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-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:15:14.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2019

Istvan Kecskes
Istvan Kecskes
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
English as a Lingua Franca
The Pragmatic Perspective
 , pp. 236 - 257
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

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

Adamson, H. D. (1988). Variation theory and second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Adamson, H. D., & Regan, V. (1991). The acquisition of community speech norms by Asian immigrants learning English as a second language: A preliminary study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 1–22.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2016). Modality and mood in functional linguistic approaches. In Nuyts, J. & Van der Auwera, J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp.495–513). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Al-Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 581–601.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In Cowie, A. P. (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp.101–122). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Antoniou, K. (2019). Multilingual pragmatics: Implicature comprehension in adult L2 learners and multilingual children. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics and second language acquisition.Google Scholar
Antoniou, K., & Katsos, N. (2017). The effect of childhood multilingualism and bilectalism on implicature understanding. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38 (4), 787–833.Google Scholar
Antoniou, K., Veenstra, A., Kissine, M., Katsos, N. (in press). The Impact of Childhood Bilingualism and Bi-dialectalism on Pragmatic Interpretation and Processing. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Antoniou, K., Veenstra, A., Kissine, M. & Katsos, N. (2019). How does childhood bilingualism and bi-dialectalism affect the interpretation and processing of implicature? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arbib, M. A., Oztop, E., & Zukow-Goldring, P. (2005). Language and the mirror system: A perception/action based approach to communicative development. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 3, 239–272.Google Scholar
Archibald, A., Cogo, A., & Jenkins, J. (2011). Latest trends in ELF research. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–154.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2005). Pragmatics, conversational implicature and conversation. In Fitch, K. L. & Sanders, R. E. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp.41–63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: a communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(2), 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5, 229–258.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1994). Conversational implicature. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327–366.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2001). Grice, H. Paul. In Wilson, R. & Keil, F. (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp.59–60). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2002). Giorgione was so-called because of his name. Noûs, 36, 73–103.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2004). Minding the gap. In Bianchi, C. (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics distinction (pp.27–43). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2005). Context ex machina. In Zoltán, S. (Ed.), Semantics vs. pragmatics (pp.15–45), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2007). Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics). In Burton-Roberts, N. (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp.24–44). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Baker, P. (2017). American and British English: Divided by a common language? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, W. (2009). The cultures of English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 567–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W. (2015). Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca. Boston/Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Baldinger, K. (1980). Semantic theory: Towards a modern semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2005). Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Colston, H. L. & Katz., A. N. (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension (pp.21–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barro, A., Byram, M., Grimm, H., Morgan, C., & Roberts, C. (1993). Cultural studies for advanced language learners. In Graddol, D., Thompson, L. & Byram, M. (Eds.), Language and culture (pp.55–70). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bates, D. G., & Plog, F. (1980). Cultural anthropology (2nd ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A. (2004). Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In Bianchi, C. (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics distinction (pp.101–131). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at … : Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1981). Basic issues in the development of word meaning. In Deutch, W. (Ed.), The child’s construction of language (pp.341–387). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M., & Schreuder, R. (1992). From concepts to lexical items. Cognition, 42, 23–60.Google Scholar
Björkman, B. (2010). Spoken lingua franca English at a Swedish technical university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Björkman, B. (2011a). Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicative effectiveness? Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 950–964.Google Scholar
Björkman, B. (2011b). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 923–925.Google Scholar
Björkman, B. (2013). English as an academic lingua franca: An investigation of form and communicative effectiveness. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Boden, M. A. (1999). Computer models of creativity. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.351–372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. F. (1988). A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 7(2), 183–196.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. F. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically–Without being explicitly taught? Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 53–65.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. F. (1994).  Conversational implicature in the second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157–67.Google Scholar
