Book contents
- Talking in Clichés
- Talking in Clichés
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Chapter One On Clichés
- Chapter Two Clichés in Discourse
- Chapter Three Clichés as Argumentative Strategies
- Chapter Four Clichés as Social Cognition
- Chapter Five Clichés as Politeness Strategies in Evaluation
- Chapter Six Clichés as Identity Markers
- Chapter Seven Concluding Remarks
- Appendix 1: Clichés in News Comments
- Appendix 2: Clichés in Corporate Mission Statements
- Appendix 3: Clichés in Evaluation
- Appendix 4: Clichés as Identity Markers in BBC’s Reality TV Show, The Apprentice
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2022
Book contents
- Talking in Clichés
- Talking in Clichés
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Chapter One On Clichés
- Chapter Two Clichés in Discourse
- Chapter Three Clichés as Argumentative Strategies
- Chapter Four Clichés as Social Cognition
- Chapter Five Clichés as Politeness Strategies in Evaluation
- Chapter Six Clichés as Identity Markers
- Chapter Seven Concluding Remarks
- Appendix 1: Clichés in News Comments
- Appendix 2: Clichés in Corporate Mission Statements
- Appendix 3: Clichés in Evaluation
- Appendix 4: Clichés as Identity Markers in BBC’s Reality TV Show, The Apprentice
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Talking in ClichésThe Use of Stock Phrases in Discourse and Communication, pp. 178 - 191Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Aaker, D., Stayman, D. and Hagerty, M. (1986). Warmth in advertising: Measurement, impact and sequence effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 364–381.Google Scholar
Abrams, D. (1999). Social identity, social cognition, and the self: The flexibility and stability of self-categorization. In Abrams, D. and Hogg, M. A., eds., Social Identity and Social Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 197–229.Google Scholar
Akbari, M. (2015). Different impacts of advertising appeals on advertising attitude for high and low involvement products. Global Business Review, 16(3), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150915569936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers-Miller, N. D. and Stafford, M. R. (1999). An international analysis of emotional and rational appeals in services vs. goods advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(1), 42–57.Google Scholar
Almgren, S. and Olsson, T. (2015). ‘Let’s get them involved’... to some extent: Analyzing online news participation. Social Media + Society, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115621934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Marketing Association (2021). Advertising. www.ama.org/topics/advertising/ [Last accessed March 2021].Google Scholar
Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C. and Robson, K. (1998). ‘Work hard, play hard’: An analysis of organizational cliché in two accountancy practices. Organization, 5(4), 565–592.Google Scholar
Aragbuwa, A. (2020). Dialogic contractions in online news discourse on violence against women in Nigeria. Journal of Gender Studies, 29(2), 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2019.1584553Google Scholar
Archer, D., Wilson, A. and Rayson, P. (2002). Introduction to the USAS category system. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/usas/usas_guide.pdf [Last accessed 10 March 2021].Google Scholar
Aristotle, (2006). Art of Rhetoric. Reprint of 1926 edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Augoustinos, M. and Walker, I. (1995). Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd edn. Urmson, J. O. and Sbisá, M., eds., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baider, F. (2013). Cultural stereotypes and linguistic clichés: Usefulness in intercultural competency. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), 4(2), 1166–1171. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2013.0164.Google Scholar
Baker, K. (2015). At the end of the day, it's a game of two halves: Survey reveals the top punditry cliches that make us cringe while watching football. Mail Online. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3228791/Survey-reveals-punditry-cliches-make-hate-football.html [Last accessed February 2017].Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. S. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
BBC (2008). 20 of your most hated clichés. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7733264.stm [Last accessed February 2017].Google Scholar
Benczes, R. (2009). What motivates the production and use of metaphorical and metonymical compounds? In Brdar, M., Omazić, M. and Pavičić Takač, V., eds., Cognitive Approaches to English. Fundamental, Methodological Interdisciplinary and Applied Aspects. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 49–67.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bib.Google Scholar
Boers, F. (2014). Idioms and phraseology. In Taylor, J. and Littlemore, J., eds., The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 185–201.Google Scholar
Boers, F. and Stengers, H. (2008). Adding sound to the picture: Motivating the lexical composition of metaphorical idioms in English, Dutch and Spanish. In Zanotto, M. S., Cameron, L. and Cavalcanti, M. C., eds., Confronting Metaphor in Use: An Applied Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 63–78.Google Scholar
Boorstin, , D. (1987). The Image: a Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2007a). Impoliteness, preference organization and conductivity. Multilingua, 26(1/2), 1–33.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2007b). Beginnings, middles and ends: Towards a biopsy of the dynamics of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12), 2185–2216.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Vol. 167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2013). Face in conflict. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 1(1), 37–57.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2018). Face(t)s of self in interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(2), 87–305.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. and McIntyre, D. (2018). Creative linguistic impoliteness as aggression in Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket. Journal of Literary Semantics, 47(1), 43–65.Google Scholar
