Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- Part V Language Learning
- Index
- References
Part II - Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- Part V Language Learning
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 105 - 394Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
References
Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In Auer, P. and Luzio, A. Di, eds., The Contextualization of Language (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 22). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. (2009). Context and contextualization. In Verschueren, J. and Östman, J., eds., Key Notions for Pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 1). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 86–101.Google Scholar
Brewer, W. (1987). Schemas versus mental models in human memory. In Morris, P., eds., Modelling Cognition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 187–197.Google Scholar
Chein, M. and Mugnier, M. (2008). Graph-based Knowledge Representation: Computational Foundations of Conceptual Graphs (Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing). London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2019). On the interaction of core and emergent common ground in internet memes. Internet Pragmatics: Special issue on the Pragmatics of Internet Memes, 3(2), 223–259. https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00033.die.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1968). Selected Papers of J. R. Firth. London: Longmans/Prentice Hall Press.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (2016). Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2889–2897.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013a). Intercultural pragmatics. In Sharifian, F., and Jamarani, M., eds., Language and Intercultural Communication in the New Era. London: Routledge, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013b). Intercultural encyclopedic knowledge, and cultural models. In Sharifian, F. and Jamarani, M., eds., Language and Intercultural Communication in the New Era. London: Routledge, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2015). Language, culture, and context. In Sharifian, F., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Oxford/New York: Routledge, pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Mey, J. (2008). Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemos, N. (2007). An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. Supplement I to Ogden, C. K. and Richard, I. A., eds., The Meaning of Meaning. New York: Harcourt Brace, pp. 296–336.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. ([1944] 1960). A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mey, J. (2008). “Impeach or exorcise?” Or, what is in the (common) ground? In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. H., ed., The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp. 311–377.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. (1988). Philipp Wegener’s (1848–1916) theory of language and communication. Henry Sweet Society for the History of Linguistic Ideas Bulletin, 11(1), 11–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674971.1988.11745345.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. (1990). Change in Language: Whitney, Bréal and Wegener (Routledge History of Linguistic Thought Series). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. and Clarke, D. (1996). Language, Action and Context: The Early History of Pragmatics in Europe and America (Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Volume 80). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1780–1930.Google Scholar
Nolan, B. (2008). Modality in RRG: Towards a characterisation using Irish data. In Van Valin, R., ed., Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: Studies in Language Companion Series 105. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B. (2012). The Structure of Modern Irish: A Functional Account. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Nolan, B. (2013). Constructions as grammatical objects: A case study of the prepositional ditransitive construction in Modern Irish. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E., Linking Constructions into functional linguistics (Studies in Language Companion Series 145). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 143–178.Google Scholar
Nolan, B. (2014). Extending a lexicalist functional grammar through speech acts, constructions and conversational software agents. In Nolan, B. and Periñán, C., eds., Language Processing and Grammars: The Role of Functionally Oriented Computational Models (Studies in Language Companion Series 150). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 143–164.Google Scholar
Nolan, B. (2017). The syntactic realisation of complex events and complex predicates in situations of Irish. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E., eds., Argument Realisation in Complex Predicates and Complex Events (Studies in Language Companion Series 180). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 13–41.Google Scholar
Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (2013). Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics (Studies in Language Companion Series 145). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A. (2009). Firthian linguistics. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 140–145.Google Scholar
Panesar, K. (2017). A linguistically centred text-based conversational software agent. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Computing, Creative Technologies and Engineering, Leeds Beckett University.Google Scholar
Panesar, K. (2019a). Functional linguistic-based motivations for a conversational software agent. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E., eds., Linguistic Perspectives on the Construction of Meaning and Knowledge. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 340–371.Google Scholar
Panesar, K. (2019b). An evaluation of a linguistically motivated conversational software agent framework. Journal of Computer-Assisted Linguistic Research, 3(3): 41–66. https://doi.org/10.4995/jclr.2019.11118.Google Scholar
Pojman, L. P. (2001). What Can We Know? An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Belmont: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2018). What Is This Thing Called Knowledge? Oxford/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N. (2003). Epistemology: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. (1975). The structure of episodes in memory. In Bobrow, D. G. and Collins, A., eds., Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 421–432.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1975). Scripts, plans, and knowledge. In Johnson-Laird, P. N., ed., Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York: Academic Press, Inc, pp. 237–272.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G. Östman, J. and Verschueren, J. (2009). Culture and language use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Senft, G. (2007). Bronislaw Malinowski and Linguistic Pragmatics. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 3, 79–96.Google Scholar
Senft, G. (2009a). Introduction. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Senft, G. (2009b). Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 210–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serangi, S. (2009). Culture. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2015a). Cultural linguistics. In Sharifian, F., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Oxford/New York: Routledge, pp. 473–492.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2015b). Language and culture: overview. In Sharifian, F.. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Oxford/New York: Routledge, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2015c). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. New York/London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F and Palmer, G. B. (2007). Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for Second Language Learning and Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Sowa, J. F. (1987). Semantic networks. In Shapiro, S. C., ed., Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1011–1024.Google Scholar
Sowa, J. F. (1997). Matching logical structure to linguistic structure, In Houser, N., Roberts, D., and Evra, J. Van, eds., Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 418–444.Google Scholar
Sowa, J. F. (2008). Conceptual graphs. In van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., and Porter, B., eds., Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 213−237.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole, ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 315–332. Repr. in R. C. Stalnaker (1999), Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 78–95.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information. Repr. in R. C. Stalnaker (1999), Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 96–114.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1999b). Introduction. In R. C. Stalnaker, Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Stanford] (2020). Speech acts. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Section 3.3 Seven Components of Illocutionary Force. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/ (retrieved on April 16, 2021).Google Scholar
Wegener, P. [1885] (1991). Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens (Investigations into the Fundamental Questions of the Life of Language). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weigand, edda. (2021). Language and dialogue in philosophy and science. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 533–561.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (2016). Political discourse analysis: Distinguishing frontstage and backstage contexts: A discourse-historical approach. In J. Flowerdew. Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics, Vol. III. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 321–346.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. and Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.Google Scholar
References
Alexander, J. C. and Giesen, B. (1987). Introduction. In Alexander, J. C., ed., The Micro-Macro Link. Berkley: The University of California Press, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Akman, V., Bouquet, P., Thomason, R., and Young, R. A. (eds.) (2001). Modeling and Using Context: Third International and Interdisciplinary Conference Proceedings. Vol. 2116. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armon, R. (2019). Ordinary science. In Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E., eds., The Construction of “Ordinariness” across Media Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. (1997). The semantics–pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. In Rolf, E., ed., Pragmatik. Linguistische Berichte (Forschung Information Diskussion). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2006). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In Birner, B. and Ward, G., eds., Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honour of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Chandler Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Blackburn, P., Ghidini, C., Turner, R. M., and Giunchiglia, F. (eds.) (2003). Modeling and Using Context: 4th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2003, Stanford, CA, USA, June 23 –25, 2003, Proceedings (Vol. 2680). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Bouquet, P., Serafini, L., Brézillon, P., Benerecetti, M., and Castellani, F. (eds.) (1999). Modeling and Using Context: Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT’99, Trento, Italy, September 9 –11, 1999, Proceedings (Vol. 1688). Heidelberg: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
Brézillon, P., Turner, R., and Penco, C. (eds.). (2017). Modeling and Using Context: 10th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2017, Paris, France, June 20 –23,2017, Proceedings (Vol. 10257). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. A. and Dressler, W. (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (1994). Negative Interaktionen: Kommunikative Strategien im britischen Englisch und interkulturelle Inferenzen. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Akman, V. (2002). Contexts of social action: Guest editors’ introduction. Language and Communication, 22(4), 391–402.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2007a). Reformulation and common grounds. In Fetzer, A. and Fischer, K., eds., Lexical Markers of Common Grounds. London: Elsevier, pp. 157–179.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2007b). Challenges in political interviews: An intercultural analysis. In Fetzer, A. and Lauerbach, G., eds., Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 163–196.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2010). Contexts in context: Micro meets macro. In Tanskanen, S.-K., Helasvuo, M.-L., Johansson, M., Karhukorpi, J., and Raitaniemi, M., eds., Discourses in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2011). “Here is the difference, here is the passion, here is the chance to be part of a great change”: Strategic context importation in political discourse. In Fetzer, A. and Oishi, E., eds., Contexts in Context: Parts Meet Whole? Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–146.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2012). Contexts in interaction: Relating pragmatic wastebaskets. In Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, P., eds., What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–127.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2017). Context. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 259–276.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2018). Discourse pragmatics: Communicative action meets discourse analysis. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–57.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2020). And I quote: Forms and functions of quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 157, 89–100.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2021). Computer-mediated discourse in context: Pluralism of communicative action and discourse common ground. In Chaoqun, X., Yus, F., and Haberland, H., eds., Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–74.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, R. (eds.) (2012). What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–252.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1996). The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 374–406.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (2003). Response essay. In Eerdmans, S., Prevignano, C., and Thibault, P. J., eds., Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–126.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language form and communicative practices. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232–270.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (2009). Entextualization, mediatization and authentication: Orthographic choice in media transcripts. Text and Talk, 29(5), 571–594.Google Scholar
Janney, R. W. (2002). Cotext as context: Vague answers in court. Language and Communication, 22(4), 457–475.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. (2005). Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirkham, S. and Moore, E. (2016). Constructing social meaning in political discourse: Phonetic variation and verb processes in Ed Miliband’s speeches. Language in Society, 45 (1), 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Drew, P. and Wootton, A., eds., Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–227.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1995). Interactional bias in human thinking. In Goody, E., ed., Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–260.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2003). Contextualizing “contextualization cues.” In Eerdmans, S., C. Prevignano, and P. J. Thibault, eds., Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–40.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Meierkord, C. and Fetzer, A. (2002). Introduction: Sequence, sequencing, sequential organization and sequentiality. In Fetzer, A. and Meierkord, C., eds., Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Nyan, T. (2016). Context Construction as Mediated by Discourse Markers: An Adaptive Approach. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Park, J. S. Y. and Bucholtz, M. (2009). Introduction. Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts, Text and Talk, 5, 485–502.Google Scholar
Penco, C. (1999). Objective and cognitive context. In P. Bouquet, L. Serafini, P. Brézillon, M. Benerecetti, and F. Castellani, eds., 2nd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context, Context’99, Proceedings. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 270–283.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between macro and micro: Contexts and other connections. In Alexander, J., B. Giesen, R. Münch, and N. J. Smelser, eds., The Micro-Macro Link. Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 207–234.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2009). On de-limiting context. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G., eds., Context and Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2019). Coming to grips with variation in sociocultural interpretations: Methodological considerations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(10), 1198–1215.Google Scholar
Thibault, P. (2003). Contextualization and social meaning-making practices. In Eerdmans, S., Prevignano, C., and Thibault, P. J., eds., Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 41–62.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Voltolini, Alberto. (2021). A contextualist treatment of negative
existentials. IntercultPragmatics, 18(3), 415–424.Google Scholar
Weizman, E. (2007). Quantity scales: Towards culture-specific profiles of discourse norms. In Grein, M. and Weigand, E., eds., Dialogue and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 141–152.Google Scholar
References
Baird, R., Baker, W., and Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), 171–196.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C. and Damiano, R. (1999). The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(6), 817–836.Google Scholar
Björkman, B. (2011). Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicative effectiveness. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 950–964.Google Scholar
Björkman, B. (2014). An analysis of polyadic English as a lingua franca (ELF) speech: A communicative strategies framework. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 122–138.Google Scholar
Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M-T., Simonot, M., and Broeder, P. (1996). Achieving Understanding: Discourse in Intercultural Encounters. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bührig, K. and ten Thije, J. D. (2006). Beyond Misunderstanding: The Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In Mauranen, Anna and Ranta, Elina, eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 254–273.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. (2010). Strategic use and perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 46(3), 295–312.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. (2012). ELF and superdiversity: A case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(2), 287–313.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. (2015). English as a lingua franca: Descriptions, domains and applications. In Bowles, H. and Cogo, A., eds., International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. and House, J. (2017). Intercultural pragmatics. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 168–183.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. and House, J. (2018). The pragmatics of ELF. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 210–223.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. and Pitzl, M.-L. (2016). Pre-empting and signaling non-understanding in ELF. ELT Journal, 70(3), 339–345.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. (1999). Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(6), 753–762.Google Scholar
Dascal, M., and Berenstein, I. (1987). Two modes of understanding: Comprehending and grasping. Language and Communication, 7(2), 139–151.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
Gass, S. and Varonis, E. (1991). Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse. In Coupland, N., Giles, H., and Wiemann, J. M., eds., Miscommunication and Problematic Talk. London: Sage, pp. 121–145.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P., and Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprentices. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 489–503.Google Scholar
House, J. (2002). Communicating in English as a lingua franca. In Foster-Cohen, S. H., Ruthenberg, T., and Poschen, M.-L., eds., EUROSLA Yearbook 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–261.Google Scholar
House, J., Kasper, G., and Ross, S. (2003). Misunderstanding talk. In House, J., Kasper, G., and Ross, S., eds., Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk. London: Longman, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Hülmbauer, C. (2009). “We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you will understand”: The shifting relationship between correctness and effectiveness in In, ELF Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 323–347.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hynninen, N. (2011). The practice of “mediation” in English as a lingua franca interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 965–977.Google Scholar
Jafari, J. (2021). Communicating Strategically in English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus Driven Investigation. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenks, C. J. (2012). Doing being reprehensive: Some interactional features of English as a lingua franca in a chat room. Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappa, K. (2016). Exploring solidarity and consensus in English as lingua franca interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 16–33.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2009). Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 107–125.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.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2012). Saying it again: Enhancing clarity in English as a lingua franca (ELF) talk through self-repetition. Text and Talk, 32(5), 593–613.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2017). Ambiguity related misunderstanding and clarity enhancing practices in ELF communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 25–47.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2019). Communication strategies in English as a lingua franca interaction. In Peters, M. A. and Heraud, R., eds., Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation (living ed.). Singapore: Springer, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2021). Applying conversation analysis to ELF interaction data. In Murata, K., ed., ELF Research Methods and Approaches to Data and Analyses. London: Routledge, pp. 161–178.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2018). Intercultural pragmatics. In Liedtke, F. and Tuchen, A., eds., Handbuch Pragmatik. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler Verlag, pp. 140–148.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics–pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 489–517.Google Scholar
Koole, T. and ten Thije, J. D. (2001). The reconstruction of intercultural discourse: Methodological considerations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(4), 571–587.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2011). Understanding understanding in action. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 435–437.Google Scholar
Kurhila, S. (2001). Correction in talk between native and non-native speaker. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1083–1110.Google Scholar
Lichtkoppler, J. (2007). “Male. Male.” – “Male?” – “The sex is male.” – The role of repetition in English as a lingua franca conversations. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(1), 39–65. www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/views_0701_pdf (retrieved May 16, 2020).Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: Sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 97–114.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2018a). “Because we are peers, we actually understand”: Third-party participant assistance in English as a lingua franca classroom interactions. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 845–876.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2018b). Functions of laughter in English-as-a-lingua-franca classrooms: A multimodal ensemble of verbal and non-verbal interactional resources at miscommunication moments. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(2), 229–260.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. (2007). Hybrid voices: English as the lingua franca of academics. In Flottum, K., ed., Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 243–259.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2018). Conceptualising ELF. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 7–24.Google Scholar
Meierkord, C. (1998). Lingua franca English: Characteristics of successful non-native-/non-native-speaker discourse. Erfurt Electronic Studies in English, 7, 98. http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/eese.html (retrieved July 21, 2020)Google Scholar
Meierkord, C. (2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction: An analysis of non-native/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik Online, 5 (1),00. http://linguistik-online.com (accessed July 21, 2020).Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 542–552.Google Scholar
Mustajoki, A. (2017). Why is miscommunication more common in everyday life than in lingua franca conversation? In Kecskes, I and Assimakopoulos, S, eds., Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–74.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S., Tilly, H., and Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122, 280–291.Google Scholar
Pietikäinen, K. (2018a). Misunderstanding and ensuring understanding in private ELF talk. Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 188–212.Google Scholar
Pietikäinen, K. (2018b). Silence that speaks: The local inferences of withholding a response in intercultural couples’ conflicts. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 76–89.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M-L. (2005). Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a business context. Vienna English Working Papers, 14, 50–71. http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/views_0802.pdf (retrieved May 12, 2020)Google Scholar
Pötzl, U. and Seidlhofer, B. (2006). In and on their own terms: The “habitat” factor in English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 151–176.Google Scholar
Robles, J. S. (2017). Misunderstanding as a resource in interaction. Pragmatics, 27(1), 57–86.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Samovar, L. A. and Porter, R. E. (1991). Communication between Cultures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. (1994). Intercultural or not? Beyond celebration of cultural differences in miscommunication analysis. Pragmatics, 4(3), 409–427.Google Scholar
Sato, T., Yujobo, Y. J., Okada, T., and Ogane, E. (2019). Communication strategies employed by low-proficiency users: Possibilities for ELF-informed pedagogy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 8(1), 9–35.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201–218.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. and Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca: Research and pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 80–101.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. J. (1986). Do you understand? Criteria of understanding in verbal interaction. Language and Communication, 6(3), 171–180.Google Scholar
Ten Thije, J. D. (2006). Beyond misunderstanding. Introduction. In Buhrig, K, and ten Thije, J. D, eds., Beyond Misunderstanding. The Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1994). Understanding misunderstanding. In Jamieson, D., ed., Language, Mind and Art. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 9–21.Google Scholar
Vettorel, P. (2018). ELF and communication strategies: Are they taken into account in ELT materials? RELC Journal, 49(1), 58–73.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. (1999). Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 763–785.Google Scholar
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Zaefferer, D. (1977). Understanding misunderstanding: A proposal for an explanation of reading choices. Journal of Pragmatics, 1(4), 329–346.Google Scholar
References
Baker, W. (2015). Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca: Rethinking Concepts and Goals in Intercultural Communication. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Baker, W. (2018). English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
Black, M. (1993). More about metaphor. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41.Google Scholar
Busch, B. (2017). Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of Spracherleben – the lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 340–358.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (1999a). Identifying and describing metaphor in spoken discourse. In Cameron, L. and Low, G. D., eds., Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–132.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (1999b). Operationalising “metaphor” for applied linguistic research. In Cameron, L. and Low, G. D., eds., Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carter, R. (2004). Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. (2010). Strategic use and perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 46(3), 295–312.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. (2018). ELF and multilingualism. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 357–368.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. (2021). ELF and translanguaging: Covert and overt resources in a transnational workplace. In Murata, K., ed., ELF Research Methods and Approaches to Data and Analyses: Theoretical and Methodological Underpinnings. London: Routledge, pp. 38–54.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 59–93.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012). Analyzing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven Investigation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P. (ed.) (1998). Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford: Claredon.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R., ed., Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–335.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2015). Pragmatics: A Resource Book for Students, 3rd ed. (Routledge English Language Introductions). Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
ELFA 2008. The Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director: Anna Mauranen. www.helsinki.fi/elfa.Google Scholar
Erman, B. and Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62.Google Scholar
Franceschi, V. (2013). Figurative language and ELF: Idiomaticity in cross-cultural interaction in university settings. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 75–99.Google Scholar
Granger, S. and Meunier, F. (eds.) (2008). Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.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
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2006). Metaphoricity is gradable. In Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. T., eds., Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kalocsai, K. (2014). Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2017). Ambiguity related misunderstanding and clarity enhancing practices in ELF communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 25–47.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in Franca, English Lingua. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–219.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019). English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kimura, D. and Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual practice and ELF. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 295–308.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. (2006). Idiomatic Creativity: A Cognitive-Linguistic Model of Idiom-Representation and Idiom-Variation in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
“Lockdown.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lockdown (retrieved November 26, 2020).Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2004). Ways of “doing being plurilingual” in international work meetings. In Gardner, R. and Wagner, J., eds., Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum, pp. 18–39.Google Scholar
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Claredon Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, J. (2017). Transient multilingual communities as a field of investigation: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 27(3), 271–288.Google Scholar
Mortensen, J. (2020). Lingua franca scenarios. In Tusting, K., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 299–311.Google Scholar
Musolff, A., MacArthur, F., and Pagani, G. (eds.) (2015). Metaphor and Intercultural Communication. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2009). “We should not wake up any dogs”: Idiom and metaphor in ELF. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 299–322.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in International Business: Resolving Miscommunication and Reaching Shared Understanding. Saarbrücken: VDM.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2012). Creativity meets convention: Idiom variation and re-metaphorization in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2013). Creativity in language use. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics: 2013 Installment. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2016). World Englishes and creative idioms in English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 35(2), 293–309.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2017). Communicative “success,” creativity and the need for de-mystifying L1 use: Some thoughts on ELF and ELT. Lingue e Linguaggi, 24, 37–46.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2018a). Creativity in English as a Lingua Franca: Idiom and Metaphor. Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2018b). Transient International Groups (TIGs): Exploring the group and development dimension of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(1), 25–58.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2019). Investigating Communities of Practices (CoPs) and Transient International Groups (TIGs) in BELF contexts. Iperstoria, 13(Spring/Summer), 5–14.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2021). Tracing the emergence of situational multilingual practices in a BELF meeting: Micro-diachronic analysis and implications of corpus design. In Murata, K., ed., ELF Research Methods and Approaches to Data and Analyses: Theoretical and Methodological Underpinnings. London: Routledge, pp. 97–125.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2022). Multilingual creativity and emerging norms in interaction: Towards a methodology for micro-diachronic analysis. In Mortensen, J. and Kraft, K., eds., Norms and the Study of Language in Social Life. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
“Quagmire.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quagmire (retrieved on October 30, 2020).Google Scholar
Prodromou, L. (2008). English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-based Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 195–215.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. and Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Idiomatic variation and change in English: The idiom principle and its realizations. In Smit, U., Dollinger, S., Hüttner, J., Kaltenböck, G., and Lutzky, U., eds., Tracing English through Time: Explorations in Language Variation (Festschrift for Herbert Schendl, Austrian Studies in English vol. 95). Vienna: Braumüller, pp. 359–374.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skandera, P. (ed.) (2007). Phraseology and Culture in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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
Vettorel, P. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in Wider Networking: Blogging Practices. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Vetchinnikova, S. (2019). Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
VOICE. (2013). The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 online and version 2.0 XML). https://voice.acdh.oeaw.ac.at (retrieved on December 21, 2020).Google Scholar
Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Linguistics (Oxford Introductions to Language Study). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2008). Language creativity and the poetic function. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 503–508.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(2), 359–372.Google Scholar
Zhu, H. (2011). Introduction: Themes and issues in the study of language and intercultural communication. In Zhu, H, ed., The Language and Intercultural Communication Reader. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–14.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
References
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
Beger, A. (2011). Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American College lectures. Metaphorik.de, 20, 39–60.Google Scholar
Beger, A. (2016). Different functions of (deliberate) metaphor in teaching scientific concepts. Metaphorik.de, 26, 57–84.Google Scholar
Birdsell, B. (2017). Creative metaphor production in a first and second language and the role of creativity. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Blasko, D. G. and Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295–308.Google Scholar
Boers, F. and Littlemore, J. (2000). Cognitive style variables in participants’ explanations of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 177–187.Google Scholar
Bolognesi, M. and Steen, G. (eds.) (2019). Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: From Cognitive Processing to Semantic Representation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bowdle, B. F. and Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216.Google Scholar
Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G. R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Seitz, R. J., Zilles, K., Rizzolatti, G., and Freund, H. J. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13(2), 400–404.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. and Deignan, A. (2003). Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(3), 149–160.Google Scholar
Carrol, G. and Conklin, K. (2014). Getting your wires crossed: Evidence for fast processing of L1 idioms in an L2. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 784–797.Google Scholar
Carrol, G. and Conklin, K. (2017). Cross language lexical priming extends to formulaic units: Evidence from eye-tracking suggests that this idea “has legs.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 299–317.Google Scholar
Carrol, G., Littlemore, J. and Dowens, M. G. (2018). Of false friends and familiar foes: Comparing native and non-native understanding of figurative phrases. Lingua, 204, 21–44.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–367.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2014). Development of metaphorical thinking: The role of language. In Borkent, M., Hinnell, J., and Dancygier, B., eds., Language and the Creative Mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Charteris‐Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 104–133.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2012). Forensic deliberations on “purposeful metaphor.” Metaphor and the Social World, 2 (1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. and Musolff, A. (2003). “Battered hero” or “innocent victim”? A comparative study of metaphors for euro trading in British and German financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 153–176.Google Scholar
Chiappe, D. L. and Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similies, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6(4), 668–676.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B. (2015). Idiom acquisition and processing by second/foreign language learners. In Heredia, R. R. and Cieślicka, A. B., eds., Bilingual Figurative Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 208–244.Google Scholar
Clausner, T. C. and Croft, W. (1997), Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21, 247–282.Google Scholar
Cuccio, V. (2018). Attention to Metaphor: From Neurons to Representations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
de Vries, C., Reijnierse, W. G., and Willems, R. M. (2018). Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading. Scientific Study of Literature, 8 (1), 135–163.Google Scholar
Duffy, S. E. and Feist, M. I. (2014). Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics, 25 (1), 29–54.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981. Hanshin: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. and Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. In Gibbs, R. W., Jr., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–128.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. and Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52 (1), 45–56.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., and Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., and Kokinov, B. N., eds., The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 199–253.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. Jr., (2005). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. Jr., (2017). Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (2015). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 77–87.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., Jr. (2006), Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21, 434–458.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. Jr, and Steen, G. (eds.) (1997). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Amsterdam: Benjamin Publishers.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919–929.Google Scholar
Gkiouzepas, L. (2013). Is your ad headline high enough? The influence of orientational metaphors on affect and comprehension for print advertisements. The 12th International Conference on Research in Advertising (ICORIA). Zagreb: European Academy of Advertising.Google Scholar
Gkiouzepas, L. (2015). Metaphor-ad layout consistency effects: The moderating role of personality traits. In Advances in Advertising Research, Vol. V. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories–quickly. In Gibbs, R. W., Jr., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–83.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. and Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. and Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Gola, E. and Ervas, F. (eds.) (2016). Metaphor and Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary stress, PhD dissertation, University of Berkeley. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g9427m2#page-1.Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (ed.) (2017). Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., and Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 22(2), 301–307.Google Scholar
Jankowiak, K., Rataj, K., and Naskręcki, R. (2017). To electrify bilingualism: Electrophysiological insights into bilingual metaphor comprehension. PloS one, 12(4), e0175578.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, L. L. and Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 110–124.Google Scholar
Jones, L. L. and Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18–32.Google Scholar
Keating, J. (2021). Populist discourse and active metaphors in the 2016 US presidential elections. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 499–531.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 and Psychology. Berlin: Springer, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krennmayr, T. (2011). Metaphors in Newspapers (vol. 276). Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., and Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1045–1067.Google Scholar
Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., and Greenberg, J. (2009). Evidence that self-relevant motives and metaphoric framing interact to influence political and social attitudes. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1421–1427.Google Scholar
Lee, E. H. and Schnall, S. (2014). The influence of social power on weight perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1719–1725.Google Scholar
Li, H. and Cao, Y. (2016). Who’s holding the moral high ground: Religiosity and the vertical conception of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 178–182.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphor as a source of misunderstanding for overseas students in academic lectures. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 333–351.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. and Low, G. (2006). Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J., Chen, P., Barnden, J., and Koester, A. (2011). Difficulties in metaphor comprehension faced by international students whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 208–429.Google Scholar
MacArthur, F. (2016). Overt and covert uses of metaphor in the academic mentoring in English of Spanish undergraduate students at five European universities. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(1), 23–50.Google Scholar
Mashal, N., Borodkin, K., Maliniak, O., and Faust, M. (2015). Hemispheric involvement in native and non-native comprehension of conventional metaphors. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 35, 96–108.Google Scholar
McRae, K., Cree, G., Seidenberg, M., and McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and 44 on-living things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547–559.Google Scholar
Meier, B., Selbom, M., and Wygant, D. B. (2007). Failing to take the moral high ground: Psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 757–767.Google Scholar
Ng, C. J. W. and Koller, V. (2013). Deliberate conventional metaphor in images: The case of corporate branding discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(3), 131–147.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, D. and Marsden, E. (2021). Eliciting and measuring L2 metaphoric competence: Three decades on from Low (1988). Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 24–59.Google Scholar
Pasma, T. (2011). Metaphor and Register Variation: The Personalization of Dutch News Discourse. Oisterwijk: Box Press.Google Scholar
Pecher, D. and Zwaan, R. A. (eds.) (2005). Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perez-Sobrino, P., Littlemore, J., and Houghton, D. (2018). The role of figurative complexity in the comprehension and appreciation of advertisements. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 957–991.Google Scholar
Perrez, J. and Reuchamps, M. (2014). Deliberate metaphors in political discourse: The case of citizen discourse. Metaphorik.de, 25, 7–41.Google Scholar
Phillips, G. (2012). Locating metaphor candidates in specialized corpora using raw frequency and keyword lists. In MacArthur, F., Luis Oncins-Martínez, J., Sánchez-García, M., and Piquer-Píriz, A. M., eds., Metaphor in Use: Context, Culture, and Communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishers, pp. 85–106.Google Scholar
Reijnierse, G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., and Steen, G. (2019). Metaphor in communication: The distribution of potentially deliberate metaphor across register and word class. Corpora, 14(3), 301–326.Google Scholar
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., and Steen, G. J. (2018). DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 129–147.Google Scholar
Semino, E. and Steen, G. J. (2008). Metaphor in literature. In Gibbs, R. W., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232–246.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., and Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251–272.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–105.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2009). From linguistic form to conceptual structure in five steps: Analyzing metaphor in poetry. In Brône, G. and Vandaele, J., eds., Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 197–226.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2013). Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 179–197.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67–72.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2016). Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness. In Gibbs, R., ed., Mixing Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113–132.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2017). Attention to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet, but may not often do so. In Hampe, B., ed., Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 279–296.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., and Pasma, T (2010). A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tay, D. (2013). Metaphor in Psychotherapy: A Descriptive and Prescriptive Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tendahl, M. and Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823–1864.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H. and Durgin, F. H. (2011). Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 206–226.Google Scholar
Vivas, L., Montefinese, M., Bolognesi, M., and Vivas, G. (2020). Core features: Measures and characterization for different languages. Cognitive Processing, 21(4), 651–667.Google Scholar
Wee, L. (2005). Constructing the source: Metaphor as a discourse strategy. Discourse Studies, 7(3), 363–384.Google Scholar
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., Althaus, N., and Kohl, K. (in prep.). Attention to the source domain of linguistic, conventional metaphorical expressions: Evidence from an eye-tracking study.Google Scholar
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M. and Kohl, K. (2021a). Creativity is a toaster: Experimental evidence on how monolinguals vs. multilinguals process novel metaphors. Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., and Kohl, K. (2021b). Demolishing walls and myths: On the status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2012). Cognitive Semiotics: An emerging field for the transdisciplinary study of meaning. Public Journal of Semiotics, 4(1), 2–24.Google Scholar
References
Barr, D. J. and Keysar, B. (2005). Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Colston, Herbert L. and Katz, Albert N., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. (2009). The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In Butler, Christopher S. and Arista, Javier Martín, eds., Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 117–151.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. (2013). Constructions in the lexical constructional model. In Nolan, Brian and Diedrichsen, Elke, eds., Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 271–293.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, Charles N., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25–55.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2015). Common ground. In MacWhinney, Brian and O’Grady, William, eds., The Handbook of Language Emergence. Oxford: Wiley and Sons, pp. 328–353.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge. In Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L., and Sag, Ivan A., eds., Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–63.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2005). Social and cultural influences on figurative and indirect language. In Colston, Herbert L. and Katz, Albert N., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 99–130.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2008). A new look at common ground: Memory, egocentrism, and joint meaning. In Kecskes, Istvan and Mey, Jacob L., eds., Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 151–187.Google Scholar
Conte, R. (2000). Memes through (social) minds. In Aunger, Robert, ed., Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–120.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational Routines: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2013a). Constructions as memes: Interactional function as cultural convention beyond the words. In Liedtke, Frank and Schulze, Cornelia, eds., Beyond Words. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 283–305.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2013b). From idioms to sentence structures and beyond: The theoretical scope of the concept “construction.” In Nolan, Brian and Diedrichsen, Elke, eds., Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammars. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 295–330.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2020a). On the interaction of core and emergent common ground in Internet memes. Internet Pragmatics, 3(2), 223–259.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2020b). Linguistic expressions as cultural units: How a cultural approach to language can facilitate the description of modern means of communication and expression. International Journal of Language and Culture, 7(1), 121–145.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2022). Internet Memes – Funktionen und Motivationen. To appear in Lars Bülow, Konstanze Marx, Simon Meier-Vieracker and Robert Mroczynski (eds.), Digitale Pragmatik (Digitale Linguistik). Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (1985). Competing motivations. In Haiman, John, ed., Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 343–365.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2016). “I has seen image macros!” Advice animal memes as visual-verbal jokes. International Journal of Communication, 10, 660–688.Google Scholar
Edmonds, B. (2005). The revealed poverty of the gene-meme analogy: Why memetics per se has failed to produce substantive results. Journal of Memetics: Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 9(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2008). Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. In Kecskes, Istvan and Mey, Jacob, eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 223–254.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Fischer, K. (eds.) (2007). Lexical Markers of Common Ground. Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. and Gundel, J. K. (eds.) (1996). Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. J. and Horton, W. S. (2005). Contextual expressions and common ground. In Colston, Herbert L. and Katz, Albert N., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 43–70.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. Jr, W.. and Colston, H. L. (2019). The emergence of common ground. In Giora, Rachel and Haugh, Michael, eds., Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 13–29.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Repr. (1986), Northeastern University Press edition, York, PA: Maple Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzalves-Garcia, F. and Butler, C. S. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–95.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., and Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307.Google Scholar
Haftka, B. (1978). Bekanntheit und Neuheit als Kriterium für die Anordnung von Satzgliedern. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 15, 157–164.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2005). Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery, 3(1). Retrieved from https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/1/xmlpage/1/archive.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, Michael, ed., The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Linguistic Structure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 155–176.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (2004). The Openness of Grammatical Constructions. www.researchgate.net/publication/284173158_The_Openness_of_Grammatical_Constructions (retrieved on September 30, 2020).Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Auer, Peter and Pfänder, Stefan, eds., Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 22–44.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (2015). An emergentist approach to grammar. In MacWhinney, Brian and O’Grady, William, eds., The Handbook of Language Emergence. Oxford: Wiley and Sons, pp. 314–327.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, Thomas A., ed., Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 350–377.Google Scholar
Katz, Y. and Shifman, L. (2017). Making sense? The structure and meanings of digital memetic nonsense. Information, Communication and Society, 20(6), 825–842.Google Scholar
Kay, P. and Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 385–406.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2889–2897.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2013). On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In Capone, Alessandro, Piparo, Franco Lo, and Carpapezza, Marco, eds., Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 375–395.Google Scholar
Keysar, B. (2008). Egocentric processes in communication and miscommunication. In Kecskes, Istvan and Mey, Jacob L., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 277–296.Google Scholar
Knobel, M. and Lankshear, C. (2007). Online memes, affinities, and cultural production. In Knobel, Michele and Lankshear, Colin, eds., A New Literacies Sampler. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 199–227.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006). On the human “Interaction Engine.” In Enfield, Nicholas J. and Levinson, Stephen C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality. Oxford: Berg Publishers, pp. 39–69.Google Scholar
McCulloch, G. (2019). Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Milner, R. M. (2012). The world made meme: Discourse and identity in participatory media. PhD. dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Milner, R. M. (2018). The World Made Meme: Public Conversations and Participatory Media (Information Society Series). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miltner, K. (2014). “There’s No Place for Lulz on Lolcats”: The role of genre, gender and group identity in the interpretation and enjoyment of an internet meme. First Monday, 19(8), 135–155.Google Scholar
Nissenbaum, A. and Shifman, L. (2017). Internet memes as contested cultural capital: The case of 4chan’s/b/board. New Media and Society, 19(4), 483–501.Google Scholar
Ortaçtepe, D. and Okkalı, S. (2021). Common ground and positioning in teacher-student interactions: Second language socialization in EFL classrooms. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1),53–82.Google Scholar
Phillips, W. and Milner, R. M. (2017). The Ambivalent Internet: Mischief, Oddity and Antagonism Online. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M. (2017). Creativity, idioms and metaphorical language in ELF. In Jenkins, Jennifer, Baker, Will, and Dewey, Martin, eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 233–243.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, Peter, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–255.Google Scholar
Pullin, P. (2017). Humour in ELF interaction: A powerful, multifunctional resource in relational practice. In Jenkins, Jennifer, Baker, Will, and Dewey, Martin, eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 333–344.Google Scholar
Sanders, R. E. (2019). Overcoming differences and achieving common ground: Why speaker and hearer make the effort and how they go about it. In Giora, Rachel and Haugh, Michael, eds., Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar
Sangiamchit, C. (2017). ELF in electronically mediated intercultural communication. In Jenkins, Jennifer, Baker, Will, and Dewey, Martin, eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 345–356.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W., ed., Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian National University, pp. 112–171.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1981). Case marking and the nature of language. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 1, 227–244.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2000). An objection to the memetic approach to culture. In Aunger, Robert, ed., Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 163–173.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. and Cömert Öztek, P. (1977). Health to our mouths: Formulaic expressions in Turkish and Greek. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 516–534.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (2005). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Varis, P. and Blommaert, J. (2015). Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes, and new social structures. Multilingual Margins, 2(1), 31–45.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1960). Philosophische Untersuchungen. In Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Tractatus logico-philosophicus (=Schriften 1). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English trans. by G. E. M. Anscombe. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
Xie, C. and Yus, F. (2018). Introducing internet pragmatics. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2018a). Identity-related issues in meme communication. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1): 113–133.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2018b). Multimodality in memes: A cyberpragmatic approach. In Bou-Franch, Patricia and Blitvich, Pilar Carcés-Conejos, eds., Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 105–131.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2019a). A cognitive pragmatics of the phatic internet. In Lachlan Mackenzie, J. and Alba-Juez, Laura, eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 161–188.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2019b). An outline of some future research issues for internet pragmatics. Internet Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Websites
knowyourmeme.com: https://knowyourmeme.com
stayhipp.com: https://stayhipp.com/internet/memes/leonardo-dicaprio-laughing-django-unchained-memes/
(retrieved on October 2, 2020)Google Scholar
References
Aijmer, K. (1985). What happens at the end of our utterances? The use of utterance-final tags introduced by “and” and “or”. In Togeby, O., ed., Papers from the Eighth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Institute for Nordisk Filologi, Københavns Universitet, pp. 366–389.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. (2010). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bradac, J. J., Mulac, A., and Thompson, S. A. (1995). Men’s and women’s use of intensifiers and hedges in problem-solving interaction: Molar and molecular analyses. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(2), 93–116.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. (2003). The grammar of talk: Spoken English, grammar and the classroom. In New Perspectives on English in the Classroom. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, pp. 5–13.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (1997). Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chefneux, G. (2012). Mitigation at work: Functions and lexical realisations. In Măda, S. and Săftoiu, R., eds., Professional Communication across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 169–192.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. (2007). The use of vague language across spoken genres in an intercultural Hong Kong corpus. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 161–181.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. and O’Keeffe, A. (2015). Vagueness. In Rühlemann, C. and Aijmer, K., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 360–378.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. and Warren, M. (1999). Facilitating a description of intercultural conversations: The Hong Kong Corpus of Conversational English. ICAME Journal, 23, 5–20.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. and Warren, M. (2001). The use of vague language in intercultural conversations in Hong Kong. English World-Wide, 22(1), 81–104.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., and Warren, M. (2008). A Corpus-Driven Study of Discourse Intonation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. In Clark, H. H., ed., Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 107–143.Google Scholar
Cotterill, J. (2007). “I think he was kind of shouting or something”: Uses and abuses of vagueness in the British courtroom. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 97–114.Google Scholar
Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1979). Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2000). Vague language and international students. In Cutting, J., ed., The Grammar of Spoken English and EAP Teaching. Sunderland: University of Sunderland Press, pp. 39–54.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2007). Introduction to “vague language explored.” In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Drave, N. (2002). Vaguely speaking: A corpus approach to vague language in intercultural conversations. In Peters, P., Collins, P., and Smith, A., eds., Language and Computers: New Frontiers of Corpus Research 16 (Papers from the Twenty-First International Conference of English Language Research and Computerized Corpora). Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
Evison, J., McCarthy, M., and O’Keeffe, A. (2007). “Looking out for love and all the rest of it”: Vague category markers as shared social space. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 138–157.Google Scholar
Glinert, L. (2010), Apologizing to China: Elastic apologies and the meta-discourse of American diplomats. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(1), 47–74.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
He, S. (2021). Cognitive metaphor theories in translation studies: Toward a dual-model parametric approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1): 25–52.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1985). Sex differences and miscommunication: Some data from New Zealand. In Pride, J. B., ed., Cross-Cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine, pp. 24–43.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication, 10(3), 185–205.Google Scholar
Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795–2809.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998a). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic meta-discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998b). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179–197.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Janney, R. (2002). Cotext as context: Vague answers in court. Language and Communication, 22, 457–475.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Smith, S. W., and Lüdge, T. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1737–1769.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2004). Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 675–700.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stance taking. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183–219.Google Scholar
Koester, A. (2007). “About twelve thousand or so”: Vagueness in North American and UK offices. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 40–61.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1997). The Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Metsä-Ketelä, M. (2006). “Words are more or less superfluous”: The case of more or less in academic lingua franca English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 117–143.Google Scholar
Moxey, L. and Sanford, A. (1993). Communicating Quantities: A Psychological Perspective. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mulder, J., Williams, C. P., and Moore, E. (2019). Sort of in Australian English: The elasticity of a pragmatic marker. [Special issue]. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 29(1), 9–32.Google Scholar
Mumford, S. (2009). An analysis of spoken grammar: The case for production. ELT Journal, 63(2), 137–144.Google Scholar
Ortaçtepe, D. and Okkalı, S. (2021). Common ground and positioning in teacher-student interactions: Second language socialization in EFL classrooms. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 53–82.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2017a). Panegyrists, vagueness and the pragmeme. In Parvaresh, V. and Capone, A., eds., The Pragmeme of Accommodation: The Case of Interaction around the Event of Death. Cham: Springer, pp. 61–81.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2017b). Book review: Grace Q Zhang, Elastic Language: How and Why We Stretch Our Words. Discourse Studies, 19 (1), 115–117.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2018). “We are going to do a lot of things for college tuition”: Vague language in the 2016 US presidential debates. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 167–192.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. and Tayebi, T. (2014). Vaguely speaking in Persian. Discourse Processes, 51(7), 565–600.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. and Zhang, G. (2019). Vagueness and elasticity of “sort of” in TV discussion discourse in the Asian Pacific (Special issue). Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 29(1), 1–132.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2011). Language is a Window into Social Relations. Folkestone: Cognitive Media. Retrieved from www.wearecognitive.com.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F., Frader, J., and Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician–physician discourse. In Di Pietro, R. J., ed., Linguistics and the Professions. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 83–97.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. and Greenbaum, S. (1973). A Concise Grammar of Contemporary English. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Rowland, T. (2007). “Well maybe not exactly, but it’s around fifty basically?”: Vague language in mathematics classrooms. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 79–96.Google Scholar
Ruzaitė, J. (2007). Vague Language in Educational Settings: Quantifiers and Approximators in British and American English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sabet, P. and Zhang, G. (2015). Communicating through Vague Language: A Comparative Study of L1 and L2 Speakers. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shirato, J. and Stapleton, P. (2007). Comparing English vocabulary in a spoken learner corpus with a native speaker corpus: Pedagogical implications arising from an empirical study in Japan. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 393–412.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. C. (2004). Formulaic expressions in academic speech. In Connor, U. and Upton, T. A., eds., Discourse in the Professions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–64.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 11–46.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series, 86, 153–171.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. [1986] (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1986). A matter of prolonged field work: Notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 1–25.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Y. R. and Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54.Google Scholar
Terraschke, A. and Holmes, J. (2007). “Und tralala”: Vagueness and general extenders in German and New Zealand English. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 198–220.Google Scholar
Trappes-Lomax, H. (2007). Vague language as a means of self-protective avoidance: Tension management in conference talks. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117–137.Google Scholar
Tseng, M. Y. and Zhang, G. (2019). Perceptions of and attitudes toward elastic language in online health communication in Chinese. Lingua, 233, 1–24.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, R. (1993). Investigating Language: Central Problems in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Warren, M. (2007). {/ [Oh] Not a < ^ lot >}: Discourse intonation and vague language. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 182–197.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, J. W. and Hosman, L. A. (1983). Language style and sex bias in the courtroom: The effects of male and female use of hedges and intensifiers on impression formation. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 48, 137–152.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. (2013). The impact of touchy topics on vague language use. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 23, 87–118.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. (2015). Elastic Language: How and Why We Stretch Our Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. (2020). Vague language challenged: Australian customs encounters. International Review of Pragmatics, 12(1), 107–134.Google Scholar
Additional Resources
Theoretical frameworks relevant to VL:
Seminal work on VL:
VL works from the perspective of pragmatics:
VL works in intercultural pragmatics:
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. [1986] (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. (2015). Elastic Language: How and Why We Stretch Our Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Smith, S. W., and Lüdge, T. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1737–1769.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2018). “We are going to do a lot of things for college tuition”: Vague language in the 2016 US presidential debates. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 167–192.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. and Zhang, G. (2019). Vagueness and elasticity of “sort of” in TV discussion discourse in the Asian Pacific (Special issue). Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 29(1), 1–132.Google Scholar
Ruzaitė, J. (2007). Vague Language in Educational Settings: Quantifiers and Approximators in British and American English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sabet, P. and Zhang, G. (2015). Communicating through Vague Language: A Comparative Study of L1 and L2 Speakers. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. (2007). The use of vague language across spoken genres in an intercultural Hong Kong corpus. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 161–181.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. and Warren, M. (2001). The use of vague language in intercultural conversations in Hong Kong. English World-Wide, 22(1), 81–104.Google Scholar
Terraschke, A. and Holmes, J. (2007). “Und tralala”: Vagueness and general extenders in German and New Zealand English. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 198–220.Google Scholar
References
Auger, N., Béal, C., and Demougin, F. (eds.) (2012). Interactions et Interculturalité: Variétés des Corpus et des Approches. Collection Transversales. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Béal, C. (ed.) (2002). Langue, Discours, Culture, Cahiers de Praxématique, 38. Montpellier: Presses Universitaires de la Méditerranée.Google Scholar
Béal, C. (2010). Les Interactions Quotidiennes en Français et en Anglais, de l’Approche Comparative à l’Analyse des Situations Interculturelles. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Béal, C. and Traverso, V. (2010). Hello, we’re outrageously punctual: Front door rituals between friends in France and Australia. Journal of French Language Studies, 20(1), 17–29.Google Scholar
Béal, C. and Détrie, C. (2013). Les formes nominales d’adresse dans les émissions d’information radiophoniques: une approche comparative des pratiques dans les radios de service public en France et en Australie. Cahiers de Praxématique, 60. https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.3889.Google Scholar
Béal, C. and Mullan, K. (2013). Issues in conversational humour from a cross-cultural perspective: Comparing French and Australian corpora. In Peeters, B., Mullan, K., and Béal, C., eds., Cross-Culturally Speaking, Speaking Cross-Culturally, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 107–139.Google Scholar
Béal, C. and Mullan, K. (2017). The pragmatics of conversational humour in social visits: French and Australian English. Special issue: Conversational humour: Spotlight on languages and cultures. Language and Communication, 55, 24–40.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (eds.) (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bollinger, D. and Hofstede, G. (1987). Les Différences Culturelles dans le Management. Paris: Les Éditions d’Organisation.Google Scholar
Braun, F. (1988). Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Charaudeau, P. (2006). Des catégories pour l’humour? Questions de Communication, 10, 19–41.Google Scholar
Chen, R. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(1), 49–75.Google Scholar
Claudel, C. and Von Münchow, P. (eds.) (2013). Culture, Discours, Langues: Nouveaux Abordages. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
D’Iribarne, P. (1989). La Logique de l’Honneur, Gestion des Entreprises et Traditions Nationales. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Filani, I. (2021). The stand-up comedian as an egocentric communicator. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2002). Directive speech acts in Malay: An ethnopragmatic perspective. Cahiers de Praxématique, 38, 113–143.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2006). “Lift your game, Martina”: Deadpan jocular irony and the ethnopragmatics of Australian English. In Goddard, C., ed., Ethnopragmatics: Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65–97.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2009). Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English: Semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(1), 29–53.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2017). Ethnopragmatic perspectives on conversational humour, with special reference to Australian English. Language and Communication, 55, 55–68.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. and Roberts, C. (1979). Cross-Talk: A Study of Cross-Cultural Communication. Southhall: The National Centre for Industrial Language Training, Havelock Centre.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2014). Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo-Australian interaction. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 76–99.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1099–1114.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Weinglass, L. (2018). Divided by a common language? Jocular quips and (non)affiliative responses in initial interactions amongst American and Australian speakers of English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4), 533–562.Google Scholar
Hall, E. T. and Hall, M. (1990). Key Concepts Underlying Structures of Cultures. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.Google Scholar
Herbert, R. K. (1989). The ethnography of English compliments and compliment responses: a contrastive sketch. In Oleksy, W., ed., Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, J., and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19(2), 155–199.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2019). The use of humor in Spanish and English compliment responses: A cross-cultural analysis. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 32(3), 393–416.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2002). Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and friends. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 65–87.Google Scholar
Katsiki, S. (2000). L’échange votif en français et en grec. In Traverso, V., ed., Perspectives Interculturelles sur L’Interaction. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Keating, J. (2021). Populist discourse and active metaphors in the 2016 US presidential elections. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 499–531.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1994). Les Interactions Verbales, Vol. III. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2002). Système linguistique et ethos communicatif. Cahiers de Praxématique, 38, 35–57.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2012). L’approche comparative interculturelle en analyse des interactions: L’exemple des formes nominales d’adresse. In Auger, N., Béal, C., and Demougin, F., eds., Interactions et Interculturalité: Variétés des Corpus et des Approches, Collection Transversales. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 21–53.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (ed.) (2014). S’Adresser à Autrui. Vol. II: Les Formes Nominales d’Adresse dans une Perspective Comparative Interculturelle. Chambéry: Presses Universitaires de l’Université de Savoie.Google Scholar
Mullan, K. (2010). Expressing Opinions in French and Australian English Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mullan, K. (2012). “I couldn’t agree more, but …”: Agreeing to disagree in French and Australian English. In Auger, N., Béal, C., and Demougin, F., eds., Interactions et Interculturalité: Variétés des Corpus et des Approches, Collection Transversales. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 319–346.Google Scholar
Mullan, K. (2020.) Humour in French and Australian English initial interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 86–99.Google Scholar
Mullan, K. and Béal, C. (eds.) (2018.) Conversational Humour: Forms, Functions and Practices across Cultures. [Special issue]. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4).Google Scholar
Mullan, K. and Béal, C. (2018). Conversational humour in French and Australian English: What makes an utterance (un)funny? Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4), 457–485.Google Scholar
Mullan, K., Vincent-Durroux, L., and David, C. (2020). Humour in contrast across languages and cultures. [Special issue]. European Journal of Humour Research: Humour across Cultures – A Contrastive Approach, 8(4), 1–6.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. 2003. Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1333–1359.Google Scholar
Oleksy, W. (ed.) (1989). Contrastive Pragmatics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Peeters, B., Mullan, K., and Béal, C. (eds.) (2013). Cross-Culturally Speaking, Speaking Cross-Culturally. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Renwick, G. W. (1983). If Australians are arrogant, are Americans boring? If Americans are boring, are Australians arrogant? In Smith, L. E., ed., Readings in English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English, pp. 117–123.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. and Stewart, M. (2008). Les interactions en site commercial à Montevideo et Edimbourg: “engagement” et “considération pour autrui.” In Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. and Traverso, V., eds., Les Interactions en Site Commercial, Invariants et Variations. Lyon: ENS Editions, pp. 277–303.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. (2006). A theory of cultural values orientations: Explication and application. Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Wong Scollon, S., (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shardakova, M. (2012). Cross-cultural analysis of the use of humor by Russian and American English speakers. In Ruiz de Zarobe, L. and Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., eds., Speech Acts and Politeness across Languages and Cultures. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 199–237.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2014). When a joke’s a joke and when it’s too much: Mateship as a key to interpreting jocular FTAs in Australian English. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 121–139.Google Scholar
Stallone, L. and Haugh, M. (2017). Joint fantasizing as relational practice in Brazilian interactions. Language and Communication, 55, 10–23.Google Scholar
Stollznow, K. (2003). Whinger! Wowser! Wanker! Aussie English: Deprecatory language and the Australian ethos. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2003.html.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1981a). New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 30, 133–149.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1981b). The machine-gun question: An example of conversational style. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(5), 383–397.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1983). When is an overlap not an interruption? One component of conversational style. In Di Pietro, R. J., Frawley, W., and Wedel, A., eds., The First Delaware Symposium on Language Studies. Newark: University of Delaware Press, pp. 119–129.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1986). That’s Not What I Meant: How Conversational Style Makes of Breaks Your Relations with Others. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (2000). Perspectives Interculturelles sur l’Interaction. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Vincent-Durroux, L., Mullan, K., David, C., Béal, C. and Poussard, C. (2020). Mastering Second Language Humour: The Ultimate Challenge. [Special issue]. European Journal of Humour Research: Humour Across Cultures – A Contrastive Approach, 8(4), 82–111.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985a). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: Polish vs English. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(2–3), 145–178.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985b). The double life of a bilingual: Cross-cultural pragmatics and different culture values. In R. Sussex and J. Zubrzycki, eds., Polish People and Culture in Australia. Canberra: Australian National University Press, pp. 187–223.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English. Language in Society, 15(3), 349–373.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
World Values Survey. (2020). All Rounds: Country-Pooled Datafile. Madrid and Vienna: JD Systems Institute and WVSA Secretariat. www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp.Google Scholar
References
Alba-Juez, L. (2018). Emotion and appraisal processes in language: How are they related? In González, Gómez, los Ángeles, Mª de, and Mackenzie, J. Lachlan, eds., The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.o9alb.Google Scholar
Alba-Juez, L. (2021). Affect and emotion. In Haugh, Michael, Kadar, Daniel, and Terkourafi, Marina, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 340–362.Google Scholar
Alba-Juez, L. and Alba-Juez, F. (2012). Identity, evaluation, and differential equations. Pragmatics and Cognition, 20(3), 570–592.Google Scholar
Alba-Juez, L. and Martínez Caro, E. (2017). Estudio comparativo de la “insubordinación” en inglés y en español, con especial énfasis en su función expresiva. Paper presented at the XlVI Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística. Madrid: Center for Human and Social Sciences, pp. 24–27.Google Scholar
Alba-Juez, L. and Mackenzie, J. L. (2019). Emotion processes in discourse. In Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Andor, J. (2018). Reflections on discourse and knowledge: An interview with Teun van Dijk. International Review of Pragmatics, 10, 109–146.Google Scholar
Bateson, M. C. (1975). Mother-infant exchanges: The epigenesis of conversation interaction. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 263, 101–113.Google Scholar
Bekoff, M. (2007). The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy ‒ and Why They Matter. Novato, CA: New World Library.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane (2011). On the descriptive ineffability of expressive meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3537–3550.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio (2010). Aspectos individuales y sociales de las emociones: Sobre la noción de “vergüenza” y sus variantes. Páginas de Guarda, 10, 13‒27.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio (2016). Interview for the Emo-Fundett MOOC Language and Emotion at Work. Canal UNED, https://canal.uned.es/mmobj/index/id/51988.Google Scholar
Castro, B., Ángel, M., and Hidalgo-Tenorio, E. (2019). Rethinking Martin and White’s AFFECT taxonomy: A psychologically inspired approach to the linguistic expression of emotion. In Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 29-54.Google Scholar
Chang, W. M. and Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural communicative competence and emotion amongst second language learners of Chinese. In Kecskes, I. and Sun, C.F., eds., Key Issues in Chinese as a Second Language Research. London: Routledge, pp. 267–286.Google Scholar
Darwin, Ch. (1872). The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. London: John Murray. http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1872_Expression_F1142.pdf.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J. (2016): Self-reported frequency of swearing in English: Do situational, psychological and sociobiographical variables have similar effects on first and foreign language users? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(4), 330–345. DOI:10.1080/01434632.2016.1201092.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J. (2018). Pragmatic challenges in the communication of emotions in intercultural couples. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(1), 29–55.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461–490.Google Scholar
Eisenlohr, P. (2010). Materialities of entextualization: The domestication of sound reproduction in Mauritian Muslim devotional practices. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 20(2), 314–333.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. [2003] (2007). Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life. Revised ed. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the Face. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, P. C. and Scherer, K. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In Davidson, R. J., Scherer, K. R., and Goldsmith, H. H., eds., The Handbook of Affective Sciences (Series in Affective Science). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 572–595.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (2017). Expectations in Interaction. In Allan, K., Capone, A., and Kecskes, I., eds., Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 493‒503.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In Nikolaeva, I., ed., Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 366–431.Google Scholar
Filani, I. (2021). The stand-up comedian as an egocentric communicator. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Foolen, A. (2012). The relevance of emotion for language and linguistics. In Foolen, Ad, Lüdtke, Ulrike M., Racine, Timothy P., and Zlatev, Jordan, eds., Moving Ourselves, Moving Others: Motion and Emotion in Intersubjectivity, Consciousness and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 349‒368.Google Scholar
Foolen, A. (2017). Expressives. In de Stadler, L. and Eyrich, C., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London: Routledge, pp. 473–490.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. and Grondelaers, S. (1995). Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns. In Taylor, J. and MacLaury, R. E., eds., Language and the Construal of the World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 153–180.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2010). Can there be a pragmatic theory of the entire world? Plenary talk given at the 4th International Conference on Intercultural Pragmatics and Communication, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
Hareli, S., Kafetsios, K., and Hess, U. (2015). A cross-cultural study on emotion expression and the learning of social norms. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (1501), 1–12.Google Scholar
Härtel, C. E. and Härtel, G. F. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in emotions: The why and how. Social Science Information, 44, 683–693.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural pragmatics. In Kim, Y. Y. and McKay-Semmler, K. L., eds., The International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1995). The business of international business is culture. In Jackson, T., ed., Cross-Cultural Management. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, pp. 150–165.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and House, J. (2020). Ritual frames: A contrastive pragmatic approach. Pragmatics, 30(1),142–168.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Szalai, A. (2020). The socialization of interactional rituals: A case study of ritual cursing as a form of teasing in Romani. Pragmatics, 30(1), 15–39.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2004). Lexical merging, conceptual blending, cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics, (1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2011). Intercultural pragmatics. In Archer, Dawn and Grundy, Peter, eds., Pragmatics Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 371–387.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics-pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 489–515.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2020). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In Jackson, J., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Intercultural Communication, rev. ed. London: Routledge, pp. 138–155.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F.. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.Google Scholar
Kozan, M. K. and Ergin, C. (1998). Preference for the third party help in conflict management in the United States and Turkey: An experimental study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 525–539.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Rules for ritual insults. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 297–353.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lüdtke, Ulrike M. (2015). Introduction: From logos to dialogue. In Lüdtke, Ulrike M., Emotion in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. vii–xi.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba-Juez, L. (eds.) (2019). Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marra, M. and Holmes, J. (2007). Humour across cultures: Joking in the multicultural workplace. In Kotthoff, H. and Spencer-Oatey, H., eds., Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 153–172.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Martínez Caro, Elena & Laura Alba-Juez (2021). The expressive function of the ni que insubordinate construction in Spanish. In Languages, Special Issue “Key Aspects of 21st Century Informal Interactions: Socio-Pragmatic and Formal Features”, 2021, 6, 161. 1–17.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, D., Leroux, J. and Yoo, S. E. (2005). Emotion and intercultural communication. Kwansei Gakuin Sociology Department Studies, 99, 15–38.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. E., and Leroux, J. (2007). Emotion and intercultural adjustment. In Kotthoff, H. and Spencer-Oatey, H., eds., Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–98.Google Scholar
Pacheco Baldó, R. M. (2020). American individualism and masculinity? The case of nursing homes. Journal for Cultural Research, 24(4), 301–314.Google Scholar
Parr, L. A. (2001). Cognitive and physiological markers of emotional awareness in chimpanzees. Animal Cognition, 4(3–4), 223–229.Google Scholar
Piller, I. (2012). Intercultural communication: An overview. In Paulston, Christina Bratt, Kiesling, Scott F., and Rangel, Elizabeth S., eds., The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication. London: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Sansiñena, M., de Smet, H., and Cornillie, B. (2015). Between subordinate and insubordinate. Paths towards complementizer-initial main clauses. Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 3–19.Google Scholar
Saul, J. M. (2002). Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated. Nous, 36(2), 228–248.Google Scholar
Schnoebelen, T. (2012). Emotions are relational: Positioning and the use of affective linguistic resources. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2010). Expressive Bedeutung und E-Implikaturen – Zur Relevanz konzeptueller Bewertungen bei indirekten Sprechakten: Das Streichbarkeitskriterium und seine kognitive Realität. In Rudnitzky, William, ed., Kultura Kak Tekst (Kultur als Text). Moscow: SGT, pp. 12–27.Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2015). Language and emotion: The cognitive linguistic perspective. In Lüdtke, Ulrike M., Emotion in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157‒173.Google Scholar
Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., and Jones, R. H. (2012). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shakovsky, V. I. (2016). Dissonance in Communicative Sustainability: People, Language, Emotions. Volgograd: IP Polikarpov Publications.Google Scholar
Spencer-Rogers, J. and McGovern, T. (2002). Attitudes toward the culturally different: The role of intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual stereotypes, and perceived threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(6), 609–631.Google Scholar
Summerfield, C. and Egner, T. (2009). Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 13(9), 403–409. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.003.Google Scholar
Taboada, M. (2016). Sentiment analysis: An overview from linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2(8), 1–23.Google Scholar
Ten Thije, J. D. (2006). Beyond misunderstanding: Introduction. In Bührig, Kristin and ten Thije, Jan D., eds., Beyond Misunderstanding: Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2001). Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. (2014). AFFECT and emotion, target-value mismatches, and Russian dolls: Refining the APPRAISAL model. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–66.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L. (eds.) (2014). Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, C. (1979). Instincts from human understanding and for cultural cooperation: Their development in infancy. In Cranach, M. V., Foppa, K., Lepenies, W., and Ploog, D., eds., Human Ethnology: Claims and Limits of a New Discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 530–571.Google Scholar
Urban, G. and Urban, J. N. K. (2020). Affect in the circulation of cultural forms. In Pritzker, Sonya E., Fenigsen, Janina, and Wilce, James M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Emotion. Oxford and New York: Routledge, pp. 75–99.Google Scholar
van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction, The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 179–199.Google Scholar
van Geert, P. and Verspoor, M. (2015). Dynamic systems and language development. In MacWhinney, B. and O’Grady, W., eds., The Handbook of Language Emergence. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 537–555.Google Scholar
Van Gelder, T. (1998). The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 615–665.Google Scholar
Weaver, W. G. (1998). Corporations as intentional systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 87–97.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M. (2012). Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wu, G. (2018). Official websites as a tourism marketing medium: A contrastive analysis from the perspective of appraisal theory. Journal of Destination, Marketing and Management, 10, 164–171.Google Scholar
Xinghua, L. and Thompson, P. (2009). University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers, 1, 3–15.Google Scholar
References
Abdoola, F., Flack, P. S., and Karrim, S. B. (2017). Facilitating pragmatic skills through role-play in learners with language learning disability. South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 64(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajcd.v64i1.187.Google Scholar
Al-Gahtani, S. and Roever, C. (2014). The development of requests by L2 learners of Arabic: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Al-Surmi, M. (2012). Authenticity and TV shows: A multidimensional analysis perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 671–694. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.33.Google Scholar
Alcón Soler, E. (2012). Teachability and bilingualism effects on third language learners’ pragmatic knowledge. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(4): 511–541. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0028.Google Scholar
Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.Google Scholar
Apresjan, V. (2019). Pragmatics in the interpretation of scope ambiguities. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(4), 421–461. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0022.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999a). The interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677–713.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999b). Researching method. In Bouton, L. F., ed., Pragmatics and Language Learning. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language, pp. 237–267.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by design. In Trosborg, A., ed., Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 219–259.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Salsbury, T. (2004). The organization of turns in the disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective. In Boxer, D. and Cohen, A. D., eds., Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 199–227.Google Scholar
Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G. (eds.) (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315668925.Google Scholar
Barron, A. and Schneider, K.P. (2009). Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(4), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.023.Google Scholar
Bataller, R. and Shively, R. (2011). Role-plays and naturalistic data in pragmatics research: Service encounters during study abroad. Journal of Linguistics and Language Learning, 2(1), 15–50.Google Scholar
Bebee, L. and Cummings, L. (1995). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In Gass, S. M. and Neu, J., eds., Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2010). The Language of Fictional Television: Drama and Identity. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2011). Approaching the data of pragmatics. In Norrick, N. R. and Bublitz, W., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 537–559. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214260.537.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2018). Language and Television Series: A Linguistic Approach to TV Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108559553.Google Scholar
Billmyer, K. and Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517–552. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.517.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (eds.) (1989a). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (Advances in Discourse Processes, 31). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (1989b). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (Advances in Discourse Processes, 31). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. and Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2008). Natural versus elicited data in cross-cultural speech act realisation: The case of requests in Peninsular Spanish and British English. Spanish in Context, 5(2), 246–277. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.5.2.06lor.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899.Google Scholar
Briggs, C. L. (2008). Sociolinguistic Interviews. In Ammon, Ulrich, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, and Trudgill, Peter, eds., Sociolinguistics, Vol. II. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1052–1062.Google Scholar
Brinker, K., Antos, G., Heinemann, W., and Sager, S. F. (eds.) (2001). Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft: 16.2. Text- und Gesprächslinguistik: Linguistics of Text and Conversation: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110194227.Google Scholar
Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., and Carapezza, M. (eds.) (2013). Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy and Psychology, Vol. II: Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Bangerter, A. (2004). Changing ideas about reference. In Noveck, I. and Sperber, D., eds., Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–49.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7, 5–24.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (2004). Assessing speech acts in a second language. Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning, 8, 302–327.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2: English translation and adaptation of Selting, Margret et al.: Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung, 12, 1–51.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Gillings, M. (2019). Pragmatics: Data trends. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 4–14. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.004.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z. (eds.) (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., and Taguchi, N. (2018). Second Language Pragmatics: From Theory to Research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Marti, L., Mei, M., Nevala, M., and Schauer, G. (2010). Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness: A study of impoliteness events reported by Students in England, China, Finland, Germany, and Turkey. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 597–624. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2010.027.Google Scholar
Cummins, C., and Katsos, N. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, W. A. (2018). Three accounts of propositional relation reports. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2): 237–269. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0006.Google Scholar
Decock, S. and Spiessens, A. (2017). Customer complaints and disagreements in a multilingual business environment: A discursive-pragmatic analysis. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1): 77–115. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0004.Google Scholar
Demeter, G. (2007). Role-plays as a data collection method for research on apology speech acts. Simulation and Gaming, 38(1), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878106297880.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Cumming, S., Schuetze-Coburn, S., and Paolino, D. (eds.) (1992). Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, Vol. IV: Discourse Transcription. Santa Barbara, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. [1997] (2008). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810190.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2015). Impoliteness in the service of verisimilitude in film interaction. In Dynel, M. and Chovanec, J., eds., Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.256.07dyn.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2013). Strategies, modification and perspective in native speakers’ requests: A comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 53, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.014.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fein, O., Yeari, M., and Giora, R. (2015). On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of sarcastic irony. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0001.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance. In Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E., eds., Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26.03fel.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2009). Pragmatic variation across Spanish(es): Requesting in Mexican, Costa Rican, and Dominican Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 473–515. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.025.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Natural speech vs. elicited data: A comparison of natural and role play requests in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context, 4(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.4.2.03fel.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Hasler-Barker, M. (2017). Elicited data. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 27–40.Google Scholar
Feng, W. and Ren, W. (2020). Impoliteness in negative online consumer reviews: A cross-language and cross-sector comparison. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-0001.Google Scholar
Fielding, N., Lee, R. M., and Blank, G. (eds.) (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Fox-Turnbull, W. (2011). Autophotography. In Benson, C. and Lunt, J., eds., International Handbook of Primary Technology Education: Reviewing the Past Twenty Years. Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-546-8_16.Google Scholar
Gabbatore, I., Bosco, F. M., Mäkinen, L., Ebeling, H., Hurtig, T., and Loukusa, S. (2019). Investigating pragmatic abilities in young Finnish adults using the assessment battery for communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(1): 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0002.Google Scholar
Garces-Conejos Blitvitch, P. (2006). Interlanguage pragmatics: A response to Andrew Cohen’s “Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts,” Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(2), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2006.013.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. and Harnish, R. M. (2007). Experimental pragmatics: Testing for implicitures. Pragmatics and Cognition, 15(1), 65–90. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.07gar.Google Scholar
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004144.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. and Dal Farra, C. (2019). On the syntax/pragmatics interface: Expressing surprise and disapproval. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(3), 335–361. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0017.Google Scholar
Golato, A. (2017). Naturally occurring data. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 21–26. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315668925-3.Google Scholar
Golato, A., and Golato, P. (2013). Pragmatics research methods. In Chapelle, C. H., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
González-Cruz, M. (2014). Request patterns by EFL Canarian Spanish students: Contrasting data by languages and research methods. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(4), 547–573. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0024.Google Scholar
Goodman, S., and Burke, S. (2010). “Oh you don’t want asylum seekers, oh you’re just racist”: A discursive analysis of discussions about whether it’s racist to oppose asylum seeking. Discourse and Society, 21(3), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509360743.Google Scholar
Grisot, C. (2017). A quantitative approach to conceptual, procedural and pragmatic meaning: Evidence from inter-annotator agreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 245–263. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.020.Google Scholar
Gülich, E. (2001). On the connection between !Ay and specialist “methods”. In Brinker, K., Antos, G., Heinemann, W., and Sager, S. F., eds., Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft: 16.2 Text- und Gesprächslinguistik /An International Handbook of Contemporary Research: Linguistics of Text and Conversation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1086–1093.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S. and Grucza, S. (2016). Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hendriks, B. (2008). Dutch English requests: A study of request performance by Dutch learners of English. In Pütz, Martin and Aertselaer, JoAnne Neff-van, eds., Developing Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 335–354.Google Scholar
Herring, S., Stein, D., and Virtanen, T. (eds.) (2013). Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R., and Ward, G. L. (eds.) (2004). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Chicago: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Houck, N. and Gass, S. (1996). Non-native refusals: A methodological perspective. In Gass, S. and Neu, J., eds., Speech Acts across Cultures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–64.Google Scholar
House, J. (2018). Authentic vs elicited data and qualitative vs quantitative research methods in pragmatics: Overcoming two non-fruitful dichotomies. System, 75, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.014.Google Scholar
Hoye, L. F. (2008). Evidentiality in discourse: A pragmatic and empirical account. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199024.151.Google Scholar
Hua, Z. (ed.) (2016). Research Methods in Intercultural Communication: A Practical Guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (ed.) (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. and Tzanne, A. (2012). Levels of pragmatic competence in an EFL academic context: A tool for assessment. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(1), 47–70. doi: 10.1515/ip-2012-0003.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. (ed.) (2020). Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M. (eds.) (2018). The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2018). Data in pragmatic research. In A. Jucker, H., K. Schneider, P., Bublitz, W., Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P., and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-001.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2009). Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1611–1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.004.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P., and Bublitz, W. (eds.) (2018). Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Staley, L. (2017). (Im)politeness and developments in methodology. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 403–429. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_16.Google Scholar
Kanik, M. (2016). Reverse discourse completion task as an assessment tool for intercultural competence. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 621–644. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2013.3.4.8.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2008). Data collection in pragmatics research. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London/New York: Continuum, pp. 316–341.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009955.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In Hinkel, E., ed., Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 317–334.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Mahwah, NJ: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Katsos, N., Roqueta, C. A., Estevan, R. A. C., and Cummins, C. (2011). Are children with specific language impairment competent with the pragmatics and logic of quantification? Cognition, 119(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.004.Google Scholar
Keating, J. (2021). Populist discourse and active metaphors in the 2016 US presidential elections. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4),499–531.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2020). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In Jackson, J., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge, pp. 138–155.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2018). Intercultural pragmatics. In Liedtke, F. and Tuchen, A., eds., Handbuch Pragmatik. Stuttgart: Metzler, pp. 140–149.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017). Cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.29.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2015). Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics, 7(2), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702002.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2000). Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances. Links and Letters, 7, 145–161.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2004). Editorial: Lexical merging, conceptual blending, and cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2004.005.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Assimakopoulos, S. (2017). Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Romero-Trillo, J. (2013). Research Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513735.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355. doi: 10.1075/pandc.17.2.06kec.Google Scholar
Kim, S. H. and Lee, H. (2017). Politeness in power-asymmetrical e-mail requests of Korean and American corporate employees. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(2): 207–238. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0010.Google Scholar
König, K. and and Zhu, Q. (2017). Communicative constructions of space in epistemic asymmetry: The case of German-Chinese university placement interviews. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(2): 239–276. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0011.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. J. (2010). Language and Culture: Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. A. and Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowska, K. and Douven, I. (2018). Missing-link conditionals: Pragmatically infelicitous or semantically defective? Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2): 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0004.Google Scholar
Ladegaard, H. J. (2011). “Doing power” at work: Responding to male and female management styles in a global business corporation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 4-19.Google Scholar
Leung, C., Harris, R., and Rampton, B. (2004). Living with inelegance in qualitative research on task-based learning. In Norton, B. and Toohey, K., eds., Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 242–268. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524834.013.Google Scholar
Levisen, C. (2018). Dark, but Danish: Ethnopragmatic perspectives on black humor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0018.Google Scholar
Little, D., Devitt, S. and Singleton, D. [1989] (1994). Learning Foreign Languages from Authentic Texts: Theory and Practice. Dublin: Authentik.Google Scholar
Maier, R. M., Hofmockel, C., and Fetzer, A. (2016). The negotiation of discourse relations in context: Co-constructing degrees of overtness. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(1), 71–105. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0003.Google Scholar
Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2014). Expressing disagreement in English as a Lingua Franca:Whose pragmatic rules? Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(2), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0009.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E. (2005). Spanish Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. (2006). Task effects on EFL learner’s production of suggestions: A focus on elicited phone messages and emails. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 33, 47–64.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E. (2011). Research methodologies in pragmatics: Eliciting refusals to requests. Estudios De Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 11, 47–87.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E. (eds.) (2010). Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E. (2006). A comprehensive pedagogical framework to develop pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: The 6Rs approach. Applied Language Learning, 16(2), 39–64.Google Scholar
McKay, S. and Hornberger, N. H. (eds.) (2005). Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J. (2012). Pragmatic evidence, context, and story design: An essay on recent developments in experimental pragmatics. Language Sciences, 34(6), 768–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.014.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J. and Steinbach, M. (2011). Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2004). Between culture and pragmatics: Scylla and Charybdis? The precarious condition of intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/612-295X/04/0001–0027.Google Scholar
Minh Nguyen, T. T. (2019). Data collection methods in L2 pragmatics research: An overview. In Taguchi, N., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 195–211.Google Scholar
Moreland, J. and Cowie, B. (2016). Exploring the methods of auto-photography and photo-interviews: Children taking pictures of science and technology. Waikato Journal of Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v11i1.320.Google Scholar
Mori, J. and thi Nguyen, H. (2019). Conversation analysis in L2 pragmatics research. In Taguchi, N., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 212–225.Google Scholar
Murray, T. E. (2001). Ethical and legal considerations in the surreptitious recording of conversational data. In Brinker, K., Antos, G., Heinemann, W., and Sager, S. F., eds., Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft: 16.2 Text- und Gesprächslinguistik /An International Handbook of Contemporary Research: Linguistics of Text and Conversation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,pp. 1033–1036.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. and Bublitz, W. (eds.) (2011). Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214260.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781316027073.Google Scholar
Noveck, I., and Sperber, D. (eds.) (2004). Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, E. (2008). On the culture-specificity of linguistic gender differences: The case of English and Russian apologies. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(3), 259–286. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2008.013.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., Clancy, B., and Adolphs, S. (2011). Introducing Pragmatics in Use. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. and Phakiti, A. (eds.) (2015). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. A Practical Resource, 2nd ed. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Potter, J. (2002). Two kinds of natural. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040040901Google Scholar
Pulaczewska, H. (2013). You get what you put in: Elicited production versus spontaneous verbal interaction in cross-linguistic studies of language use. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(4), 647–678. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0030.Google Scholar
Roever, C. (2015). Researching pragmatics. In Paltridge, B. and Phakiti, A., eds., Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. New York: Bloomsbury, pp. 387–402.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-western contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.1.1.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100001029.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2001). Compliments and compliment responses in film: Implications for pragmatics research and language teaching. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39(4), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2001.007.Google Scholar
Ross, S. J. and Hong, Y. (2019). Mixed methods in L2 pragmatics research. In Taguchi, N. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 212–225.Google Scholar
Ross, S. and Kasper, G. (2013). Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Salmons, J. (ed.) (2012). Cases in Online Interview Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335155.Google Scholar
Savić, M. (2015). “Can I very please borrow it?”: Request development in young Norwegian EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(4), 443–480. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0023.Google Scholar
Saville-Troike, M. (2002). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schauer, G. A. and Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of ratitude in Corpusand DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.09.003.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002002.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). In another context. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–228.Google Scholar
Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Linguistische Daten aus experimentellen Umgebungen: Eine multiexperimentelle und multimodale Perspektive. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft, 28(1), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFSW.2009.020.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.‑J. (2012). Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2018). Methods and ethics of data collection. In A. Jucker, H., Schneider, K. P., Bublitz, W., Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P., and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 37–94.Google Scholar
Schneider, H. J. (1995). Intuition and introspection. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O., and Blommaert, J. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 606–608.Google Scholar
Senft, G., Östman, J.‑O., and Verschueren, J. (eds.) (2009). Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. and Jamarani, M. (2011). Cultural schemas in intercultural communication: A study of the Persian cultural schema of sharmandegi “being ashamed.” Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2011.011Google Scholar
Shuval, N. and Hemforth, B. (2008). Accessibility of negated constituents in reading and listening. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(4), 445–469. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2008.022.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. and Tzanne, A. (2010). Conceptualizations of politeness and impoliteness in Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 661–687.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). Rapport management theory and culture. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.335.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., and Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412991841.Google Scholar
Sydorenko, T. (2015). The use of computer-delivered structured tasks in pragmatic instruction: An exploratory study. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(3), 333–362. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0017.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (ed.) (2019). The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y. (2018). Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. (2009). Input-Based Task and Interlanguage Pragmatics: The Effects of Input-Based Task on the Development of Learners’ Pragmatic Proficiency. Saarbrücken: VDM.Google Scholar
Tayebi, T. (2018). Implying an impolite belief: A case of TIKKEH in Persian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(1): 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0031.Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V. and Dombi, J. (2020). Exploring L2 learners’ request behavior in a multi-turn conversation with a fully automated agent. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(2): 221–257. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-0010.Google Scholar
Tracy, S. K. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286.Google Scholar
Trosborg, A. (ed.) (2010). Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214444.Google Scholar
Tuchen, A. (2018). Methodologie der Pragmatik. In Liedtke, F. and Tuchen, A., eds., Handbuch Pragmatik. Stuttgart: Metzler, pp. 13–28.Google Scholar
Turnbull, W. (2001). An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the social psychological study of talk. Pragmatics, 11(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.11.1.03tur.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2013). From verbal protocols to cooperative dialogue in the assessment of second language pragmatic competence. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(1): 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0003.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2005). Case study. In Hinkel, E., ed., Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 195–208.Google Scholar
Warga, M. and Schölmberger, U. (2007). The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 221–251. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.012.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1986). Research methodology and the question of validity. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 689–699. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586519Google Scholar
Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x.Google Scholar
Youn, S. J. (2020). Interactional features of L2 pragmatic interaction in role‐play speaking assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 201–233.https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.542.Google Scholar
Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166.Google Scholar
Žegarac, V. and Spencer-Oatey, H. (2013). Achieving mutual understanding in intercultural project partnerships: Cooperation, self-orientation, and fragility. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(3), 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0019.Google Scholar