Bowie, J., Wallis, S.A. & Aarts, B. (2013). Contemporary change in modal usage in spoken British English: Mapping the impact of “genre”. In Marín-Arrese, J. I., Carretero, M., Hita, J. A. & van der Auwera, J. (Eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality, Topics in English Linguistics [TiEL], Band 81 (pp.57–94). Boston/ Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bowles, H., & Cogo, A. (Eds). (2015). International perspectives on English as a lingua franca: Pedagogical insights. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. (2006). A European perspective on language as liminality. In Mar-Molinero, C. & Stevenson, P. (Eds.),  Language ideologies, policies and practices (pp.28–43). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1975). From communication to language: A psychological perspective. Cognition, 3, 255–287.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Granada: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Buber, M. (1955). Dialogue. In Between man and man (R. G. Smith, Trans., pp.1–39). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (2006). Cancellation and Intention. Paper given at the Workshop on Explicit communication, University of Granada, Spain.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Fleischmann, S. (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse: An introductory essay. In Bybee, J. & Fleischmann, S. (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp.1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923–939.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. (2014). In search of a new paradigm for teaching English as an international language. TESOL Journal, 5(4), 767–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, H. (2008). Content relativism and semantic blindness. In García-Carpintero, M. & Max, K. (Eds.), Relative truth (pp.265–286). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive semantics. Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
Carassa, A., & Colombetti, M. (2009). Joint meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(9), 1837–1854.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to semantics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. C. (2014). Cross-cultural variation in the use of modal verbs in academic English. Sky Journal of Linguistics, 27(1), 153–166. Linguistic Association of Finland.Google Scholar
Carroll, L. (1871). Through the looking glass. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carroll, R. (1988). Cultural misunderstanding: The French-American experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal, 91, 145–162.Google Scholar
Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review, 42(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D. & Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp.89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ciaramidaro, A., Adenzato, M., Enrici, I., Erk, S., Pia, L., Bara, B. G. & Walter, H. (2007). The intentional network: How the brain reads varieties of intentions. Neuropsychologia, 45(13), 3105–3113.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22(2), 115–144.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1996). How adult second language learning differs from child first language development. Behavioral and Brain Science, 19, 721–723.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S., & Penke, M. (1996). Lexical learning in early syntactic development. In Clahsen, H. (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition (pp.129–159). Amsterdam: Benjamins.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 (pp.116–119). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58, 332–373.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. (1994). Intercultural communication at work: Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the philological society, 85(1), 110–131.Google Scholar
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Cohen, R. (2007). Creolization and cultural globalization: The soft sounds of fugitive power. Globalizations, 4(3), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Katz, A. (Eds.). (2005). Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cooren, F. (2010). Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation, and ventriloquism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornbleet, S., & Carter, R. (2001). The language of speech and writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Corson, D. (1995). Using English words. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (Ed.). (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.(2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Wood, E. J. (2000). Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. In Albertazzi, L. (Ed.), Meaning and cognition: a multidisciplinary approach (pp.51–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1992). Antonymy revisited: Some thoughts on the relationship between words and concepts. In Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp.289–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (2002). Language, meaning and sense: semantics. In Collingen, N. E. (Ed.), An encyclopedia of language (pp.87–104). Oxfordshire: Routledge.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.313–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cushman, D., & Kincaid, L. (1987). Asian perspectives on communication theory. In Kincaid, L. (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and western perspectives (pp.11–20). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
D’Andrade, R. (1987). A folk model of the mind. In Holland, D. & Quinn, N. (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp.113–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Andrade, R. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In D’Andrade, R. & Strauss, C. (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models (pp.23–44). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2010). Naive vs. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review, 27, 1–23.Google Scholar
Davis, W. (1998). Implicature, intention, convention, and principle in the failure of Gricean theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Decock, S., & Spiessens, A. (2017). Customer complaints and disagreements in a multilingual business environment. A discursive-pragmatic analysis. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 77–114.Google Scholar
Desai, J. (2007). Intergenerational conflict within Asian American families: The role of acculturation, ethnic identity, individualism, and collectivism. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, 7369.Google Scholar
Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a lingua franca: An analysis of ELF interactions in south-east Asia (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Downing, A., & Locke, P. (2002). A university course in English grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Du-Babcock, B. (2009). English as a business lingua franca: A framework of integrative approach to future research. In Louhiala-Salminen, L. & Kankaanranta, A. (Eds.), International business communication: The ascent of international business communication (B-109, pp. 45–66). Helsinki: HSE Print.Google Scholar