Boyce, L. (2015). Revealed: Ten most common mistakes job hunters make on CVs and overused clichés that can put employers off. This is Money. www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3236760/Ten-common-mistakes-job-hunters-make-CVs-overused-clich-s-employers-off.html [Last accessed February 2017].Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bullo, S. (2014). Evaluation in Advertising Reception: A Socio-Cognitive and Linguistic Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bullo, S. (2018). Exploring disempowerment in women’s accounts of endometriosis experiences. Discourse and Communication, 11(6), 1–18.Google Scholar
Bullo, S. (2019). Clichés as evaluative resources: A socio-cognitive study. Text and Talk, 39(6), 289–313.Google Scholar
Cambridge University Press (2017). Cambridge international dictionary of idioms. http://itools.com/tool/cambridge-international-dictionary-of-idioms. [Last accessed April 2021].Google Scholar
Channell, J. (2000). Corpus analysis of evaluative lexis. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 38–56.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2004). The Generative Enterprise Revisited: Discussions with Riny Huybregts, Henk van Riemsdijk, Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. T. and Askegaard, S. (2001). Corporate identity and corporate image revisited: A semiotic perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3–4), 292–315.Google Scholar
Chumbley, J. I. and Balota, D. A. A. (1984). Word’s meaning affects the decision in lexical decision. Memory and Cognition 12: 590–606. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213348.Google Scholar
Church, K. W. and Hanks, P. (1990). Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16, 222–229.Google Scholar
van Cranenburgh, A. (2018). Cliche expressions in literary and genre novels. In Proceedings of Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 25 August, pp. 34–43 https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/72810336/W18_4504.pdf.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35–72.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009). Impoliteness: Using and understanding the language of offence. ESRC project website: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3232–3245.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dann, G. M. S. (2001). The self-admitted use of cliché, in the language of tourism. Tourism Culture and Communication, 3(1), 11–14.Google Scholar
Dervin, F. (2015). Discourses of Othering. In Tracy, K., Sandel, T. and Ilie, C., eds., The International Encyclopedia of Language of Social Interaction. London: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1977a). Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A., eds., Cognitive Processes in Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society, 3(1), 87–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1997b). The study of discourse. In van Dijk, T. A., ed., Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol 1. London: Sage, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1997c). What is political discourse analysis? In Blommaert, J. and Bulcean, C., eds., Political Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–52.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2000). On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration. In Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R., eds., The Semiotics of Racism: Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis. Vienna: Passagen Verlag, pp. 851–903.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA. In Wodak, R., and Meyer, M., eds., Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 95–121.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2007). Editor’s introduction: The study of discourse – an introduction. In van Dijk, T. A., ed., Discourse Studies, Vol. 1, London: Sage, pp. xix–xlii.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M., eds., Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. London: Sage, pp. 62–86.Google Scholar
Down, S. and Warren, L. (2008). Constructing narratives of enterprise: Clichés and entrepreneurial self-identity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 14(1). 4–23.Google Scholar
Dubrofsky, R. E. (2011). Surveillance on reality television and Facebook: From authenticity to flowing data. Communication Theory, 21(2), 111–129.Google Scholar
Dunmire, P. (2012). Political discourse analysis: Exploring the language of politics and the politics of language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 735–751.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 683–685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01276-1.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. and Moonwoman, B., eds., Locating Power. Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley: Women and Language Group, pp. 89–89.Google Scholar
Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Economou, D. (2012). Standing out on critical issues: Evaluation in large verbal-visual displays in Australian broadsheets. In Bowcher, W. L., ed., Multimodal Texts from Around the World. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 246–269.Google Scholar
Ekström, M., Patrona, M. and Thornborrow, J. (2018). Right-wing populism and the dynamics of style: A discourse-analytic perspective on mediated political performances. Palgrave Communications, 83(4). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0132-6Google Scholar
Eyben, R. (2019). ‘The moustache makes him more of a man’: Waiters’ masculinity mtruggles, 1890–1910, History Workshop Journal, 87: 188–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbz008.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In van Dijk, T. A., ed., Introduction to Discourse Studies. London: Sage, pp. 258–284.Google Scholar
