Emotive misunderstanding within an extended relevance theory

References

Arndt, Horst & Richard W. Janney, 1987. InterGrammar: Toward an integrative model of verbal, prosodic and kinesic choices in speech. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110872910Search in Google Scholar

Arndt, Horst & Richard W. Janney. 1991. Verbal, prosodic, and kinesic emotive contrasts in speech. Journal of Pragmatics 15. 521–549.10.1016/0378-2166(91)90110-JSearch in Google Scholar

Bally, Charles. 1909. Traité de stylistique francaise. Heidelberg: Winter.Search in Google Scholar

Caffi, Claudia & Richard W. Janney. 1994. Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics 22(3–4). 325–373.10.1016/0378-2166(94)90115-5Search in Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn. 2009. Explicit/implicit distinction. In L. Cummings (ed.), The pragmatics encyclopedia, 154–162. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1980. Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition 8(2). 149–156.10.3758/BF03213418Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. & Markus Tendahl. 2006. Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language 21(3). 379–403.10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00283.xSearch in Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8(3). 183–206.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183Search in Google Scholar

Gutt, Ernst-August. 1989. Translation and relevance. Doctoral dissertation, University of London.Search in Google Scholar

Gutt, Ernst-August. 1996. Implicit information in literary translation: A relevance- theoretic perspective. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 8(2). 239–256.10.1075/target.8.2.03gutSearch in Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2000. A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 32(5). 605–625.ess.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00063-6Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2007. Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In I. Kecskes & L. R. Horn (eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, vol. 1. 191–218. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1(1). 50–73.10.1075/ps.1.1.04kecSearch in Google Scholar

Keysar, Boaz. 2007. Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(1). 71–84.10.1515/IP.2007.004Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1984. Intensity. In D. Schriffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, 43–70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton. 2010. What we hide in words: Emotive words and persuasive definitions. Journal of Pragmatics 42(7). 1997–2013.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.003Search in Google Scholar

Marty, Anton. 1908. Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie. Kant-Studien 13(1–3). 457–460.10.1515/kant-1908-0181Search in Google Scholar

Moeschler, Jacques. 2004. Intercultural pragmatics: A cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1). 49–70.10.1515/iprg.2004.007Search in Google Scholar

Moeschler, Jacques. 2007. The role of explicature in intercultural communication. In I. Kecskes & L. R. Horn (eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, 73–94. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Moeschler, Jacques. 2009. Pragmatics, propositional and non-propositional effects: Can a theory of utterance interpretation account for emotions in verbal communication? Social Science Information 48(3). 447–464.10.1177/0539018409106200Search in Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward. 1927. Speech as a personality trait. The American Journal of Sociology 32. 892–905.10.1086/214279Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind and Language 17. 3–23. (Special issue: Pragmatics and cognitive science).10.1111/1468-0017.00186Search in Google Scholar

Stankiewicz, Edward., et al. 1964. Problems of emotive language. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Approaches to semiotics, 239–264. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Vandergriff, Ilona. 2013. Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues. Journal of Pragmatics 51. 1–12.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.008Search in Google Scholar

Wharton, Tim. 2016. That bloody so-and-so has retired: Expressives revisited. Lingua 175. 20–35.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.004Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In L.R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Ran, Yongping. 2012. The metapragmatic negation as a rapport-oriented mitigating device. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1). 98–111.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.012Search in Google Scholar

Yus, Francisco. 2015. Should relevance theory analyze what is non-propositional, non-intentional but affects the eventual relevance? Paper delivered at Relevance Round Table Meeting 4. Kraków: Institute of English Studies, Jagiellonian University of Kraków, September.Search in Google Scholar

Yus, Francisco. 2018. Attaching feelings and emotions to propositions. Some insights on irony and internet communication. Russian Journal of Linguistics 22(1). 94–107.10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-1-94-107Search in Google Scholar