Dupuy, L., Stateva, P., Andreetta, S., Cheylus, A., Déprez, V., & Henst, J. B. V. D. (2018). Pragmatic abilities in bilinguals: The case of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. doi:10.1075/lab.17017.dup.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method. (W. D. Halls, Trans.). New York: The Free Press. (Original work published in 1895).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutra, D.P. (1998). The acquisition of English root modality by non-native speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2011). A web of deceit: A neo-Gricean view on types of verbal deception. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 137–165.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1992). Communities of practice: Where language, gender and power all live. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. & Moonwomon, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1992 Berkeley Women and Language Conference: Locating power (pp.89–99). Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, Susanne. (2016). English as a lingua franca (ELF) in international business contexts: key issues and future perspectives. In Murata, K. (Ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts (pp.135–155). London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.63–103). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Carson, M. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Journal, 42, 375–396.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). The need for a frame semantics within linguistics. Statistical Methods in Linguistics, 12, 5–29.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237–259.Google Scholar
Firth, A. (2009). The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Boyd, E. (2015). Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: the effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics, 38(5), 613–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (1986). Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in ethnomethodology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1972). Remarks on ethnomethodology. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. H. (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics pages (pp. 301–324). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E.M. (1985). Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in Society, 14(3), 327–343.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E.M. (1991). Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse. In Couplan, N., Giles, H. & Wiemann, J. M. (Eds.), “Miscommunication” and problematic talk (pp. 121–145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gauker, C. (2001). Situated inference versus conversational implicature. Nous, 35, 163–189.Google Scholar
Gauker, C. (2003). Words without meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1996). Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61, 309–319.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1999). Intentions in the experience of meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457–486.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R., & Haugh, M. (Eds.). (2017). Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives (Vol. 312). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Givoni, S., Giora, R., & Bergerbest, D. (2013), How speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 29–40.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic analysis: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London: The British Council.Google Scholar
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: The British Council.Google Scholar
Gramkow Anderson, K. (1993). Lingua franca discourse: An investigation of the use of English in an international business context. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
Grazzi, E. (2014). The sociocultural dimension of ELF in the English classroom: A case study on web-mediated activities. Textus, 27(1), 155–172.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp.41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Meaning. In Studies in the way of words (pp.213–233). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66(3), 377–388.] [Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions. The Philosophical Review, 78(2), 147–177.]Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. (1985). Lexical, conceptual, and encyclopedic meaning. Quaderni de Semanlica, 2, 254–267.Google Scholar
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y.Y. (1992). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. In Blount, B. (Ed.), Language, culture and society (pp.283–299). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1968). The speech community. In Duranti, A. (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp.66–73). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1979). The retrieval of socio-cultural knowledge in conversation. Poetics Today, 1(1/2), 273–286.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (2001). Contextualization and ideology in intercultural communication. In Luzio, A.D., Gunthner, S. & Orletti, F. (Eds.), Culture in communication: Analysis of intercultural situations (pp.35–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (2005). Making space for bilingual communicative practice. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Roberts, C. (1991). Understanding in intercultural encounters. In Jan, B. & Verschueren, J. (Eds.), The pragmatics of intercultural and international communication (pp. 51–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Tannen, D. (1979). Individual and social differences in language use. In Charles, F. J., Daniel, K. & Wang, W. S.-Y. (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp.305–325). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, D. (2014). Semantics vs. pragmatics. Accessed www.danielgutzmann.com/work/semantics-vs-pragmatics. Forthcoming in Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H. & Zimmermann, T. E. (Eds.), The companion to semantics. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Toronto: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980). Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua, 50, 329–357Google Scholar
Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development (Chapter 1). In L2 Interactional Competence and Development (Vol. 1, pp.1–15). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K., Hellerman, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42, 335–346.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. In Dil, A. S. (Ed), The ecology of language: Essays by Einar Haugen. (pp. 344–366). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). Intention in pragmatics [Special issue]. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 99–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2009). Face, communication and social interaction. Sheffield, UK: Equinox Pub.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., & Jaszczolt, K. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp.87–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, M.D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W.T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (1995). The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values. TESOL Journal, 29(2), 325–343.Google Scholar
Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (Eds.). (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holler, J., & Stevens, R. (2007). The effect of common ground on how speakers use gesture and speech to represent size information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 4–27.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2007). Making humour work: Creativity on the job. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 518–537.Google Scholar
Holmes, P., & Dervin, F. (Eds.) (2016). The cultural and intercultural dimensions of English as a lingua franca. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.3–28). Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horn, L., & Kecskes, I. (2013). Pragmatics, discourse and cognition. In The language-cognition interface (pp.353–375). Geneva-Paris: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.Google Scholar
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19, 24–44.Google Scholar
House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In Gnutzmann, C. (Ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language (pp.73–89). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
House, J. (2002). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In Knapp, K. & Meierkord, C. (Eds.), Lingua Franca Communication (pp.245–267). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
House, J. (2003). Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters. In House, J., Kasper, G. & Ross, S. (Eds.), Misunderstanding in social Life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk (pp.22–56). London: Longman.Google Scholar
House, J. (2009a). Introduction: The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca [Special issue]. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 141–145.Google Scholar
House, J. (2009b). Subjectivity in English as Lingua Franca discourse: The case of you know [Special issue]. Intercultural pragmatics, 6(2), 171–193.Google Scholar
House, J. (2014). Managing academic institutional discourse in English as a lingua franca. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hoye, L. F. (1997). Adverbs and Modality in English. London/ New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Hüllen, W. (1992). Identifikationssprachen und Kommunikationssprachen. Über Probleme der Mehrsprachigkeit/Languages of identification and languages of communication. On problems of multilingualism. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 20(3), 298–317.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In Gladwin, T. & Sturtevant, W. C. (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp.13–53). Washington: The Anthropology Society of Washington.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1968). The ethnography of speaking. In Fishman, J. A. (Ed.), Readings in the sociology of language (pp.99–138). The Hague, Paris: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hynninen, N. (2016). Language regulation in English as a lingua franca: Focus on academic spoken discourse. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 26–37.Google Scholar
Jackson, H. (2013). Words and their meanings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacobs, N., & Garnham, A. (2007), The role of conversational hand gestures in a narrative task. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 291–303.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (1996). Native speaker, non-native speaker and English as a foreign language: Time for a change. IATEFL Newsletter, 131, 10–11.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2006a). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Journal, 40, 157–181.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2006b). Global intelligibility and local diversity: Possibility or paradox? Rubdy, In R. & Saraceni, M. (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp.32–39). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44 (3), 281–315.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1904). How to teach a foreign language? London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.Google Scholar
Joas, H. (1996). The creativity of action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. (1991). Developmental versus language-based factors in metaphor interpretation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 470.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In Quirk, R. & Widdowson, H. G. (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp.11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A., & Planken, B. (2010). BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication, Special Issue on Language Matters, Part 2. 47, 380–407.Google Scholar
Katsos, N., Cummins, C., Ezeizabarrena, M. J., Gavarró, A., Kraljević, J. K., & Hrzica, G. (2016). Cross-linguistic patterns in the acquisition of quantifiers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 9244–9249.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2009). Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In Mauranen, A. & Ranta, E. (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings (pp.107–123). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2010). Achieving mutual understanding in world Englishes. World Englishes, 29(2), 192–208.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2011). Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2011.004.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2001). The graded salience hypothesis in second language acquisition. In Putz, M., Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R. (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics (Vol. 1, pp.249–271). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2000). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 605–625.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2006). On my mind: thoughts about salience, context and figurative language from a second language perspective. Second Language Research, 22(2), 219–237.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In Kecskes, I. & Horn, L. R. (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (pp.191–219), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatic, 40(3), 385–406.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010a). Situation-Bound Utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2889–2897.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010b). The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010c). Dual and multilanguage systems. International Journal of Multilingualism 7(2), 91–109.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue, 2, 283–297.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013a). Why do we say what we say the way we say it? Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 71–84.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013b). Focus on the speaker: An introduction. Special issue. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2015a). Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics, 7, 171–194.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2015b). Is the idiom principle blocked in bilingual L2 production? Heredia, In R. & Cieslicka, A. (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp.28–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2016). Deliberate creativity and formulaic language use. In Allan, K., Capone, A. & Kecskes, I. (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use (Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology), 9, 3–20.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017a). From pragmatics to dialogue. In Weigand, E. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and dialogue (pp.77–92). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017b). The effect of salience on shaping speaker’s utterance. Reti, saperi, linguaggi, 1/2017 a. 6(11), 5–34. doi:10.12832/87352Google Scholar
Kecskes, I., & Assimakopoulos, S. (Eds). (2017). Current issues in intercultural pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I., & Kirner-Ludwig, M. (2017). “It would never happen in my country I must say”: A corpus-pragmatic study on Asian English learners’ preferred uses of “must” and “should”. Corpus Pragmatics, 1(2), 91–134.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I., & Kirner-Ludwig, M. (forthcoming). (2019) Odd structures in intercultural discourse segments. Journal of Pragmatics. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.007.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I., & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I., Sanders, R. E., & Pomerantz, A. (2017). The basic interactional competence of language learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 124, 88–105.Google Scholar
Kertész, A. & Rákosi, C. (2012). Data and evidence in linguistics: A plausible argumentation model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keysar, B. (2007). Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 71–84.Google Scholar
Keysar, B., & Henly, A. S. (2002). Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13(3), 207–212.Google Scholar
Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., & Horton, W. S. (1998). The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 46–50.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. (2000). Common ground in cross cultural communication: Sequential and institutional contexts in front desk service encounters. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 17–37.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F. (1990). Linguistic, conceptual and encyclopedic knowledge: some implications for lexicography. In Magay, T. & Zigány, J. (Eds.), BudaLEX ‘88 proceedings: Papers from the 3rd International EURALEX Congress. Budapest.Google Scholar
King, J. C., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Gendler, S. Z. (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics (pp.111–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). Researching English as a lingua franca in Asia: The Asian Corpus of English (ACE) project. Asian Englishes, 31(1), 4–18.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Koole, T., & ten Thije, J. D. (2001). The reconstruction of intercultural discourse: Methodological considerations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(4), 571–587.Google Scholar
Korta, K., & Perry, J. (2015). Pragmatics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/Google Scholar
Köylü, Y. (2018). Comprehension of conversational implicatures in L2 English. Intercultural Pragmatics,15(3).Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Küronya, K. (2013). Modality in English as a lingua franca communication (Dissertation). University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Laitinen, M. (2016). Ongoing changes in English modals: On the developments in ELF. In Timofeeva, O., Gardner, A., Honkapohja, A., Chevalier, S., Hundt, M., & Schneider, G. (Eds.), New approaches to English linguistics: Building bridges (pp.175–196). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lamberts, K., & Shanks, D. (1997). Knowledge, concepts and categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1988). An overview of cognitive grammar. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 3.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. (2006). Idiomatic creativity: A cognitive-linguistic model of idiom-representation and idiom-variation in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. (2010). Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Frankfurt: Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2003). Modality on the move: the English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. Topics in English Linguistics, 44, 223–240.Google Scholar
Leech, T. K. (2013). Finding space for non-dominant languages in education: Language policy and medium of instruction in Timor-Leste 2000–2012. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 109–126.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1903). Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz: Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Hanovre par Louis Couturat. Paris: F. Alcan.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1976[1679]). Philosophical Papers and Letters (2nd ed.). Loemker, L. E. (Ed. & Trans.). Dordrecht, Holland/Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. (1930), Polarity in language. Curme volume of linguistics studies, 6(4), 102–109. doi:10.2307/521989Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics: Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In Dedre, G. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp.25–46). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006). On the human “interactional engine”. In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and interaction (pp. 39–69). Berg/ Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leyland, S. (2011). The language of exile. Liverpool: Erbacce-Press.Google Scholar
Li, H. Z., Yum, Y. O., Yates, R., Aguilera, L., Mao, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2005). Interruption and involvement in discourse: Can intercultural interlocutors be trained. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34(4), 233–254.Google Scholar
Li, R. (2003). Modality in English and Chinese: A typological perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Lim, S. (2016). Learning to teach intelligible pronunciation for ASEAN English as a ingua franca: A sociocultural investigation of Cambodian pre-service teacher cognition and practice. RELC Journal, 47(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216631176.Google Scholar
Liu, P., & Liu, H. (2017). Creating common ground: The role of metapragmatic expressions in BELF meeting interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 107, 1–15.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G., & Spivey, M. J. (2010). Redundant spoken labels facilitate perception of multiple items. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 72(8), 2236–2253.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vols. 1–2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, I. (2013). English as a lingua franca: Theorizing and teaching English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, N. M. (2014). Teaching early writers: Teachers’ responses to a young child’s writing sample. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 37(3), 182.Google Scholar