Firth, R. (1957). Man and Culture: An Evaluation of the Work of Bronislaw Malinowski. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. (1956). Linguistic theory and the study of literature. In Fowler, R., ed., Essays on Style and Language: Linguistic and Critical Approaches to Literary Style. London: Routledge, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. (1965). A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. and Sifianou, M. (2017). Im/politeness and identity. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 227–256.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1993). Process and product in making sense of tropes. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 252–277.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2014). Embodied metaphor. In Littlemore, J. and Taylor, J., eds., The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 167–184.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E., ed. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (2008). Disentangling the phraseological web. In Granger, S. and Meunier, F., eds., Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–49.Google Scholar
Grant, L. and Bauer, L. (2004). Criteria for re-defining idioms: Are we barking up the wrong tree? Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 38–61.Google Scholar
Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. and Putnam, L. (2004). Introduction: Organizational discourse: Exploring the field. In Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. & Putnam, L., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London: SAGE, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, A. D. (ed.) (1990). Conflict Talk. Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. and Wilson, R. (1971). Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border in India. In Hymes, D., ed., Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–168.Google Scholar
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, ed., Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies. London: Hutchinson, pp. 128–138.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language As Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Language as social semiotic. In Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D. and Wodak, R., eds., The Discourse Studies Reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 263–272.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. and Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hamawand, Z. (2015). Semantics: A Cognitive Account of Linguistic Meaning. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3), 345–365.Google Scholar
Holt, D. (2004). How Brand Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.). (2003). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1968). The ethnography of speaking. Readings in the Sociology of Language, 2, 99–138.Google Scholar
Ilie, C. (2000). Cliché‐based metadiscursive argumentation in the Houses of Parliament. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 65–84.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1995). The boundaries of the lexicon. In Everaert, M., van der Linden, E. J., Schenk, A., Schreuder, R. and Schreuder, R., eds., Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 133–165.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1992). Philosophical implications of cognitive semantics. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(4), 345–366.Google Scholar
Jones, R. H., Chik, A. and Hafner, C., eds., (2015). Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age. London: Routledge, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (2013). Identity work and face work across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 35–54.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. (2017). Politeness in pragmatics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-218. [Last accessed May 2021].Google Scholar
Kapferer, J. N. (1997). Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating Brand Equity. London: Kogan.Google Scholar
Kapferer, J. N. (2002). Corporate brand and organizational identity. In Moingeon, B. and Soenen, G., eds., Corporate and Organizational Identities: Integrating Strategy, Marketing, Communication and Organisational Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 175–193.Google Scholar
Khosravi Nik, M. (2017). Social media critical discourse studies (SM-CDS). In Flowerdew, J. and Richardson, J., eds., Handbook of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 582–596.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, M. (1992). How to classify arguments. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A. and Willard, C. A., eds., Argumentation Illuminated. Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, pp. 178–188.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, M. (2011). ‘Rhetoric’. In Ostman, J. and Verschueren, J., eds., Pragmatics in Practice. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 264–277.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, B. (1996). Cliches: Neither defence nor a condemnation. English Today, 12(3), pp. 16–25.Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, J. (2016). Studying rhetorical audiences: A call for qualitative reception studies in argumentation and rhetoric. Informal Logic, 26(2), 136–158Google Scholar
Koller, V. (2008a). Corporate brands as socio-cognitive representations. In Kristiansen, G. and Dirven, R., eds., Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 389–418.Google Scholar
Koller, V. (2008b). ‘The world in one city’: Semiotic and cognitive aspects of city branding. Journal of Language and Politics, 7(3), 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.7.3.05kol.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kress, G. R. and van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuiper, K. and Scott Allan, W. (1996). An Introduction to English Language. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kupferberg, I. and Green, D. (2005). Troubled Talk: Metaphorical Negotiation in Problem Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular, No. 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lachenicht, L. G. (1980). Aggravating language: A study of abusive and insulting language. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 13(4), 607–687.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–251.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1996). Sorry, I’m not myself today: The metaphor system for conceptualising the self. In Fauconnier, G. and Sweetser, E., eds., Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 91–123.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lalić-Krstin, G. and Silaški, N. (2018). From Brexit to Bregret: An account of some Brexit-induced neologisms in English. English Today, 34(2), 3–8.Google Scholar
Van Lancker-Sidtis, D. and Rallon, G. (2004). Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: Methods for classification and verification. Language & Communication, 24(3), 207–240.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1999). 10 The contextual basis of cognitive semantics. Language and Conceptualization, 1, 229–252.Google Scholar
Larner, S. (2019). Formulaic sequences as a potential marker of deception: A Preliminary investigation. In Docan-Morgan, T., ed., The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 327–346.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le, Sage, L. (1941). The cliché basis for some of the metaphors of Jean Giraudoux. Modern Language Notes, 56(6), 435–439.Google Scholar
Leary, M. R. and Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In Caldas, C.-Coulthard, and Coulthard, R. M., eds., Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 32–71.Google Scholar
Liu, F. (2018). Lexical metaphor as affiliative bond in newspaper editorials: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Functional Linguistics, 5(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s405540–180–054-z.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2009). ‘You’re barking mad, I’m out’: Impoliteness and broadcast talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 159–187.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A., eds., The Meaning of Meaning. A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. Supplement I. 4th edn. revised 1936. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, pp. 296–336.Google Scholar
Markus, H. R. and Nurius, S. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.Google Scholar
Martín, P. (1985). Genre and discourse community. ES Review. Spanish Journal of English Studies, 25, 153–166.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (2004). Sense and sensibility: Texturing evaluation. In Foley, J., ed., Language, Education and Discourse: Functional Approaches. New York: Continuum, pp. 270–304.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. (2012). Systemic Functional Linguistics as appliable linguistics: Social accountability and critical approaches. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 28(SPE), 435–471.Google Scholar
Mazzone, M. (2011). Schemata and associative processes in pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(8), 2148–2159.Google Scholar
Miller, J. and Weinert, R. (1998). Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Monroe, J. (1990). Idiom and cliché in TS Eliot and John Ashbery. Contemporary Literature, 31(1), 17–36.Google Scholar
Moon, R. E. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus Based Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Moore, R. E. (2003). From genericide to viral marketing: On ‘brand’. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), pp. 3313–3357.Google Scholar
Moriarty, S. E. (1991). Creative Advertising Theory and Practice. 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representations. Social Cognition: Perspectives on Everyday Understanding, 8(12), 181–209.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (2000). Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. and Duveen, G. (2000). Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Mumby, D. and Clair, R. (1997). Organisational discourse. In Van Dijk, T. A., ed., Discourse as Structure and Process: Discourse Studies A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2. London: Sage, pp. 181–205.Google Scholar
Mussolf, A (2017). Truths, lies and figurative scenarios: Metaphors at the heart of Brexit. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(5), 6416–6457.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. R. and DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olmos, P. (2018). The social nature of argumentative practices: The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Informal Logic, 38(1), 1511–1583.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., and Carter, R. (2007). From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostermann, A. C. (2015). Community of practice. In Tracy, K., Sandel, T. and Ilie, C., eds., The International Encyclopedia of Language of Social Interaction. London: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 177–186.Google Scholar
Oteiza, T. and Pinuer, P. (2013). Valorative prosody and the symbolic construction of time in recent national historical discourses. Discourse Studies, 15(1), 43–64.Google Scholar
Oswick, C. A. and Grant, D., eds. (1996). Organisation Development: Metaphorical Explorations. London: Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T. and Grant, D. (2002). Metaphor and analogical reasoning in organization theory: Beyond orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 294–303.Google Scholar
Oswick, C., Putnam, L. L. and Keenoy, T. (2004). Tropes, discourse and organising. The Sage Handbook of Organisational Discourse. London: Sage, pp. 105–127.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. and Granger, S. (2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130–149.Google Scholar
Peterson, K. (2017). Clichés and other stressful components of writing. Grassroots Writing Journal, 8(1), 51–62.Google Scholar
Phillips, N. and Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1). 1–39.Google Scholar
Punch Magazine (1900). An Evening from among the thousand evenings which may be spent with ‘Punch’. London: Bradbury, Agnew & Company.Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L. and Cooren, F. (2004). Alternative perspectives on the role of text and agency in constituting organizations. Organization, 11(3), 323–333.Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L. and Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations: Issues and concerns. The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, London: Sage, pp. 78–136.Google Scholar
Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M., eds., Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd edn. London: Sage, pp. 87–121.Google Scholar
Reyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society, 22(6), 781–807.Google Scholar
Ricks, C. (1980) Clichés. In Michaels, L. and Ricks, C., eds., The State of the Language. Berkeley: University of California Press, 54–63.Google Scholar
Rubinelli, S. (2009). Ars Topica: The Classical Technique of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Santamaría-García, C. (2014). Evaluative discourse and politeness in university students’ communication through social networking sites. Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 2423–2487.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. and Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action. In Schmitt, N., ed., Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Schultz, J. (2015). Cliché as reification: Nurturing criticality in the undergraduate creative writing classroom. The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing, 12(1), 79–90.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Serafini, F. and Clausen, J. (2012). Typography as semiotic resource. Journal of Visual Literacy, 31(2), 11–6Google Scholar
Shapin, S. (2001). Proverbial economies: How an understanding of some linguistic and social features of common sense can throw light on more prestigious bodies of knowledge, science for example. Social Studies of Science, 31(5), 731–769.Google Scholar
Sharma, E., Saha, K., Kiranmai Ernala, S., Ghoshal, S. and de Choudhury, M. (2017). Analyzing ideological discourse on social media: A case study of the abortion debate. In Proceedings of CSSSA’s Annual Conference on Computational Social Science, Santa Fe, NM, USA, 19–22 October 2017. https://doi.org/10.1145/3145574.3145577.Google Scholar
Smith, L. (2015). Online dating: Top 20 most common clichés and what they really mean. International Business Times. www.ibtimes.co.uk/online-dating-top-20-most-common-cliches-what-they-really-mean-1499341 [Last accessed February 2017].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
Sperber, D. (1985). Anthropology and psychology: Towards an epidemiology of representations. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 20(1), 73–89.Google Scholar
Swales, J. and Rogers, P. (1995). Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: The Mission Statement. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 223–242.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1978). The achievement of inter-group differentiation. In Tajfel, H., ed., Differentiation Between Social Groups. London: Academic Press, pp. 77–100.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2008). Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M., eds., Impoliteness in Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 45–76.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1984). Cross-cultural discourse as ‘unequal encounter’: Towards a pragmatic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 226–235.Google Scholar
Tindale, C. W. (2015). The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toddington, R. (2015). Impoliteness as a vehicle for humour in dramatic discourse. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Preston: University of Central Lancashire.Google Scholar
Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In Giles, H. and Robinson, P., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 209–226.Google Scholar
Tretyakova, T. P. (2010). English communicative clichés as a lexicographer problem. In Karpova, O. and Kartashkova, F., eds., New Trends in Lexicography: Ways of Registrating and Describing Lexis. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 57–65.Google Scholar
Unger, J., Wodak, R. and Khosravin, ik, M. (2016). Critical discourse studies and social media data. In Silverman, D., ed., Qualitative Research, 4th edn. London: Sage, pp. 277–293.Google Scholar
Verma, S. (2009). Do all advertising appeals influence consumer purchase decision: An exploratory study. Global Business Review, 10, 33–43.Google Scholar
Walters, S. D. (1995). Material Girls: Making Sense of Feminist Cultural Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Webb, R. (2013). 101 Clichés: B2B’s Most Notorious Creative Faux Pas. London: SteinIAS.Google Scholar
Webster, L. (2018). ‘I wanna be a toy’: Self-sexualisation in gender-variant Twitter users’ biographies. Journal of Language and Sexuality, 7(2), 205–236. https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.17016.web.Google Scholar
Wegener, P. (1885/1991). Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens (Newly edited). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 180–205.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 2–3.Google Scholar
White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogical view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–284.Google Scholar
White, P. R. R. (2015). Appraisal theory. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C. and Sandel, T., eds., The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Oxford: Wiley, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (2015). The Politics of Fear. What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. and Idema, R. (2004). Constructing boundaries without being seen: The case of Jörg Haider, Politician. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 49, 157–178.Google Scholar
Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 13–33.Google Scholar
Wood, D. (2020). Classifying and identifying formulaic language. In Webb, S., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Vocabulary Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 30–45.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2009). Identifying formulaic language: Persistent challenges and new opportunities. Formulaic Language, 1, 27–51.Google Scholar
Wray, A. and Grace, G. W. (2007). The consequences of talking to strangers: Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua, 117(3), 543–578.Google Scholar
Wray, A. and Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication, 20(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Zijderveld, A. C. (1979). On Clichés: The Supersedure of Meaning by Function in Modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar