Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Pragmatic Inference
  • Cited by 12
      • Show more authors
      • You may already have access via personal or institutional login
    • Select format
    • Publisher:
      Cambridge University Press
      Publication date:
      19 March 2024
      21 March 2024
      ISBN:
      9781009036672
      9781009500838
      9781009005708
      DOI:
      https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009036672
      Dimensions:
      (229 x 152 mm)
      Weight & Pages:
      0.27kg, 82 Pages
      Dimensions:
      (229 x 152 mm)
      Weight & Pages:
      0.14kg, 82 Pages
      • Subjects:
      Sociolinguistics, Language and Linguistics, Discourse Analysis, Semantics and Pragmatics
      Series:
      Elements in Pragmatics
    You may already have access via personal or institutional login
    • Selected: Digital
    Add to cart View cart Buy from Cambridge.org
    Subjects:
    Sociolinguistics, Language and Linguistics, Discourse Analysis, Semantics and Pragmatics
    Series:
    Elements in Pragmatics
    Information

    Book description

    The concept of inference is foundational to the study of pragmatics; however, the way it is theoretically conceptualised and methodologically operationalised is far from uniform. This Element investigates the role that inference plays in pragmatic models of communication, bringing together a range of scholarship that characterises inference in different ways for different purposes. It addresses the nature of 'faulty inferences', promoting the study of misunderstandings as crucial for understanding inferential processes, and looking at sociopragmatic issues such as the role of commitment, accountability and deniability of inferences in interpersonal communication. This Element highlights that the question of where the locus of meaning lies is not only relevant to pragmatic theory but is also of paramount importance for understanding and managing real-life interpersonal communication conflict.

    References

    References

    Ariel, Mira. 2002. Privileged interactional interpretations. Journal of Pragmatics 34(8): 1003–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00061-3.
    Ariel, Mira. 2016. Revisiting the typology of pragmatic interpretations. Intercultural Pragmatics 13(1): 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0001.
    Arundale, Robert B. 1999. An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics 9: 119–53. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru.
    Arundale, Robert B. 2008. Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2): 229–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.012.
    Arundale, Robert B. 2013. Conceptualizing ‘interaction’ in interpersonal pragmatics: Implications for understanding and research. Journal of Pragmatics 58: 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.009.
    Arundale, Robert B. 2020. Communicating & Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Bach, Kent 1994. Semantic slack: What is said and more. In: Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed). Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 267–291.
    Beaver, David I., Geurts, Bart and Denlinger, Kristie. 2021. Presupposition. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/presupposition/.
    Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella. 2000. Implicitness in Text and Discourse. Pisa: Edizoni ETS.
    Bianchi, Claudia. 2021. Discursive injustice: The role of uptake. Topoi 40: 181–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-020-09699-x.
    Bilmes, Jack. 1994. Constituting silence: Life in the world of total meaning. Semiotica 98(1–2): 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi-1994-981-204.
    Bonalumi, Francesca, Mahr, Johannes, Marie, Pauline and Pouscoulous, Nausicaa. 2022. Beyond the implicit/explicit dichotomy: The pragmatics of commitment, accountability, and plausible deniability. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z2bqt.
    Bonalumi, Francesca, Scott-Phillips, Thom, Tacha, Julius and Heintz, Christophe. 2020. Commitment and communication: Are we committed to what we mean, or what we say? Language and Cognition 12(2): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.2.
    Boulat, Kira. 2015. Hearer-oriented processes of strength assignment: A pragmatic model of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 29: 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.29.01bou.
    Brandom, Robert B. 1994. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Briscoe, Ted, Ann, Copestake and Alex, Lascarides. 1995 Blocking. In: Saint-Didzier, Patrick and Viegas, Evelyne (eds). Computational Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 273–302.
    Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Camp, Elisabeth. 2018. Insinuation, common ground. In: Fogal, Daniel, Harris, Daniel W. and Moss, Matt. New Work on Speech Acts. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 40–65.
    Carson, Thomas L. 2010. Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Carston, Robyn. 1988. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In: Kempson, Ruth M. (ed). Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–81.
    Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Clark, Herbert H. 1997. Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes 23(3): 567–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545003.
    Drew, Paul and Hepburn, Alexa. 2016. Absent apologies. Discourse Processes 53(1–2): 114–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056690.
    Dynel, Marta. 2016. With or without intentions: Accountability and (un)intentional humour in film talk. Journal of Pragmatics 95: 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.010.
    Elder, Chi-Hé. 2019. Negotiating what is said in the face of miscommunication. In: Stalmaszczyk, Piotr (ed). Philosophical Insights into Pragmatics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 107–26.
    Elder, Chi-Hé. 2021. Microaggression or misunderstanding? Implicatures, inferences and accountability. Journal of Pragmatics 179: 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.020.
    Elder, Chi-Hé and Beaver, David. 2022. ‘We’re running out of fuel’: When does miscommunication go unrepaired? Intercultural Pragmatics 19(5): 541–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2022-5001.
    Elder, Chi-Hé and Savva, Eleni. 2018. Incomplete conditionals and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics 138: 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.015.
    Elder, Chi-Hé and Jaszczolt, Kasia M.. Forthcoming. Towards a flexible functional proposition for dynamic discourse meaning. In: Tanaka, Hiroaki, Hata, Kaori, Yoshida, Etsuko and Yamaguchi, Masataka (eds). Towards a Dynamic Pragmatics, volume 4. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
    Elder, Chi-Hé and Haugh, Michael. 2023. Exposing and avoiding unwanted inferences in conversational interaction. Journal of Pragmatics. 218: 115–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.09.014.
    Elder, Chi-Hé and Haugh, Michael. 2018. The interactional achievement of speaker meaning: Towards a formal account of conversational inference. Intercultural Pragmatics 15(5): 593–625. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0021.
    Elliott with 2 Ts [@theelliottqueen]. 2021. Twitter, 21 January 2021. https://twitter.com/theelliottqueen/status/1352388093404303360?s=20&t=U8i7IU9yE_zfJubFsJW-8w [Accessed 7 March 2022].
    Embick, David, Benz, Johanna and Paparounas, Lefteris. 2023. Blocking effects. In: Ackema, Peter, Bendjaballah, Sabrina, Bonet, Eulàlia, and Fábregas, Antonio (eds). The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119693604.morphcom010
    Ephratt, Michal. 2011. Linguistic, paralinguistic and extralinguistic speech and silence. Journal of Pragmatics 43(9): 2286–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.006.
    Binge, EW’s. 2021. RuPaul’s Drag Race season 13. Podcast episode, April. https://open.spotify.com/episode/1OtJeoElx4zCjefR70Znz9?si=ZfnOKvd4Q5axT-s-q7A4DA&nd=1 [Accessed 7 March 2022].
    franzke, aline shakti, Bechmann, Anja, Zimmer, Michael, Ess, Charles M.. 2020. Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. The Association of Internet Researchers. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf
    Geurts, Bart. 2019. Communication as commitment sharing: Speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical Linguistics 45(1–2): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0001.
    Eleni, Gregoromichelaki, Kempson, Ruth, Purver, Matt et al. 2011. Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse 2(1): 199–233. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2011.109.
    Paul, Grice. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66 (3): 377–388. Reprinted in Grice, 1989, pp. 213–23.
    Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds). Syntax and Semantics 3. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58. Reprinted in Grice, 1989, pp. 22–40.
    Grice, Paul. 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In: Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds). Syntax and Semantics 9. New York: Academic Press, pp. 113–27. Reprinted in Grice, 1989, pp. 41–57.
    Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.
    Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Terkourafi, Marina. 2023. We need to talk about Hearer’s meaning! Journal of Pragmatics 208: 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.02.015.
    Harris, Daniel W. 2019. Intention and commitment in speech acts. Theoretical Linguistics 45(1–2): 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0004.
    Haugh, Michael. 2007. The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39(1): 84–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004.
    Haugh, Michael. 2008. The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In: Kecskes, Istvan and Mey, Jacob L. (eds). Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–85.
    Haugh, Michael. 2011. Practices and defaults in interpreting disjunction. In: Jaszczolt, Kasia M. and Allan, Keith (eds). Salience and Defaults in Utterance Processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189–226. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110270679.189.
    Haugh, Michael. 2013. Implicature, inference and cancellability. In: Capone, Alessandro, Piparo, Franco Lo and Carapezza, Marco (eds). Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. New York: Springer, pp. 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_6.
    Haugh, Michael. 2017. Prompting offers of assistance in interactions. Pragmatics and Society 8(2): 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.2.02hau.
    Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Heritage, John, Wesley Raymond, Chase and Drew, Paul. 2019. Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses. Journal of Pragmatics 142: 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.001.
    Horn, Laurence R. 2004. Implicature. In: Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (eds). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–28.
    Horn, Laurence R. 2006. The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In: von Heusinger, Klaus and Turner, Ken (eds). Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: The Michigan Papers. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 21–48.
    Hughes, Scarlett. 2008. ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’! Right TV. https://web.archive.org/web/20120403120950/http://tv.rightcelebrity.com/rupauls-drag-race/201 [Accessed 25 January 2022].
    Jacobs, Scott and Jackson, Sally. 1983. Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs 50(4): 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758309390171.
    Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2009. Cancelability and the primary/secondary meaning distinction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(3): 259–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.015.
    Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2010. Default Semantics. In: Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 193–221.
    Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2012. Context: Gricean intentions vs. two-dimensional semantics. In: Finkbeiner, Rita, Meibauer, Jorg and Schumacher, Petra B. (eds). What Is A Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 81–104.
    Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2023. Semantics, Pragmatics, and Philosophy: A Journey Through Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Jaszczolt, Kasia M., Savva, Eleni and Haugh, Michael. 2016. The individual and the social path of interpretation: The case of incomplete disjunctive questions. In: Capone, Alessandro and Mey, Jacob L. (eds). Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 251–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_9.
    Jefferson, Gail. 1987. On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In: Graham, Button and Lee, John R. E. (eds). Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 86–100.
    Jefferson, Gail. 2003. A note on resolving ambiguity. In Glenn, Phillip J., LeBaron, Curtis D. and Mandelbaum, Jenny (eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 221–40.
    Jones, Taylor. 2016. Refining ‘microaggression’: A linguistic perspective. Language Jones blog. www.languagejones.com/blog-1/2016/9/8/oi6379payz9mb4diadulndc244gq1s [Accessed 6 March 2022].
    Kahneman, Daniel and Tversky, Amos. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.
    Kulka, Rebecca. 2014. Performative force, convention, and discursive injustice. Hypatia 29(2): 440–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01316.x.
    Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 292–305.
    Langton, Rae. 1993. Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs 22(4): 293–330.
    Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    Lerner, Gene H. 2004. Collaborative turn sequences. In: Lerner, Gene H. (ed). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 225–56. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.12ler.
    Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Macagno, Fabrizio. 2023. Practical (un)cancellability. Journal of Pragmatics 215: 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.07.010.
    Mahon, James Edwin. 2016. The definition of lying and deception. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/lying-definition/.
    Mandelbaum, Jenny. 2016. Delicate matters: Embedded self-correction as a method for adjusting possibly available inapposite hearings. In Robinson, Jeffrey D. (ed.). Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0004.
    Mazzarella, Diana. 2021. ‘I didn’t mean to suggest anything like that!’: Deniability and context reconstruction. Mind & Language 218–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12377.
    Mazzarella, Diana, Reinecke, Robert, Noveck, Ira and Mercier, Hugo. 2018. Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulates commitment. Journal of Pragmatics 133: 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.009.
    Mazzone, Marco. 2018. Cognitive Pragmatics: Mindreading, Inferences, Consciousness. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    McClure, Emma and Rini, Regina. 2020. Microaggression: Conceptual and scientific issues. Philosophy Compass 15(4): e12659. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12659.
    Jörg., Meibauer 2018. The Linguistics of Lying. Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 357–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045634.
    Miss AlexisMateo, . 2021. The Queens Review (RuPauls Drag Race) season 13 Ruveal. YouTube video. https://youtu.be/Opdv7Qv9ZzM [Accessed 7 March 2022].
    Moeschler, Jacques. 2013. Is a speaker-based pragmatics possible? Or how can a hearer infer a speaker’s commitment? Journal of Pragmatics 48: 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.019.
    Morency, Patrick, Oswald, Steve and de Saussure, Louis. 2008. Explicitness, implicitness and commitment attribution: A cognitive pragmatic perspective. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.10mor.
    Shirly, Orr, Ariel, Mira and Peleg, Orna. 2017. The case of literally true propositions with false implicatures. In: Chiluwa, Innocent (ed). Deception and Deceptive Communication: Motivations, Recognition Techniques and Behavioral Control. New York: Nova Science, pp. 67–108.
    Pinker, Steven. 2007. The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(4): 437–61. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.023.
    Steven, Pinker, Nowak, Martin A. and Lee, James J.. 2008. The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(3): 833–8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707192105.
    Recanati, François. 2002. Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind & Language 17(1–2): 105–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00191.
    Recanati, François. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Reins, Louisa M. and Wiegmann, Alex. 2021. Is lying bound to commitment? Empirically investigating deceptive presuppositions, implicatures, and actions. Cognitive Science 45(2): 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12936.
    Drag Race, RuPaul’s. 2020. Meet the queens of season 13! YouTube video. https://youtu.be/ZJRlvMURe_0 [Accessed 7 March 2022].
    Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emmanuel A. and Jefferson, Gail, 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.
    Sanders, Robert E. 1987. Cognitive Foundations of Calculated Speech. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    Sanders, Robert E. 2013. The duality of speaker meaning: What makes self repair, insincerity, and sarcasm possible. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1): 112–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.020.
    Sanders, Robert E. 2015. A tale of two intentions: Intending what an utterance means and intending what an utterance achieves. Pragmatics and Society 6(4): 475–501. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.4.01san.
    Saul, Jennifer Mather. 2012. Lying, Misleading, and What Is Said: An Exploration in Philosophy of Language and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Savva, Eleni. 2017. Subsentential Speech from a Contextualist Perspective. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
    Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70: 1075-95.
    Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1981. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of uh huh and other things that come between sentences. In: Tannen, Deborah (ed). Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 71–93.
    Schegloff, Emanuel. 1997. Third turn repair. In: Guy, Gregory R., Feagin, Crawford, Schiffrin, Deborah and Baugh, John (eds). Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honour of William Labov. Volume 2: Social Interaction and Discourse Structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–40.
    Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey, Sacks. 1973. Opening up Closings. Semiotica 8: 289–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289.
    Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Sperber, Dan and Deirdre, Wilson. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind‐reading. Mind & Language 17 (1–2): 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00186
    Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 2015. Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15(44): 117–49. https://doi.org/10.5840/croatjphil20151528.
    Stanley, Jason. 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005599312747.
    Stanley, Jason and Gendler Szabó, Zoltán. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15(2–3): 219–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00130.
    Sternau, Marit, Ariel, Mira, Giora, Rachel and Fein, Ofer. 2015. Levels of interpretation: New tools for characterizing intended meanings. Journal of Pragmatics 84: 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.002.
    Sternau, Marit, Ariel, Mira, Giora, Rachel and Fein, Ofer. 2017. Deniability and explicatures. In: Giora, Rachel and Haugh, Michael (eds). Doing Intercultural Pragmatics: Cognitive, Linguistic, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives on Language Use. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 97–120.
    Stokke, Andreas. 2013. Lying, deceiving, and misleading. Philosophy Compass 8(4): 348–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12022.
    Stokke, Andreas. 2018. Lying and Insincerity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Sue, Derald Wing. 2010. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
    Terkourafi, Marina. 2014. The importance of being indirect: A new nomenclature for indirect speech. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 28: 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.28.03ter.
    Terkourafi, Marina. 2021. Inference and implicature. In Haugh, Michael, Kádár, Dániel Z., Terkourafi, Marina (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 30–47.
    Townsend, Leanne and Wallace, Claire. 2016. Social media research: A guide to ethics. www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_487729_en.pdf [Accessed 7 March 2022].
    Viebahn, Emanuel. 2021. The lying-misleading distinction: A commitment-based approach. The Journal of Philosophy 118(6): 289–319. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2021118621.
    Weissman, Benjamin and Terkourafi, Marina. 2018. Are false implicatures lies? An empirical investigation. Mind & Language 34(2): 221–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12212.
    Wiegmann, Alex, Willemsen, Pascale and Meibauer, Jörg. 2021. Lying, deceptive implicatures, and commitment. Ergo 8(50): 709–40. https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.2251.
    Williams, Bernard. 2002. Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    Wilson, Deirdre. 2018. Relevance theory and literary interpretation. In: Cave, Terence and Wilson, Deirdre (eds). Reading beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794776.003.0011.
    Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111(443): 583–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583.
    Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance Theory. In: Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (eds). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 607-632.
    Wilson, Deirdre and Carston, Robyn. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language 21(3): 404–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x.
    Yuan, Wen and Lyu, Siqi. 2022. Speech act matters: Commitment to what’s said or what’s implicated differs in the case of assertion and promise. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 128–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.012.

    Metrics

    Altmetric attention score

    Full text views

    Total number of HTML views: 0
    Total number of PDF views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    Book summary page views

    Total views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    * Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

    Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

    Accessibility standard: Unknown

    Why this information is here

    This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

    Accessibility Information

    Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.