Mancini-Cross, C., Backman, K. F., & Baldwin, E. D. (2009). The effect of the language barrier on intercultural communication: A case study of educational travel in Italy, Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 9(1–2), 104–123.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2000). Pragmatic meaning and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (1955). Economie des changements phonetiques: Traite de phonologie diachronique. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Matsuda, A., & Friedrich, P. (2012). Selecting an instructional variety for an EIL curriculum. In Matsuda, Aya (Ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language (pp.17–27). Channel View Publications.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2003). The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Journal, 37(3), 513–527.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123–150.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McEniry, S. (2011). Free in all senses of the word. The Bottom Line. Accessed https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2011/04/free-in-all-senses-of-the-word.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. (1982). The structure of classroom events and their consequences for student performance. In Gilmore, P. & Glatthorn, A. (Eds.), Children in and out of education: Ethnography and education (pp.59–87). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Meierkord, C. (2002). “Language stripped bare” or “linguistic masala”? Culture in lingua franca communication. In Knapp, K. & Meierkord, C. (Eds.), Lingua franca communication (pp.109–134). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I., & Zholkovsky, A. (1984). Explanatory combinatorial dictionary of modern Russian. Vienna: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.Google Scholar
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mey, J. (2013). A brief sketch of the historic development of pragmatics. In Allan, Keith (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics (pp. 587–611). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J., & Weinert, R. (1998). Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. H. (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp.211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2004). Intercultural pragmatics: a cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2004.007.Google Scholar
Mollin, S. (2006). Euro-English: Assessing variety status. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Moore, C., & Dunham, P. J. (Eds.). (1995). Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Moore, J. D., & Paris, C. L. (1993). Planning text for advisory dialogues: Capturing intentional and rhetorical information. Computational Linguistics, 19(4), 651–694.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 9, pp.261–280). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In International encyclopedia of unified science (pp.1–59). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2016). Modal hedging verbs in English as a lingua franca (ELF) business management research articles. Kalbotyra: Romanu Ir Germanu Studijos, 69, 153–178. doi:10.15388/Klbt.2016.10371.Google Scholar
Murray, N. (2012). English as a lingua franca and the development of pragmatic competence. ELT Journal, 66(3), 318–326.Google Scholar
Nadig, A., & Sedivy, J. (2002). Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children’s on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science, 13(4), 329–336.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, K., & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of autobiographical memory: A social cultural developmental theory. Psychological review, 111, 486–511.Google Scholar
Neuliep, J. W. (2006). Editorial welcome. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
Newman-Norlund, S. E., Matthijs, L. N., Newman-Norlund, R. D., Volman, I. A. C., De Ruiter, J. P., Hagoort, P., & Toni, I. (2009). Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition, 111, 46–54.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 79, 682–707.Google Scholar
Nicoll, J. (1990). The King’s English. Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf-lovers.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J., Byloo, P., & Diepeveen, J. (2010). On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 16–34.Google Scholar
O’Neill, M., Bard, K. A., Linnell, M., & Fluck, F. (2005). Maternal gesture with 20-month-old infants in two contexts. Developmental Science, 8(4), 352–359.Google Scholar
Ortaçtepe, D. (2012). The development of conceptual socialization in international students: A language socialization perspective on conceptual fluency and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., & Bock, K. J. (1977). Salience and sentencing: Some production principles. In Rosenberg, S. (Ed.), Sentence production: Developments in research and theory (pp.89–140). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ostler, N. (2005). Empires of the world: A language history of the world. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Ozyurek, A. (2002). Do speakers design their co-speech gesture for their addressees? The effects of addressee location on representational gestures. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(4), 688–704.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G., & Wagner, J. (Eds.). (2011). L2 learning as social practice: Conversation analytic perspectives. National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals (2nd ed.). London/ New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (2003). Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Facchinetti, R., Krug, M. & Palmer, F. (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp.1–17). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Passonneau, R. J., &. Litman, D. J. (1997). Discourse segmentation by human and automated means. Journal of Computational Linguistics, 23(1), 103–139.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language and Communication, 5, 191–226.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (2000). The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. In Riggenbach, H. (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp.163–199). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pearce, P. L. (2005). Tourist behavior: Themes and conceptual schemes. Clevedon, UK: Channel View PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turntaking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In Cadierno, T. & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.), Usage based perspectives on second language learning (pp.233–268). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Peleg, O., Giora, R., & Ofer, F. (2001). Salience and context effects: Two are better than one. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 173–192.Google Scholar
Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Philip, G. (2005). Figurative language and the advanced learner. Research News: The Newsletter of the IATEFL Research SIG, 16, 16–20.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R. (1998). Globalizing English: Are linguistic human rights and alternative to linguistic imperialism? Language Science, 20(1), 111–121.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration and cognitive structures. New York: The Viking Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s so special about it? Cognition, 95, 201–236.Google Scholar
