Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Language in Context Studies
- Part I Language in Context: A Sociohistorical Perspective
- Part II Philosophical, Semantic, and Grammatical Approaches to Context
- Part III Pragmatic Approaches to Context
- Part IV Applications of Context Studies
- Part V Advances in Multimodal and Technological Context-Based Research
- Index
- References
Part V - Advances in Multimodal and Technological Context-Based Research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 November 2023
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Language in Context Studies
- Part I Language in Context: A Sociohistorical Perspective
- Part II Philosophical, Semantic, and Grammatical Approaches to Context
- Part III Pragmatic Approaches to Context
- Part IV Applications of Context Studies
- Part V Advances in Multimodal and Technological Context-Based Research
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary 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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context , pp. 417 - 476Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
References
Abercrombie, D. (1968). Paralanguage. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 3(1), 55–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion and Communication. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1964). Around the edge of language: Intonation. Harvard Educational Review, 34, 282–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you’re a mind-reader). Language, 48(3), 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1983a). Where does intonation belong? Journal of Semantics, 2(2), 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1983b). Intonation and gesture. American Speech, 58(2), 156–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1983c). The inherent iconism of intonation. In Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax (pp. 97–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. (1975). The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Calhoun, S. (2009). What makes a word contrastive: Prosodic, semantic and pragmatic perspectives. In Barth-Weingarten, D., Dehé, N., and Wichmann, A. (eds.), Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics: Research at the Interface (pp. 53–78). Bingley: Emerald. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A., and Gussenhoven, C. (2003). Language-dependence in signalling of attitude in speech. In N. Suzuki and C. Bartneck (eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on the Subtle Expressivity of Emotion, CHI 2003 Conference on Human and Computer Interaction.Google Scholar
Clark, B. (2007). Blazing a trail: Moving from natural to linguistic meaning in accounting for the tones of English. In Nilsen, R. A., Amfo, N. A. A., and Borthen, K. (eds.), Interpreting Utterances: Pragmatics and Its Interfaces: Essays in Honour of Thorstein Fretheim (pp. 69–81). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Clark, B., and Lindsey, G. (1990). Intonation, grammar and utterance interpretation. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 32–51.Google Scholar
Claudel, P. [1946] (1990). L’oeil ecoute. Collection Folio essais (127), Gallimard Education.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. (1999). Emotional and conversational nonverbal signals. In L. Messing, and R. Campbell, (eds.), Gesture, Speech and Sign (pp. 45–57). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (1998). Intonation and procedural encoding: The case of Spanish interrogatives. In Rouchota, V. and Jucker, A. (eds.), Current Issues in Relevance Theory (pp. 169–203). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (2002). Echo-syntax and metarepresentations. Lingua, 112(11), 871–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. (2021). Multimodality. In Xu, W. and Taylor, J. R. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 676–687). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. (2002). Intonation as a constraint on inferential processing. In Bel, B. and Marlien, I. (eds.), Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Speech Prosody, Aix-en-Provence, 11–13 April 2002 (pp. 59–64). Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.Google Scholar
Fridlund, A. (1994). Human Facial Expression: An Evolutionary View. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P., and the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2002). Intonation and interpretation: phonetics and phonology. In Bel, B. and Marlien, I. (eds.), Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Speech Prosody, Aix-en-Provence, 11–13 April 2002 (pp. 47–57). Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2006). Semantics of prosody. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Vol. XI, pp. 170–172). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. (2004). The meaning of but: a procedural reanalysis. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 199–236.Google Scholar
Halliday., M. (1967). Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P., and Berkum, J. van (2007). Beyond the sentence given. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B, 362, 801–811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirschberg, J., and Ward, G. (1995). The interpretation of the high-rise question contour in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 407–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooff van, J. (1972). A comparative approach to the phylogeny of laughter and smiling. In Hinde, R. (ed.), Non-verbal Communication (pp. 209–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
House, J. (1990). Intonation structures and pragmatic interpretation. In Ramsaran, S. (ed.), Studies in the Pronunciation of English (pp. 38–57). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
House, J. (2006). Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1542–1558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (2007). The role of prosody in constraining context selection: A procedural approach. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 28, 369–383.Google Scholar
Imai, K. (1998). Intonation and relevance. In Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications (pp. 69–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1972). Some relationships between body motion and speech. In Siegman, A. and Pope, B. (eds.), Studies in Dyadic Communication (pp. 177–210). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1980). Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In Key, M. R. (ed.), The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication (pp. 207–227). The Hague: Mouton and Co.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (2014a). The poly-modalic nature of utterances and its relevance for inquiring into language origins. In Dor, D., Knight, C., and Lewis, J. (eds.), The Social Origins of Language (pp. 67–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2014b). Semiotic diversity in utterance production and the concept of “language.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 369(1651), 20130293. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
König, E. (1991). The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G., and Leeuwen, T. van (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, R. (1978). The Structure of Intonational Meaning. London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, R. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2nd ed. 2008.Google Scholar
Ladd, R. (2008). Intonational Phonology, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madella, P. (2021). Prosodic pointing: From pragmatic awareness to pragmatic competence in Chinese hearers of L2 English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Brighton.Google Scholar
Madella, P. (forthcoming). Relevance and multimodal prosody: implications for L2 teaching and learning. In Wharton, T., Maillat, D., Jagoe, C., and Scott, K., Relevance in Mind, Front. Psychol.Google Scholar
Madella, P., and Romero-Trillo, J. (2019). Prosodic pointing in inferential comprehension: The application of relevance theory to L2 listening instruction. Letrônica, 12(4), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 92(3), 350–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D., ed. (2000). Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotion and Attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadworth.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A. (2004). Pragmatic inferences related to logical terms. In Noveck, I. A. and Sperber, D. (eds.), Experimental Pragmatics (pp. 301–321). London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, J., and Arnold, G. (1973). Intonation of Colloquial English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J., and Hirschberg, J. B. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, P.. Morgan, J., and Pollack, M. (eds.), Intentions in Communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Poyatos, F. (1983). New Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Riley, P. (1979). Viewing comprehension: L’oeil écoute. In The Teaching of Listening Comprehension: Papers Presented at the Goethe Institut Colloquium Held in Paris in 1979. London: The British Council.Google Scholar
Scott, K. (2017a). Ostension, Expectations and Non-encoded Meaning [Presentation]. International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) Conference, Belfast, UK.Google Scholar
Scott, K. (2017b). Prosody, procedures and pragmatics. In Depraetere, I. and Salkie, R. (eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, 11 (pp. 323–341). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Scott, K. (2021). Contrastive stress in English meaning, expectations, and ostension. In Ifantidou, E., de Saussure, L., and Wharton, T. (eds.), Beyond Meaning, Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 324 (pp. 29–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15(44), 117–149.Google Scholar
Stevick, E. W. (1982). Teaching and Learning Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., and Lebaron, C. (2011). Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trager, G. L. (1958). Paralanguage: A first approximation. Studies in Linguistics, 13, 1–12.Google Scholar
Vandepitte, S. (1989). A pragmatic function of intonation. Lingua, 79, 265–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, G., and Hirschberg, J. (1988). Intonation and propositional attitude: The pragmatics of L*+H L H%. In Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 512–522). Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Wharton, T. (2003a). Interjections, language and the “showing”/”saying” continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition, 11(1), 39–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T. (2003b). Natural pragmatics and natural codes. Mind and Language, 18(5), 447–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and Non-verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, A. (2002). Attitudinal intonation and the inferential process. In Bel, B. and Marlien, I. (eds.), Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Speech Prosody, Aix-en-Provence, 11–13 April 2002 (pp. 11–16). Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., and Carston, R. (2019). Pragmatics and the challenge of “non-propositional” effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., and Wharton, T. (2006). Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1559–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. (2016). Nuclear stress and information structure. In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure (pp. 163–184). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
References
Akiwowo, S., Vidgen, B., Prabhakaran, V., and Waseem, Z., eds. (2020). Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/volumes/2020.alw-1/.Google Scholar
Baker, J. M., Deng, L., Glass, J., Khudanpur, S., Lee, C.-H., Morgan, N., and O’Shaughnessy, D. (2009). Developments and directions in speech recognition and understanding, Part 1 [DSP Education]. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 26(3), 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, E. M, and Koller, A. (2020). Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 5185–5198). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.463.Google Scholar
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J., Winter, C., Hesse, C., Chen, M., Sigler, E., Litwin, M., Gray, S., Chess, B., Clark, J., Berner, C., Mc-Candlish, S., Radford, A., Sutskever, I., and Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. CoRR, abs/2005.14165.Google Scholar
Bunt, H. (2011). The semantics of dialogue acts. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011). SIGSEM. https://aclanthology.org/W11-0100.Google Scholar
Cai, W., Chen, J., and Li, M. (2018). Exploring the encoding layer and loss function in end-to-end speaker and language recognition system. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.05160.Google Scholar
Carlini, N., Tramer, F., Wallace, E., Jagielski, M., Herbert-Voss, A., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Brown, T., Song, D., Erlingsson, U., et al. (2020). Extracting training data from large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.07805.Google Scholar
etinoğlu, Ç, Schulz, Ö., S., and Vu, N. T. (2016). Challenges of computational processing of code-switching. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02213.Google Scholar
Clark, E., August, T., Serrano, S., Haduong, N., Gururangan, S., and Smith, N. A. (2021). All That’s “human” is not gold: Evaluating human evaluation of generated text. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Vol. I: Long Papers) (pp. 7282–7296). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.565/.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fedus, W., Zoph, B., and Shazeer, N. (2021). Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. CoRR, abs/2101.03961.Google Scholar
Ferrer, L., Lei, Y, .McLaren, M., and Scheffer, N. (2015). Study of senone-based deep neural network approaches for spoken language recognition. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 24(1), 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, J., and King, S. (2001). ASR-articulatory speech recognition. In Proceedings of Eurospeech-2001 (pp. 599–602). Aalborg: International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
GPT-3. (2020 )(Sep). A robot wrote this entire article. Are you scared yet, human? – GPT-3. The Guardian, September 8, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/08/robotwrote-this-article-gpt–3.Google Scholar
Greff, K., Srivastava, R. K., Koutník, J., Steunebrink, B. R., and Schmidhuber, J. (2016). LSTM: A search space odyssey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 28(10), 2222–2232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, R., and Singh, A. (2021). Transformer is all you need: Multi-modal multitask learning with a unified transformer. arXiv e-prints, arXiv– 2102.Google Scholar
Jiang, B., Song, Y., Wei, S., Liu, J.-H., McLoughlin, I. V., and Dai, L.-R. (2014). Deep bottleneck features for spoken language identification. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e100795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jin, M., Song, Y., McLoughlin, I., and Dai, L.-R. (2018). LID-senones and their statistics for language identification. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 26(1), 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jobs, S. (2005). Steve Jobs connect the dots [video file]. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BSbOc5VYY8. Accessed June 22, 2023.Google Scholar
Joshi, M., Chen, D., Liu, Y., Weld, D. S., Zettlemoyer, L., and Levy, O. (2020). Spanbert: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8, 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juang, B.-H., and Rabiner, L. R. (2005). Automatic speech recognition: A brief history of the technology development. Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta Rutgers University and the University of California. Santa Barbara, 1, 67.Google Scholar
Kohler, M. A., and Kennedy, M. (2002). Language identification using shifted delta cepstra. In Proceedings of the 45th IEEE International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (pp. III–69). doi:10.1109/MWSCAS.2002.1186972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, J., Yang, A., Bai, J., Zhou, C., Jiang, L., Jia, X., Wang, A., Zhang, J., Li, Y., Lin, W., Zhou, J., and Yang, H. (2021). M6-10 T: A Sharing-Delinking paradigm for efficient multi-trillion parameter pretraining. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.03888.Google Scholar
McLoughlin, I. V. (2016). Speech and Audio Processing: a MATLAB-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLoughlin, I. V. (2018). Computer Systems: An Embedded Approach. Singapore: McGraw Hill Education.Google Scholar
McLoughlin, I. V., and Sharifzadeh, H. R. (2008). Speech recognition for smart homes. In Vasile-Florian Păiș (ed.), Speech Recognition: Technologies and Applications (pp. 477–494). Rijeka: IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.52305/BKWM8996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McTear, M. F. 2002. Spoken dialogue technology: Enabling the conversational user interface. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 34(1), 90–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miao, X., McLoughlin, I., Wang, W., and Zhang, P. (2021). D-MONA: A dilated mixed-order non-local attention network for speaker and language recognition. Neural Networks, 139, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., and Kageki, N. (2012). The Uncanny Valley [From the Field]. IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J., and Arthur, M. B. (2013). Just three stories: The career lessons behind Steve Jobs’ Stanford University Commencement Address. Journal of Business & Management, 19(1), 45–57.Google Scholar
