Welcome to Francis Academic Press

Frontiers in Educational Research, 2021, 4(10); doi: 10.25236/FER.2021.041009.

A Bibliometric Research on International Pragmatic Inference based on Web of Science


Xiaochun Li1,2

Corresponding Author:
Xiaochun Li

1College of International Studies, Southwest University, Beibei District, Chongqing, China, 400715;

2Department of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, Yangtze Normal University, Fuling District, Chongqing, China, 408100


With the help of the bibliometric software CiteSpace, this paper combs and analyzes the pragmatic inference research in the core periodicals retrieved in core collection of Web of Science from 1977 to 2018. Co-author network, the keywords co-occurrence network and co-citation network in the field of international pragmatic research were displayed in the form of knowledge map, for the purpose of detecting research hotspots and trends in this field. The results reveal that: 1) International research on pragmatic inference has been steadily increasing for over forty years and keeps vigorous. 2) Researchers combine theoretical research and empirical research and pay special attention to adult’s utterance, children’s utterance as well as patients’ utterance. 3) The interdisciplinary phenomenon is quite obvious. Issues on linguistics, pragmatics, philosophy, psychology and pedagogy are involved in. 


Pragmatic inference, Bibliometrics, CiteSpace

Cite This Paper

Xiaochun Li. A Bibliometric Research on International Pragmatic Inference based on Web of Science. Frontiers in Educational Research (2021) Vol. 4, Issue 10: 41-47. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2021.041009.


[1] Bach, K. 1994. Conventional implicature[J]. Mind & Philosophy, 9: 124-162.

[2] Bach, K. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature[J]. Linguistics & Philosophy, 22(4): 327-366.

[3] Bell, J., 1995. Pragmatic Reasoning; a model-based theory. In Polos L. and Masuch M. (eds.) Applied Logic: How, What and Why?, pp. 40-55, Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

[4] Bell, J. 2001. Pragmatic Reasoning Pragmatic Semantics and Semantic Pragmatics. 2116. 45-58. 10.1007/3-540-44607-9_4.

[5] Borner K. et al. 2012. Design and Update of a Classification System: The UCSD Map of Science[J]. PLoS One, 7(7):10.

[6] Breheny, R. & Katsos, N. & Williams, J. 2006. Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences[J]. Cognition.100, 434-63.

[7] Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication[M]. Oxford, England:  Blackwell.

[8] Currie N. K. & Cain K. 2015. Children’s inference generation: The role of vocabulary and working memory [J]. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 137, 57-75,

[9] Geurts, Bart. 2010. Quantity Implicatures. 10.1017/CBO9780511975158.

[10] Grice, P. 1975, “Logic and Conversation”, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, pp. 41–58, New York: Academic Press.

[11] Grice, P. 1991. Studies in the Way of Words[M]. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

[12] Hao Ruoyang. 2016. How to Measure Core Authors[N]. Chinese Journal of Social Sciences. 0920(001).

[13] Horn, L. R. 1984. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-Based and R-Based Implicature[M], Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press.

[14] Katsos N. & Bishop DV. 2011. Pragmatic tolerance: implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature[J]. Cognition. 120(1):67-81. 

[15] Légaré, F. et al. 2010. Interventions for Improving the Adoption of Shared Decision Making by Healthcare Professionals. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online). 

[16] Li Jie & Chen Chaomei. 2017. CiteSpace: Text Mining and Visualization in Scientific Literature(2 edition)[M]. Beijing: Capital University of Economics and Business Press.

[17] Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics[M]. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

[18] Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[19] Macagno, F. 2017. Defaults and inferences in interpretation[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 117:280-290

[20] Macagno, F. 2018. Assessing relevance[J]. Lingua, 210:42-64.

[21] Macagno, F. & Zavatta, B. 2014. Reconstructing Metaphorical Meaning[J]. Argumentation, 28, 453-488.

[22] Price D. J. 1965. Networks of scientific papers[J]. Science. 149:510–5. 

[23] Recanati, F. 2002. Does linguistic communication rest on inference?[J]. Mind & Language, 17(1/2), 105–126.

[24] Rees, A. & Bott, L. 2018. The role of alternative salience in the derivation of scalar implicatures[J]. Cognition, 176, 1-14.

[25] Searle, J. R. 1992. Conversation [A]. In John Searle, H. Parret et al. (eds.). (On) Searle on Conversation [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[26] Sidnell J. & Stivers T. 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis[M]. Wiley Blackwell.

[27] Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.

[28] Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. 2016. Children’s derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance [J]. Cognition, 153, 6-18.

[29] Tannen, D. Hamilton, H. E. & Schiffrin D. 2015. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis[M].Wiley Blackwell.

[30] Xiong Xueliang. 1994. On pragmatic inference [J]. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Languages University, 1, 1-6.

[31] Xu Shenghuan. 1991. Pragmatic inference [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 6, 1-7.

[32] Verschueren, F. 2000. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.