Piqué, J., Posteguillo, S., & Andreu-Besó, J. V. (2001). A pragmatic analysis framework for the description of modality usage in academic English contexts. ELIA: Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 2, 213–224.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M-L. (2012). Creativity meets convention: Idiom variation and remetaphorization in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf–2012–0003.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M-L. (2018). Creativity in English as a lingua franca: Idiom and metaphor. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M-L., Breiteneder, A., & Klimpfinger, T. (2008). A world of words: Processes of lexical innovation in VOICE. Vienna English Working Papers, 17(2), 21–46.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2012). Preference. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The handbook of conversational analysis (pp.201–228). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: Theory, history, practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pride, J. B. (1985). Cross-cultural encounters: Communication and miscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine Publications.Google Scholar
Prodromou, L. (2007). Bumping into creative idiomaticity. English Today, 23(1), 14–25.Google Scholar
Prodromou, L. (2008). English as a lingua franca: A corpus-based analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Psathas, O. (Ed.). (1979). Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rapaport, W. J. (2003). What did you mean by that? Misunderstanding, negotiation, and syntactic semantics. Minds and Machines 13(3), 397–427.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2005). Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. In Preyer, G. & Peter, G. (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth (pp.171–196). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2012). Pragmatic enrichment. In Russell, G. & Fara, D. G. (Eds.), Routledge companion to the philosophy of language (pp.67–78). London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Risager, K. (2006). Language and culture: Global flows and local complexity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.Google Scholar
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, R. (1998). Intersubjective attunement and linguistically mediated meaning in discourse. In Bråten, S. (Ed.), Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny (pp. 354–371). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In Warren, N. (Ed.), Advances in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 1–72). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Schegloff, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sanders, R. E. (1987). Cognitive foundations of calculated speech: Controlling understandings in conversation and persuasion. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, R. E. (1997). The production of symbolic objects as components of larger wholes. In Greene, J. O. (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp.245–277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Saul, J. M. (2002). Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated. Nous 36(2), 228–248.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1983). A new account of language transfer. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp.98–111). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An enquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55–62.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer for conversation analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schenkein, J. (Ed.). (1978). Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. NewGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp.137–174). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scribner, S. (1997). A sociocultural approach to the study of mind. In Tobach, E., Falmagne, R. J., Parlee, M. B., Martin, L. M. W. & Kapelman, A. S. (Eds.), Mind and social practice: Selected writings of Sylvia Scribner (pp.266–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of Social Reality. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173–199.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a Lingua Franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133–158.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a Lingua Franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2009a). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 195–215.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2009b). Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 28(2), 236–245.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1–4), 3–34, 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1–4.209.Google Scholar
Shively, R. L., Menke, M. R., & Manzon-Omundson, S. M. (2008). Perception of irony by L2 learners of Spanish. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16, 101–132.Google Scholar
Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women. Applied Linguistics, 17, 356–382.Google Scholar
Siegal, M., Matsuo, A., Pond, C., & Otsu, Y. (2007). Bilingualism and cognitive development: Evidence from scalar implicatures. In Proceedings of the Eighth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (pp.265–280). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487–512.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1987). Collocation: A progress report. In Steele, R. & Treadgold, T. (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (pp.319–331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2010). What is easy and what is hard to acquire in a second language? Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2009), Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 20, 280–294.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., & Mayo, M. D. P. G. (2013). Whether to teach and how to teach complex linguistic structures in a second language. In Whong, M., Kook-Hee, G. & Marsden, H. (Eds.), Universal grammar and the second language classroom (pp.187–205). Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1991). Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics, 1(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1997). Mind, code, and text. In Halman, J., Bybee, J. & Thompson, S. (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp.437–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.Google Scholar
Strevens, P. (1987). Cultural barriers to language learning. In Smith, L. (Ed.), Discourse across cultures (pp.169–178). New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Swan, M. (2012). ELF and EFL: Are they really different? Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(2), 379–389.Google Scholar
Swan, M. (2017). EFL, ELF, and the question of accuracy. ELT Journal, 71(4), 511–515.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Syrett, K., Austin, J., Sánchez, L., Germak, C., & Lingwall, A. (2016). The influence of conversational context and the developing lexicon on the calculation of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(2), 230–264.Google Scholar
Syrett, K., Lingwall, A., Perez-Cortes, S., Austin, J., & Sánchez, L. (2017). Differences between Spanish monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual children in their calculation of entailment-based scalar implicatures. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 31.Google Scholar
Taboada, M., & Habel, C. (2013). Rhetorical relations in multimodal documents. Discourse Studies, 15(1), 59–85.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 89, 543–562.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Liu, Y. (2013). Comprehension of conversational implicature in L2 Chinese. Pragmatics & Cognition, 21, 139–157.Google Scholar
Taillard, M. O. (2002). Beyond communicative intention. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 189–207.Google Scholar
Tannen, D., & Öztek, P. C. (1981). Health to our mouths: Formulaic expressions in Turkish and Greek. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp.37–54, 516–534). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (2000). The network model and the two-level model in comparison. In Peeters, B. (Ed.), The lexicon-encyclopedia interface (pp.115–143). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ten Thije, J. D. (2003). The transition from misunderstanding to understanding in intercultural communication. In Komlósi László., I., Houtlosser, P. & Leezenberg, M. (Eds.), Communication and culture: Argumentative, cognitive and linguistic perspectives (pp.197–214). Amsterdam: Sic Sac.Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 82–99.Google Scholar
Tracy, K., & Craig, R. T. (2010). Studying interaction in order to cultivate practice: Action-implicative discourse analysis. In Streeck, J. (Ed.), New adventures in language and interaction (pp.145–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, C. (1977). Descriptive analyses of infant communicative behaviour. In Schaffer, H. R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Loch Lomond symposium, Ross Priory, University of Strathclyde, September, 1975: Studies in mother-infant interaction (pp.227–270). London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity. In Bullowa, M. (Ed.), Before speech (pp.321–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 27, 155–180.Google Scholar
Turner, R. (Ed.). (1974). Ethnomethodology: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, J., & Plungian, V. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2(1), 79–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79.Google Scholar
Veale, T. (2012). Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Vettorel, P. (Ed.). (2015). New frontiers in teaching and learning English. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars PublishingGoogle Scholar
VOICE. (2013). The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English. Accessed http://voice.univie.ac.at/Google Scholar
Von Wright, G. H. (1951). An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University press.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. (2013). Non-conformity to ENL norms: a perspective from Chinese English users. Journal of English Lingua Franca, 2(2), 255–282.Google Scholar
Warga, M. (2005). ‘Je serais très merciable’: Formulaic vs. creatively produced speech in learners’ request closings. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 67–94.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. (2010a). Dialogue: the mixed game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. (2010b). Language as dialogue. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(3), 505–515.Google Scholar
Weigand, E., & Kecskes, I. (Eds). (2018). From Pragmatics to Dialogue. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1979). Describing children’s linguistic development at home and at school. British Educational Research Journal, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192790050109.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1981). Language as interaction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1939). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Carroll, J. (Ed.), Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests. World Englishes, 16(1), 146–153.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2012). ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2013). ELF and EFL: What’s the difference? Comments on Michael Swan. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 187–193. Vienna: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2017). The cultural and creative use of English as a Lingua Franca. Lingue e Linguaggi, 21, 275–281.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. & Ward, G. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Winch, P. (1997). Can we understand ourselves? Philosophical Investigations, 20(3), 193–204.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). Oxford/Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wortham, S. (2008). Linguistic anthropology of education. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37, 37–51.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32, 213–231.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2005). Idiomaticity in an L2: Linguistic processing as a predictor of success. In Briony, B. (Ed.), IATEFL 2005: Cardiff conference selections (pp.53–60). Canterbury: IATEFL.Google Scholar
Wray, A., & Namba, K. (2003). Formulaic language in a Japanese-English bilingual child: A practical approach to data analysis. Japanese Journal for Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, 9(1), 24–51.Google Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1–28.Google Scholar
Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp.426–443). Routledge.Google Scholar
Young, R. F. (2014). AL Forum of the Applied Linguists Interest Section of TESOL International Association: What is interactional competence? Accessed http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolalis/textonly/printall.php?id=tesolalis20140827.Google Scholar
Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519–535.Google Scholar
Zalaltdinova, L. (2018). “Stop doing this at once!”: The preferred use of modality for advice-giving by English language learners. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(3), 349–373.Google Scholar
Zalaltdinova, L. (forthcoming). Modality as a reflection of pragmatic competence (PhD thesis).Google Scholar
Zhu, H. (2015). Negotiation as the way of engagement in intercultural and lingua franca communication: Frames of reference and Interculturality. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), 63–90.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.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.

  • References
  • Istvan Kecskes, State University of New York, Albany
  • Book: English as a Lingua Franca
  • Online publication: 18 November 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316217832.012
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.

  • References
  • Istvan Kecskes, State University of New York, Albany
  • Book: English as a Lingua Franca
  • Online publication: 18 November 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316217832.012
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.

  • References
  • Istvan Kecskes, State University of New York, Albany
  • Book: English as a Lingua Franca
  • Online publication: 18 November 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316217832.012
Available formats
×