Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:56:41.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A review of Relevance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Stephen C. Levinson
Stephen C. Levinson
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , September 1989 , pp. 455 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, J. (1983). Recognizing intentions from natural language utterances. In Brady, M. & Berwick, R. (eds) Computational models of discourse. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 107–164.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. (1977). Negation, ambiguity and presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, J. (1979). How linguistics matters to philosophy: presupposition, truth and meaning. In Oh, C.-K. & Dinneen, D. (eds) Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press. 265–281.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. (1989). Philosophy without ambiguity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. & Levinson, S. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness and logical form. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 1–61.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, I. (1978). Russian thinkers. London: The Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) 1987, 10: 710–754. Sperber & Wilson: Relevance: Open Peer Commentary.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. (ed.) 1988. Mental representations: the interface between language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 155–181.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1971). The logical particles of natural language. In Bar-Hillel, Y. (ed.) Pragmatics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel. 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. (1977). Conversational relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 1. 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. & Good, D. (1982). On a notion of relevance. In Smith, N. (ed.) Mutual knowledge. New York: Academic Press. 88–100.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, M. L. (ed.) (1987). Readings in non-monotonic reasoning. Los Altos, Ca.: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Gumperz, G. (1983). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (this volume). Be going to and will: a pragmatic account. JL 25. 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, J. (1985). A theory of scalar implicature. University of Pennsylvania, Moore School of Engineering, MS-CIS-85–56.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, J. (in press). A theory of scalar implicature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. (1987). Implicature and definite reference. Stanford, CSLI Report NO. CSLI-87–99.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. & Martin, P. (1987). Local pragmatics. Proceedings, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Milan, 08 1987. 520–523.Google Scholar
Holdcroft, D. (1987). Conversational relevance. In Verschueren & Bertuccelli-Papi (1987). 477–496.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1983). Greek Grice. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 205–214.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1984). Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, form, and use in context. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 11–42.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Lg 61. 121–174.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1988). Pragmatic theory. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 113–145.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kadmon, N. (1987). On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. Unpublished PhD., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. Reprinted in Groenendijk, J. & Janssen, T. & Stokhof, M. (1984). Truth, interpretation and information. Dordrecht: Foris. 1–41.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1986). Ambiguity and the semantics–pragmatics distinction, In Travis, C. (ed.) Meaning and interpretation, Oxford: Blackwells. 77–104.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1988). Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R. & Cormack, A. (1981). Ambiguity and quantification. Linguistics & Philosophy 4. 259–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (1985). What's special about conversational inference? Unpublished paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the British Psychological Society, 04 1985, University College, Swansea.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1987a). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. JL 23. 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (1987b). Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren & Bertuccelli-Papi (1987). 61–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (1988). Generalized conversational implicature and the semantics/pragmatics interface. MS. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. & Sag, I. (in prep.) Pragmatic inference and semantic interpretation.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McCafferty, A. (1987). Reasoning about implicature. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Pereira, F. & Pollack, M. (1988). An integrated framework for semantic and pragmatic interpretation. Menlo park: SRI International, Technical Note.Google Scholar
Perrault, C. R. (1987). An application of default logic to speech act theory. To appear in Cohen, P.Morgan, J. & Pollack, M. (eds) Plans and intentions in communication and discourse. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollack, M. (1986). Inferring domain plans in question-answering. Menlo Park: SRI International, Technical Note 403.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. (1986). Remarks on the paper by Wilson and Sperber. Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory. Chicago Linguistic Society, 22, Part 2. 85–90.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. (1972). Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. (1988). The self-styling of Relevance Theory. Journal of Semantics 5. 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidner, C. (1986). Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In Grosz, B., Sparck Jones, K., Webber, B. (eds) Readings in natural language processing. Los Altos, Ca.: Morgan Kaufmann. 363–394.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1988). The indeterminacy of contextualization: when is enough enough? Paper presented to the conference ‘The contextualization of language’, 10 1988, Konstanz.Google Scholar
Smith, N. (1981). Grammaticality, time and tense. In The Psychological mechanisms of language. London: The Royal Society and the British Academy. 39–51.Google Scholar
Smith, N. (ed.) (1982). Mutual knowledge. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smith, N. & Smith, A. (1988). A relevance-theoretic account of conditionals. In Hyman, L. & Li, C. N. (eds) Language, speech and mind: Studies in honour of Victoria A. Fromkin. London and New York: Routledge. 322–352.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In Smith, N. (ed.) (1982). 61–131.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Thomason, R. (1987). Accommodation, meaning and implicatures: interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. MS, University of Pittsburgh. To appear in Cohen, P., Morgan, J., & Pollack, M. (eds) Plans and intentions in communication and discourse. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. & Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (eds) (1987). The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Sandt, R. (1988). Discourse systems and echo-quotation. MS, University of Nijmegen, Dept. of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1975). Presuppositions and non-truth-conditional semantics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1981). On Grice's theory of conversation. In Werth, P.Conversation and discourse. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1986). Pragmatics and modularity. Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory. Chicago Linguistics Society, 22, Part 2. 67–84.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least human effort. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar