Phatic communication and Relevance Theory: A reply to Žegarac & Clark

Journal of Linguistics

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 555-564

  Ward, Gregory ^a   Horn, Laurence R ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937181984     PISSN: 00222267     EISSN: 14697742     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0022226799007690     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bach, K. (1975). Performatives are statements too. Philosophical Studies 28. 229-36.
2. Bach, K. & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
3. Birner, B. (1996). The discourse function of inversion in English. New York: Garland.
4. Birner, B. & Ward, G. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
5. Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretical semantics. In Kempson, R. (ed.), Mental representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 155-181.
7. Carston, R. (1995). Quantity maxims and generalized implicature. Lingua 96. 213-244.
8. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: the flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Clark, H. & Marshall, C. (1981) Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A., Webber, B. & Sag, I. (eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10-63.
11. Crystal, D. (1991). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. (3rd edn.) Oxford: Blackwell.
12. Fox, B. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Grice, H. P. (1967). William James Lectures on Logic and Conversation, Harvard University. [Published in Grice (1989).]
14. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Grosz, B. & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12. 175-204.
16. Hirschberg, J. (1991). A theory of scalar implicature. New York: Garland.
17. Horn, L. (1992). The said and the unsaid. Proceedings of SALT II. 163-192.
18. Laver, J. (1974) Semiotic aspects of spoken communication. London: Edward Arnold.
19. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Levinson, S. (1987). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 23. 379-434.
21. Morgan, J. L. (1978). Two types of convention in natural language. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 261-280.
22. Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG Letter: subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In
23. Thompson, S. & Mann, W. (eds.), Discourse description : diverse analyses of a fundraising text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 295-325.
24. Re!canati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind & Language 4. 295-329
25. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
27. Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 59-82.
28. Smith, N. (ed.) (1982). Mutual knowledge. London: Academic Press.
29. Webber, B. L. (1979). A formal approach to discourse anaphora. New York: Garland Press.
30. Zegarac, V. & Clark, B. (1999). A cognitive account of phatic communication. Journal of Linguistics 35. 321-346.