The definition of WHAT-d'you-call-it: Semantics and pragmatics of recognitional deixis

Journal of Pragmatics

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 101-117

  Enfield, N J ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Common ground; Convention; Deixis; Interaction; Lao; Semantics pragmatics interface

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037210151     PISSN: 03782166     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00066-8     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Anderson, Stephen R., Keenan, Edward L., 1985. In: Shopen, Timothy (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 259-308.
2. CED, 1979. Collins Dictionary of the English Language. Collins, Sydney/Auckland/Glasgow.
3. Clark, Herbert H., 1996a. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. Clark, Herbert H., 1996b. Communities, commonalities, and communication. In: Gumperz, John J., Levinson, Stephen C. (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 324-355.
5. Enfield, N.J., 1999a. On the indispensibility of semantics: defining the 'vacuous'. Rask 9/10, 285-304.
6. Enfield, N. J. 1999b. Lao as a national language. In Evans (Ed.), Laos: Culture and Society, pp. 258-290.
7. Enfield, N.J., 2000. The theory of cultural logic: how individuals combine social intelligence with semiotics to create and maintain cultural meaning. Cultural Dynamics 12 (1), 35-64.
8. Enfield, N.J., 2002. Semantic analysis of body parts in emotion terminology: avoiding the exoticisms of 'obstinate monosemy' and 'online extension'. Pragmatics and Cognition 10 (1/2), 81-102.
9. Enfield, N. J., in press. Nominal classification in Lao: a sketch. In Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung.
10. Evans, Grant, 1998. The Politics of Ritual and Remembrance: Laos Since 1975. Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai.
11. Evans, Grant. (Ed.), 1999. Laos: Culture and Society. Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai.
12. Goddard, Cliff, 1998. Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: a taxonomy of universal uses. In: Fox, Barbara (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 205-254.
14. Keysar, Boaz, Bly, Bridget Martin, 1999. Swimming against the current: do idioms reflect conceptual structure? Journal of Pragmatics 31, 1559-1578.
15. Lakoff, George, 1974. Syntactic amalgams. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 321-344.
16. Levinson, Stephen C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. Levinson, Stephen C., 1995. Interactional biases in human thinking. In: Goody, Esther (Ed.), Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 221-260.
18. Lyons, John., 1977. Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19. Nicolle, Steve, 1998. A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1), 1-35.
20. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff., Emanuel, 1979. Two preferences in the organisation of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In: Psathas, Gerorge (Ed.), Everyday Language. Irvington, New York, pp. 15-21.
21. Wilkins, David P., 1992. Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 119-158.