Skjuve, M., Følstad, A., Fostervold, K. I., and Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2021). My Chatbot companion: A study of human–chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 149, 102601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slonim, N., Bilu, Y., Alzate, C., Bar-Haim, R., Bogin, B., Bonin, F., Choshen, L., Cohen-Karlik, E., Dankin, L., Edelstein, L., et al. (2021). An autonomous debating system. Nature, 591(7850), 379–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, P. (2009). Text-to-Speech Synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, J., Sinapov, J., Svetlik, M., Stone, P., and Mooney, R. J. (2016). Learning multi-modal grounded linguistic semantics by playing “I Spy.” In Proceedings of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 3477–3483), July 2016. Palo Alto: AAAI Press / International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Truong, M., Fast, N. J., and Kim, J. (2020). It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it: Conversational flow as a predictor of networking success. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turing, A. M. (2009). Computing machinery and intelligence. In Epstein, R., Roberts, G., and Beber, G. (eds.), Parsing the Turing Test (pp. 23–65). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6710-5_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voskarides, N., Meij, E., Reinanda, R., Khaitan, A., Osborne, M., Stefanoni, G., Kambadur, P., and de Rijke, M. (2018). Weakly-supervised contextualization of knowledge graph facts. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 765–774). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Weizenbaum, J. 1966. ELIZA: A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, M. J., Miller, K. W., and Grodzinsky, F. S. (2017). Why we should have seen that coming: Comments on Microsoft’s Tay “Experiment,” and wider implications. The ORBIT Journal, 1(2), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerubavel, E. (2006). The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zhou, L., Gao, J., Li, D., and Shum, H.-Y. (2020). The design and implementation of xiaoice, an empathetic social chatbot. Computational Linguistics, 46(1), 53–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Androutsopoulos, J. (2014). Languaging when contexts collapse: Audience design in social networking. Discourse, Context and Media, 4–5, 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beam, M. A., Child, J. T., Hutchens, M. J. and Hmielowski, J. D. (2018). Context collapse and privacy management: Diversity in Facebook friends increases online news reading and sharing. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2296–2314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J., Smits, L. and Yacoubi, N. (2020). Context and its complications. In De Fina, A. and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies (pp. 52–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolander, B. (2019). Social media research. In Handbook of Pragmatics, vol. 22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–48.Google Scholar
Bolander, B., and Locher, M. A. (2020). Beyond the online offline distinction: Entry points to digital discourse. Discourse, Context & Media 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, P., and Garces-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2014). Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, P., and Garces-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2018). Relational work in multimodal networked interactions on Facebook. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 134–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., and Garces-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2012). Social interaction in YouTube text-based polylogues: A study of coherence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
boyd, D. (2010). Social Network Sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Papacharissi, Z. (ed.), A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge, pp. 39–58.Google Scholar
Costa, E. (2018). Affordances-in-practice: An ethnographic critique of social media logic and context collapse. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3641–3656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Y., and He, W. (2015). Interpretation of the compositional meaning of movie posters from the perspective of multimodal discourse analysis. Paper presented at International Symposium on College Foreign Languages Education Reform and Innovation. Wuhan (China).Google Scholar
Davidson, B. I., and Joinson, A. N. (2021). Shape shifting across social media. Social Media + Society 7(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. L., and Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 476–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayter, D. (2016). Discursive Self in Microblogging: Speech Acts, Stories and Self-Praise. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguay, S. (2016). “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society, 18(6), 891–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenlauer, V. (2014). Facebook as a third author – (Semi-)automated participation framework in social network sites. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenlauer, V. (2017). Social network sites/Facebook. In Hoffmann, C. R. and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Pragmatics of Social Media (pp. 225–242). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Erickson, T. (1997). Social interaction on the Net: Virtual community as participatory genre. In Sprague, R. H. (ed.) Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. VI, pp. 13–21). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil-Lopez, T., Shen, C., Benefield, G. A., Palomares, N. A., Kosinski, M., and Stillwell, D. (2018). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23, 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, H. (2019). Genres, media, and recontextualization practices: Re-considering basic concepts of genre theory in the age of social media. Internet Pragmatics, 2(1), 54–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, H., and van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Semiotic analysis: Compositional meaning of corporate web pages. In Habil, H. and Hassan, H. (eds.), New Perspectives in Language and Communication Research (pp. 39–52). Skudai: UTM.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. (2004). Multimodality and new communication technologies. In LeVine, Philip and Scollon, Ron (eds.), Discourse and Technology. Multimodal Discourse Analysis (pp. 184–195). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (2004). The problem of context in computer-mediated communication. In LeVine, P. and Scollon, R. (eds.), Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis (pp. 20–33). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kress, G., and van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lomborg, S. (2014). Social Media, Social Genres: Making Sense of the Ordinary. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marwick, A. and boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miltner, K. M. (2014). “There’s no place for lulz on LOLCats”: The role of genre, gender, and group identity in the interpretation and enjoyment of an internet meme. First Monday, 19(8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i8.5391.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. (2020). Why Zoom is terrible. The New York Times, April 29. www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/sunday-review/zoom-video-conference.html.Google Scholar
Pano Alamán, A., and Mancera Rueda, A. (2014). La “conversación” en Twitter: Las unidades discursivas y el uso de marcadores interactivos en los intercambios con parlamentarios españoles en esta red social [The “conversation” on Twitter: The discursive units and the use of discourse markers in exchanges with Spanish members of parliament in this social networking site]. Estudios de Lingüística del Español, 35, 243–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puschmann, C. (2015). The form and function of quoting in digital media. Discourse, Context and Media, 7, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, K. (2016). Contextual social capital: Linking the contexts of social media use to its outcomes. Information, Communication & Society, 19(5), 582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K. (2015). The pragmatics of hashtags: Inference and conversational style on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics, 81, 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spilioti, T. (2015). Social media discourse. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C., and Sandel, T. (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Szabla, M., and Blommaert, J. (2020). Does context really collapse in social media interaction? Applied Linguistics Review, 11(2), 251–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J.B. (2020). Mediated interaction in the digital age. Theory, Culture & Society, 37(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijck, J. (2013). “You have one identity”: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. (2014). About images and multimodality: A personal account. In Norris, S. and Maier, C. D. (eds.), Interactions, Images and Texts: A Reader in Multimodality (pp. 19–24). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. (2015). Multimodality. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., and Schiffrin, D. (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. (pp. 447–465). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. (2020). The new visuality of writing. In Stöckl, H., Caple, H., and Pflaeging, J. (eds.), Shifts toward Image-Centricity in Contemporary Multimodal Practices (pp. 64–85). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitak, J. (2012). The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikström, P. (2014). #Srynotfunny: Communicative functions of hashtags on Twitter. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 27, 127–152.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2007). Virtualidades reales: Nuevas formas de comunidad en la era de Internet [Real virtualities. New forms of community in the Internet age]. Alicante: University of Alicante, Servicio de Publicaciones.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2014). El discurso de las identidades en línea: El caso de Facebook [The discourse of online identities: The case of Facebook]. Discurso & Sociedad, 8(3), 398–426.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2015). Discourse and identity. In Wright, J. D. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Vol. VI, pp. 498–502). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2016b). Discourse, contextualization and identity shaping. The case of social networking sites and virtual worlds. In Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (ed.), New Tools, New Approaches: Technology Implementation in Higher Education for Second Language Teaching and Translation Studies (pp. 71–88). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2016c). Towards a cyberpragmatics of mobile instant messaging. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2016: Global Implications for Culture and Society in the Networked Age (pp. 7–26). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2017a). Social media. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 550–562). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2017b). Putting relevance at centre stage in research on human activity on the Internet. In Piskorska, A. and Wałaszewska, E. (eds.), From Discourse to Morphemes: Applications of Relevance Theory (pp. 86–102). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2017c). Contextual constraints and non-propositional effects in WhatsApp communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 114, 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2018). Identity-related issues in meme communication. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2019). An outline of some future research issues for internet Pragmatics. Internet Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2021). Cyberpragmatics in the age of locative media. In Xie, C., Yus, F., and Haberland, H. (eds.), Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and Practice (pp. 75–105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2022). Smartphone Communication: Interactions in the App Ecosystem. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (forthcoming). Irony and the Internet. In Gibbs, R. W and Colston, H. L (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. (2017). Evaluation. In Hoffmann, C. R. and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Pragmatics of Social Media (pp. 435–458). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar