, Roger and Gilman, Albert ([1960] 1968). ‘Pronouns of power and solidarity’, in J. Fishman (ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton, 252–276.Find this resource:

Brown, Roger, and Gilman, Albert (1989). ‘Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies’, Language in Society, 18: 159–212.Find this resource:

Brownell, Hiram H. and Martino, Gail (1998). ‘Deficits in inference and social cognition: The effects of right-hemisphere brain damage on discourse’, in Mark Beeman and Christine Chiarello (eds), Right Hemisphere Language Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 309–328.Find this resource:

Brownell, Hiram H. and Stringfellow, Andrew (1999). ‘Making requests: Illustrations of how right-hemisphere brain damage can affect discourse production’, Brain & Language, 68: 442–465.Find this resource:

Brownlees, Nicholas (2011). The Language of Periodical News in Seventeenth-Century England. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. (p. 607) Find this resource:

Bruce, Gösta, Granstrom, Björn, Gustafson, Kjell, House, David, and Touati, Paul (1994). ‘Modelling Swedish prosody in a dialogue framework’, in Proceedings of the 1994 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Yokohama. ISCA Archive, 1099–1102.Find this resource:

Brundage, Shelley B. (1996). ‘Comparison of proverb interpretations provided by right-hemisphere-damaged adults and adults with probable dementia of the Alzheimer type’, Clinical Aphasiology, 24: 215–231.Find this resource:

Brüne, Martin and Bodenstein, Luise (2005). ‘Proverb comprehension reconsidered: “Theory of mind” and the pragmatic use of language in schizophrenia’, Schizophrenia Research, 75: 233–239.Find this resource:

Bruner, Jerome S. (1978). ‘From communication to language: A psychological perspective’, in I. Markova (ed.), The Social Context of Language. New York: Wiley, 14–78.Find this resource:

Bruner, Jerome S. (1983). Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: W. W. Norton.Find this resource:

Bruner, Jerome S. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Bruner, Jerome S. (1995). ‘Meaning and self in cultural perspective’, in D. Barkhurst and C. Sypnowich (eds), The Social Self. London: Sage Publications, 18–29.Find this resource:

Bucciarelli, Monica, Colle, Livia, and Bara, Bruno G. (2003). ‘How children comprehend speech acts and communicative gestures’, Journal of Pragmatics, 35(2): 207–241.Find this resource:

Bucholtz, Mary and Hall, Kira (2005). ‘Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach’, Discourse Studies, 7(4/5): 585–614.Find this resource:

Bühler, Karl (1982 [1934]). ‘The deictic field of language and deictic words’, translated excerpt from Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache, 1934, in R. J. Jarvella and W. Klein (eds), Speech, Place, and Action: Studies of Deixis and Related Topics. New York: Wiley, 9–30.Find this resource:

Bultinck, Bert (2005). Numerous Meaning: The Meaning of English Cardinals and the Legacy of Paul Grice. Oxford: Elsevier.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry (1969). ‘Conversational principles in question–answer dialogues’, in Dieter Krallmann (ed.), Zur Theorie der Frage. Essen: Narr Verlag, 119–141.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry (1989). ‘Information dialogues as communicative action in relation to partner modelling and information processing’, in Martin Taylor, Françoise Néel, and Don Bouwhuis (eds), The Structure of Multimodal Dialogue. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 47–74.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry (2000). ‘Dialogue pragmatics and context specification’, in Harry Bunt and William Black (eds), Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 81–105.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry (2009). ‘The DIT++ taxonomy for functional dialogue markup’, in Dirk Heylen, Catherine Pelachaud, Roberta Catizone, and David Traum (eds), Proceedings of the AAMAS 2009 Workshop: Towards a Standard Markup Language for Embodied Dialogue Acts, Budapest. AAMAS, 13–23.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry (2010). ‘Multifunctionality in dialogue’, Computers, Speech, and Language, 22: 224–245.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry (2011). ‘The semantics of dialogue acts’, in Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011), Oxford. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–13.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry (2014) ‘A context-change semantics for dialogue acts’, in Harry Bunt, Johan Bos, and Stephen Pulman (eds), Computing Meaning, Volume 4. Dordrecht: Springer, 177–201.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry, Alexandersson, Jan, Carletta, Jean, Jae-Woong Choe, Fang, Alex, Hasida, Koiti, Lee, Kiyong, Petukhova, Volha, Popescu-Belis, Andrei, Romary, Laurent, Soria, Claudia, and Traum, David (2010). ‘Towards an ISO standard for dialogue act annotation’, in (p. 608) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Systems (LREC 2010), Malta. Paris: ELRA, 2548–2555.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry and Black, William (2000). ‘The ABC of computational pragmatics’, in Harry Bunt and William Black (eds), Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–46.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry and Prasad, Rashmi (2016) ‘Core concepts for the annotation of discourse relations’, in Proceedings 12th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantics (ISA-12), ISO DR-Core (ISO 24617-8), Portoroz, Slovenia. Paris: ELRA, 45–54.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry, Keizer, Simon, and Morante, Roser (2007). ‘A computational model of grounding in dialogue’, in Proceedings of the 8th SIGdial Workshop in Discourse and Dialogue, Antwerp. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 591–598.Find this resource:

Bunt, Harry, Kipp, Michael, and Petukhova, Volha (2012). ‘Using DiAML and ANVIL for multimodal dialogue annotation’, in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Systems (LREC 2012), Istanbul. Paris: ELRA, 1301–1308.Find this resource:

Bunt, H., V. Petukhova, A. Malchanau, A Fang and K. Wijnhoven (2016) ‘The DialogBank’, in Proceedings 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), Portoroz, Slovenia.Find this resource:

Burdelski, Matthew (2010). ‘Socializing politeness routines: Action, other-orientation, and embodiment in a Japanese preschool’, Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6): 1606–1621.Find this resource:

Burdelski, Matthew (2011). ‘Language socialization and politeness routines’, in A. Duranti, E. Ochs, and B. Schieffelin (eds), The Handbook of Language Socialization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 275–295.Find this resource:

Burdelski, Matthew (2013a). ‘Socializing children to honorifics in Japanese: Identity and stance in interaction’, Pragmatic and Metapragmatic Issues in Japanese Honorific Usage, guest ed. B. Pizziconi, Special Issue of Multilingua, 32(2): 247–273.Find this resource:

Burdelski, Matthew (2013b). ‘ “I’m sorry, flower”: Socializing apology, empathy, and relationships in Japan’, Pragmatics and Society, 4(1): 54–81.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (1997). The 49th Bridge Accent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (1999). ‘Topic’, in Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (eds), Focus—Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 142–165.Find this resource:

Burkhardt, Petra (2006). ‘Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials’, Brain and Language, 98: 159–168.Find this resource:

Burton-Roberts, Noel (ed.) (2007). Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Find this resource:

Bussmann, Hadumod and Hellinger, Marlis (eds) (2001). Gender across Languages: An International Handbook. Dordrecht: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Butterworth, Brian (1975). ‘Hesitation and semantic planning in speech’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4: 75–87.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan (2007). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Byon, Andrew Sangpil (2006). ‘The role of linguistic indirectness and honorifics in achieving linguistic politeness in Korean requests’, Journal of Politeness Research, 2(2): 247–276.Find this resource:

Byrne, Marie E., Crowe, Thomas A., and Griffin, Pamela S. (1998). ‘Pragmatic language behaviors of adults diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia’, Psychological Reports, 83: 835–846.Find this resource:

Cacciari, Cristina and Tabossi, Patrizia (eds) (1993). Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Find this resource:

Cahn, Janet E. (1989). ‘Generating expression in synthesized speech’. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston. (p. 609) Find this resource:

Cahn, Janet E. (1995). ‘The effect of pitch accenting on pronoun referent resolution’, in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Student Session). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 290–292.Find this resource:

Cahn, Janet E. and Brennan, Susan (1999). ‘A psychological model of grounding and repair in dialog’, in Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Psychological Models of Communication in Collaborative Systems. North Falmouth, MA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 25–33.Find this resource:

Camaioni, Luigia (1993). ‘The development of intentional communication: A re-analysis’, in J. Nadel and L. Camaioni (eds), New Perspectives in Early Communication Development. New York: Routledge, 82–96.Find this resource:

Campbell, R. (1981). ‘Language acquisition, psychological dualism and the definition of pragmatics’, in H. Parret, M. Sbisa, and J. Verschueren (eds), Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Cantero, Monica (2001). La morfopragmática del español. München: Lincom Europa.Find this resource:

Capone, Alessandro (2009). ‘Are explicatures cancellable? Toward a theory of the speaker’s intentionality’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 6: 55–83.Find this resource:

Caponigro, Ivano and Cohen, Jonathan (2011). ‘On collection and covert variables’, Analysis, 71: 478–488.Find this resource:

Cappelen, Herman and Hawthorne, John (2009). Relativism and Monadic Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Cappelen, Herman and Lepore, Ernest (1997). ‘On an alleged connection between indirect speech and the theory of meaning’, Mind & Language, 12: 278–296.Find this resource:

Cappelen, Herman and Lepore, Ernest (2005). Insensitive Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Carletta, Jean, Isard, Amy, Isard, Stephen, Kowtko, John, and Doherty-Sneddon, Gwyneth (1996). ‘HCRC dialogue structure coding manual’, Technical Report HCRC/TR-82.Find this resource:

Carletta, Jean, Evert, Stefan, Kilgour, Jonathan, Nicol, Craig, Reidsma, Dennis, Robertson, Judy, and Voormann, Holger (2009). ‘Documentation for the NITE XML Toolkit, version 0.3’, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh.Find this resource:

Carlomagno, Sergio, Santoro, Anna, Menditti, Antonella, Pandolfi, Maria, and Marini, Andrea (2005). ‘Referential communication in Alzheimer’s type dementia’, Cortex, 41: 520–534.Find this resource:

Carlson, Gregory N. (1977). ‘A unified analysis of the English bare plural’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 1: 413–456.Find this resource:

Carlson, Gregory N. and Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (eds) (1995). The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Carpenter, Malinda, Nagell, Katherine, Tomasello, Michael, Butterworth, George, and Moore, Chris (1998). ‘Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age’, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63(4): 1–174.Find this resource:

Carrithers, Michael (1992). Why Humans Have Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Carrithers, Michael (ed.) (2009). Culture and the Vicissitudes of Life. Oxford: Berghahn.Find this resource:

Carroll, John and Michael Tanenhaus (1975). ‘Prolegomena to a functional theory of word formation’, in R. Grossman, J. San, and T. Vance (eds), Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 47–62.Find this resource:

Carruthers, Peter (2006). The Architecture of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (1988). ‘Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics’, in R. Kempson (ed.), Mental Representation: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–181.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (1995). ‘Quantity maxims and generalized implicature’, Lingua, 96: 213–244. (p. 610) Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (1996). ‘The architecture of the mind: Modularity and modularization’, in D. Green et al. (eds), Cognitive Science: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 53–83.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (1997). ‘Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed?’ Linguistische Berichte, 8: 103–127.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (1998). ‘Informativeness, relevance, and scalar implicature’, in R. Carston and S. Uchida (eds), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–236.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (1999). ‘The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from relevance theory’, in K. Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View (CRiSPI 1). Oxford: Elsevier Science, 85–125.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2004). ‘Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction’, in Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 633–656.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2005). ‘Relevance theory, Grice, and the neo-Griceans: A response to Laurence Horn’s “Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics”’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 2: 303–320.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2008a). ‘Linguistic communication and the semantics–pragmatics distinction’, Synthese, 165(3): 321–345.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2008b). ‘A review of E. Borg, 2004. Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press’, Mind & Language, 23(3): 359–367.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2010a). ‘Modularity’, in A. Barber and R. J. Stainton (eds), Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, 480–481.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2010b). ‘Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110: 295–321.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2012). ‘Relevance theory’, in G. Russell and D. Graff Fara (eds), Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language. London: Routledge, 163–176.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2013). ‘Word meaning, what is said and explicature’ in Carlo Penco and Filippo Domaneschi (eds), What Is Said and What Is Not: The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 175–203.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn and Hall, Alison (2012). ‘Implicature and explicature’, in H.-J. Schmid (ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics, vol. 4). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 47–84.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn and Powell, George (2006). ‘Relevance theory: New directions and developments’, in E. Lepore and B. Smith (eds), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 341–360.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn and Wearing, Catherine (2011). ‘Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach’, Language and Cognition, 3: 283–312.Find this resource:

Casenhiser, Devin (2005). ‘Children’s resistance to homonymy: An experimental study of pseudohomonyms’, Journal of Child Language, 32: 319–343.Find this resource:

Caspers, Johanneke (1998). ‘Who’s next? The melodic marking of question vs. continuation in Dutch’, Language and Speech: Special Issue on Prosody and Conversation, 41(3–4): 375–398.Find this resource:

Catani, Marco, Jones, Derek K., and ffytche, Dominic H. (2005). ‘Perisylvian language networks of the human brain’, Annals of Neurology, 57(1): 8–16.Find this resource:

Cekaite, Asta, Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Grøver, Vibeke, and Teuba, Eva (eds) (2014). Child Peer Talk: Learning from Each Other. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace L. (1974). ‘Language and consciousness’, Language, 50: 111–133.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace L. (1976). ‘Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view’, in C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 25–55. (p. 611) Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace L. (1980). ‘The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative’, in W. L. Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production (Advances in Discourse Processes 3). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 9–50.Find this resource:

Chambers, Craig G., Tanenhaus, Michael K., Eberhard, Kathleen M., Filip, Hana, and Carlson, Gregory N. (2002). ‘Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension’, Journal of Memory and Language, 47: 30–49.Find this resource:

Champagne, Maud, Virbel, Jacques, Nespoulous, Jean-Luc, and Joanette, Yves (2003). ‘Impact of right-hemispheric damage on a hierarchy of complexity evidenced in young normal subjects’, Brain and Cognition, 53: 152–157.Find this resource:

Chapman, Sandra Bond, Ulatowska, Hanna K., Franklin, L. R., Shobe, A. E., Thompson, Jennifer L., and McIntire, D. D. (1997). ‘Proverb interpretation in fluent aphasia and Alzheimer’s disease: Implications beyond abstract thinking’, Aphasiology, 11: 337–350.Find this resource:

Chapman, Siobhan (2005). Paul Grice: Philosopher and Linguist. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Chapman, Siobhan (2011). Pragmatics. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Charman, Tony (2003). ‘Why is joint attention a pivotal skill in autism?’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1430): 315–324.Find this resource:

Chastain, Charles (1975). ‘Reference and context’, in Keith Gunderson (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 7: Language Mind and Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 194–269.Find this resource:

Cheang, Henry S. and Pell, Marc D. (2006). ‘A study of humour and communicative intention following right-hemisphere stroke’, Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 20: 447–462.Find this resource:

Chemla, Emmanuel and Bott, Lewis (2013). ‘Processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs. pragmatic enrichment’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 28: 241–260.Find this resource:

Chemla, Emmanuel and Spector, Benjamin (2011). ‘Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures’, Journal of Semantics, 28: 359–400.Find this resource:

Chen, Aoju (2006). ‘Interface between information structure and intonation in Dutch WH-questions’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden: TUDPress, paper no. 242.Find this resource:

Chen, Aoju and Destruel, Emilie (2010). ‘Intonational encoding of focus in Toulousian French’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 233.Find this resource:

Chen, Chun-Mei (2010). ‘Typology of Paiwan interrogative prosody’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 376.Find this resource:

Chen, V. (1990–1991). ‘Mien Tze at the Chinese dinner-table: A study of the interactional accomplishment of face’, Research in Language and Social Interaction, 24: 109–140.Find this resource:

Chen, Yiya, and Braun, Bettina (2006). ‘Prosodic realization of information structure categories in standard Chinese’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden: TUDPress, paper no. 051.Find this resource:

Cheng, Dongmei (2011). ‘New insights on compliment responses: A comparison between native English speakers and Chinese L2 speakers’, Journal of Pragmatics, 43: 2204–2214.Find this resource:

Chevallier, Coralie, Wilson, Deirdre, Happé, Francesca, and Noveck, Ira (2010). ‘Scalar inferences in autism spectrum disorders’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40: 1104–1117.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro (2004). ‘Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface’, in Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–103.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro (2006). ‘Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language’, Linguistic Inquiry, 37: 535–590. (p. 612) Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro, Fox, Danny, and Spector, Benjamin (2012). ‘Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon’, in C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 2297–2331.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro, Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles (2006). ‘When basic meanings are not enough: Processing scalar implicatures in adult language comprehension’. Ms, University of Massachusetts.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro and Turner, Raymond (1988). ‘Semantics and property theory’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 11: 261–302.Find this resource:

Chiou, Michael and Huang, Yan (2010). ‘NP-anaphora in Modern Greek: A partial neo-Gricean pragmatic approach’, Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 2036–2057.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. Berlin: Mouton.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1971). ‘Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation’, in Danny Steinberg and Leon Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–216.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1995a). ‘Language and nature’, Mind, 104: 1–61.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1995b). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (2000). ‘Language as a natural object’, in Noam Chomsky (ed.), New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 106–133.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (2007). ‘Of minds and language’, Biolinguistics, 1: 1009–1037.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (2010). ‘Some simple evo devo theses: How true might they be for language?’, in Richard K. Larson, Viviane M. Déprez, and Hiroko Yamakido (eds), The Evolution of Human Language: Biolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 45–62.Find this resource:

Chovanec, Jan (2008). ‘Enacting an imaginary community: Infotainment in on-line minute-by-minute sports commentary’, in Eva Lavric, Gerhard Pisek, Andrew Skinner, and Wolfgang Stadler (eds), The Linguistics of Football (Language in Performance 38). Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 255–268.Find this resource:

Chovanec, Jan (2009). ‘Simulation of spoken interaction in written online media texts’, Brno Studies in English, 35(2): 109–128.Find this resource:

Christie, Chris (2005). ‘Editorial’, Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1): 1–7.Find this resource:

Christie, Christine (2000). Gender and Language: Towards a Feminist Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Christophersen, Paul (1939). The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Find this resource:

Ciaramidaro, Angela, Adenzato, Mauro, Enrici, Ivan, Erk, Susanne, Pia, Lorenzo, Bara, Bruno G., and Walter, Henrick (2007). ‘The intentional network: How the brain reads varieties of intensions’, Neuropsychologia, 45(13): 3105–3133.Find this resource:

Ciaramidaro, Angela, Bölte, Sven, Schlitt, Sabine, Hainz, Daniela, Poustka, Fritz, Weber, Bernhard, Bara, Bruno G., Freitag, Christine, and Walter, Henrik (2015). ‘Schizophrenia and autism as contrasting minds: Neural evidence for the hypo-hyper-intentionality hypothesis’, Schizophrenia Bulletin, 41(1): 171–179.Find this resource:

CISD Research Group (1997). ‘DAMSL revised manual’. Unpublished document, Computer Science Department, University of Rochester. Available at <http://www.cs.rochester.edu/research/cisd/resources/damsl>. (p. 613)

Claridge, Claudia (2010). ‘News discourse’, in Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 8). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 587–620.Find this resource:

Claridge, Claudia, and Leslie Arnovick (2010). ‘Pragmaticalisation and discursisation’, in Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 8). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 165–192.Find this resource:

Clark, Billy (2013). Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Clark, Eve (1987). ‘The principle of Contrast: A constraint on language acquisition’, in B. MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1–33.Find this resource:

Clark, Eve (1993). The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Clark, Eve (2003). First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd edn 2009).Find this resource:

Clark, Eve, Carpenter, Kathie, and Deutsch, Werner (1995). ‘Reference states and reversals: Undoing actions with verbs’, Journal of Child Language, 22: 633–662.Find this resource:

Clark, Eve and Clark, Herbert H. (1979). ‘When nouns surface as verbs’, Language, 55: 767–811.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. (1977). ‘Bridging’, in Philip Nicholas Johnson-Laird and Peter Cathcart Wason (eds), Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 411–420.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. (1979). ‘Responding to indirect speech acts’, Cognitive Psychology, 11: 430–477.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. (1992). Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. (2003). ‘Pointing and placing’, in S. Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 243–268.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. and Schaefer, Edward (1987). ‘Concealing one’s meaning from overhearers’, Journal of Memory and Language, 26: 209–225.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. and Schaefer, Edward (1989). ‘Contributing to discourse’, Cognitive Science, 13: 259–294.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H., Schreuder, Robert, and Buttrick, Samuel (1983). ‘Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22: 245–258.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna (1986). ‘Referring as a collaborative process’, Cognition, 22: 1–39.Find this resource:

Clifton, C., Jr and Dube, C. (2010). ‘Embedded implicatures observed’, Semantics and Pragmatics, 3: 1–13.Find this resource:

Coelho, Carl A. (2007). ‘Management of discourse deficits following traumatic brain injury: Progress, caveats, and needs’, Seminars in Speech and Language, 8: 122–135.Find this resource:

Coelho, Carl A. and Flewellyn, Laura (2003). ‘Longitudinal assessment of coherence in an adult with fluent aphasia’, Aphasiology, 17: 173–182.Find this resource:

Coelho, Carl A., Youse, Kathleen M., and Le, Karen N. (2002). ‘Conversational discourse in closed-head-injured and non-brain-injured adults’, Aphasiology, 16: 659–672.Find this resource:

Cohen, Andrew D. (2004). ‘Assessing speech acts in a second language’, in D. Boxer and A. D. Cohen (eds), Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 302–327.Find this resource:

Cohen, Andrew. D. (2012). ‘Research methods for describing variation in intercultural pragmatics for cultures in contact and conflict’, in J. C. Félix-Brasdefer and D. A. Koike (p. 614) (eds), Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–48.Find this resource:

Cohen, Andrew D. and Olshtain, E. (1993). ‘The production of speech acts by EFL learners’, TESOL Quarterly, 27(1): 33–56.Find this resource:

Cohen, Andrew D. and Shively, Rachel (2007). ‘Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention’, Modern Language Journal, 91(2): 189–212.Find this resource:

Cohen, L. Jonathan (1971). ‘Some remarks on Grice’s views about the logical particles of natural language’, in Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.), Pragmatics of Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, 50–68.Find this resource:

Cohen, L. Jonathan (1977). ‘Can the conversationalist hypothesis be defended?’, Philosophical Studies, 31: 81–90.Find this resource:

Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry, and Pollack, Martha E. (1990). Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Cohen, Philip and Perrault, C. Raymond (1979). ‘Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts’, Cognitive Science, 3: 177–212.Find this resource:

Colle, Livia, Baron-Cohen, Simon, Wheelwright, Sally, and van der Lely, Heather K. J. (2008). ‘Narrative discourse in adults with high-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38: 28–40.Find this resource:

Collier, Mary Jane (1991). ‘Conflict competence within African, Mexican, and Anglo-American friendships’, in S. Ting-Toomey and F. Korzenny (eds), Cross-Cultural Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 132–154.Find this resource:

Compernolle, Rémi A. van (2013). ‘Interactional competence and the dynamic assessment of L2 pragmatic abilities’, in S. Ross and G. Kasper (eds), Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 327–353.Find this resource:

Cooper, Robin (1998). ‘Integrating diverse information resources into dialogue updates’, in H. Bunt, R.-J. Beun, T. Borghuis, L. Kievit, and M. Verlinden (eds), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Cooperative Multimodal Communication (CMC-98), Tilburg. Eindhoven and Tilburg: DenK, Samenwerkingsorgaan Brabantse Universiteiten, 72–82.Find this resource:

Cooper, Robin (2000). ‘Information states, attitudes and dependent record types’, in Peter Blackburn, Nick Braisby, Lawrence Cavedon, and Atsushi Shimojima (eds), Logic, Language and Computation, vol. 3. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 85–106.Find this resource:

Cooper, Roger M. (1974). ‘The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing’, Cognitive Psychology, 6: 84–107.Find this resource:

Cooper, William E. and Paccia-Cooper, Jeanne (1980). Syntax and Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Corazza, Eros (2004). ‘On the alleged ambiguity of “now” and “here” ’, Synthese, 138: 289–313.Find this resource:

Corazza, Eros (2007). ‘Contextualism, minimalism, and situationalism’, Pragmatics & Cognition, 15: 115–137.Find this resource:

Corazza, Eros and Dokic, Jerome (2012). ‘Situated minimalism versus free enrichment’, Synthese, 184: 179–198.Find this resource:

Corazza, Eros and Dokic, Jerome (2013). ‘On situationalism: Situations with an attitude’, in Carlo Penco and Filippo Domaneschi (eds), What Is Said and What Is Not: The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 265–284.Find this resource:

Core, Mark and Allen, James (1997). ‘Coding dialogs with the DAMSL annotation schema’, in Working Notes of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Communicative Action in Humans and Machines. Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press, 28–35. (p. 615) Find this resource:

Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John (1994). ‘Origins of domain-specificity: The evolution of functional organization’, in L. Hirschfeld and S. Gelman (eds), Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85–116.Find this resource:

Coulmas, Florian (1981). Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton.Find this resource:

Coulmas, Florian (1991). New Perspectives on Linguistic Etiquette, Special Issue of International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 92.Find this resource:

Coulson, Seana (2008). ‘Metaphor comprehension in the brain’, in Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 177–194.Find this resource:

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2010). ‘Recognizing actions in interaction’. Lecture given at LAGB, Leeds, September.Find this resource:

Cowell, Andrew (2007). ‘Arapaho imperatives: Indirectness, politeness and communal “face” ’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 17(1): 44–60.Find this resource:

Crain, Stephen and Pietroski, Paul (2002). ‘Why language acquisition is a snap’, The Linguistic Review, 19: 163–183.Find this resource:

Crain, Stephen and Thornton, Rosalind (2006). ‘Acquisition of syntax and semantics’, in M. Traxler and M. Gernsbacher (eds), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn. New York: Elsevier, 1073–1110.Find this resource:

Crespi, Bernard and Badcock, Christopher (2008). ‘Psychosis and autism as diametrical disorders of the social brain’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(3): 241–261.Find this resource:

Crespo-Sendra, Verònica, Vanrell, Maria del Mar, and Prieto, Pilar (2010). ‘Information-seeking questions and incredulity questions: Gradient or categorical contrast?’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 164.Find this resource:

Crocco, Claudia (2006). ‘Prosodic and informational aspects of polar questions in Neapolitan Italian’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden: TUDPress, paper no. 225.Find this resource:

Crocco Galéas, Grazia (1992). ‘Morfopragmatica e pragmatica lessicale degli etnici italiani’, in G. Gobber (ed.), La linguistica pragmatica. Roma: Bulzoni, 61–71.Find this resource:

Croft, William (1995). ‘Intonation units and grammatical structure’, Linguistics, 33: 839–882.Find this resource:

Cuerva, Agustina Garcia, Sabe, Liliana, Kuzis, Gabriela, Tiberti, Cecilia, Dorrego, Flavia, and Starkstein, Sergio E. (2001). ‘Theory of mind and pragmatic abilities in dementia’, Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioural Neurology, 14: 153–158.Find this resource:

Crystal, David (1969). Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Crystal, David (ed.) (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Culpeper, Jonathan (1996). ‘Towards an anatomy of impoliteness’, Journal of Pragmatics, 25: 346–367.Find this resource:

Culpeper, Jonathan (ed.) (2009/2011). Journal of Historical Pragmatics: Special Issue on Historical Sociopragmatics, 10(2). Reprinted as J. Culpeper (ed.) (2011), Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Culpeper, Jonathan (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Culpeper, Jonathan, Bousfield, Derek, and Wichmann, Anne (2003). ‘Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects’, Journal of Pragmatics, 35: 1545–1579. (p. 616) Find this resource:

Cummins, Chris, Sauerland, Uli, and Solt, Stephanie (2012). ‘Granularity and scalar implicature in numerical expressions’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 35: 135–169.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2005). Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2007a). ‘Pragmatics and adult language disorders: Past achievements and future directions’, Seminars in Speech and Language, 28: 98–112.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2007b). ‘Clinical pragmatics: A field in search of phenomena?’, Language & Communication, 27: 396–432.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2008). Clinical Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2009). Clinical Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2010). ‘Clinical Pragmatics’, in L. Cummings (ed.), The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 40–43.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2011). ‘Pragmatic disorders and their social impact’, Pragmatics and Society, 2: 17–36.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2012a). ‘Pragmatic disorders’, in H.-J. Schmid (ed.), Handbook of Pragmatics, vol. 4: Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 291–316.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2012b). ‘Theorising context: The case of clinical pragmatics’, in R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer, and P. Schumacher (eds), What is a Context? Theoretical and Empirical Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 55–80.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2012c). ‘Clinical pragmatics and theory of mind’, in A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, and M. Carapezza (eds), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer, 23–56.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2013). ‘Pragmatic disorders and theory of mind’, in L. Cummings (ed.), Handbook of Communication Disorders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 559–577.Find this resource:

Cummings, Louise (2014). Communication Disorders. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Cunningham, Hamish (2002). ‘GATE: A general architecture for text engineering’, Computers and the Humanities, 36: 223–254.Find this resource:

Curl, Traci S. (2004). ‘Repetition repairs: The relationship of phonetic structure and sequence organization’, in E. Couper-Kuhlen and C. E. Ford (eds), Sound Patterns in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 273–298.Find this resource:

Curl, Traci S. and Paul Drew (2008). ‘Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2): 129–153.Find this resource:

Cutica, Ilaria, Bucciarelli, Monica, and Bara, Bruno G. (2006). ‘Neuropragmatics: Extralinguistic pragmatic ability is better preserved in left-hemisphere-damaged patients than in right-hemisphere-damaged patients’, Brain & Language, 98(1): 12–25.Find this resource:

Dahan, Delphine, Tanenhaus, Michael K., and Chambers, Craig G. (2002). ‘Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension’, Journal of Memory and Language, 47: 292–314.Find this resource:

Dahl, Östen (2006). ‘Diminutives and augmentatives’, in Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, vol. 3. Oxford: Elsevier, 594–595.Find this resource:

Dal, Georgette (1997). Grammaire du suffixe -et(te). Paris: Didier Érudition.Find this resource:

Davidson, Donald (1975). ‘The logical form of action sentences’, in Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman (eds), The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: Dickenson, 235–245.Find this resource:

Davis, Steven (ed.) (1991). Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (p. 617) Find this resource:

Davis, Wayne (2014). ‘Implicature’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition). Available online at <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/implicature/>.Find this resource:

DeCasper, Anthony J. and Fifer, William P. (1980). ‘Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their mothers’ voices’, Science, 208(48): 1174–1176.Find this resource:

DeCasper, Anthony J. and Spence, Melanie (1986). ‘Prenatal experience with low-frequency maternal-voice sounds influence neonatal perception of maternal voice samples’, Infant Behavior and Development, 10(2): 133–142.Find this resource:

Degen, Judith and Breheny, Richard (2011). ‘The role of lexical alternatives in different forms of pragmatic processing’. Paper presented at the EURO-XPRAG Workshop, Pisa, Italy, 30 September.Find this resource:

Degen, Judith and Tanenhaus, Michael (2014). ‘Processing scalar implicature: A constraint-based approach’. Cognitive Science, 39: 667–710.Find this resource:

Dekker, Paul and Rooij, Robert van (2000). ‘Bi-directional optimality theory: An application of game theory’, Journal of Semantics, 17: 217–242.Find this resource:

De Marco, Anna (1998). Sociopragmatica dei diminutivi in italiano. Rende: Centro Editoriale e Librario, Università degli Studi di Calabria.Find this resource:

De Marco, Ivan, Colle, Livia, and Bucciarelli, Monica (2007). ‘Linguistic and extralinguistic communication in deaf children’, Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1): 134–156.Find this resource:

De Neys, Wim and Schaeken, Walter (2007). ‘When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature’, Experimental Psychology, 54: 128–133.Find this resource:

Denman, Ashleigh and Wilkinson, Ray (2011). ‘Applying conversation analysis to traumatic brain injury: Investigating touching another person in everyday social interaction’, Disability and Rehabilitation, 33: 243–252.Find this resource:

Dennett, Daniel (1991). Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Find this resource:

Dennis, Maureen and Barnes, Marcia A. (2001). ‘Comparison of literal, inferential, and intentional text comprehension in children with mild or severe closed head injury’, Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 16: 456–468.Find this resource:

Dennison, Heeyeon Y. and Schafer, Amy J. (2010). ‘Online construction of implicature through contrastive prosody’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 338.Find this resource:

De Ruiter, J. P., Noordzij, M. L., Newman-Norlund, S., Hagoort, P., Levinson, S. C., and Toni., I (2010). ‘Exploring the cognitive infrastructure of communication’, Interaction Studies, 11: 51–77.Find this resource:

Desai, Rutvik H., Binder, Jeffrey R., Conant, Lisa L., Mano, Quintino R., and Seidenberg, Mark S. (2011). ‘The neural career of sensory-motor metaphors’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9): 2376–2386.Find this resource:

Deutschmann, Mats (2003). Apologising in British English (Skrifter från moderna spark 10). Umeå: Institutionen för moderna språk, Umeå University.Find this resource:

Devitt, Michael (2013). ‘Three methodological flaws of linguistic pragmatism’, in Carlo Penco and Filippo Domaneschi (eds), What Is Said and What Is Not: The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 285–300.Find this resource:

Dewarrat, Géraldine Maillard, Annoni, Jean-Marie, Fornari, Eleonora, Carota, Antonio, Bogousslavsky, Julien, and Maeder, Philippe (2009). ‘Acute aphasia after right hemisphere stroke’, Journal of Neurology, 256: 1461–1467.Find this resource:

Dewart, Hazel and Summers, Susie (1995). Pragmatics Profile of Everyday Communication Skills in Children. Windsor: NFER Nelson. (p. 618) Find this resource:

Diaz, Michele T., Barrett, Kyle T., and Hogstrom, Larson J. (2011). ‘The influence of sentence novelty and figurativeness on brain activity’, Neuropsychologia, 49(3): 320–330.Find this resource:

Dickens, Charles (1844). The Chimes. London: Chapman & Hall.Find this resource:

Diesendruck, Gil and Markson, Lori (2001). ‘Children’s avoidance of lexical overlap: A pragmatic account’, Developmental Psychology, 37: 630–641.Find this resource:

Diessel, Holger (1999). Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 42). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Di Eugenio, Barbara, Jordan, Pamela W., and Pylkkänen, Lina (1998). ‘The COCONUT project: Dialogue annotation manual’, ISP Technical Report 98-1, University of Pittsburgh.Find this resource:

Dijk, Teun A. van (1977). Text and Context. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Dijk, Teun A. van (ed.) (1997). Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage.Find this resource:

Dijk, Teun A. van (2008). Discourse and Context: A Socio-Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Dijk, Teun A. van and Kintsch, Walter (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Dilley, Laura and Brown, Meredith (2005). ‘The RAP (rhythm and pitch) labeling system’, <http://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/pitt/dilley/RaP_Labeling_Guide_v1.0.pdf>.

Dimitrova, Diana V., Redeker, Gisela, Egg, Marku, and Hoeks, John C. J. (2008). ‘Linguistic and extra-linguistic determinants of accentuation in Dutch’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008. Campinas: Unicamp, 409–412.Find this resource:

Dimitrova, Diana V., Stowe, Laurie A., Redeker, Gisela, and Hoeks, John C. J. (2010a). ‘ERP correlates of focus accentuation in Dutch’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 873.Find this resource:

Dimitrova, Diana V., Stowe, Laurie A., Redeker, Gisela, and Hoeks, John C. J. (2010b). ‘Focus particles and prosody processing in Dutch: Evidence from ERPs’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 979.Find this resource:

Dings, Abby (2012). ‘Native speaker/nonnative speaker interaction and orientation to novice/expert identity’, Journal of Pragmatics, 44(11): 1503–1518.Find this resource:

Dirksen, Arthur (1992). ‘Accenting and deaccenting: A declarative approach’, in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 3. International Committee on Computational Linguistics, 865–869.Find this resource:

Dirksen, Arthur and Quené, Hugo (1993). ‘Prosodic analysis: The next generation’, in V. J. van Hueven and L. C. W. Pols (eds), Analysis and Synthesis of Speech: Strategic Research towards High-Quality Text-to-Speech Generation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 131–144.Find this resource:

Dixon, R. M. W. (2003). ‘Demonstratives: A cross-linguistic typology’, Studies in Language, 27(1): 61–112.Find this resource:

Doherty, Martin (2004). ‘Children’s difficulty in learning homonyms’, Journal of Child Language, 31: 203–214.Find this resource:

Doleschal, Ursula (2002). ‘Konzeptualisierung von Geschlecht und Sprachvergleich’, in J. van Leeuwen-Turnovcová, U. Doleschal, F. Schindler, and K. Wullenweber (eds), Genderforschung in der Slawistik, Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 55. Wien: Institut für Slawistik, Friedrich Schiller-Universität Jena, 177–186.Find this resource:

Doleschal, Ursula (2005). ‘Genus und Geschlecht: Die Repräsentation der Geschlechter in der Grammatik’, in T. Bahovec (ed.), Frauen. Männer. Klagenfurt: Drava, 314–324.Find this resource:

Donnellan, Keith S. (1966). ‘Reference and definite descriptions’, Philosophical Review, 77: 281–304. (p. 619) Find this resource:

Donnellan, Keith S. (1978). ‘Speaker reference, descriptions and anaphora’, in Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 47–68.Find this resource:

Donno, R., Parker, G., Gilmour, J., and Skuse, D. H. (2010). ‘Social communication deficits in disruptive primary-school children’, British Journal of Psychiatry, 196: 282–289.Find this resource:

Donzel, Monique van (1999). Prosodic Aspects of Information Structure in Discourse. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Find this resource:

Doran, Ryan, Baker, Rachel E., McNabb, Yaron, Larson, Meredith, and Ward, Gregory (2009). ‘On the non-unified nature of scalar implicature: An empirical investigation’, International Review of Pragmatics, 1: 211–248.Find this resource:

Doran, Ryan, Ward, Gregory, Larson, Meredith, McNabb, Yaron, and Baker, Rachel E. (2012). ‘A novel experimental paradigm for distinguishing between what is said and what is implicated’, Language, 88: 124–154.Find this resource:

Douglas, Jacinta M. (2010). ‘Relation of executive functioning to pragmatic outcome following severe traumatic brain injury’, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53: 365–382.Find this resource:

Downing, Bruce T. (1970). ‘Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing in English’. PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin.Find this resource:

Downing, Pamela (1977). ‘On the creation and use of English compound nouns’, Language, 53: 810–842.Find this resource:

Dowty, David (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Find this resource:

Dray, Nancy (1987). ‘Doubles and modifiers in English’. MA thesis, University of Chicago.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang U. (1989). ‘Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation’, Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 42: 3–10.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang U. (2000). ‘Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology’, in U. Doleschal and A. Thornton (eds), Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology. München: Lincom, 1–10.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang U. (2010). ‘Morphologie dynamique et statique des diminutifs’, Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 17. Leuven: Peeters, 141–154.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Kiefer, Ferenc (1990). ‘Austro-Hungarian morphopragmatics’, in W. Dressler, H. Luschützky, O. Pfeifer, and J. Rennison (eds), Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 69–77.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia (1986). ‘How to fix interfixes?’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 36: 53–68.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia (1987). Elements of Morphopragmatics, LAUD A 194. Duisberg: University of Duisburg.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia (1989). ‘Grammaticalizzazione morfopragmatica: Teoria e tipologia, con particolare riguardo ai diminutivi nell’italiano, tedesco e inglese’, Quaderni Dipartimento di Linguistica, Bergamo Istituto Universitario, 5: 233–255.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia (2001). ‘Morphopragmatics of diminutives and augmentatives: On the priority of pragmatics over semantics’, in Istvan Kenesei and Robert M. Harnish (eds), Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 43–58.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Mörth, Karlheinz (2012). ‘Vom Einfluss der Pragmatik auf die Grammatik, insbesondere in der Entwicklung der Pluralbildung: Eine corpusbasierte Untersuchung’, Jahrbuch für Germanistische Sprachgeschichte, 3(1): 75–93. (p. 620) Find this resource:

Drew, Paul (2013). ‘Turn design’, in Tanya Stivers and Jack Sidnell (eds), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 131–149.Find this resource:

Drew, Paul and Curl, Traci (2008). ‘Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting’, Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41: 129–153.Find this resource:

Drew, Paul and Heritage, John (eds) (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew S. (2011a). ‘Polar questions’, in Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at <http://wals.info/feature/116A>.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew S. (2011b). ‘Position of interrogative phrases in content questions’, in Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at <http://wals.info/feature/93A>.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. (1987). ‘The discourse basis of ergativity’, Language, 63: 805–855.Find this resource:

Duchan, Judith (1984). ‘Language assessment: The pragmatics revolution’, in R. Naremore (ed.), Language Science: Recent Advances. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press, 147–180.Find this resource:

Duchan, Judith (2010). The Pragmatics Revolution 1975–2000. Available online at <http:www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~duchan/1975-2000.html>, accessed 20 January 2011.

Ducrot, Oswald (1969). ‘Présupposés et sous-entendus’. Reprinted 1984 in O. Ducrot, Le dire et le dit. Paris: Les éditions de Minuit, 13–31.Find this resource:

Ducrot, Oswald (1972). Dire et ne pas dire: Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.Find this resource:

Ducrot, Oswald (1973). Le preuve et le dire. Paris: Mame.Find this resource:

Ducrot, Oswald (1980). Les échelles argumentatives. Paris: Minuit.Find this resource:

Ducrot, Oswald (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Find this resource:

Ducrot, Oswald (1996). Slovenian Lectures / Conférences Slovènes. Ljubljana: ISH.Find this resource:

Dufon, M. A., Kasper, G., Takahashi, S., and Yoshinaga, N. (1994). ‘Bibliography on linguistic politeness’, Journal of Pragmatics, 21: 527–528.Find this resource:

Dunbar, Robin (1998). Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Dunn, Judy (1982). ‘Problems and promises in the study of affect and intention’, in Z. Tronick (ed.), Social Interchange in Infancy. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press, 197–206.Find this resource:

Dupré, Louis K. (1966). The Philosophical Foundations of Marxism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Find this resource:

Duranti, Alessandro (1988). ‘Intentions, language and social action in a Samoan context’, Journal of Pragmatics, 12: 13–33.Find this resource:

Duranti, Alessandro (1992). ‘Language in context and language as context: The Samoan respect vocabulary’, in A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77–99.Find this resource:

Duranti, Alessandro (1997a). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Duranti, Alessandro (1997b). ‘Polyphonic discourse: Overlapping in Samoan ceremonial greetings’, Text, 17(3): 349–381.Find this resource:

Eady, Stephen J. and Cooper, William E. (1986). ‘Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80: 402–415.Find this resource:

Eckardt, Regine (2002). ‘Semantic change in grammaticalization’, in Graham Katz, Sabine Reinhard, and Philip Reuter (eds), Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik (Sinn & Bedeutung VI). Osnabrück: University of Osnabrück, 53–68. (p. 621) Find this resource:

Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1992). ‘Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 21: 461–490.Find this resource:

Edlund, Jens, House, David, and Strömbergsson, Sofia (2012). ‘Question types and some prosodic correlates in 600 questions in the Spontal database of Swedish dialogues’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2012. Shanghai: Tongji University Press, 737–740.Find this resource:

Edmonds, Amanda, Fultz, Audrey Liljestrand, and Killam, Jason (2008). ‘Prosody and the production of ambiguous relative clauses in French’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008. Campinas: Unicamp, 437–440.Find this resource:

Eelen, Gino (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Find this resource:

Ehrlich, Sara Z. and Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (2010). ‘Peer talk as a “double opportunity space”: The case of argumentative discourse’, Discourse and Society, 21(2): 211–233.Find this resource:

Eisenberg, Ann (1981). ‘Developments in displaced reference: Language learning through routine’. Paper presented at 2nd International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Vancouver, BC, August.Find this resource:

Eisenstein Ebsworth, Miriam, Bodman, Jean W., and Carpenter, Mary (1996). ‘Cross-cultural realization of greetings in American English’, in Susan M. Gass and Joyce Neu (eds), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 89–107.Find this resource:

Elbourne, Paul D. (2008). ‘Demonstratives as individual concepts’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 31: 409–466.Find this resource:

Ellis, Rod (1992). ‘Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two learners’ requests’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14: 1–23.Find this resource:

Elsabbagh, Mayada and Karmiloff-Smith, Annette (2004). ‘Modularity of mind and language’, in K. Brown (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, 218–224.Find this resource:

Enfield, Nicholas J. (2001) ‘ “Lip-pointing”: A discussion of form and function with reference to data from Laos’, Gesture, 1(2): 185–212.Find this resource:

Enfield, Nicholas J. (2003). ‘Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis’, Language, 79(1): 82–117.Find this resource:

Enfield, Nicholas J. (2005). ‘The body as a cognitive artifact in kinship representations: Hand gesture diagrams by speakers of Lao’, Current Anthropology, 46(1): 51–81.Find this resource:

Enfield, Nicholas J. (2006). ‘Social consequences of common ground’, in N. J. Enfield and S. C. Levinson (eds), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. Oxford: Berg, 399–430.Find this resource:

Enfield, Nicholas J. (2007). A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Enfield, Nicholas J. (2009). The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Enfield, Nicholas J. and Diffloth, Gérard (2009). ‘Phonology and sketch grammar of Kri, a Vietic language of Laos’, Cahiers de Linguistique—Asie Orientale (CLAO), 38(1): 3–69.Find this resource:

Enfield, Nicholas J., Kita, Sotaro, and Ruiter, Jan Peter de (2007). ‘Primary and secondary pragmatic functions of pointing gestures’, Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10): 1722–1741.Find this resource:

Enfield, Nicholas J. and Levinson, Stephen C. (2006). Roots of Human Sociality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Enfield, Nicholas J. and Stivers, Tanya (eds) (2007). Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (p. 622) Find this resource:

Enfield, Nicholas J., Stivers, Tanya, and Levinson, Stephen C. (2010). ‘Question–response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction’, Special Issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10): 2615–2619.Find this resource:

Enkvist, Nils Erik (1979). ‘Marked focus: Functions and constraints’, in S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik (eds), Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London: Longmans, 134–152.Find this resource:

Enrici, Ivan, Adenzato, Mauro, Cappa, Stefano, Bara, Bruno G., and Tettamanti, Marco (2011). ‘Intention processing in communication: A common brain network for language and gestures’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9): 2415–2431.Find this resource:

Erdmann, Peter (1976). There Sentences in English. Munich: Tuduv.Find this resource:

Erdozia, Kepa, Laka, Itziar, Mestres-Misse, Anna, and Rodriguez-Fornells, Antoni (2009). ‘Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque’, Brain and Language, 109: 1–17.Find this resource:

Erickson, Thomas and Mattson, Mark (1981). ‘From words to meaning: A semantic illusion’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20: 540–552.Find this resource:

Ericsson, K. Anders and Simon, Herbert A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original edition 1984.)Find this resource:

Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. (1979). ‘Children’s verbal turn-taking’, in E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin (eds), Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 391–414.Find this resource:

Ervin-Tripp, Susan M., Guo, Jiansheng, and Lampert, Martin (1990). ‘Politeness and persuasion in children’s control acts’, Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 195–219.Find this resource:

Ervin-Tripp, Susan M., Nakamura, K., and Guo, Jiansheng (1995). ‘Shifting face from Asia to Europe’, in M. Shibatani and S. Thompson (eds), Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics in Honor of Charles J. Fillmore. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 43–71.Find this resource:

Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. (1996). ‘Towards a cognitive approach to politeness’, Language Sciences, 18: 621–650.Find this resource:

Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, Leonetti, Manuel, and Ahern, Aoife (eds) (2011). Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives (CRiSPI 25). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Find this resource:

EURO-XPRAG network, <http://www.euro-xprag.org/>.

Evans, Gareth (1977a). ‘Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses (I)’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7: 467–536.Find this resource:

Evans, Gareth (1977b). ‘Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses (II)’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7: 777–797.Find this resource:

Evans, Gareth (1980). ‘Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry, 11: 337–362.Find this resource:

Evans, Nick (1995). A Grammar of Kayardild. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Evans, Vyvyan (2009). How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Evans, Vyvyan and Green, Melanie (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Eviatar, Zohar and Just, Marcel Adam (2006). ‘Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension’, Neuropsychologia, 44: 2348–2359.Find this resource:

Fadden, Lorna (2006). ‘The prosody of suspects’ responses during police interviews’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden: TUDPress, paper no. 157.Find this resource:

Fairclough, Norman (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Fairclough, Norman (1992). ‘The appropriacy of “Appropriateness” ’, in Norman Fairclough (ed.), Critical Language Awareness. London: Routledge, 33–56. (p. 623) Find this resource:

Fairclough, Norman (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Fairclough, Norman (2003). Analysing Discourse: Text Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Falé, Isabel and Faria, Isabel Hub (2006). ‘Categorical perception of intonational contrasts in European Portuguese’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden: TUDPress, paper no. 171.Find this resource:

Fang, Alex, Bunt, Harry, Cao, Jing, and Li, Xiaoyue (2011). ‘Relating the semantics of dialogue acts to linguistic properties: A machine learning perspective through lexical cues’, in Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, Stanford. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, 490–497.Find this resource:

Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Find this resource:

Feagin, Crawford (1979). Variation and Change in Alabama English: A Sociolinguistic Study of the White Community. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Find this resource:

Fedorenko, Evelina, Behr, Michael K., and Kanwisher, Nancy (2011). ‘Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(39): 16428–16433.Find this resource:

Fellbaum, Christiane (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2003). ‘Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in Latin American Spanish and American English’, Multilingua, 22(3): 225–255.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2004). ‘Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community’, Language Learning, 54(4): 587–653.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2006). ‘Teaching the negotiation of multi-turn speech acts: Using conversation-analytic tools to teach pragmatics in the classroom’, in Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, J. César Félix-Brasdefer, and Alwiya Omar (eds), Pragmatics and Language Learning, 11. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, 165–197.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2007). ‘Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2): 253–286.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2008a). Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2008b). ‘Perceptions of refusals to invitations: Exploring the minds of foreign language learners’, Language Awareness, 17(3): 195–211.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2010). Indiana University Discourse Pragmatics website, <http://www.indiana.edu/~discprag/spch_acts.html>, accessed 1 October 2010.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2013). ‘Refusing in L2 Spanish: The effects of the context of learning during a short-term study abroad program’, in O. Martí Andándiz and P. Salazar-Campillo (eds), Refusals in Instructional Contexts and Beyond. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 147–173.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2014). ‘Speech act sequences’, in K. Schneider and A. Barron (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics of Discourse, vol. 3: Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 323–352.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2015). The Language of Service Encounters: A Pragmatic-Discursive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César and Cohen, Andrew D. (2012). ‘Teaching pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: Grammar as a communicative resource’, Hispania, 95(4): 650–669.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César and Hasler-Barker, Maria (2012). ‘Compliments and compliment responses: From empirical evidence to pedagogical application’, in M. Leire Ruiz de Zarobe (ed.), Speech Acts and Politeness across Languages and Cultures. Bern: Peter Lang, 241–273. (p. 624) Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César and Hasler-Barker, Maria (2015). ‘Complimenting in Spanish in a short-term study abroad context’, System, 48: 75–85.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César and Koike, Dale A. (eds) (2012). Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César and Lavin, Erin (2009). ‘Grammar and turn expansion in second language conversations’, in J. Collentine, M. García, B. Lafford, and F. Marcos Marín (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 53–67.Find this resource:

Feng, Guangwu (2010). A Theory of Conventional Implicature and Pragmatic Markers in Chinese. Bingley, UK: Emerald.Find this resource:

Ferguson, Charles (1976). ‘The structure and use of politeness formulas’, Language in Society, 5: 137–151.Find this resource:

Fernández-Amaya, Lucía, de la O Hernández López, María, Morón, Reyes Gómez, Cruz, Manuel Padilla, Borrero, Manuel Mejías, and Barranca, Mariana Relinque (eds) (2012). New Perspectives on (Im)politeness and Interpersonal Communication. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Find this resource:

Ferreira, Fernanda, Christianson, Kiel, and Hollingworth, Andrew (2001). ‘Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30: 3–20.Find this resource:

Ferreira, Fernanda and Patson, Nikole (2007). ‘The “good enough” approach to language comprehension’, Language and Linguistics Compass, 1: 71–83.Find this resource:

Ferstl, Evelyn C. (2007). ‘The functional neuroanatomy of text comprehension: What’s the story so far?’, in Franz Schmalhofer and Charles A. Perfetti (eds), Higher Level Language Processes in the Brain: Inference and Comprehension Processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 53–102.Find this resource:

Ferstl, Evelyn C. (2010). ‘Neuroimaging of text comprehension: Where are we now?’ Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1): 61–88.Find this resource:

Ferstl, Evelyn C., Neumann, Jane, Bogler, Carsten, and von Cramon, Yves D. (2008). ‘The extended language network: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on text comprehension’, Human Brain Mapping, 29(5): 581–593.Find this resource:

Ferstl, Evelyn C., Guthke, Thomas, and von Cramon, D. Yves (2002). ‘Text comprehension after brain injury: Left prefrontal lesions affect inference processes’, Neuropsychology, 16: 292–308.Find this resource:

Ferstl, Evelyn C. and Siebörger, Florian Th. (2007). ‘Neuroimaging studies of coherence processes’, in Monika Schwarz-Friesel, Manfred Consten, and Mareile Knees (eds), Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, Formal and Applied Approaches to Anaphoric Reference (Studies in Language Companion Series 86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 225–240.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline (1993). German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline, Kaiser, Elsi, Hörnig, Robin, Weskott, Thomas, and Kliegl, Reinhold (2009). ‘Perception of intonational contours on given and new referents: A completion study and an eye-movement experiment’, in Paul Boersma and Silke Hamann (eds), Phonology in Perception. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 235–266.Find this resource:

Fetzer, Anita (2004). Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Fetzer, Anita (2010). ‘Contexts in context: Micro meets macro’, in S. Tanskanen et al. (eds), Discourses in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–31.Find this resource:

Fetzer, Anita (2011). ‘ “Here is the difference, here is the passion, here is the chance to be part of a great change”: Strategic context importation in political discourse’, in A. Fetzer and E. Oishi (eds), Contexts in Context: Parts Meet Whole? Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115–146. (p. 625) Find this resource:

Fetzer, Anita and Akman, Varol (2002). ‘Contexts of social action: Guest editors’ Introduction’, Language and Communication, 22(4): 391–402.Find this resource:

Feyereisen, Pierre, Berrewaerts, Joëlle, and Hupet, Michel (2007). ‘Pragmatic skills in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease: An analysis by means of a referential communication task’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 42: 1–17.Find this resource:

Fezza, Nassima and Auran, Cyril (2012). ‘Prosody and discourse structure in French: A multilayer multi-parametric analysis of comic strip narrations’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2012. Shanghai: Tongji University Press, 717–720.Find this resource:

Fidelholtz, James (1975). ‘Word-frequency and vowel reduction in English’, Chicago Linguistic Society, 11: 200–213.Find this resource:

Fillmore, Charles J. (1982). ‘Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis’, in R. J. Jarvella and W. Klein (eds), Speech, Place, and Action: Studies of Deixis and Related Topics. New York: Wiley, 31–59.Find this resource:

Finkbeiner, Rita, Meibauer, Jörg, and Schumacher, Rita (eds) (2012). What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Firth, John R. (1964a). ‘On sociological linguistics’, in D. Hymes (ed.), Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology. New York: Harper & Row, 66–70.Find this resource:

Firth, John R. (1964b). The Tongues of Men [1937] and Speech [1930]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Fishman, Joshua A. (1972). ‘The sociology of language’, in P. P. Giglioli (ed.), Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 45–58. (1st edn 1969.)Find this resource:

Fivush, Robyn and Fromhoff, Fayne (1988). ‘Style and structure in mother–child conversations about the past’, Discourse Processes, 11: 337–355.Find this resource:

Fletcher, Janet, and Loakes, Deborah (2010). ‘Interpreting rising intonation in Australian English’, in Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 124.Find this resource:

Flores-Salgado, Elizabeth (2011). The Pragmatics of Requests and Apologies: Developmental Patterns of Mexican Students. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Flores-Salgado, Elizabeth (2016). ‘Offering advice: Length of residence or intensity of interaction’, in Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig and J. César Félix-Brasdefer (eds), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 14. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Find this resource:

Fodor, Janet D. (2002). ‘Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading’, in M. Hirotani (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 32. Amherst, MA: GSLA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 113–132.Find this resource:

Fodor, Janet D. and Sag, Ivan (1982). ‘Referential and quantificational indefinites’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 5: 355–398.Find this resource:

Fodor, Jerry (1975). The Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Crowell.Find this resource:

Fodor, Jerry (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Fodor, Jerry (2000). The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Fodor, Jerry (2001). ‘Language, thought and compositionality’, Mind and Language, 16(1): 1–15.Find this resource:

Foley, William (1991). The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Find this resource:

Fortin, Antonio (2011). ‘The morphology and semantics of expressive affixes’. PhD thesis, University of Oxford.Find this resource:

Foucault, Michel (1972). The Archeology of Knowledge, trans. A. M. Sheridan. New York: Harper. (1st edn 1969.) (p. 626) Find this resource:

Fowler, Carol A. and Housum, Jonathan (1987). ‘Talkers’ signaling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction’, Journal of Memory and Language, 26: 489–504.Find this resource:

Fox, Barbara A., Hayashi, Makoto, and Jasperson, Robert (1996). ‘Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair’, in Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 185–237.Find this resource:

Fox, Danny (2007). ‘Free choice and the theory of scalar implicature’, in U. Sauerland and P. Stateva (eds), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 71–120.Find this resource:

Fradin, Bernard (2003). ‘Le traitement de la suffixation en -ET’, Langages, 152: 51–77.Find this resource:

Franke, Michael (2009). ‘Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics’. Unpublished PhD, ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2009-11, University of Amsterdam.Find this resource:

Franke, Michael and Gerhard Jäger (2012). ‘Bidirectional optimization from reasoning and learning in games’, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 21: 117–139.Find this resource:

Frápolli, Maria José (ed.) (2007). Saying, Meaning, and Referring: Essays on François Recanati’s Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Fraser, Bruce (1990). ‘Perspectives on politeness’, Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 219–236.Find this resource:

Fraurud, Kari (1990). ‘Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse’, Journal of Semantics, 7: 395–433.Find this resource:

Frazier, Lyn and Flores d’Arcais, Giovanni B. (1989). ‘Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap-filling in Dutch’, Journal of Memory and Language, 28: 331–334.Find this resource:

Frederiksen, Carl H., Bracewell, Robert J., Breuleux, Alain, and Renaud, André (1990). ‘The cognitive representation and processing of discourse: Function and dysfunction’, in Yves Joanette and Hiram Brownell (eds), Discourse Ability and Brain Damage: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. New York: Springer, 19–44.Find this resource:

Frederiksen, Carl H. and Stemmer, Brigitte (1993). ‘Conceptual processing of discourse by a right-hemisphere brain-damaged patient’, in Hiram H. Brownell and Yves Joanette (eds), Narrative Discourse in Neurologically Impaired and Normal Aging Adults. San Diego: Singular, 239–278.Find this resource:

Frege, Gottlob (1892). ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, n.s. 100: 25–50. English trans.: ‘On sense and reference’, in Peter Geach and Max Black (eds) (1952), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 56–78.Find this resource:

Frege, Gottlob (1918–1919). ‘The thought: A logical inquiry’, trans. A. M. Quinton and M. Quinton, Mind, 55 (1956): 289–311.Find this resource:

Fretheim, Thorstein (1998). ‘Intonation and the procedural encoding of attributed thoughts: The case of Norwegian negative interrogatives’, in V. Rouchota and A. Jucker (eds), Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 205–236.Find this resource:

Fretheim, Thorstein (2001). ‘In defense of monosemy’, in Németh T. Enikö and Károly Bibok (eds), Pragmatics and the Flexibility of Word Meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 79–115.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D. (2002). ‘Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2): 78–84.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D. (2009). ‘Pathways to language: Fiber tracts in the human brain’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4): 175–181.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D. (2011). ‘The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function’, Physiological Reviews, 91(4): 1357–1392. (p. 627) Find this resource:

Frisson, Steven and Pickering, Martin (2007). ‘The processing of familiar and novel senses of a word: Why reading Dickens is easy but reading Needham can be hard’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 22: 595–613.Find this resource:

Fuchs, Anna (1980). ‘Accented subjects in “all-new” utterances’, in G. Brettschneider and C. Lehmann (eds), Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beitrage zum 60. Narr: Tubingen, 449-461.Find this resource:

Fujio, Shigeru, Sagisaka, Yoshinori, and Higuchi, Norio (1997). ‘Prediction of major phrase boundary location and pause insertion using a stochastic context-free grammar’, in Y. Sagisaka, N. Campbell, and N. Higuchi (eds), Computing Prosody: Computational Models for Processing Spontaneous Speech. New York: Springer Verlag, 271–283.Find this resource:

Fujisaki, Hiroya and Hirose, Keikichi (1982). ‘Modelling the dynamic characteristics of voice fundamental frequency with applications to analysis and synthesis of intonation’, in Preprints of the Working Group on Intonation, 13th International Congress of Linguists, Tokyo, 57–70.Find this resource:

Fukushima, Saeko (2000). Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang.Find this resource:

Gaarder, A. Bruce (1966). ‘Los llamados diminutivos y aumentativos en el español de México’, Publications of the Modern Language Association, 81: 585–595.Find this resource:

Gafter, Roey (2008). ‘Where they linger on: Motivating the current distribution of plural feminine pronouns in Hebrew’. MA thesis, Department of Linguistics, Tel Aviv University.Find this resource:

Gajewski, Jon and Sharvit, Yael (2012). ‘In defense of the grammatical approach to local implicature’, Natural Language Semantics, 20: 31–57.Find this resource:

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar (2009). ‘Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: The “culture wars” ’, Journal of Politeness Research, 5(2): 273–304.Find this resource:

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar (2010a). ‘The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and polarization’, in R. Taiwo (ed.), Handbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 540–563.Find this resource:

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar (2010b). ‘A genre approach to the study of impoliteness’, International Review of Pragmatics, 2: 446–494.Find this resource:

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar (ed.) (2010c). Impoliteness across Cultures, Special Issue of Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4).Find this resource:

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar (2010d). ‘Introduction: The status-quo and quo vadis of impoliteness research’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4): 535–559.Find this resource:

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar (ed.) (2013). The Interconnections between Face and Identity, Special Issue of Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1).Find this resource:

Gardner, Rod and Wagner, Johannes (eds) (2004). Second Language Conversations. New York: Continuum.Find this resource:

Garfinkel, Harold (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Find this resource:

Garfinkel, Harold (1994). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Find this resource:

Garrett, Merrill and Harnish, Robert. (2007). ‘Experimental pragmatics: Testing for implicature’, Pragmatics and Cognition, 15: 65–90.Find this resource:

Garrett, Merrill and Harnish, Robert (2009). ‘Q-phenomena, I-phenomena and I-implicature: Some experimental pragmatics’, International Review of Pragmatics, 1: 84–117.Find this resource:

Garrido, Juan-María, Laplaza, Yesika, and Marquina, Montserrat (2012). ‘On the use of melodic patterns as prosodic correlates of emotion in Spanish’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2012. Shanghai: Tongji University Press, 645–648. (p. 628) Find this resource:

Gärtner, Hans-Martin (2004a). ‘On object-shift in Icelandic and partial iconicity’, Lingua, 114: 1235–1252.Find this resource:

Gärtner, Hans-Martin (2004b). ‘On the OT-status of “unambiguous encoding” ’, in Reinhard Blutner and Henk Zeevat (eds), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 154–172.Find this resource:

Gass, Susan and Houck, Noel (1999). Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-Cultural Study of Japanese-English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Gass, Susan M. and Neu, Joyce (1996). Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Gazdar, Gerald (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. London and New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Geach, Peter Thomas (1962). Reference and Generality: An Examination of some Medieval and Modern Theories. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Find this resource:

Gee, James Paul (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Gee, James Paul and Grosjean, F. (1983). ‘Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal’, Cognitive Psychology, 15: 411–458.Find this resource:

Geenhoven, Veerle van (1998). Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Geertzen, Jeroen, Petukhova, Volha, and Bunt, Harry (2007). ‘A multidimensional approach to utterance segmentation and dialogue act classification’, in Proceedings 8th of the SIGdial Workshop in Discourse and Dialogue, Antwerp. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 140–149.Find this resource:

Geis, Michael and Zwicky, Arnold M. (1971). ‘On invited inferences’, Linguistic Inquiry, 2: 561–566.Find this resource:

Geluykens, Ronald (1988). ‘On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions’, Journal of Pragmatics, 12: 467–485.Find this resource:

Geluykens, Ronald and Swerts, Marc (1994). ‘Prosodic cues to discourse boundaries in experimental dialogues’, Speech Communication, 15: 69–77.Find this resource:

Genzel, Susanne and Kügler, Frank (2010). ‘The prosodic expression of contrast in Hindi’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 143.Find this resource:

Gerrig, Richard, Brennan, Susan, and Ohaeri, Justina (2000). ‘What can we conclude from speakers behaving badly?’, Discourse Processes, 29: 173–178.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart (1996). ‘Local satisfaction guaranteed: A presupposition theory and its problems’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 19: 259–294.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart (1998). ‘Scalars’, in P. Ludewig and B. Geurts (eds), Lexicalische Semantik aus Kognitiver Sicht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 95–117.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart (1999a). Presuppositions and Pronouns. Oxford: Elsevier.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart (1999b). ‘Specifics’, in Bart Geurts, Manfred Krifka, and Rob van der Sandt (eds), Focus and Presupposition in Multi-Speaker Discourse. Utrecht: ESSLLI 99, 99–129.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart (2009). ‘Scalar implicature and local pragmatics’, Mind and Language, 24: 51–79.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart (2010). Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart (2012). ‘Accessibility and anaphora’, in Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1988–2011.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart and Pouscoulous, Nausicaa (2009). ‘Embedded implicatures?!?’, Semantics and Pragmatics, 2: 1–34. (p. 629) Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart and Tiel, Bob van (2013). ‘Scalar expressions under embedding’, Semantics and Pragmatics, 6: 1–37.Find this resource:

Geurts, Hilde M. and Embrechts, Mariëtte (2008). ‘Language profiles in ASD, SLI, and ADHD’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38: 1931–1943.Find this resource:

Geurts, Hilde M. and Embrechts, Mariëtte (2010). ‘Pragmatics in pre-schoolers with language impairments’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45: 436–447.Find this resource:

Ghomeshi, Jila, Jackendoff, Ray, Rosen, Nicole, and Russell, Kevin (2004). ‘Contrastive focus reduplication in English’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22: 307–357. Revised version appears as chapter 11 in Ray Jackendoff, Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (1993). ‘Why idioms are not dead metaphors’, in Cristina Cacciari and Patrizia Tabossi (eds), Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 57–77.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (1999). Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (2001). ‘Evaluating contemporary models of figurative language understanding’, Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4): 317–333.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (2006a). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (2006b). ‘Metaphor: Psychological aspects’, in Keith Allan and Jacob Mey (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. London: Elsevier, 43–50.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (ed.) (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr and Bryant, Gregory (2008). ‘Striving for optimal relevance in answering questions’, Cognition, 106: 345–369.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr and Colston, Herbert (2012). Interpreting Figurative Meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr, Kushner, Julia, and Mills, Rob (1991). ‘Authorial intentions and metaphor comprehension’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20: 11–30.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr, Lima, Paula Lenz Costa, and Francozo, Edson (2004). ‘Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience’, Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7): 1189–1210.Find this resource:

Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr and Moise, Jessica (1997). ‘Pragmatics in understanding what is said’, Cognition, 62: 51–74.Find this resource:

Giegerich, Heinz (2001). ‘Synonymy blocking and the elsewhere condition: Lexical morphology and the speaker’, Transactions of the Philological Society, 99: 65–98.Find this resource:

Gilbert, Margaret (1989). On Social Facts. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

Giles, Howard and Johnson, Patricia (1986). ‘Perceived threat, ethnic commitment, and interethnic language behavior’, in Kim Young Yun (ed.), Interethnic Communication: Current Research. Beverly Hills: Sage, 91–116.Find this resource:

Gili Fivela, Barbara (2008a). ‘Broad focus vs contrastive focus: Is there categorical perception in Pisa Italian?’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008. Campinas: Unicamp, 293–296.Find this resource:

Gili Fivela, Barbara (2008b). ‘Discourse structure and phrase level phenomena: The phonetics of continuation contours in topic-internal position’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008. Campinas: Unicamp, 497–500.Find this resource:

Gilliéron, Jules (1921). Pathologie et thérapeutique verbale. Paris: Champion. (p. 630) Find this resource:

Gilmour, J., Hill, B., Place, M., and Skuse, D. H. (2004). ‘Social communication deficits in conduct disorder: A clinical and community survey’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45: 967–978.Find this resource:

Giora, Rachel (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Giora, Rachel (2004). ‘On the graded salience hypothesis’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 1: 93–103.Find this resource:

Giora, Rachel (2007). ‘Is metaphor special?’, Brain & Language, 100: 111–114.Find this resource:

Giordano, Rosa (2006). ‘The intonation of polar questions in two central varieties of Italian’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden: TUDPress, paper no. 155.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1978). ‘Definiteness and referentiality’, in Joseph Greenberg, Charles Ferguson, and Edith Moravcsik (eds), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 291–330.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1993). English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (2005). Context as Other Minds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Glucksberg, Sam (2001). Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Glucksberg, Sam (2003). ‘The psycholinguistics of metaphor’, Trends in Cognitive Science, 7: 92–96.Find this resource:

Glucksberg, Sam (2004). ‘On the automaticity of pragmatic processes: A modular proposal’, in Ira Noveck and Dan Sperber (eds), Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 72–93.Find this resource:

Glucksberg, Sam and Keysar, Boas (1990). ‘Understanding metaphoric comparisons: Beyond similarity’, Psychological Review, 97: 3–18.Find this resource:

Glucksberg, Sam and Keysar, Boas (1993). ‘How metaphors work’, in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edn. London: Oxford University Press, 401–424.Find this resource:

Goddard, Cliff (ed.) (2006). Ethnopragmatics: Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Goddard, Cliff and Wierzbicka, Anna (1997). ‘Discourse and culture’, in T. A. Van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage.Find this resource:

Goffman, Erving (1963). Behavior in Public Places. New York: Free Press.Find this resource:

Goffman, Erving (1967a). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.Find this resource:

Goffman, Erving (1967b). ‘The nature of deference and demeanor’, in E. Goffman (ed.), Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books, 47–95.Find this resource:

Goffman, Erving (1971). Relations in Public: Micro Studies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.Find this resource:

Goffman, Erving (1972). Interaction Ritual. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Find this resource:

Goffman, Erving (1978). ‘Response cries’, Language, 54: 787–815.Find this resource:

Goffman, Erving (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Find this resource:

Goffman, Erving (1986). Frame Analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Find this resource:

Golato, Andrea (2003). ‘Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk’, Applied Linguistics, 24(1): 90–121.Find this resource:

Golato, Andrea, and Fagyal, Zsuzsanna (2006). ‘Two contours, two meanings: The intonation of jaja in German phone conversations’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden: TUDPress, paper no. 228.Find this resource:

Gold, Rinat, Faust, Miriam, and Goldstein, Abraham (2010). ‘Semantic integration during metaphor comprehension in Asperger syndrome’, Brain & Language, 113: 124–134. (p. 631) Find this resource:

Gollrad, Anja, Sommerfeld, Esther, and Kügler, Frank (2010). ‘Prosodic cue weighting in disambiguation: Case ambiguity in German’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 165.Find this resource:

Gomez, Juan Carlos (1990). ‘The emergence of intentional communication as a problem-solving strategy in the gorilla’, in S. T. Parker and K. R. Gibson (eds), ‘Language’ and Intelligence in Monkeys and Apes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 333–450.Find this resource:

Goodwin, Charles (1994). ‘Professional vision’, American Anthropologist, 96(3): 606–633.Find this resource:

Goodwin, Charles (1996). ‘Transparent vision’, in Eleanor Ochs, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 370–404.Find this resource:

Goodwin, Charles and Duranti, Alessandro (1992). ‘Rethinking context: An introduction’, in A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–42.Find this resource:

Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1991). He-Said, She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Find this resource:

Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (2006). The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Goody, Esther (1995). Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gordon, David P. and Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. (1984). ‘The structure of children’s requests’, in R. L. Schiefelbusch and J. Pickar (eds), The Acquisition of Communicative Competence. Baltimore: University Park Press, 295–322.Find this resource:

Gordon, David P. and Lakoff, George (1971). ‘Conversational postulates’. Paper presented to the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Find this resource:

Gordon, Peter C., Grosz, Barbara J., and Gillion, Laura A. (1993). ‘Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse’, Cognitive Science, 3(17): 311–347.Find this resource:

Gouldthorp, Bethanie and Coney, Jeffrey (2011). ‘Integration and coarse coding: Right-hemisphere processing of message-level contextual information’, Laterality, 16(1): 1–23.Find this resource:

Grabe, Esther (2004). ‘Intonational variation in urban dialects of English spoken in the British Isles’, in P. Gilles and J. Peters (eds), Regional Variation in Intonation (Linguistische Arbeiten). Tübingen, Niemeyer, 9–31.Find this resource:

Grabe, Esther, Gussenhoven, Carlos, Haan, Judith, Marsi, Erwin, and Post, Brechte (1997). ‘The meaning of intonation phrase onsets in Dutch’, in A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou, and G. Carayiannis (eds), Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications. Proceedings of an ESCA Workshop, September 18–20, 1997, Athens. European Speech Communication Association, 161–164.Find this resource:

Grabiaś, Stanisław (1981). O ekspresywności języka. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Lubelskie.Find this resource:

Gràcia, Lluïsa and Turón, Lídia (2000). ‘On appreciative suffixes’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 47: 231–247.Find this resource:

Graesser, Arthur C., Singer, Murray, and Trabasso, Tom (1994). ‘Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension’, Psychological Review, 101(3): 371–395.Find this resource:

Grafen, Alan (1990). ‘Biological signals as handicaps’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 114: 517–546.Find this resource:

Gramsci, Antonio (1992–1996). Prison Notebooks, I–II, ed. and trans. Joseph A. Buttigieg and Antonio Callari. New York: Columbia University Press. (1st edn 1928.)Find this resource:

Grandi, Nicola (2002). Morfologie in contatto: Le costruzioni valutative nelle lingue del Mediterraneo. Milano: Franco Angeli. (p. 632) Find this resource:

Grandi, Nicola (2011). ‘Renewal and innovation in the emergence of Indo-European evaluative morphology’, Diminutives and Augmentatives in the Languages of the World, Lexis E-Journal in English Lexicology, 6: 5–25.Find this resource:

Grassmann, Susanne, Stracke, Marén, and Tomasello, Michael (2009). ‘Two-year-olds exclude novel objects as potential referents of novel words based on pragmatics’, Cognition, 112: 488–493.Find this resource:

Gravano, Agustin and Hirschberg, Julia (2011). ‘Turn-taking cues in task-oriented dialogue’, Computer Speech and Language, 25(3): 601–634.Find this resource:

Grawunder, Sven and Winter, Bodo (2010). ‘Acoustic correlates of politeness: Prosodic and voice quality measures in polite and informal speech of Korean and German speakers’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 316.Find this resource:

Green, Mitchell (1998). ‘Direct reference and implicature’, Philosophical Studies, 91: 61–90.Find this resource:

Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Cann, Ronnie, and Kempson, Ruth (2013). ‘On coordination in dialogue: Subsentential talk and its implications’, in Laurence Goldstein (ed.), Brevity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 53–73.Find this resource:

Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Kempson, Ruth, Purver, Matthew, Mills, Gregory, Cann, Ronnie, Meyer-Viol, Wilfried, and Healey, Patrick (2011). ‘Incrementality and intention recognition in utterance process’, Dialogue and Discourse, 2: 199–233.Find this resource:

Greif, Markus (2010). ‘Contrastive focus in Mandarin Chinese’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 836.Find this resource:

Grice, Herbert Paul (1957). ‘Meaning’, Philosophical Review, 66: 377–388. Reprinted 1989 in Herbert Paul Grice, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 213–223.Find this resource:

Grice, Herbert Paul (1961). ‘The causal theory of perception’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supp. vol. 35: 121–152.Find this resource:

Grice, Herbert Paul (1967). ‘Logic and conversation’, William James Lectures, Harvard. Published 1989 in Herbert Paul Grice, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1–143.Find this resource:

Grice, Herbert Paul (1973). ‘Probability, defeasibility and mood operators’. Paper delivered at the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions, and Implicatures, Austin, TX.Find this resource:

Grice, Herbert Paul (1975). ‘Logic and conversation’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41–58. Reprinted 1989 in Herbert Paul Grice, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 22–40.Find this resource:

Grice, Herbert Paul (1989a). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Grice, Herbert Paul (1989b [1975]). ‘Logic and conversation: The William James lectures’, in Herbert Paul Grice (ed.), Studies in the Way of Words, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 22–40.Find this resource:

Grimshaw, Jane (1997). ‘Projection, heads, and optimality’, Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 373–422.Find this resource:

Grodner, Daniel, Klein, Natalie, Carbary, Kathleen, and Tanenhaus, Michael (2007). ‘Experimental evidence for rapid interpretation of pragmatic some’. Paper presented at XPRAG, Berlin.Find this resource:

Grodner, Daniel, Klein, Natalie, Carbary, Kathleen, and Tanenhaus, Michael (2008). ‘Experimental evidence for rapid interpretation of pragmatic some’. Talk presented at the Twenty-First Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (p. 633) Find this resource:

Grodner, Daniel, Klein, Natalie, Carbary, Kathleen, and Tanenhaus, Michael (2010). ‘ “Some”, and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment’, Cognition, 116: 42–55.Find this resource:

Grodzinsky, Yosef (2000). ‘The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca’s area’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23: 1–71.Find this resource:

Grodzinsky, Yosef and Santi, Andrea (2008). ‘The battle for Broca’s region’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(12): 474–480.Find this resource:

Groenendijk, Jeroen and Stokhof, Martin (1991). ‘Dynamic predicate logic’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 14: 39–100.Find this resource:

Grosjean, Francois, Grosjean, Lysiane, and Lane, Harlan (1979). ‘The patterns of silence: Performance structures in sentence production’, Cognitive Psychology, 11: 58–81.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara (1977). ‘The representation and use of focus in dialogue understanding’. PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley (Technical Report 151, SRI International, Menlo Park).Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara and Hirschberg, Julia (1992). ‘Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure’, in Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Banff. Edmonton, Canada: Personal Publishing, 429–432.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara, Joshi, Aravind K., and Weinstein, Scott (1983). ‘Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse’, in Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 44–50.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara, Joshi, Aravind K., and Weinstein, Scott (1995). ‘Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse’, Computational Linguistics, 21(2): 203–225.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara, and Sidner, Candace L. (1986). ‘Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse’, Computational Linguistics, 12(3): 175–204.Find this resource:

Grundy, Peter (1995). Doing Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Find this resource:

Grundy, Peter (2008). Doing Pragmatics, 3rd edn. London: Hodder Education.Find this resource:

Gryllia, Stella and Kügler, Frank (2010). ‘What does prosody tell us about relative clause attachments in German?’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 927.Find this resource:

Gu, Yueguo (1990). ‘Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese’, Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 237–257.Find this resource:

Gudeman, Stephen (2009). Economic Persuasions. Oxford: Berghahn.Find this resource:

Gudykunst, William B. and Mody, Bella (2002). Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 259–275.Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. (1982a). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. (1982b). Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. (1992a). ‘Contextualization and understanding’, in A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229–252.Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. (1992b). ‘Contextualization revisited’, in Peter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio (eds), The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 35–55.Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. (1996). ‘The linguistic and cultural relativity of conversational inference’, in J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 374–406. (p. 634) Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. (2001). ‘Contextualization and ideology in intercultural communication’, in A. Di Luzio, S. Günther, and F. Orletti (eds), Culture in Communication: Analyses of Intercultural Situations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 35–53.Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. (2003). ‘Response essay’, in S. Eerdmans et al. (eds), Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 105–126.Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. and Blom, Jan-Petter (1986). ‘Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code switching in Northern Norway’, in J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 407–434. (Originally published New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972.)Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. and Hymes, Dell (eds) (1964). ‘The ethnography of communication’, American Anthropologist, 66(6): Part 2.Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. and Hymes, Dell (eds) (1986). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Originally published New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972.)Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J., Jupp, T. C., and Roberts, Celia (1987). Crosstalk—A Study of Cross-Cultural Communication: Background Material and Notes to Accompany the BBC Film. London: National Centre for Industrial Language Training.Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. and Levinson, Stephen C. (eds) (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. and Roberts, Celia (1991). ‘Understanding in intercultural encounters’, in Jan Blommaert and Jef Verschueren (eds), The Pragmatics of International and Intercultural Communication: Selected Papers from the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 1987, vol. 3: The Pragmatics of International and Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 51–90.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (1978). ‘Stress, pronominalization, and the given–new distinction’, University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics, 10(2): 1–13.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. and Fretheim, Thorstein (2004). ‘Topic and focus’, in Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 175–196.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, and Zacharski, Ron (1990). ‘Givenness, implicature, and the form of referring expressions in discourse’, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 16: 442–453.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, and Zacharski, Ron (1993). ‘Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse’, Language, 69(2): 274–307.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, and Zacharski, Ron (2001). ‘Definite descriptions and cognitive status in English: Why accommodation is unnecessary’, English Language and Linguistics, 5: 273–295.Find this resource:

Gussenhoven, Carlos (1983). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Find this resource:

Gussenhoven, Carlos (2005). ‘Transcription of Dutch intonation’, in S.-A. Jun (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 118–145.Find this resource:

Gussenhoven, Carlos and Rietveld, Toni (1997). ‘Empirical evidence for the contrast between L* and H* in Dutch rising contours’, in A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou, and G. Carayiannis (eds), Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications. Proceedings of an ESCA Workshop, September 18–20, 1997, Athens. European Speech Communication Association, 8–20.Find this resource:

Haberland, Hartmut and Mey, Jacob (1977). ‘Editorial: Linguistics and pragmatics’, Journal of Pragmatics, 1: 1–12.Find this resource:

Habermas, Jürgen (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. Toronto: Beacon Press. (p. 635) Find this resource:

Habermas, Jürgen (1984–1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Thomas McCarthy, 2 vols. Cambridge: Polity Press. (Originally published in German as Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1981.)Find this resource:

Habermas, Jürgen (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (German original 1962.)Find this resource:

Hagoort, Peter, Baggio, Giosuè, and Willems, Roel M. (2009). ‘Semantic unification’, in Michael S. Gazzaniga (ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences, 4th edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 819–836.Find this resource:

Hagoort, Peter and Berkum, Jos van (2007). ‘Beyond the sentence given’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362: 801–811.Find this resource:

Hajicova, Eva, Kubon, Petr, and Kubon, Vladislav (1990). ‘Hierarchy of salience and discourse analysis and production’, in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Helsinki. International Committee on Computational Linguistics, 144–148.Find this resource:

Hall, Alison (2007). ‘Do discourse connectives encode concepts or procedures?’, Lingua, 117: 149–174.Find this resource:

Hall, Kira and Bucholtz, Mary (2010). ‘Epilogue: Facing identity’, Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1): 123–132.Find this resource:

Hall, Robert A., Jr (1978). ‘Review of Pizzorusso 1975’, Language, 54: 761–762.Find this resource:

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1967a). Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.Find this resource:

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1967b). ‘Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2’, Journal of Linguistics, 3: 199–244.Find this resource:

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Find this resource:

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1989). ‘Context of situation’, in M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan (eds), Language, Context and Text. London: Edward Arnold, 3–14. (1st edn 1985.)Find this resource:

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1994). Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Find this resource:

Halliday, Michael A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Hamblin, C. L. (1971). ‘Mathematical models of dialogue’, Theoria, 37: 130–155.Find this resource:

Hamblin, Jennifer and Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (2003). ‘Processing the meanings of what speakers say and implicate’, Discourse Processes, 35: 59–80.Find this resource:

Hamo, Michael and Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (2007). ‘Apprenticeship in conversation and culture: Emerging sociability in preschool peer talk’, in J. Valsiner and A. Rosa (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Socialcultural Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 423–443.Find this resource:

Hanks, William F. (1990). Referential Practice, Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Find this resource:

Hanks, William F. (1996). ‘Language form and communicative practices’, in J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 232–270.Find this resource:

Hanks, William F. (2005). ‘Explorations in the deictic field’, Current Anthropology, 46(2): 191–220.Find this resource:

Hanks, William F. (2006a). ‘Communicative context’, in J. L. Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, 115–128.Find this resource:

Hanks, William F. (2006b). ‘Spatial frames of reference in language and thought’, Language in Society, 35(2): 285–296. (p. 636) Find this resource:

Hanks, William F. (2010). Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. Berkeley: University of California Press.Find this resource:

Hanks, William F., Ide, Sachiko, and Katagiri, Yasuhiro (eds) (2009). Towards an Emancipatory Pragmatics. Special Issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 41(1).Find this resource:

Hanssen, Judith, Peters, Jörg, and Gussenhoven, Carlos (2008). ‘Prosodic effects of focus in Dutch declaratives’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008. Campinas: Unicamp, 609–612.Find this resource:

Hara, Yurie and Kawahara, Shigeto (2008). ‘Deaccenting, MAXIMIZE PRESUPPOSITION and evidential scale’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008. Campinas: Unicamp, 509–512.Find this resource:

Harada, S. I. (1976). ‘Honorifics’, in Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Japanese Generative Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 499–561.Find this resource:

Hardman, M. J. (1981). The Aymara Language in its Social and Cultural Context: A Collection of Essays on Aspects of Aymara Language and Culture. Gainesville, FL: University Presses of Florida.Find this resource:

Hare, Richard M. (1952). The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Find this resource:

Harris, Zellig S. (1951). Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Harris, Zellig S. (1952). ‘Discourse analysis’, Language, 28(1): 1–30.Find this resource:

Hasler-Barker, Maria (2013). ‘Effects of pedagogical intervention on the production of the compliment–compliment response sequence by second language learners of Spanish’. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Find this resource:

Hasler-Barker, Maria (2016). ‘Effects of metapragmatic instruction on the production of compliments and compliment responses: Learner–learner role-plays in the foreign language (FL) classroom’, in Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig and J. César Félix-Brasdefer (eds), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 14. Honolulu, HI: University of Manoa at Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin (1993). A Grammar of Lezgian (Mouton Grammar Library 9). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin (1999). ‘Explaining article-possessor complementarity: Economic motivation in noun phrase syntax’, Language, 75: 227–243.Find this resource:

Hassall, Tim (2003). ‘Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian’, Journal of Pragmatics, 35(12): 1903–1928.Find this resource:

Haugh, Michael (2007). ‘The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative’, Journal of Politeness Research, 3(2): 295–317.Find this resource:

Haugh, Michael (2010). ‘When is an email really offensive? Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness’, Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1): 7–31.Find this resource:

Haugh, Michael (2015). Im/politeness Implicatures. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Find this resource:

Hauser, Marc D. (1996). The Evolution of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam, and Fitch, W. Tecumseh (2002). ‘The language faculty: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?’, Science, 298: 1569–1579. Reprinted 2010 in R. Larson, V. Déprez, and H. Yamakido (eds), The Evolution of Human Language: Biolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14–42.Find this resource:

Haviland, John B. (1987). ‘Fighting words: Evidential particles, affect and argument’, in Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 13: General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 343–354.Find this resource:

Haviland, John B. (1997). ‘Shouts, shrieks, and shots: Unruly political conversations in indigenous Chiapas’, Conflict and Violence in Pragmatic Research, ed. Charles Briggs, Special Issue of Pragmatics, 7(4): 547–573. (p. 637) Find this resource:

Haviland, John B. (2005). ‘ “Whorish old man” and “one (animal) gentleman”: The intertextual construction of enemies and selves’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1): 81–94.Find this resource:

Haviland, John B. (2010). ‘Mu Xa Xtak’av: “He doesn’t answer”’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 20(1): 195–213.Find this resource:

Haviland, John B. (2011). ‘Who asked you, condom head?’, Anthropological Quarterly, 84(1): 235–264.Find this resource:

Haviland, Susan and Clark, Herbert H. (1974). ‘What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process of comprehension’, Journal of Verbal Language and Verbal Behavior, 13: 512–521.Find this resource:

Hayano, Kaoru (2013). ‘Territories of knowledge in Japanese conversation’. PhD dissertation, Max Planck Institute for Psycholingusitics, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.Find this resource:

Hayashi, Makoto and Mori, Junko (1998). ‘Co-construction in Japanese revisited: We do “finish each other’s sentences”’, in N. Akatsuka, H. Hoji, S. Iwasaki, S.-O. Sohn, and S. Strauss (eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 7. Stanford: CSLI, 77–93.Find this resource:

Hedberg, Nancy, Sosa, Juan M., Görgülü, Emrah, and Mameni, Morgan (2010). ‘The prosody and meaning of wh-questions in American English’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, paper no. 045.Find this resource:

Hedley, Paul (2007). ‘Anaphora, relevance and the conceptual/procedural distinction’. DPhil dissertation, University of Oxford.Find this resource:

Heeman, Peter, Yang, Fan, and Strayer, Susan (2002). ‘DialogueView: An annotation tool for dialogue’, in Proceedings of the 3rd SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Philadelphia. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 50–59.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1982). ‘The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases’. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1983). ‘File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness’, in Rainer Bauerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 164–189.Find this resource:

Heinemann, Trine (2006). ‘ “Will you or can’t you?” Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests’, Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 1081–1104.Find this resource:

Helland, Wenche Andersen, Biringer, Eva, Helland, Turid, and Heimann, Mikael (2012). ‘Exploring language profiles for children with ADHD and children with Asperger syndrome’, Journal of Attention Disorders, 16: 34–43.Find this resource:

Hellmuth, Sam (2006). ‘Focus-related pitch range manipulation (and peak alignment effects) in Egyptian Arabic’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden: TUDPress, paper no. 164.Find this resource:

Hemforth, Barbara (1993). Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens. St. Augustin, Germany: Infix Verlag.Find this resource:

Hendriks, Petra (2004). Optimization in Focus Identification, Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Hendriks, Petra and Hoop, Helen de (2001). ‘Optimality-theoretic semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 24: 1–32.Find this resource:

Hendriks, Petra and Spenader, Jennifer (2005/2006). ‘When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns’, Language Acquisition, 13(4): 319–348.Find this resource:

Hendriks, Petra, Rijn, Hedderik van, and Valkenier, Bea (2007). ‘Learning to reason about speakers’ alternatives in sentence comprehension: A computational account’, Lingua, 117: 1879–1896. (p. 638) Find this resource:

Hendriks, Petra, Hoop, Helen de, Krämer, Irene, Swart, Henriëtte de, and Zwarts, Joost (2010). Conflicts in Interpretation. London: Equinox Publishing.Find this resource:

Henst, Jean-Baptiste van der, Carles, Laure, and Sperber, Dan (2002). ‘Truthfulness and relevance in telling the time’, Mind & Language, 17: 457–466.Find this resource:

Heritage, John (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Find this resource:

Heritage, John (2012). ‘Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45: 1–29.Find this resource:

Heritage, John (2013). ‘Epistemics in conversation’, in T. Stivers and J. Sidnell (eds), Handbook of Conversation Analysis. London: Wiley/Blackwell, 370–394.Find this resource:

Heritage, John and Raymond, Geoffrey (2005). ‘The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 68: 15–38.Find this resource:

Herment, Sophie, and Leonarduzzi, Laetitia (2012). ‘The pragmatic functions of prosody in English cleft sentences’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2012. Shanghai: Tongji University Press, 713–716.Find this resource:

Heusinger, Klaus von and Turner, Ken (2006). ‘(By way of an) introduction: A first dialogue on the semantics–pragmatics interface’, in K. von Heusinger and K. Turner (eds), Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier, 1–18.Find this resource:

Heymans, Ernst and Mey, Abram (1946). Mensch en Samenleving [Man and Society in Dutch], 3 vols. Utrecht: De Haan.Find this resource:

Hickey, Leo and Stewart, Miranda (eds) (2005). Politeness in Europe. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Find this resource:

Hickok, Gregory (2009). ‘The functional neuroanatomy of language’, Physics of Life Reviews, 6(3): 121–143.Find this resource:

Hickok, Gregory and Poeppel, David (2004). ‘Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language’, Cognition, 92(1–2): 67–99.Find this resource:

Hickok, Gregory and Poeppel, David (2007). ‘The cortical organization of speech processing’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(5): 393–402.Find this resource:

Higgins, Christina (ed.) (2007). A Closer Look at Cultural Differences: ‘Interculturality’ in Talk-in-Interaction, Special Issue of Pragmatics, 17. International Pragmatics Association.Find this resource:

Hillert, Dieter G. (2008). ‘On idioms: Cornerstones for a neurological model of language processing’, Journal of Cognitive Science, 9: 193–233.Find this resource:

Himmelmann, Nikolaus (1996). ‘Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses’, in B. Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 206–254.Find this resource:

Hinde, Robert A. (1972). Non-verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Hinnenkamp, Volker (1995). ‘Intercultural communication’, in J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, and C. Bulcaen (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–20.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia (1991). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. New York: Garland Press. (PhD thesis 1985. Also available as MS-CIS-85-56 from the Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.)Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia (2004). ‘Pragmatics and intonation’, in L. R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 515–537.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia and Avesani, Cinzia (2000). ‘Prosodic disambiguation in English and Italian’, in A. Botinis (ed.), Intonation: Analysis, Modelling and Technology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 87–95. (p. 639) Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia, Benus, Stefan, Brenier, Jason M., Enos, Frank, Friedman, Sarah, Gilman, Sarah, Girand, Cynthia, Graciarena, Martin, Kathol, Andreas, Michaelis, Laura, Pellom, Bryan, Shriberg, Elizabeth, and Stolcke, Andreas (2005). ‘Distinguishing deceptive from non-deceptive speech’, in Interspeech 2005: 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Lisbon. ISCA, 1833–1836.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia and Litman, Diane (1993). ‘Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases’, Computational Linguistics, 19(3): 501–530.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia and Nakatani, Christine (1996). ‘A prosodic analysis of discourse segments in direction-giving monologues’, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Santa Cruz. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 286–293.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia and Pierrehumbert, Janet (1986). ‘The intonational structuring of discourse’, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, New York. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 136–144.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia and Prieto, Pilar (1996). ‘Training intonational phrasing rules automatically for English and Spanish text-to-speech’, Speech Communication, 18: 281–290.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia and Ward, Gregory (1991). ‘Accent and bound anaphora’, Cognitive Linguistics, 2(2): 101–121.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia and Ward, Gregory (1992). ‘The influence of pitch range, duration, amplitude, and spectral features on the interpretation of L*+H L H%’, Journal of Phonetics, 20(2): 241–251.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia and Ward, Gregory (1995). ‘The interpretation of the high-rise question contour in English’, Journal of Pragmatics, 24: 407–412.Find this resource:

Hirst, D. and Di Cristo, A. (eds) (1998). Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Hjalmarsson, Anna (2011). ‘The additive effect of turn-taking cues in human and synthetic voice’, Speech Communication, 53(1): 23–35.Find this resource:

Hjelmslev, Louis (1972). Sprogsystem og Sprogforandring (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 15). Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag.Find this resource:

Hobbs, Jerry R. (1986). ‘Overview of the TACITUS project’, Computational Linguistics, 12(3): 220–222.Find this resource:

Hobbs, Jerry R. (1990a). Literature and Cognition (CSLI Lecture Notes 21). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Find this resource:

Hobbs, Jerry R. (1990b). ‘An integrated abductive framework for discourse interpretation’, in Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Abduction, Stanford. Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press, 10–12.Find this resource:

Hobbs, Jerry R. (2004). ‘Abduction in natural language understanding’, in L. R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 724–741.Find this resource:

Hobbs, Jerry R. and Martin, Paul (1987). ‘Local pragmatics’, in John P. McDermott (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Milan: Morgan Kaufmann, 520–523.Find this resource:

Hobbs, Jerry R., Stickel, Martin, and Martin, Paul (1993). ‘Interpretation as abduction’, Artificial Intelligence, 63: 69–142.Find this resource:

Hofstadter, Douglas and Sander, Emmanuel (2013). Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York: Basic Books.Find this resource:

Hohenhaus, Peter (2004). ‘Identical constituent compounding: A corpus-based study’, Folia Linguistica, 38: 297–331. (p. 640) Find this resource:

Holck, Pernille, Sandberg, Annika Dahlgren, and Nettelbladt, Ulrika (2010). ‘Inferential ability in children with cerebral palsy, spina bifida and pragmatic language impairment’, Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31: 140–150.Find this resource:

Holenstein, Elmar (1976). Linguistik, Semiotik, Hermeneutik: Plädoyers für eine strukturale Phänomenologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Find this resource:

Holmes, Janet (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Holtgraves, Thomas (1992). ‘The linguistic realization of face management: Implications for language production and comprehension, person perception, and cross-cultural communication’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 55: 141–159.Find this resource:

Holtgraves, Thomas (2005). ‘Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and linguistic politeness’, Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1): 73–93.Find this resource:

Holtgraves, Thomas (2008). ‘Automatic intention recognition in conversation processing’, Journal of Memory and Language, 58: 627–645.Find this resource:

Holtgraves, Thomas and McNamara, Patrick (2010). ‘Pragmatic comprehension deficit in Parkinson’s disease’, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32: 388–397.Find this resource:

Hoop, Helen de (2004). ‘On the interpretation of stressed pronouns’, in Reinhard Blutner and Henk Zeevat (eds), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 25–41.Find this resource:

Hoop, Helen de and Kramer, Irene (2005/2006). ‘Children’s optimal interpretations of indefinite subjects and objects’, Language Acquisition, 13(2): 103–123.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1972). ‘On the semantic properties of logical operators in English’. PhD dissertation, University of California Los Angeles. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1978). ‘Lexical incorporation, implicature, and the least-effort hypothesis’, in D. Farkas et al. (eds), Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 196–209.Find this resource:

Horn, Lawrence R. (1984). ‘Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature’, in Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1988a). ‘Pragmatic theory’, in F. J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113–145.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1988b). ‘Morphology, pragmatics, and the un-verb’, in Joyce Powers and Kenneth de Jong (eds), ESCOL ‘88: Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics, 210–233.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reissued by Stanford: CSLI, 2001.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1991). ‘Duplex negatio affirmat …: The economy of double negation’, in Lisa M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodriguez (eds), Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: The Parasession on Negation. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 80–106.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1992a). ‘The said and the unsaid’, Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics, 40: 163–192.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1992b). ‘The said and the unsaid’, in C. Barker and D. Dowty (eds), SALT II: Proceedings from the 2nd Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 163–202. (p. 641) Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1993). ‘Economy and redundancy in a dualistic model of natural language’, in S. Shore and M. Vilkuna (eds), SKY 1993: 1993 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland. Helsinki: Linguistic Association of Finland, 33–72.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2002a). ‘Uncovering the un-word: A study in lexical pragmatics’, Sophia Linguistica, 49: 1–64.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2002b). ‘Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing’, in Papers from the 38th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: The Panels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 55–82.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2002c). ‘Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing’, in M. Andronis, E. Debenport, A. Pycha, and K. Yoshimura (eds), Proceedings from the Panels of the 38th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, vol. 38, part 2. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 55–82.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2004). ‘Implicature’, in Larry R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–28.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2005a). ‘Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(2): 191–204.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2005b). ‘An un-paper for the unsyntactician’, in S. Mufwene et al. (eds), Polymorphous Linguistics: Jim McCawley’s Legacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 329–365.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2006a). ‘The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective’, in K. von Heusinger and K. Turner (eds), Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier, 21–48.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2006b). ‘Speaker and hearer in neo-Gricean pragmatics’, Waiguoyi, 164: 2–26.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2006c). ‘More issues in neo- and post-Gricean pragmatics: A response to Robyn Carston’s response’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 3: 81–93.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2007a). ‘Neo-Gricean pragmatics: A Manichaean manifesto’, in N. Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 158–183.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2007b). ‘Toward a Fregean pragmatics: Voraussetzung, Nebengedanke, Andeutung’, in I. Kecskes and L. R. Horn (eds), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 39–69.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2008). ‘ “I love me some him”: The landscape of non-argument datives’, in O. Bonami and P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7: 169–192. Available online at <http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7>, accessed 28 April 2014.

Horn, Laurence R. (2009). ‘WJ-40: Implicature, truth, and meaning’, International Review of Pragmatics, 1: 3–34.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2010). ‘Etymythology and taboo’. Talk presented at ISLE 2 (International Society of the Linguistics of English), Boston University. Available online at <http://www.bu.edu/isle/isle-2-archive/>, accessed 28 April 2014.

Horn, Laurence R. (2012a). ‘Implying and inferring’, in K. Allan and K. M. Jaszczolt (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69–86.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2012b). ‘Implicature’, in G. Russell and D. G. Fara (eds), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. New York: Routledge, 53–66.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2012c). ‘Histoire d’*O: Lexical pragmatics and the geometry of opposition’, in J.-Y. Béziau and G. Payette (eds), New Perspectives on the Square of Opposition. Bern: Peter Lang, 393–426.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. and Abbott, Barbara (2012). ‘<the, a>: (In)definiteness and implicature’, in Joseph Keim Campbell, William Kabasenche, and Michael O’Rourke (eds), Reference and Referring (Topics in Contemporary Philosophy 10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 325–355. (p. 642) Find this resource:

Horne, Merle (1991). ‘Phonetic correlates of the new/given parameter’, in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Aix-en-Provence. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, 230–233.Find this resource:

Hörnig, Robin, Weskott, Thomas, Klieg, Reinhold, and Fanselow, Gisbert (2006). ‘Word order variation in spatial descriptions with adverbs’, Memory and Cognition, 34(5): 1183–1192.Find this resource:

Horton, William and Gerrig, Richard (2005). ‘The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production’, Cognition, 96: 127–142.Find this resource:

House, Juliane (2000). ‘Understanding misunderstanding: A pragmatic-discourse approach to analysing mismanaged rapport in talk across cultures’, in H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, 146–164.Find this resource:

House, Juliane (2003). ‘Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters’, in J. House, G. Kasper, and S. Ross (eds), Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk. London: Longman, 22–56.Find this resource:

Hout, Angeliek van (2007). ‘Optimal and non-optimal interpretations in the acquisition of Dutch past tenses’, in Alyona Belikova, Luisa Meroni, and Mari Umeda (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 159–170.Find this resource:

Hout, Angeliek van, Harrigan, Kaitlyn, and Villiers, Jill de (2010). ‘Asymmetries in the acquisition of definite and indefinite NPs’, Lingua, 120(8): 1973–1990.Find this resource:

Hovy, Edward and Maier, Elisabeth (1993). ‘Parsimonious or profligate: How many and which discourse structure relations?’, ISI Research Report, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (1991). ‘A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora’, Journal of Linguistics, 27: 301–335.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (1994/2007). The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reissued 2007.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2000a). Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2000b). ‘Discourse anaphora: Four theoretical models’, Journal of Pragmatics, 32: 151–176.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2002). ‘Logophoric marking in East Asian languages’, in T. Güldemann and M. von Roncador (eds), Reported Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 213–224.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2003). ‘On neo-Gricean pragmatics’, International Journal of Pragmatics, 13: 87–110.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2004a). ‘Anaphora and the pragmatics–syntax interface’, in L. R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 288–314.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2004b). ‘Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory: Looking back on the past; looking ahead to the future’, Waiguoyu, 149: 2–25.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2006a). ‘Neo-Gricean pragmatics’, in K. Brown (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, vol. 8, 2nd edn. New York: Elsevier Science, 586–590.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2006b). ‘Anaphora, cataphora, exophora, logophoricity’, in K. Brown (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, vol. 1, 2nd edn. New York: Elsevier Science, 231–238.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2009). ‘Neo-Gricean pragmatics and the lexicon’, International Review of Pragmatics, 1: 118–153.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2010a). ‘Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of conversational implicature’, in B. Heine and H. Narrog (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 607–631. (p. 643) Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2010b). ‘Switch-reference in Amele and logophoric verbal suffix in Gokana: A generalized neo-Gricean pragmatic analysis’, in D. F. Shu and K. Turner (eds), Contrasting Meaning in Languages of the East and West. Berlin: Peter Lang, 75–101.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2010c). ‘What is said’, in L. Cummings (ed.), The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge, 20–22.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2010d). ‘Anglo-American and European Continental traditions’, in L. Cummings (ed.), The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, 13–15.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2010e). ‘Implicature’, in L. Cummings (ed.), The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge, 234–238.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2010f). ‘Scalar implicature’, in L. Cummings (ed.), The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge, 441–444.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2011). ‘Types of inference: Entailment, presupposition, and implicature’, in W. Bublitz and N. Norrick (eds), Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 397–421.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2012a). ‘Relevance and neo-Gricean pragmatic principles’, in H.-J. Schmid (ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 25–46.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2012b). ‘Unarticulated constituents in neo-Gricean pragmatics’. Paper presented at the 1st International Pragmatics Conference of the Americas (AMPRA), University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC, October.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2013a). ‘De se attitude/brief ascription and neo-Gricean truth-conditional pragmatics’, in N. Feit and A. Capone (eds), Attitude De Se: Linguistics, Epistemology, Metaphysics. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 186–209.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2013b). ‘Logophoricity and neo-Gricean truth-conditional pragmatics’, in A. Capone, F. L. Piparo, and M. Carapezza (eds), Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Heidelberg: Springer, 217–242.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2013c). ‘Micro- and macro-pragmatics: Remapping their terrains’, International Review of Pragmatics, 5: 129–162.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2014). Pragmatics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2015a). ‘Lexical cloning in English: A neo-Gricean lexical pragmatic analysis’, Journal of Pragmatics, 86: 80–85.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2015b). ‘Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of conversational implicature’, in B. Heine and H. Narrog (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Pre