Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:06:31.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2021

Edited by
Michael Haugh ,
Dániel Z. Kádár  and
Marina Terkourafi
Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár
Affiliation:
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 567 - 779
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Bateman, J., Wildfeuer, J. and Hiippala, T. (2017). Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis – A Problem-Oriented Introduction. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bloor, M. and Bloor, T. (2014). Critical discourse analysis. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A. (eds.). (2008). Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N., ed., Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cap, P. (2018). Critical discourse analysis. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 425–52.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. (eds.). (2010). Historical (Im)politeness. Vol. 65. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, B. and Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. and M. Birch, , eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Women and Language Group, pp. 89–99.Google Scholar
Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language and Society, 10(3), 383–421.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. (2010). Changes in the meanings of politeness in eighteenth-century England: Discourse analysis and historical evidence. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D., eds., Historical (Im)politeness. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, pp. 87–115.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2013). Introduction: Face, identity and im/politeness. Looking backward, moving forward: From Goffman to practice theory. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, C. (2011). Gumperz and interactional sociolinguistics. In Wodak, R., Johnstone, B. and Kerswill, P., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Graham, S. L. (2007). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 742–59.Google Scholar
Graham, S. L. (2008). A manual for impoliteness? The impact of the FAQ in an electronic community of practice. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar
Graham, S. L. (2009). Hospitalk: Politeness and hierarchical structures in interdisciplinary discharge rounds. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(1), 11–31.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Hall, K. and Bucholtz, M. (2013). Epilogue: Facing identity. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 123–132.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., Kádár, D. and Mills, S. (2013). Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 1–11.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. (ed.). (2009). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (2013). Multimodal discourse analysis. In Chapelle, C. E., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 3992–6.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society, 9, 292–305.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. and Locher, M. A. (2013). The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 87–107.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. and Locher, M. A. (2017). (Im)politeness and emotion. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave, pp. 287–322.Google Scholar
Larson, E., Hamilton, H. E. and Eisenberg, J. (1998). Hospitalk: An exploratory study to assess what is said and what is heard between physicians and nurses. Clinical Performance and Quality Health Care, 6(4), 183–9.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2008). Relational work, politeness and identity construction. In Antos, G., Ventola, E. and Weber, T., eds., Handbooks of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 2, Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 509–40.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2011). Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and identity construction. In Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J., eds., Situated Politeness. New York: Continuum International, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2013). Politeness. In Chapelle, C. E., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 4457–63.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2014). The relational aspect of language: Avenues of research. In Mergenthal, S. and Nischik, R. M., eds., Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 309–22.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2015). Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2017). Reflective Writing in Medical Practice: A Linguistic Perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (2010a). Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L., eds., Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (eds.). (2010b). Interpersonal Pragmatics. Vol. 6. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Schnurr, S. (2017). (Im)politeness in health settings. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave, pp. 689–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Thurnherr, F. (2017). Typing yourself healthy: Introduction to the special issue on language and health online. Linguistics Online, 87(8/17), 3–24.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2013). The role of language in interpersonal pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 170–81.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 95–119.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. and Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In Tannen, D., ed., Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–76.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H. and Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

References

Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–54.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 231–56.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J. and Keysar, B. (2005). Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Colston, H. and Katz, A., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 21–43.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. and Stanley, J. (forthcoming). Hustle: The Politics of Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bigi, S. (2016). Communicating (with) Care: A Linguistic Approach to the Study of Doctor-Patient Interactions. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. (1996). Finding Philosophy in Social Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Capone, A. (2020). Presuppositions as pragmemes: The case of exemplification acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (2009). Context and common ground. In Mey, J. L., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 116–19.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M. and Teasley, S.D., eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 127–49.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R. and Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 245–58.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. and Katz, A. N. (eds.). (2005). Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2000). Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning-Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009). Impoliteness: Using and understanding the language of offence. ESRC project. www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Elsbach, K. D., Barr, P. S. and Hargadon, A. B. (2005). Identifying situated cognition in organizations. Organization Science, 16(4), 422–33.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C. and Cannella, B. (2008). Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
García-Gómez, A. (2020). Intercultural and interpersonal communication failures: Analyzing hostile interactions among British and Spanish university students on WhatsApp. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 27–53.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. and Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gil, J. M. (2019). A relational account of communication on the basis of slips of the tongue. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(2), 153–85.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. and Kecskes, I. (2013). Pragmatics, discourse and cognition. In Stephen, A., Moeschler, R. J. and Reboul, F., eds., The Language–Cognition Interface. Geneva: Librairie Droz, pp. 353–75.Google Scholar
Horton, W. S. and Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2003). Szavak és helyzetmondatok értelmezése egy dinamikus jelentésmodell segitségével [Interpretation of words and situation-bound utterances in a dynamic model of meaning]. In Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 79–105.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Is there anyone out there who is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue, 2(2), 285–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017). The effect of salience on shaping speaker’s utterance. Reti, Saperi, Linguaggi, 6(11), 5–32.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics–pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 489–517.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Mey, J. (eds.). (2008). Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–55.Google Scholar
Keysar, B., Barr, D. and Horton, W. (1998). The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(2), 46–50.Google Scholar
Keysar, B. (2007). Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 71–84.Google Scholar
Keysar, B. and Bly, B. (1995). Intuitions of the transparency of idioms: Can one keep a secret by spilling the beans? Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 89–109.Google Scholar
Keysar, B. and Henly, A. (2002). Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13, 207–12.Google Scholar
Khatib, M. and Shakouri, N. (2013). On situating the stance of socio-cognitive approach to language acquisition. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1590–95.Google Scholar
La Mantia, F. (2018). Where is meaning going? Semantic potentials and enactive grammars. Acta Structuralica, 1, 89–113.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In Dedre, G. and Goldin-Meadow, S., eds., Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 25–46.Google Scholar
Liu, P. and You, , X. Y. (2019). Metapragmatic comments in web-based intercultural peer evaluation. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(1), 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macagno, F. (2018). A dialectical approach to presuppositions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2), 291–313.Google Scholar
Macagno, F. and Capone, A. (2017). Presuppositions as cancellable inferences. In Allan, K., Capone, A. and Kecskes, I., eds., Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Cham, Switzerland: Spinger, pp. 45–68.Google Scholar
Macagno, F. and Bigi, S. (2017). Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148–68.Google Scholar
Martin de la Rosa, M. V. and Romero, E. D. (2019). A modality-based approach to the United Nations Security Council’s ambiguous positioning in the resolutions on the Syrian armed conflict. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(4), 363–89.Google Scholar
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mildorf, J. (2013). Reading fictional dialogue: Reflections on a cognitive-pragmatic reception theory. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 24(2), 105–16.Google Scholar
Moss, M. (2013). Rhetoric and time: Cognition, culture and interaction. Unpublished PhD thesis, Chase Western University.Google Scholar
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. and Maguire, L. (2011). Adaptive context: The fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 228–41.Google Scholar
Rossi, M. G. (2016). Metaphors for patient education: A pragmatic-argumentative approach applying to the case of diabetes care. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 10(2), 34–48.Google Scholar
Scheppers, F. (2004). Notes on the notions of ‘communication’ and ‘intention’ and the status of speaker and addressee in linguistics. Circle of Linguistics Applied to Communication, 19.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–21.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2018). Precis of how propaganda works. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96(2), 470–74.Google Scholar
Starbuck, W. H. and Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executive’s perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In Hambrick, D. C., ed., The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Managers. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 35–65.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wojtaszek, A. (2016). Multimodel integration in the perception of press advertisements within the dynamic model of meaning. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 12(1), 77–101.Google Scholar

References

Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–2105.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. ([1962] 1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Edited by Urmson, J. O. and Sbisà, M.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayraktaroğlu, A. and Sifianou, M. (2012). The iron fist in a velvet glove: How politeness can contribute to impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(2), 143–60.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Drew, P., eds., Requesting in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language, 77(2), 245–91.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2005). Discovering order. Lingua, 115, 1641–65.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2012). Identifying action: Laughter in non-humorous reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1303–12.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2014). Conversation analysis. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 97–124.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2016). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clift, R. and Raymond, C. (2018). Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 90–119.Google Scholar
Cook, H. M. (2006). Japanese politeness as an interactional achievement: Academic consultation sessions in Japanese universities. Multilingua, 25, 269–91.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curl, T. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257–80.Google Scholar
Curl, T. and Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 129–53.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2018a). The interface between pragmatics and conversation analysis. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 59–83.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2018b). Inferences and indirectness in interaction. Open Linguistics, 4, 241–59.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Holt, E. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27, 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P., Walker, T. and Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In Hayashi, M., Raymond, G. and Sidnell, J., eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–94.Google Scholar
Evans, N. and Levinson, S. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–92.Google Scholar
Ferenčik, M. (2007). Exercising politeness: Membership categorisation in a radio phone-in programme. Pragmatics, 17(3), 351–70.Google Scholar
Flint, N., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J. (2019). Modulating troubles affiliating in initial interactions. Pragmatics, 29(3), 384–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G. and Enfield, N. J. (2020). Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In McKinney, J. C. and Tiraykian, E. A., eds., Theoretical Sociology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, pp. 338–66.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Prompting offers of assistance in interaction. Pragmatics and Society, 8, 183–207.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (forthcoming). Action ascription, accountability and inference. In Deppermann, A. and Haugh, M., eds., Action Ascription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hepburn, A. and Bolden, G. (2017). Transcribing for Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: ndexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2008). Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 221–41.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance-declination. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 79–95.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 346–69.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In van Dijk, T., ed., Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3, Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2002). Is ‘no’ an acknowledgement token? Comparing American and British uses of (+)/(−) tokens. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1345–83.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004a). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004b). A note on laughter in ‘male–female’ interaction. Discourse Studies, 6, 117–33.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E., eds., Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 152–205.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. (2017). Using conversation analysis in the lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 1–11.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Gipper, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E., Hoymann, G., Manrique, G., Rossi, G. and Levinson, S. C. (2020). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 168, 119–38.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. and Drew, P. (2014). The putative preference for offers over requests. In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–113.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. and Drew, P. (2016). Recruitments: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49, 1–19.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. (2005). Speaking as a heterosexual: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 221–65.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. and Mandelbaum, J. (2013) Word selection and social identities in talk-in-interaction. Communication Monographs, 80(2), 176–98.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. (1990). Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Merrison, A. J. (2011). Doing aphasia – ‘are you with me?’: Analysing face-work around issues of (non-)competence. In LPRG, ed., Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 221–44.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.Google Scholar
Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2005). Managing adversarial questioning in broadcast interviews. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 193–217.Google Scholar
Pillet-Shore, D. (in press). When to make the sensory social: Registering in face-to-face openings. Symbolic Interaction.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (2017). Inferring the purpose of a prior query and responding accordingly. In Raymond, G., Lerner, G. and Heritage, J., eds., Enabling Human Conduct. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 61–77.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. and Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 210–28.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. and Mandelbaum, J. (2005). Conversation analytic approaches to the relevance and uses of relationship categories in interaction. In Fitch, K. and Sanders, R., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 149–71.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–67.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. and Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677–705.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In Robinson, J., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. New York: The Free Press, pp. 31–75.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–27.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 15–21.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–95.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161–216.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-inititated repair. Discourse Processes, 23, 499–545.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–20.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: ‘Mobilising response’. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, 38–48.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2017). Conversation analysis. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 435–49.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–82.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. and Lerner, G. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-preface responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 91–115.Google Scholar
Schenkein, J. (ed.). (1978). Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

Adolphs, S. (2008). Corpus and Context: Investigating Pragmatic Functions in Spoken Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Adolphs, S. and Carter, R. (2007). Beyond the word. European Journal of English Studies, 11(2), 133–46.Google Scholar
Adolphs, S. and Carter, R. (2013). Spoken Corpus Linguistics: From Monomodal to Multimodal. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2015). Pragmatic markers. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–218.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.). (2015). Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Avila-Ledesma, N. E. and Amador-Moreno, C. P. (2016). “The more please [places] I see the more I think of home”: On gendered discourse of Irishness and migration experiences. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2016: Global Implications for Society and Education in the Networked Age. Cham, Switzerland: Spinger, pp. 85–105.Google Scholar
Brookes, H. (2005). What gestures do: Some communicative functions of quotable gestures in conversations among Black urban South Africans. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(12), 2044–85.Google Scholar
Calbris, G. (2011). Elements of Meaning in Gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diani, G. (2015). Politeness. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–91.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. D., Cassell, J. and Levy, E. (eds.). (2007). Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (2015). The combining of discourse markers – a beginning. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 48–53.Google Scholar
Fung, L. and Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–39.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D. and Brezina, V. (2015). Does speaker role affect the choice of epistemic adverbials in L2 speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: Current Approaches to Discourse and Translation Studies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 117–36.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T. (2017). Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, comparing, and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning, 67, 155–79.Google Scholar
Gray, B. and Biber, D. (2015). Stance markers. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 219–48.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M. (1998). Gesture as a Communication Strategy in Second Language Discourse: A Study of Learners of French and Swedish. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M. (2006). Some reasons for studying gesture and second language acquisition (Hommage à Adam Kendon). International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44(2), 103–24.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Culpeper, J. (2018). Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–39.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Irvine, C. A., Eigsti, I. M. and Fein, D. A. (2016). Uh, Um, and autism: Filler disfluencies as pragmatic markers in adolescents with optimal outcomes from autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(3), 1061–70.Google Scholar
Jautz, S. (2008). Gratitude in British and New Zealand radio programmes: Nothing but gushing? In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 141–78.Google Scholar
Kallen, J. L. and Kirk, J. M. (2008). ICE-Ireland: A User’s Guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar
Kallen, J. L. and Kirk, J. M. (2012). SPICE-Ireland: A User’s Guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1995). Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(3), 247–79.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. (1998). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kita, S., van Gijn, I. and van der Hulst, H. (1998). Movement phases in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by human coders. In Wachsmuth, I. and Fröhlich, M., eds., Gesture and Sign Language in Human–Computer Interaction: International Gesture Workshop Bielefeld, Germany, September 17–19, 1997 Proceedings, pp. 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052986Google Scholar
Knight, D. (2011). Multimodality and Active Listenership: A Corpus Approach. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kohnen, T. (2015). Speech acts: A diachronic perspective. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, pp. 52–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2017). Expressive speech acts in educational e-chats. Soprag, 5(2), 151–78.Google Scholar
Martín-Laguna, S. and Alcón-Soler, E. (2018). Development of discourse-pragmatic markers in a multilingual classroom: A mixed method research approach. System, 75, 68–80.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. and Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mestre-Mestre, E. M. (2016). Healing and comfort on the net: Gender and emotions in violent domestic environments. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2016: Global Implications for Society and Education in the Networked Age. Cham, Switzerland: Spinger, pp. 51–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A. and Adolphs, S. (2008). Response tokens in British and Irish discourse: Corpus, context and variational pragmatics. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–98.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. D. (ed.). (2013). Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: New Domains and Methodologies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.). (2014). Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.). (2015). Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: Current Approaches to Discourse and Translation Studies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.). (2016). Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: Global Implications for Society and Education in the Networked Age. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (2018a). Corpus pragmatics and second language pragmatics: A mutualistic entente in theory and practice. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 113–27.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (2018b). Prosodic modeling and position analysis of pragmatic markers in English conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 169–95.Google Scholar
Ronan, P. (2015). Categorizing expressive speech acts in the pragmatically annotated SPICE Ireland corpus. ICAME Journal, 39(1), 25–45.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, C. and Aijmer, K. (2015). Introduction: Corpus pragmatics: Laying the foundations. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, C. and Clancy, B. (2018). Corpus linguistics and pragmatics. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241–66.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, C. and O’Donnell, M. B. (2015). Deixis. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 331–59.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (eds.). (2008). Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1971). The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts 1. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sloetjes, H. and Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category-ELAN and ISO DCR. In The Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), pp. 816–20.Google Scholar
Stubbe, M. and Holmes, J. (1995). You know, eh and other “exasperating expressions”: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication, 15(1), 63–88.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. A. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tottie, G. (2011). Uh and Um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(1), 173–97.Google Scholar
Tottie, G. (2015). Turn management and the fillers uh and um. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 381–407.Google Scholar
Tree, J. E. F. and Schrock, J. C. (2002). Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 727–47.Google Scholar
Tsuchiya, K. (2013). Listenership Behaviours in Intercultural Encounters: A Time-Aligned Multimodal Corpus Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weisser, M. (2016). DART – The dialogue annotation and research tool. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 355–88.Google Scholar
Werner, V. (2017). Adversative pragmatic markers in learner language: A cross-sectional perspective. Corpus Pragmatics, 1(2), 135–58.Google Scholar
Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A. and Sloetjes, H. (2006). Elan: A professional framework for multimodality research. In Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.Google Scholar
Woods, H. B. (1991). Social differentiation in Ottawa English. In Cheshire, J., ed., English around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–50.Google Scholar

References

There is a constantly updated bibliography on variational pragmatics at www.applied-linguistics.uni-bonn.de/en/research/bibliographies/variational-pragmatics. On regional pragmatic variation in particular, also refer to www.bbk.ac.uk/languages/our-staff/maria-elena-placencia/bibliography-on-regional-pragmatic-variation.

Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Al-Ali, M. (2006). Religious affiliations and masculine power in Jordanian wedding invitation. Discourse and Society, 12(6), 691–714.Google Scholar
Anchimbe, E. A. (2018). Offers and Offer Refusals: A Postcolonial Pragmatics Perspective on World Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anchimbe, E. A. and Janney, R. W. (2011). Postcolonial pragmatics: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1451–9.Google Scholar
Ash, S. (2002). Social class. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 402–22.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2005). Offering in Ireland and England. In Barron, A. and Schneider, K. P., eds., The Pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 141–77.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2008). The structure of requests in Irish English and English English. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–67.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2017). Variational pragmatics. In Barron, A., Gu, Y. and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 91–104.Google Scholar
Barron, A., Pandarova, I. and Muderack, K. (2015). Tag questions across Irish English and British English: A corpus analysis of form and function. Multilingua, 34(4), 495–524.Google Scholar
Barron, A. and Schneider, K. P. (2009). Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 425–42.Google Scholar
Beeching, K. and Woodfield, H. (eds.). (2015). Researching Sociopragmatic Variability: Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bieswanger, M. (2015). Variational pragmatics and responding to thanks – revisited. Multilingua, 34(4), 527–46.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. ([1978] 1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burmeister, M. (2013). Variability in death notices from Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland: A comparative perspective. In Bieswanger, M. and Koll-Stobbe, A., eds., New Approaches to the Study of Linguistic Variability. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang, pp. 65–88.Google Scholar
Chen, R. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 49–75.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (2002). Sex and gender in variationist research. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 423–43.Google Scholar
Clancy, B. (2011). ‘Do you want to do it yourself like?’ Hedging in Irish traveller and settled family discourse. In Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J., eds., Situated Politeness. London: Continuum, pp. 129–46.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2014). Conversation analysis. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 97–124.Google Scholar
Decock, S. and Spiessens, A. (2017). Customer complaints and disagreements in a multilingual business environment: A discursive-pragmatic analysis. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 77–115.Google Scholar
Dinkin, A. J. (2018). It’s no problem to be polite: Apparent-time change in responses to thanks. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 22(2), 190–215.Google Scholar
Farr, F. and Murphy, B. (2009). Religious references in contemporary Irish English: ‘For the love of God almighty … I’m a holy terror for turf’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 535–59.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Sociopragmatic variation: Dispreferred responses in Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(1), 81–110.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2009). Pragmatic variation across Spanish(es): Requesting in Mexican, Costa Rican and Dominican Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 473–515.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The Language of Service Encounters: A Pragmatic-Discursive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flöck, I. and Geluykens, R. (2018). Preference organization and cross-cultural variation in request responses: A corpus-based comparison of British and American English. Corpus Pragmatics, 2, 57–82.Google Scholar
Fuentes Rodríguez, C., Placencia, M. E. and Palma-Fahey, M. (2016). Regional pragmatic variation in the use of the discourse marker pues in informal talk among university students in Quito (Ecuador), Santiago (Chile) and Seville (Spain). Journal of Pragmatics, 97, 74–92.Google Scholar
García, C. (2008). Different realizations of solidarity politeness: Comparing Venezuelan and Argentinean invitations. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 269–305.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. and Charalambidou, A. (2011). Doing age and ageing: Language, discourse and social interaction. In Andersen, G. and Aijmer, K., eds., Pragmatics of Society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 31–51.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2012). Early interactions in Australian English, American English, and English English: Cultural differences and cultural scripts. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1038–50.Google Scholar
Grant, T. and MacLeod, N. (2016). Assuming identities online: Experimental linguistics applied to policing of online paedophile activity. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 50–70.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Carbaugh, D. (2015). Self-disclosure in initial interactions amongst speakers of American and Australian English. Multilingua, 34(4), 461–94.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Schneider, K. P. (2012). Editorial: Im/politeness across Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1017–21.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jautz, S. (2013). Thanking Formulae in English: Explorations across Varieties and Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. (2009). Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1611–35.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. and Taavitsainen, I. (2012). Pragmatic variables. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds., The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 293–306.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1), 193–218.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H., eds., English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Lázaro Ruiz, H. and Ramajo Cuesta, A. (2015). Compliment responses in peninsular Spanish: Exploratory and contrastive study conducted on women from Madrid, Valencia, Catalonia, Andalusia and Castile-Leon. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212, 93–8.Google Scholar
Lin, C.-Y. (2015). The role of gender in Taiwan and Mainland Chinese compliments. In Beeching, K. and Woodfield, H., eds., Researching SocioPragmatic Variability: Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive Pragmatics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 49–71.Google Scholar
Lin, C.-Y., Woodfield, H. and Ren, W. (2012). Compliments in Taiwan and mainland Chinese: The influence of region and compliment topic. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(11), 1486–1502.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E. (2005). Spanish Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Merrison, A. J., Wilson, J. J., Davies, B. L. and Haugh, M. (2012). Getting stuff done: Comparing e-mail requests from students in higher education in Britain and Australia. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1077–98.Google Scholar
Muhr, R. (2008). The pragmatics of a pluricentric language: A comparison between Austrian German and German German. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 211–44.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. and Hundt, M. (eds.). (2011). Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mulo Farenkia, B. (2014). Speech Acts and Politeness in French as a Pluricentric Language: Illustrations from Cameroon and Canada. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
Mulo Farenkia, B. (2015). Invitation refusals in Cameroon French and Hexagonal French. Multilingua, 34(4), 577–603.Google Scholar
Murphy, B. (2011). Gender identities and discourse. In Andersen, G. and Aijmer, K., eds., Pragmatics of Society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 53–77.Google Scholar
Murphy, B. (2012). Exploring response tokens in Irish English – a multidisciplinary approach: Integrating variational pragmatics, sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 325–48.Google Scholar
Nilsson, J., Norrthon, S., Lindström, J. and Wide, C. (2018). Greetings as social action in Finland Swedish and Sweden Swedish service encounters – a pluricentric perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(1), 57–88.Google Scholar
Norrby, C. and Kretzenbacher, H. L. (2014). Address in two pluricentric languages: Swedish and German. In Soares da Silva, A., ed., Pluricentricity: Language Variation and Sociocognitive Dimensions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 243–67.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, E. (2018). Discourse completion tasks. In Jucker, A., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 229–55.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A. and Adolphs, S. (2008). Response tokens in British and Irish discourse: Corpus, context and variational pragmatics. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–98.Google Scholar
Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pichler, H. (ed.). (2016). Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Placencia, M. E. (2008). Requests in corner shop transactions in Ecuadorian Andean and Coastal Spanish. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 307–22.Google Scholar
Placencia, M. E., Fuentes Rodríguez, C. and Palma-Fahey, M. (2015). Nominal address and rapport management in informal interactions among university students in Quito (Ecuador), Santiago (Chile) and Seville (Spain). Multilingua, 34(4), 547–75.Google Scholar
Plevoets, K., Speelman, D. and Geeraerts, D. (2008). The distribution of T/V pronouns in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 181–209.Google Scholar
Queen, R. (2013). Gender, sex, sexuality, and sexual identities. In Chambers, J. K. and Schilling, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 368–87.Google Scholar
Ren, W. (2015). Sociopragmatic variation in mainland and Taiwan Chinese refusals. In Beeching, K. and Woodfield, H., eds., Researching Sociopragmatic Variability: Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 72–93.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closing. Semiotica, 8, 289–328.Google Scholar
Schlieben-Lange, B. and Weydt, H. (1978). Für eine Pragmatisierung der Dialektologie. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 6(3), 257–82.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (1988). Small Talk: Analysing Phatic Discourse. Marburg, Germany: Hitzeroth.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2003). Diminutives in English. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2005). ‘No problem, you’re welcome, anytime’: Responding to thanks in Ireland, England, and the USA. In A. Barron, and Schneider, K. P., eds., The Pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 101–39.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2008). Small talk in England, Ireland, and the USA. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 99–139.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2010). Variational pragmatics. In Fried, M., Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Variation and Change: Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–67.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2012a). Appropriate behaviour across varieties of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1022–37.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2012b). Pragmatics. In Hickey, R., ed., Topics in English Linguistics: Areal Features of the Anglophone World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 463–86.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2012c). Pragmatic variation and cultural models. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 10(2), 346–72.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2014). Comparability and sameness in variational pragmatics. In Mergenthal, S. and Nischik, R. M., eds., Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings. Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 361–72.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2017). Pragmatic competence and pragmatic variation. In Giora, R. and Haugh, M., eds., Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 315–33.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2018). Methods and ethics of data collection. In Jucker, A., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 37–93.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2019). Re-thinking pragmatic variation: The case of service encounters from a modified variational pragmatics perspective. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 251–62.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (2008a). Where pragmatics and dialectology meet: Introducing variational pragmatics. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (eds.). (2008b). Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. and Placencia, M. E. (2017). (Im)politeness and regional variation. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 539–70.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. and Schröder, A. (2014). Comparison and comparability in language studies. In Mergenthal, S. and Nischik, R. M., eds., Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings. Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 303–7.Google Scholar
Schölmberger, U. (2008). Apologizing in French French and Canadian French. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 333–54.Google Scholar
Schröder, A. and Schneider, K. P. (2018). Variational pragmatics, responses to thanks, and the specificity of English in Namibia. English World-Wide, 39(3), 338–63.Google Scholar
Schröder, A. and Schneider, K. P. (forthcoming). A variational pragmatics approach to responses to thanks in Namibian English: From quantitative to qualitative analysis. In Schröder, A., ed., The Dynamics of English in Namibia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schubert, C. and Sanchez-Stockhammer, C. (eds.). (2016). Variational Text Linguistics: Revisiting Register in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schüpbach, D. (2014). German or Swiss? Address and other routinised formulas in German-speaking Switzerland. In Hajek, J. and Slaughter, Y., eds., Challenging the Monolingual Mindset. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 63–77.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Staley, L. (2018). Socioeconomic Pragmatic Variation: Speech Acts and Address Forms in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. and Kortmann, B. (2009). Vernacular universals and angloversals in a typological perspective. In Filppula, M., Klemola, J. and Paulasto, H., eds., Vernacular Universals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. New York: Routledge, pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2012). Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics: Where does pragmatic variation fit it? In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Koike, D. A., eds., Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 295–318.Google Scholar
Wagner, L. and Roebuck, R. (2010). Apologizing in Cuernavaca, Mexico and Panama City, Panama: A cross-cultural comparison of positive- and negative-politeness strategies. Spanish in Context, 7(2), 254–78.Google Scholar
Warga, M. (2008). Requesting in German as a pluricentric language. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–66.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(2–3), 145–78.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. and Schilling, N. (2016). American English: Dialects and Variation. 3rd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zahler, S. L. (2016). Pragmalinguistic variation in electronic personal ads from Mexico City and London. IULC Working Papers, 15(1), 208–30.Google Scholar

Sources

Dawson, J. (ed.). (2004/2007). The Breadalbane Collection, 1548–1583. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. www.ed.ac.uk/divinity/research/resources/breadalbane.Google Scholar
National Records of Scotland, Edinburgh. Papers of the Campbell Family, Earls of Breadalbane (Breadalbane Muniments), MS NRS GD112/39/3/24, MS NRS GD112/39/3/26, MS NRS GD112/39/3/27, MS NRS GD112/39/5/2.Google Scholar

References

Archer, D. E. (2005). Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arnovick, L. K. (1999). Diachronic Pragmatics: Seven Case Studies in English Illocutionary Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bax, M. (2010). Epistolary presentation rituals: Face-work, politeness, and ritual display in Early Modern Dutch letter-writing. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Historical (Im)politeness. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 37–85.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18(2), 159–212.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. (1999). ‘Why be normal?’: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28(2), 203–23.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In Duranti, A., ed., A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 369–94.Google Scholar
Busse, U. (2002). Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-Syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (2002). A History of Clan Campbell: From Flodden to the Restoration. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, R., Peikola, M., Salmi, H., Varila, M.-L., Skaffari, J. and Hiltunen, R. (2013). Pragmatics on the page. European Journal of English Studies, 17(1), 54–71.Google Scholar
Cathcart, A. (2006). Kinship and Clientage: Highland Clanship 1451–1609. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
Chapman, S. (2011). Pragmatics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. (2018). Now in the historical courtroom. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 19(2), 223–42.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. and Kytö, M. (eds.). (2020). Punctuation in Context – Past and Present Perspectives. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, J. (2013). The role of communities of practice in the emergence of Scottish Standard English. In Kopaczyk, J. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–49.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–67.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009). Historical sociopragmatics: An introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 179–86.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2010). Historical sociopragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69–94.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (ed.). (2011a). Historical Sociopragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011b). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Archer, D. E. (2008). Requests and directness in Early Modern English trial proceedings and play texts, 1640–1760. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–84.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Crawshaw, R. and Harrison, J. (2008). ‘Activity types’ and ‘discourse types’: Mediating ‘advice’ in interactions between foreign language assistants and their supervisors in schools in France and England. Multilingua, 27, 297–324.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Hardaker, C. (2017). Impoliteness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 199–225.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. (ed.). (1997). Campbell Letters 1559–1583. Edinburgh: Scottish History Society.Google Scholar
DOST = Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue. (2004/2014). University of Dundee/University of Glasgow. www.dsl.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Grainger, K. (2011). ‘First order’ and ‘second order’ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group, ed., Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 167–88.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. and Jucker, A. H. (1995). The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (ed.). (1995). Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2012). ‘These imputations are too common, sir’: Politeness in Early Modern English dialogues: The case of Ben Jonson’s Volpone, or The Fox. In Mazzon, G. and Fodde, L., eds., Historical Perspectives on Forms of English Dialogue. Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli, pp. 40–58.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2014). Courtesy and politeness in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 49(3), 5–28.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2017). Pragmatics and language change: Historical pragmatics. In Huang, Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 550–66.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Locher, M. A. (2017). Introducing Pragmatics of Fiction: Approaches, trends and developments. In Locher, M. A. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Pragmatics of Fiction, Handbooks of Pragmatics 12. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Pahta, P. (2011). Communicating manuscripts: Authors, scribes, readers, listeners and communicating characters. In Pahta, P. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Communicating Early English Manuscripts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (2000). Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 67–95.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.). (2010). Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (2013). English Historical Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2010). Exploring the historical Chinese polite denigration/elevation phenomenon. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Historical (Im)politeness. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 117–45.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z., Haugh, M. and Chang, W.-L. M. (2013). Aggression and perceived national face threats in Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese CMC discussion boards. Multilingua, 32(3), 343–72.Google Scholar
Keay, J. and Keay, J. (eds.). (2000). Collins Encyclopedia of Scotland. Rev. ed. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Kopaczyk, J. and Jucker, A. H. (eds.). (2013). Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kopytko, R. (1995). Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare’s plays. In Jucker, A. H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 515–40.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. (2010). Data in historical pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Historical Pragmatics, Handbooks of Pragmatics 8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 33–67.Google Scholar
Kytö, M., Grund, P. and Walker, T. (2011). Testifying to Language and Life in Early Modern England. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Language Change, Volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leitner, M. (2015). Conflicts in Early Modern Scottish letters and law-courts. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Leitner, M. (2017). Curses or threats? Debating the power of witches’ words in 17th-century Scottish courtrooms. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 16(1), 145–70.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–33.Google Scholar
Lutzky, U. (2012). Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marcus, I. (2018). The Linguistics of Spoken Communication in Early Modern English Writing: Exploring Bess of Hardwick’s Manuscript Letters. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics, Handbooks of Pragmatics 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, C. (2011). Quoting Speech in Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nevala, M. (2004). Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-Pragmatic Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1995). Constraints on politeness: The pragmatics of address formulae in early English correspondence. In Jucker, A. H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 541–601.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. (1899–2020). Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oed.com/.Google Scholar
Pahta, P. and Jucker, A. H. (eds.). (2011). Communicating Early English Manuscripts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petikó, M. (2017). Discursive (re)construction of ‘witchcraft’ as a community and ‘witch’ as an identity in the eighteenth-century Hungarian witchcraft trial records. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 214–34.Google Scholar
Reutner, R. (2016). Politisch-parlamentarisches Sprachhandeln am Beispiel der Sprachenfrage in der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie. Dargestellt am Sprechhandlungstyp Drohung. In Ernst, P. and Werner, M., eds., Linguistische Pragmatik in Historischen Bezügen. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 313–24.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, B., Adams, G. A., Burns, M., Grund, P., Hiltunen, R., Kahlas-Tarkka, L., Kytö, M., Peikola, M., Ray, B. C., Rissanen, M. and Roach, M. K. (eds.). (2009). Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sairio, A. (2017). ‘Now to my distress’: Shame discourse in eighteenth-century English letters. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 295–314.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S. A. and Traugott, E. C. (1995). The semantic and pragmatic development of substitutive complex prepositions in English. In Jucker, A. H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–73.Google Scholar
Smith, J. J. (2012). Older Scots: A Linguistic Reader. Edinburgh: The Scottish Text Society.Google Scholar
Smith, J. J. (2017). From secreit script to public print: Punctuation, news management and the condemnation of the Earl of Bothwell. Huntington Library Quarterly, 80(2), 223–38.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.). (2002). Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. Reprint. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 95–119.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 639–56.Google Scholar
Suhr, C. (2011). Publishing for the Masses: Early Modern English Witchcraft Pamphlets. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. (2017). Meaning-making practices in the history of medical English: A sociopragmatic approach. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 252–70.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. and Pahta, P. (2013). The Corpus of Early English Medical Writing (1375–1800) – a register-specific diachronic corpus for studying the history of scientific writing. In Meurman-Solin, A. and Tyrkkö, J., eds., Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data, Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, VARIENG. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/14/index.html.Google Scholar
Williams, G. T. (2013). Women’s Epistolary Utterance: A Study of the Letters of Joan and Maria Thynne, 1575–1611. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, M. (2013). British colonial office correspondence on the Cape Colony (1820–1821): Metatextual keywords vs. analytic categories. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 49(3), 399–428.Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, M. and Taavitsainen, I. (2017). Introduction: Historical (socio)pragmatics at present. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 159–74.Google Scholar

References

Allan, K. (1998). Speech acts and grammar. In Mey, J., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 942–44.Google Scholar
Ameka, F. and Terkourafi, M. (2019). What if…? Imagining non-Western perspectives on pragmatic theory and practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 72–82.Google Scholar
Beeman, W. (2001). Emotion and sincerity in Persian discourse: Accomplishing the representation of inner states. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 148, 31–57.Google Scholar
Brown, M. A. (2016). Facing the Spears of Change: The Life and Legacy of John Apa ʻĪʻī. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E., ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–310.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, W-L. M. and Haugh, M. (2013). Face in Taiwanese business interactions: From emic concepts to etic practices. In Pan, Y. and Kadar, D., eds., Chinese Discourse and Interaction: Theory and Practice. London: Equinox, pp. 127–51.Google Scholar
Crawshaw, R. (2017). Determinacy, distance and intensity in intercultural communication: An emancipatory approach. In Kecskes, I. and Assimakopoulos, S., eds., Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 9–31.Google Scholar
de Kadt, E. (1994). Towards a model for the study of politeness in Zulu. South African Journal of African Languages, 14(3), 103–12.Google Scholar
de Kadt, E. (1998). The concept of face and its applicability to the Zulu language. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 173–91.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219–36.Google Scholar
Fujii, Y. (2012). Differences of situation self in the place/ba of interaction between the Japanese and American English speakers. Journal of Prgmatics, 44, 636–62.Google Scholar
Fujii, Y. (2019). Japanese as a ba-oriented language: Non-Western perspectives for representation of the world. Presentation at the 16th IPrA conference, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Gao, G. (1998). ‘Don’t take my word for it’: Understanding Chinese speaking practices. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 163–86.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1984). From the natives’ point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding. In R. Shweder, and R. Levine, , eds., Culture Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–36.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2004). A competent speaker who can’t speak: The social life of aphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2), 151–70.Google Scholar
Hallowell, A. I. (1955). Culture and Experience. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. (1996). Language and Communicative Practices. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. (2005). Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 191–220.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. (2014). Introduction to emancipatory pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 69, 1–3.Google Scholar
Hanks, W., Ide, S. and Katagiri, Y. (2009). Introduction: Toward an emancipatory pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1–9.Google Scholar
Hanks, W., Ide, S., Katagiri, Y., Saft, S., Fujii, Y. and Kishiko, U. (2019). Communicative interaction in terms of ba theory: Towards an innovative approach to language practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 63–71.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2004). Revisiting the conceptualisation of politeness in English and Japanese. Multilingua, 23, 85–109.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2005). The importance of ‘place’ in Japanese politeness: Implications for cross-cultural and intercultural analyses. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(1), 41–68.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Disentangling face, facework, and impoliteness. Sociocultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 46–73.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2016). The role of English as a scientific metalanguage for research in pragmatics: Reflections on the metapragmatics of ‘politeness’ in Japanese. East Asian Pragmatics, 1(1), 39–71.Google Scholar
Havertake, H. (1988). Toward a typology of politeness strategies in communicative interaction. Multilingua, 7, 385–409.Google Scholar
Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. and Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness: quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347–71.Google Scholar
Hongladarom, K. (2009). Indexicality in Thai and Tibetan: Implications for a Buddhist grounded approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 47–59.Google Scholar
Horie, K. (2012). The interactional origin of nominal predicate structure in Japanese: A comparative and historical pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 44 , 663–79.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (2017). Introduction: What is pragmatics? In Huang, Y, ed., Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistics politeness. Multilingua, 8, 223–48.Google Scholar
Ide, S. (2011). Let the wind blow from the east: Using the ba-theory to explain how two strangers co-create a story. Presidential lecture at the Twelfth IPrA Conference, Manchester.Google Scholar
Ide, S. (2019). Toward a theory of linguistics of ba. Presentation at the 16th IPrA conference, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Intachakra, S. (2012). Politeness motivated by the ‘heart’ and ‘binary rationality’ in Thai culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 619–35.Google Scholar
Kasher, A. (1982). Gricean inference revisited. Philosophica, 29, 25–44.Google Scholar
Kashima, Y. (2000). Conceptions of culture and person for psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 14–32.Google Scholar
Kashima, E. and Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and language: The case of the cultural dimensions and personal pronoun use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 461–86.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2009). Politeness. In D’hondt, S., J.-O. Ostman, and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–73.Google Scholar
Katagiri, Y. (2009). Finding parameters in interaction: A method in emancipatory pragmatics. Plenary presentation at the Eleventh IPrA Conference, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Assimakopoulos, S. (eds.). (2017). Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kim, H. (2008). The semantic and pragmatic analysis of South Korean and Australian English apologetic speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 257–78.Google Scholar
Kondo, D. (1990). Crafting Selves: Power, Gender, and Discourses of Identity in a Japanese Workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lebra, T. (2004). The Japanese Self in Cultural Logic. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mao, L. M. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451–86.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403–26.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals – observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8, 207–21.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. A. (2001). Our own liberation: Reflections on Hawaiian epistemology. The Contemporary Pacific, 13(1), 124–48.Google Scholar
Miike, Y. (2003). Japanese enryo-sasshi communication and the psychology of amae: reconsideration and reconceptualization. Keio Communication Review, 25, 93–115.Google Scholar
Nāone, C. (2008) ‘O ka ‘Āina, ka ‘Ōlelo, a me ke Kaiāulu. Hūlili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being, 5, 315–39.Google Scholar
Naruoka, K. (2014). Toward meanings of expressive indexicals: The case of Japanese demonstrative konna/sonna/anna. Journal of Pragmatics, 69, 4–21.Google Scholar
Nishida, K. (2012). Place and Dialectic: Two Essays by Nishida Kitaro. Translated by Krummel, J. and Nagatomo, S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nwoye, O. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal Pragmatics, 18(4), 309–28.Google Scholar
Panpothong, N. and Phakdeephasoon, S. (2014). The wide use of mai-pen-rai ‘It’s not substantial’ in Thai interactions and its relationship to the Buddhist concept of Tri Laksana. Journal of Pragmatics, 69, 99–107.Google Scholar
Pike, K. (1966). Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. In Smith, A. G., ed., Communication and Culture: Readings in the Codes of Human Interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 152–63.Google Scholar
Pike, K. (1971). Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structures of Human Behaviour. 2nd ed. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, N. (ed.). (1994). Japanese Sense of Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking system for communication. Language, 50, 696–735.Google Scholar
Saft, S. (2011). Pronouns, wakimae, ba, and the “native philosophy” of Hawaiian interaction. Paper presented at the Workshop on Emancipatory Pragmatics, Kyoritsu Womenʻs University, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Saft, S. (2014). Rethinking Western individualism from the perspective of social interaction and from the concept of ba. Journal of Pragmatics, 69, 108–20.Google Scholar
Saft, S. (2017). Documenting an endangered language: The inclusive first-person plural pronoun kākou as a resource for claiming ownership in Hawaiian. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 27(1), 92–113.Google Scholar
Saft, S. (2019). Exploring the expression of agency in the speech of “new” speakers of the Hawaiian language. Presentation at the Sixteenth IPrA conference, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Senft, G. (2014). Understanding Pragmatics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shimizu, H. (1995). ‘Ba-principle’: new logic for the real-time emergence of information. Holonics, 5(1), 67–79.Google Scholar
Shimizu, H. (2000). Kyooso to basho [Co-creation and place]. In Shimizu, H., Kume, T., Miwa, Y. and Miyake, Y., eds., Ba to Kyooso [Ba and co-creation]. Tokyo: NTT Shuppan, pp. 23–177.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2001). Conversational turn-taking in a Caribbean English Creole. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1263–90.Google Scholar
Silva, N. (2004). Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Silva, N. (2017). The Power of the Steel-Tipped Pen: Reconstructing Native Hawaiian Intellectual History. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Stawarska, B. (2009). Between You and I: Dialogical Phenomenology. Athens: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
Sugawara, K. (2009). Speech acts, moves, and meta-communication in negotiation: Three cases of everyday conversation observed among ǀGui former foragers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 93–135.Google Scholar
Sugawara, K. (2012). Interactive significance of simultaneous discourse or overlap in everyday conversations among ǀGui former foragers. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 577–618.Google Scholar
Ueno, K. (2017). Speaking as parts of a whole: Discourse interpretation from ba-base thinking. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Japan Women’s University.Google Scholar
Ueno, K. (2019). Why teachers ask more questions than students in dyadic conversations: An interpretation of wakimae utterances using ba-based thinking. Presentation at the Sixteenth IPrA conference, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. and Kamanā, K. (2001). Mai loko mai o ka ʻiʻini: Proceeding from a dream: The ʻAha Pūnana Leo Connection in Hawaiian language revitalization. In Hinton, L. and Hale, K., eds., The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. New York: Academic Press, pp. 147–76.Google Scholar
Wilson-Hokowhitu, N. (ed.). (2019). The Past before Us: Moʻokūʻauhau as Methodology. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Wilson-Hokowhitu, N. and Meyer, M. A. (2019). Introduction. In Wilson-Hokowhitu, N., ed., The Past before Us: Moʻokūʻauhau as Methodology. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Yamada, H. (1997). Different Games/Different Rules: Why Americans and Japanese Misunderstand Each Other. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

References

Allwood, J. (2007). Activity based studies of linguistic interaction. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hprints-00460511/document.Google Scholar
Angouri, J. (2018). Culture, Discourse, and the Workplace. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Barnlund, D. C. and Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 193–206.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (1991). How much culture is there in intercultural communication? In Blommaert, J. and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of International and Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. and House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablix, pp. 123–54.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (eds.). (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bond, M. H., Žegarac, V. and Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culture as an explanatory variable: Problems and possibilities. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 47–71.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Fraser, C. (1979). Speech as a marker of situation. In Scherer, K. R. and Giles, H., eds., Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–62.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. ([1978] 1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Originally published as Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomenon. In E. Goody, ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. ([1960] 1972). Pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A., ed., Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 253–76. Reprinted in Pier P. Giglioli (ed.), Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1972, pp. 252–82.Google Scholar
Chang, M. and Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural communicative competence and emotion amongst second language learners of Chinese. In Kecskes, I. and Sun, C., eds., Key Issues in Chinese as a Second Language Research. London: Routledge, pp. 269–86.Google Scholar
Chen, R., He, L. and Hu, C. (2013). Chinese requests: In comparison to American and Japanese requests and with reference to the ‘East-West divide’. Journal of Pragmatics, 55(Sep), 140–61.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2012). The focus theory of normative conduct. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W. and Higgins, E. T., eds., Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. London: Sage, pp. 295–312.Google Scholar
Davies, B. L. (2018). Evaluating evaluations: What different types of metapragmatic behaviour can tell us about participants’ understandings of the moral order. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 121–51.Google Scholar
Dervin, F. and Machart, R. (eds.). (2015). Cultural Essentialism in Intercultural Relations. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). Pragmatic challenges in the communication of emotions in intercultural couples. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(1), 29–55.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.). (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11(3), 225–50.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J. (2018). Rule Makers, Rule Breakers. London: Robinson.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. and Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Discourse and culture. In van Dijk, T. A., ed., Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, pp. 231–59.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. and Wierzbicka, A. (2008). Universal human concepts as a basis for contrastive linguistic semantics. In Gonzalez, M. dl A. G., Mackenzie, J. L. and Gonzáles-Álvarez, E. M., eds., Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 205–36.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. and Ye, Z. (2015). Ethnopragmatics. In Sharifian, F., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. London: Routledge, pp. 66–85.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S. and Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–85.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words (The William James Lectures). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., Jupp, T. and Roberts, C. (1979). Crosstalk. London: National Centre for Industrial Language Training.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. and Roberts, C. (1991). Understanding in intercultural encounters. In Blommaert, J. and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of International and Intercultural Communication (pp. 51–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2013). Moral psychology for the twenty-first century. Journal of Moral Education, 42(3), 281–97.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. and Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. and Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In Fiske, S., Gilbert, D. and Lindzey, G., eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, pp. 797–852.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Language and Culture. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural pragmatics. In Kim, Y. Y., ed., The International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication. London: John Wiley, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2018). Corpus-based metapragmatics. In Jucker, A., Schneider, K. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 615–39.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Hinze, C. (2003). A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concepts of ‘face’ and ‘politeness’ in Chinese, English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1581–1611.Google Scholar
Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. and Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347–71.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. 2nd ed. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2018). Negotiating the cultural order in New Zealand workplaces. Language in Society, 47(1), 33–56.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2011). Politic talk in ethnicised workplaces. In Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J., eds., Situated Politeness. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 27–52.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T. and Yang, J.-N. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 719–29.Google Scholar
House, J. (2000). Understanding misunderstanding: A pragmatic-discourse approach to analysing mismanaged rapport in talk across cultures. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 145–64.Google Scholar
House, J. (2006). Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies, 10(3), 249–67.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphica: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2/3), 223–48.Google Scholar
Janoff-Bulman, R. and Carnes, N. C. (2018). The model of moral motives: A map of the moral domain. In Gray, K. and Graham, J., eds., Atlas of Moral Psychology. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 223–30.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2017). The role of ideology in evaluations of (in)appropriate behaviour. Pragmatics, 27(1), 35–56.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S. (2013). Rethinking discernment. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(2), 133–58.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2008). Data collection in pragmatics research. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London: Continuum, pp. 279–303.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017). Context-dependency and impoliteness in intercultural communication. Journal of Politeness Research, 13(1), 7–31.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2013). On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In Capone, A., Piparo, F. L. and Carapezza, M., eds., Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 375–95.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leung, K. and Morris, M. W. (2015). Values, schemas, and norms in the culture–behavior nexus: A situated dynamics framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 1028–50.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 365–99.Google Scholar
Liddicoat, A. J. (2006). Learning the culture of interpersonal relationships: Students’ understandings of personal address forms in French. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(1), 55–80.Google Scholar
Lim, T.-S. and Bowers, , J. W. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17(3), 415–50.Google Scholar
McConachy, T. (2018). Developing Intercultural Perspectives on Language Use: Exploring Pragmatics and Culture in Foreign Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
McConachy, T. (2019). L2 pragmatics as ‘intercultural pragmatics’: Probing sociopragmatic aspects of pragmatic awareness. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 167–76.Google Scholar
McConachy, T. and Liddicoat, A. J. (2016). Meta-pragmatic awareness and intercultural competence: The role of reflection and interpretation in intercultural mediation. In Dervin, F. and Gross, Z., eds., Intercultural Competence in Education: Alternative Approaches for Different Times. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13–30.Google Scholar
Meier, A. J. (2010). Culture and speech act performance. In Martínez, A. and Usó, E., eds., Speech Act Performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 75–90.Google Scholar
Miller, L. (2008). Negative assessments in Japanese–American workplace interaction. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 2nd ed., Vol. 31. London: Continuum, pp. 227–40.Google Scholar
Mills, S. and Kádár, D. Z. (2011). Politeness and culture. In Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S., eds., Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
Morris, M. W., Hong, Y.-Y., Chiu, C.-Y. and Liu, Z. (2015). Normology: Integrating insights about social norms to understand cultural dynamics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129, 1–13.Google Scholar
Nishida, H. (2005). Cultural schema theory. In Gudykunst, W. B., ed., Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 401–18.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, E. (2009). On Apologizing in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Parkinson, B., Fischer, A. H. and Manstead, A. S. R. (2005). Emotion in Social Relations: Cultural, Group, and Interpersonal Processes. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pizziconi, B. (2003). Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1471–1506.Google Scholar
Quinn, N. (2015). A critique of Wierzbicka’s theory of cultural scripts: The case of Ifaluk Fago. ETHOS, 43(2), 165–86.Google Scholar
Riemer, N. (2006). Reductive paraphrase and meaning: A critique of Wierzbickian semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(3), 347–70.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. (1994). Intercultural or not? Beyond celebration of cultural differences in miscommunication analysis. Pragmatics, 4(3), 409–27.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Chan, A. (2009). Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 131–57.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Zayts, O. (2017). Language and Culture at Work. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Values: Cultural and individual. In Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Chasiotis, A. and Breugelmans, S. M., eds., Fundamental Questions in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 463–93.Google Scholar
Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., and Jones, R. H. (2012). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. 3rd edition. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2013). Globalization and developing metacultural competence in learning English as an international language. Multilingual Education, 3(7), 1–11.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. and Jamarani, M. (2011). Cultural schemas in intercultural communication: A study of the Persian cultural schema of sharmandegi ‘being ashamed’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 227–51.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2017a). What makes teasing impolite in Australian and British English? “Step[ping] over those lines […] you shouldn’t be crossing”. Journal of Politeness Research, 13(2), 175–207.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2017b). Funniness and “the preferred reaction” to jocularity in Australian and British English. Language and Communication, 55, 41–54.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (1997). Unequal relationships in high and low power distance societies: A comparative study of tutor-student role relations in Britain and China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(3), 284–302.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London: Continuum, pp. 11–47.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2011). Conceptualising the ‘relational’ in pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3565–78.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Jiang, W. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: Moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1633–50.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Kádár, D. Z. (2016). The bases of (im)politeness evaluations: Culture, the moral order and the East-West debate. East Asian Pragmatics, 1(1), 73–106.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Kádár, D. Z. (2021). Intercultural Politeness: Managing Relations across Cultures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H., Ng, P. and Dong, L. (2008). British and Chinese reactions to compliment responses. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London: Continuum, pp. 95–117.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Xing, J. (2019). Interdisciplinary perspectives on interpersonal relations and the evaluation process: Culture, norms and the moral order. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 141–54.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Žegarac, V. (2018). Conceptualizing culture and its impact on behavior. In Frisby, C. and O’Donohue, W. T., eds., Cultural Competence in Applied Psychology: An Evaluation of Current Status and Future Directions. New York: Springer, pp. 211–41.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (1995). The coconstruction of cross-cultural miscommunication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(2), 129–52.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145–78.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2010). Cultural scripts and intercultural communication. In Trosborg, A., ed., Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 43–78.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2012). ‘Advice’ in English and in Russian: A contrastive and cross-cultural perspective. In Limberg, H. and Locher, M. A., eds., Advice in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 309–31.Google Scholar
Wolf, H.-G. and Polzenhagen, F. (2006). Intercultural communication in English: Arguments for a cognitive approach to intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(3), 285–321.Google Scholar
Žegarac, V. (2007). A cognitive pragmatic perspective on communication and culture. In Kotthoff, H. and Spencer-Oatey, H., eds., Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 31–53.Google Scholar

References

Austin, J. L. ([1962] 1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Edited by Urmson, J. O. and Sbisà, M.. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barnlund, D. C. (1989). Communicative Styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and Realities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2006). Interlanguage development: Main routes and individual paths. AILA Review, 19, 69–82.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In Kaplan, R. B., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 182–92.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Pragmatics in SLA. In Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition London: Routledge, pp. 147–62.Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M. (eds.). (2009). Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Beebe, L. and Takahashi, T. (1989). Do you have a bag? Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In Gass, S. M., Madden, C., Preston, D. and Selinker, L., eds., Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse and Pragmatics, Vol. 1. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 103–25.Google Scholar
Bell, N. D. (2005). Exploring language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humour in NS-NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26, 192–218.Google Scholar
Bell, N. D. (2009). Learning about and through humor in the second language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 13, 241–58.Google Scholar
Billmyer, K. (1990a). The effect of formal instruction on the development of sociolinguistic competence: The performance of compliments. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Billmyer, K. (1990b). “I really like your lifestyle”: ESL learners learning how to compliment. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 6, 31–48.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. (1988). A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 17, 183–96.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. (1994). Conversational implicature in the second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157–67.Google Scholar
Bradley, M. M. and Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical Report C-1, Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Bromberek-Dyzman,  K., Rataj, K. and Dylak, J. (2010). Mentalizing in the second language: Is irony online inferencing any different in L1 and L2? In Witczak-Plisiecka, I., ed., Pragmatic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics, Vol. I, Speech Actions in Theory and Applied Studies. New Castle-upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 197–216.Google Scholar
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Carston, R. and Wilson, D. (2019). Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–8.Google Scholar
Cave, T. and Wilson, D. (eds.). (2018). Reading beyond the Code. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cenoz,  J. and Valencia,  J. F. (1996). Cross-cultural communication and interlanguage pragmatics: American vs. European requests. In Bouton, L. and Kachru, Y., eds., Pragmatics and Language Learning 7. Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois, pp. 85–103.Google Scholar
Chang, W.-L. M. and Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural communicative competence and emotion among second language learners of Chinese. In Kecskes, I. and Sun, C., eds., Key Issues in Chinese as a Second Language Research. New York: Routledge, pp. 267–86.Google Scholar
Citron, F. and Goldberg, A. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 2585–95.Google Scholar
Citron, F., Güsten, J., Michaelis, N. and Goldberg, A. (2016). Conventional metaphors in longer passages evoke affective brain response. NeuroImage, 139, 218–30.Google Scholar
Citron, F. and Zervos, E. (2018). A neuroimaging investigation into figurative language and aesthetic perception. In Baicchi, A., Digonnet, R. and Sandford, J., eds., Epistemology, Embodiment, and Language: Sensory Perceptions and Representations. Berlin: Springer, pp. 77–94.Google Scholar
Clouet, R. (2013). Understanding and assessing intercultural competence in an online environment: A case study of transnational education program delivery between college students in ULPGC, Spain, and ICES, France. Resla, 26, 139–57.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. and Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 33–56.Google Scholar
Cook, J. (2012). Why do Korean listeners have difficulty recovering the meaning of casual speech in English? A study in pragmatics. Asian Social Science, 8, 40–51.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In de Ruiter, J. P., ed., Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–45.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A. and Taguchi, N. (2018). Second Language Pragmatics: From Theory to Research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–85.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., Soteriadou, L. and Taxitari, L. (2018). Developing pragmatic competence in an instructed setting: The effectiveness of pedagogical intervention in Greek EFL learners’ request production. L2 Journal, 10(3), 3–30.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The Language of Service Encounters: A Pragmatic-Discursive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forman, R. (2011). Humorous language play in a Thai EFL classroom. Applied Linguistics, 32, 541–65.Google Scholar
Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ, 8, 1–15.Google Scholar
Gass, S. and Neu, J. (2006). Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
González-Lloret,  M. and Lourdes, O. (2018). Pragmatics, tasks and technology: A synergy. In Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y. J., eds., Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 191–214.Google Scholar
Holme, R. (2004). Mind, Metaphor and Language Teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Ifantidou,  E. (2014). Pragmatic Competence and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ifantidou,  E. (2017). Pragmatic transfer, relevance and procedural meaning in L2. International Review of Pragmatics, 9, 82–133.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2019). Relevance and metaphor understanding in a second language. In Scott, K., Clark, B. and Carston, R., eds., Relevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 218–30.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E., (in press). Metaphor comprehension: Meaning and beyond. In E. Ifantidou, E., L. de Saussure and T. Wharton, eds., Beyond Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. and Hatzidaki, A. (2019). Metaphor comprehension in L2: Meaning images and emotions. Journal of Pragmatics, 149, 78–90.Google Scholar
Kasper,  G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(3), 203–31.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215–47.Google Scholar
Kasper,  G. and Rose,  K. R. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149–69.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). Dual and multilanguage systems. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(2), 91–109.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language pragmatic norms. System, 45(1), 92–102.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (2014). How Korean EFL learners understand sarcasm in L2 English. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 193–206.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2018). Developing conceptual understanding of sarcasm in L2 English through explicit instruction. Language Teaching Research, 22, 208–29.Google Scholar
Lee, J. S. (2002). Interpreting conversational implicatures: A study of Korean learners of English. Korea TESOL Journal, 5, 1–26.Google Scholar
Lee, C. (2018). Researching and Teaching Second Language Speech Acts in the Chinese Context. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphoric competence: A possible language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly, 35, 459–91.Google Scholar
Littlemore,  J. (2003). The effect of cultural background on metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 273–88.Google Scholar
Liu, J. (2006). Measuring Interlanguage Pragmatic Knowledge of EFL Learners. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Low, G. (2008). Metaphor in education. In Gibbs, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 212–31.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Wolfram, B. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. (2006). The effectiveness of explicit and implicit treatments on EFL learners’ confidence in recognizing appropriate suggestions. In Bardovi-Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, C. and Omar, A., eds., Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, pp. 199–225.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E. (eds.). (2010). Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nilsenová, M. and Swerts, M. (2012). Prosodic adaptation in language learning. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Pragmatics and Prosody in English Language Teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 77–96.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M. (2010). Teaching interjections in the ESL/EFL class: A pragmatic approach. In Pérez Ruiz, L., Parrado Román, I. and Tabarés Pérez, P., eds., Estudios de metodología de la lengua inglesa, Vol. V. Valladolid, Spain: Universidad de Valladolid, pp. 23–33.Google Scholar
Phelps, E. A. (2004). Human emotion and memory: Interactions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 198–202.Google Scholar
Richards, J. and Schmidt, R. W. (1983). Conversational analysis. In Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W., eds., Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 117–54.Google Scholar
Roever, C., Fraser, C. and Elder, C. (2014). Testing ESL Sociopragmatics: Development and Validation of a Web-Based Test Battery. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Roever, C. and Ikeda, N. (2020). Testing pragmatic competence in a second language. In Schneider, K. and Ifantidou, E., eds., Handbook of Developmental and Clinical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 475–95.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.). (2012). Pragmatics and Prosody in English Language Teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. and Newell, J. (2012). Prosody and feedback in native and non-native speakers of English. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Pragmatics, Prosody and English Language Teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 117–32.Google Scholar
Ross, S. J. and Kasper, G. (eds.). (2013). Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sardegna, V. G. and Molle, D. (2010). Videoconferencing with strangers: Teaching Japanese EFL students verbal backchannel signals and reactive expressions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 279–310.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied linguistics, 10, 209–31.Google Scholar
Shively, R., Menke, M. and Manzón-Omundson, S. (2008). Perception of irony by L2 learners of Spanish. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16, 101–32.Google Scholar
Spees, H. (1994). A cross-cultural study of indirectness. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5, 231–53.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1972). Pragmatics. In Davidson, D. and Harman, G., eds., Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel, pp. 380–97.Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B. (2004). Turn-final intonation in English. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Ford, C., eds., Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
Tada, M. (2005). Assessment of EFL pragmatic production and perception using video prompts. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Temple University.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (ed.). (2009). Pragmatic Competence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2013). Comprehension of conversational implicature: What response times tell us. In Taguchi, N. and Sykes, J., eds., Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–41.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics. In Barron, A., Grundy, P. and Gu, Y., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 153–67.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. and Sykes, J. (eds.). (2013). Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. and Roever, C. (2017). Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 191–12.Google Scholar
Togame, N. (2016). Irony in a second language: Exploring the comprehension of Japanese speakers of English. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Middlesex University.Google Scholar
Wharton, T. (2012). Prosody and meaning: Theory and practice. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Pragmatics, Prosody and English Language Teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 97–116.Google Scholar
Wijayanto, A., Prasetyarini, A. and Hikmat, M. H. (2017). Impoliteness in EFL: Foreign language learners’ complaining behaviors across social distance and status levels. SAGE Open, 7(3), 1–15.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2018). Relevance theory and literary interpretation. In T. Cave and D. Wilson, eds., Reading Beyond the Code. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiseman, R. L. and Koester, J. (1993). Intercultural Communication Competence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ziegler,  N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–63.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×