Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:48:25.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Language in Context: A Sociohistorical Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2023

Edited by
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context , pp. 7 - 92
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Atkinson, J. M. (1982). Understanding formality: Notes on the categorisation and production of “formal” interaction. British Journal of Sociology, 33, 86–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. M., and Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. H., and Levinson, S. C. (2019). Conversational expectations get revised as response latencies unfold. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 1–14.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1978). Yes–no questions are not alternative questions. In Hiz, H. (ed.), Questions (pp. 87–105). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J., and Austin, G. A. (1956). A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Verbal Behavior by B. F. Skinner. Language, 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicourel, A. V. (1987). The interpenetration of communicative contexts: Examples from medical encounters. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (2013). Turn-constructional units and the transition relevance place. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 150–166). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E., Elliott, M. N., Heritage, J., and Beckett, M. (2010). A Watershed in White House Journalism: Explaining the post-1968 rise of aggressive presidential news. Political Communication, 27, 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., Elliott, M. N., Heritage, J., and McDonald, L. (2006). Historical trends in questioning presidents 1953–2000. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36, 561–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., and Heritage, J. (2002a). The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., and Heritage, J. (2002b). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 749–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., and Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in offers and requests. In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.), Requesting in Social Interaction (pp. 55–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E., and Heritage, J. (2021). Conversation analysis and the study of sociohistorical change. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., Heritage, J., Elliott, M. N., and McDonald, L. (2007). When does the watchdog bark? Conditions of aggressive questioning in presidential news conferences. American Sociological Review, 72, 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., Heritage, J., and Maynard, D. W. (2022). The ethnomethodological lineage of conversation analysis. In Maynard, D. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology: Legacies and Prospects (pp. 252–286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., and Raymond, C. W. (2021). An adjunct to repair: You know in speech production and understanding difficulties. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. (2016). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clift, R., and Raymond, C. W. (2018). Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 90–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, H. C. (1959). Linguistic play in its cultural context. Language, 35, 631–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., and Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. S., and Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. A. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 102–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, J. P., and Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82(3), 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., and Haugh, M. (2022). Action Ascription in Interaction. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., Mondada, L., and Doehler, S. P. (2021). Early responses: An introduction. Discourse Processes, 58(4), 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., and Schmidt, A. (2021). Micro-sequential coordination in early responses. Discourse Processes, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Roberts, S. G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd, S., … Enfield, N. J. (2015). Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PloS one, 10, e0136100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in a courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at Work: Social Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1997). “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 69–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (2013). Turn design. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 131–149). Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Drew, P., and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P., and Heritage, J., eds. (1992a). Talk at Work: Language Use in Institutional and Work-Place Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P., and Heritage, J. (1992b). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at Work (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P., and Sorjonen, M.-L. (1997). Institutional discourse. In Dijk, T. van (ed.), Discourse Analysis: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 92–118). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Drew, P., Walker, T., and Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., and Sidnell, J. (eds.), Conversational Repair and Human Understanding (pp. 71–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., and Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text and Talk, 32(4), 433–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupret, B., Lynch, M., and Berard, T. (2015). Law at Work: Studies in Legal Ethnomethods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N., and Stivers, T. (2007). Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M., … Levinson, S. C. (2019). Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics, 55, 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. (2006). Approaches to Discourse Particles: Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., and Enfield, N. J. (2020). Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A., and Thompson, S. A. (2010). Responses to WH-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frake, C. O. (1961). The diagnosis of disease among the Subanun of Mindanao. American Anthropologist, 63(1), 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, A. (2019). How Mediation Works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1952). The perception of the Other: A study in social order. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H., and Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In McKinney, J. D. and Tiryakian, E. A. (eds.), Theoretical Sociology (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Gisladottir, R. S., Bögels, S., and Levinson, S. C. (2018). Oscillatory brain responses reflect anticipation during comprehension of speech acts in spoken dialog. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 34. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, E. (1955). On face work. Psychiatry, 18, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, E. (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist, 58, 473–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6), pt II, 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face to Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In Psathas, G. (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica, 62(1/2), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000a). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000b). Gesture, aphasia and interaction. In McNeill, D. (ed.), Language and Gesture: Window into Thought and Action (pp. 84–98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In Kita, S. (ed.), Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet (pp. 217–241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2007a). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2007b). Environmentally coupled gestures. In Duncan, S., Cassell, J., and Levy, E. (eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimensions of Language (pp. 195–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2017). Co-operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greatbatch, D. L., and Dingwall, R. (1998). Talk and identity in divorce mediation. In Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (eds.), Identities in Talk (pp. 121–135). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heinemann, T., and Koivisto, A., eds. (2016). Special section: Indicating a change of state in interaction: Cross-linguistic explorations. Journal of Pragmatics, 104, s83–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, A., and Bolden, G. (2017). Transcribing for Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of Its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. III (pp. 95–119). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In Antaki, C. (ed.), Understanding Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods (pp. 127–144). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk. In Sanders, R. and Fitch, K. (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 103–147). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In Enfield, N. J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives (pp. 255–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In Freed, A. F. and Ehrlich, S. (eds.), “Why Do You Ask?”: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse (pp. 42–68). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013). Language and social institutions: The conversation analytic view. Journal of Foreign Languages, 36, 2–27.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2018). Turn-initial particles in English: The cases of oh and well. In Heritage, J. and Sorjonen, M.-L. (eds.), Turn-Initial Particles across Languages (pp. 149–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2020). Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In Silverman, D. (ed.), Qualitative Sociology, 5th ed. (pp. 223–241). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2022). The multiple accountabilities of action. In Deppermann, A. and Haugh, M. (eds.), Action Ascription in Interaction (pp. 297–326). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., and Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Introduction. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., and Clayman, S. E. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., and Clayman, S. E. (2013). The changing tenor of questioning over time: Tracking a question form across US presidential news conferences 1953–2000. Journalism Practice, 7(4), 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., and Clayman, S. E. (2023). Goffman, face, and the interaction order. In Mondada, L. and Peräkylä, A. (eds.), Body, Participation and the Self: Revisiting Goffman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., and Maynard, D., eds. (2006). Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., and Raymond, C. W. (2021). Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., and Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., and Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In de Ruiter, J. P. (ed.), Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., Robinson, J. D., Elliott, M., Beckett, M., and Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing Patients’ Unmet Concerns: The difference one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1429–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., and Sorjonen, M.-L., eds. (2018). Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtgraves, T. (1992). Linguistic realization of face management: Implications for language production and comprehension, person perception and cross-cultural communication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzner, B. (1968). Reality Construction in Society. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9, 47–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. In D’Urso, V. and Leonardi, P. (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric (pp. 11–38). Padua: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (1990). Some context for context analysis: A view of the origins of structural studies of face-to-face interaction. In Kendon, A. (ed.), Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behaviour in Focused Encounters. (pp. 15–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Gipper, S., Hayano, K., Levinson, S. C. (2020). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for action. Journal of Pragmatics, 168, 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., and Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., and Holler, J. (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., and Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52, 255–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. R. S., and Kuroshima, S. (2013). Turn beginnings in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics (Special issue), 57, 267–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, C., and Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Word selection and social identities in talk-in-interaction. Communication Monographs, 80, 176–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kronman, M., Gerber, J., Grundmeier, R., Zhou, C., Robinson, J. D., Heritage, J., Mangione-Smith, R. (2020). Dialogue around respiratory illness treatment (DART) quality improvement (QI) program reduces outpatient antibiotic prescribing. Pediatrics, 146(3). e20200038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1987). The social history of The Natural History of an Interview: A multidisciplinary investigation of social communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 20, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1996). “Finding face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H., and Kitzinger, C. (2019). Well-prefacing in the organization of self-initiated repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 365–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1981). The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In Parret, H., Sbisa, M., and Verschueren, J. (eds.), Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (pp. 473–492). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2017). Speech acts. In Huang, Y. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Livingston, E. (2008). Ethnographies of Reason. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Local, J., and Walker, G. (2008). Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text and Talk, 28(6), 723–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Local, J., and Walker, G. (2012). How phonetic features project more talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 42(3), 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQuown, N. A., ed. (1971). The natural history of an interview. Microfilm Collections of Manuscripts, 15th Series n. 97. Joseph Regenstein Library, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mazeland, H. (2013). Grammar in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 475–491). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Meyer, C., Streeck, J., and Jordan, J. S. (2017). Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., and Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2021a). How early can embodied responses be? Issues in time and sequentiality. Discourse Processes, 58(4), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2020.1871561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2021b). Sensing in Social Interaction: The Taste of Cheese in Gourmet Shops. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., and Schieffelin, B. B. (1979). Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., and Schieffelin, B. B. (1986). Language Socialization across Cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., Polak-Yitzhaki, H., Li, X., Stoenica, I. M., Havlík, M., and Keevallik, L. (2021). Multimodal assemblies for prefacing a dispreferred response: A cross-linguistic analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(3606). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peräkylä, A. (1995). AIDS Counselling: Institutional Interaction and Clinical Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, A., and Sorjonen, M.-L. (2012). Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillet-Shore, D. M. (2017). Preference organization. In Nussbaum, J. (ed.), The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.132.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Schenkein, J. (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction (pp. 79–112). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55, 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M., and Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 210–228). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Potter, J., and Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour: London: Sage.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W., Clift, R., and Heritage, J. (2021). Reference without anaphora: On agency through grammar. Linguistics, 59(3), 715–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W., and Heritage, J. (2021). Probability and valence: Two preferences in the design of polar questions and their management. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1), 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W., and White, A. E. (2017). Time reference in the service of social action. Social Psychology Quarterly, 80, 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G., and Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in Talk-in-Interaction: Sound Objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, F., and Francis, A. (2013). Identifying a temporal threshold of tolerance for silent gaps after requests. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(6), EL471–EL477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, J. D. (2001). Closing medical encounters: Two physician practices and their implications for the expression of patients’ unstated concerns. Social Science and Medicine, 53(5), 639–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, J. D. (2003). An interactional structure of medical activities during acute visits and its implications for patients’ participation. Health Communication, 15(1), 27–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, J. D. (2020a). One type of polar, information-seeking question and its stance of probability: Implications for the preference for agreement. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(4), 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2020b). Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53, 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D., Clift, R., Kendrick, K., and Raymond, C., eds. (2022). Handbook of Research Methods in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegan.Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 308–329). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rossano, F., Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze, questioning and culture. In Sidnell, J. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives (pp. 187–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. (2012). Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and mix? interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes, 49(5), 426–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, G. (2022). The Request System in Italian Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, J. (2007). Managing affect: Integration of empathy and problem-solving in health care encounters. Discourse Studies, 9(5), 597–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 21–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Ed. Gail Jefferson from various lectures.)Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.), Talk and Social Organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation, 2 vols., ed. Gail Jefferson with an intro. by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Vol. I, Part 1: Fall 1964–Spring 1968. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., and Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In Psathas, G. (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place. In Sudnow, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 75–119). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation. In Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. XII: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 261–288). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 28–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between macro and micro: Contexts and other connections. In Alexander, J., Giesen, R. M. B., and Smelser, N. (eds.), The Micro-Macro Link (pp. 207–234). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A Single Case Conjecture. Social Problems, 35(4), 442–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In Dorval, B. (ed.), Conversational Organization and Its Development (pp. 51–77). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds.), Talk and Social Structure (pp. 44–70). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992a). Introduction. In Sacks, Harvey, Lectures on Conversation, ed. Jefferson, G., Vol. I: Fall 1964–Spring 1968) (p. ix–lxii). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992b). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided place for the defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 95(5), 1295–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992c). On talk and its institutional occasions. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at Work: Social Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 101–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Fox, B. (ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E., Thompson, S., and Schegloff, E. (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535–596.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1999). What next? Language and social interaction study at the century’s turn. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1/2), 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), The Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction (pp. 70–96). New York: Berg.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2013). Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., and Sidnell, J. (eds.), Conversational Repair and Human Understanding (pp. 41–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütz, A. (1962). Common sense and scientific interpretations of human action. In Natanson, M. (ed.), Alfred Schütz Collected Papers, Vol. I: The Problem of Social Reality (pp. 3–47). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, D. (1997). Discourses of Counselling: HIV Counselling as Social Interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1950). The negative character of collective behavior. In Wolff, K. H. (ed.), The Sociology of Georg Simmel (pp. 396–401). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2011). Participants’ deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 52. www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/52/Inlist52.pdf.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M., and Perakyla, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M., and Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43(2), 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M., and Svennevig, J. (2015). Journal of Pragmatics, Special Issue: Epistemics and Deontics in Conversational Directives, 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2002). Presenting the problem in pediatric encounters: “Symptoms only” versus “candidate diagnosis” presentations. Health Communication, 14(3), 299–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stivers, T. (2005). Parent resistance to physicians’ treatment recommendations: One resource for initiating a negotiation of the treatment decision. Health Communication, 18(1), 41–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stivers, T. (2007). Prescribing under Pressure: Parent–Physician Conversations and Antibiotics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question–response system in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2772–2781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2019). How we manage social relationships through answers to questions: The case of interjections. Discourse Processes, 56(3), 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2022). The Book of Answers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stivers, T., Mangione-Smith, R., Elliott, M. N., McDonald, L., and Heritage, J. (2003). Why do physicians think parents expect antibiotics? What parents report vs what physicians perceive. The Journal of Family Practice, 52(2), 140–148.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., and Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., and Sidnell, J. (2013). Introduction. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 1–8). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., and LeBaron, C., eds. (2011). Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B., and Raymond, G. (2012). The question of units for language, action and interaction. In Szczepek Reed, B. and Raymond, G. (eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Teleghani-Nikasm, C., Betz, E., and Golato, P., eds. (2020). Mobilizing Others: Grammar and Lexis within Larger Activities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, A. K. (2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Lerner, G. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 171–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., and Raymond, C. W. (2021). The grammar of proposals for joint activities. Interactional Linguistics, 1(1), 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voutilainen, L., Henttonen, P., Kahri, M., Kivioja, M., Ravaja, N., Sams, M., and Peräkylä, A. (2014). Affective stance, ambivalence, and psychophysiological responses during conversational storytelling. Journal of Pragmatics, 68, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, J., Zimmerman, D. H., and Whalen, M. R. (1988). When words fail: A single case analysis. Social Problems, 35(4), 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, M., and Zimmerman, D. H. (1990). Describing trouble: Practical epistemology in citizen calls to the police. Language in Society, 19, 465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, T. P. (1991). Social structure and the sequential organization of interaction. In Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds.), Talk and Social Structure (pp. 22–43). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Talk and its occasion: The case of calling the police. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (pp. 210–228). Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. (1992). The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at Work: Social Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 418–469). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

Athanasiadou, A., Canakis, C., and Cornillie, B., eds. (2006). Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., and Gildea, S. eds. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Ellis, N. C., Blythe, R., Holland, J., Bybee, J., Ke, J., Christiansen, M. H., Larsen-Freeman, D., Croft, W., Schoenemann, T., and Five Graces Group (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. [1958] (1971). Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics (trans. M. E. Meek) (pp. 223–230). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. ( 1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bréal, M. [1900] (2018). Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning (trans. Mrs. Henry Cust). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. ( 2019). Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.), Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation (pp. 150–162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (2003). Reconstruction, typology, and reality. In Hickey, R. (ed.), Motives for Language Change (pp. 234–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., and Olofsson, J., eds. (2018). Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change. Harlow: Longman, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H., Davidse, K., and Vandelanotte, L. (2010). Introduction. In Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 1–26). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., and Cuyckens, H., eds. (2010). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, N., and Wichmann, A. ( 2010). Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): Prosodic evidence for use as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language, 34, 36–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2012). The course of actualization. Language, 88(4), 601–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2013). Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, H., and Verstraete, J.-C. (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365–392.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2002). A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2006). Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions SV1–9.Google Scholar
Diewald, G., and Smirnova, E. (2012). “Paradigmatic integration”: The fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario. In Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L., and Mortelmans, T. (eds.), Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections (pp. 111–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R. (2018). Towards a constructional approach to discourse-level phenomena: The case of the Spanish interpersonal epistemic stance construction. Folia Linguistica, 52(1), 107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. ( 2012). Contexts in interaction: Relating pragmatic wastebaskets. In Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, P. B. (eds.), What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges (pp. 105–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, P. B., eds. (2012). What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, R. M., Dirven, R. Ziemke, T., and Bernárdez, E., eds. (2008). Body, Language and Mind, Vol. II: Sociocultural Situatedness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., and Cuyckens, H., eds. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. [1979] (2018). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic 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. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. [1957] (1989). Logic and conversation. In Studies in the Way of Words (pp. 22–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Györi, G. (2002). Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 123–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. Mosegaard (1998). The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. Mosegaard (2008). Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues: A Study with Special Reference to the French Phasal Adverbs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. Mosegaard, and Visconti, J. eds. (2009). Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics. Bingley: Emerald Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselow, A. (2013). Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica, 47, 375–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hata, K. (2016). On the importance of the multimodal approach to discourse markers: A pragmatic view. International Review of Pragmatics, 8(1), 36–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., and Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, J. M., and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds. (2015). The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N. P., and Wiemer, B. (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., and Trousdale, G. eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, E. C., and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization (Vol. I, pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., and Traugott, E. C. [1993] (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications; Georgetown University Round Table’ 84 (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, Adele (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A., and Jucker, A. H. ( 1995). The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Development in the History of English (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S., and Barlow, M. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow, Michael, and Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. vii–xxviii). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J., [1965] (1975). The evolution of grammatical categories. In Kuryłowicz, Jerzy, Esquisses linguistiques (Vol. II, pp. 38–54). Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H., and Rhee, S. (2019). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2006). Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes. In Athanasiadou, A., Canakis, C., and Cornillie, B. (eds.), Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity (pp. 17–40). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (2006). Phonology and morphology. In Hogg, R., and Denison, D., (eds.), A History of the English Language (pp. 43–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. [1995] (2015). Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd ed. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenker, U. (2010). Argument and Rhetoric: Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1999). The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lindblom, J. and Ziemke, T. (2002). Social situatedness: Vygotsky and beyond. Adaptive Behavior, 11(2), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, M. J. (2010). Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), Historical Pragmatics (pp. 127–163). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A. [1912] (1958). L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In Meillet, A., Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (pp. 130–148). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Milroy, J., and Milroy, L. (1985). Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 339–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H., and Heine, B., eds. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. (2019). Children and adults as language learners: Rules, variation, and maturational change. Topics in Cognitive Science: Topic 2017 Rumelhart Prize Issue honoring Lila Gleitman. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12416 (accessed January 26, 2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, S. (2011). Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 401–412). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noël, D. (2008). The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(4), 314–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norén, K., and Linell, P. (2007). Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: An empirical substantiation. Pragmatics, 17(3), 387–416.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and Traugott, E. C. (1997). Scope and the development of epistemic modality. English Language and Linguistics, 1(2), 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. (2016). Grammaticalization by changing co-text frequencies, or why [BE Ving] became the “progressive.” English Language and Linguistics, 20(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. (2019). How constructions are born: The role of patterns in the constructionalization of be going to INF. In Busse, B. and Möhlig-Falke, R. (eds.), Patterns in Language and Linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept (pp. 157–192). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2016). Why Cognitive Linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L., and Smirnova, E., eds. (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. [1986] (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, R. (ed.), Motives for Language Change (pp. 124–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 29–71). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2012). The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In Kytö, M. (ed.), English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths (pp. 221–255). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2020). The development of “digressive” discourse–topic shift markers in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Trousdale, T. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van linden, A. (2012). Modal Adjectives: English Deontic and Evaluative Constructions in Diachrony and Synchrony. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden, G. 2019. The many faces of uniformitarianism in linguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 52, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, E., and Traugott, E. C. ( 2020). Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E. (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 168–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

References

Agha, A. (2007). Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Agha, A. (2011). Meet mediatization. Language and Communication, 31, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. (1996). From context to contextualization. Links and Letters, 3, 11–28.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin (ed. Holquist), M.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bamberg, M., and Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text and Talk, 28(3), 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1954). Indexical expressions. Mind, 63(251), 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, R., and Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baynham, M. (2015). Narrative and space/time. In De Fina, A. and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.), The Handbook of Narrative Analysis (pp. 117–139). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Berry, R. (2005). Making the most of metalanguage. Language Awareness, 14(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, M. (1999). Conversation Analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse and Society, 10, 572–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2015a). Meaning as a nonlinear effect: The birth of cool. AILA Review, 28, 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2015b). Chronotopes, scales, and complexity in the study of language in society. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J., and De Fina, A. (2017). Chronotopic identities: On the spacetime organization of who we are. In Ikizoglu, D., Wegner, J., and De Fina, A. (eds.), Diversity and Superdiversity: Sociocultural Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 1–15). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J., Smits, L., and Yacoubi, N. (2020). Context and its complications. In De Fina, A. and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies (pp. 52–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breeze, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis and its critics. Pragmatics, 21(4), 493–525.Google Scholar
Bridges, J. (2017). Gendering metapragmatics in online discourse: “Mansplaining man gonna mansplain …” Discourse, Context and Media, 20, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, B. (2020). Discourse, Emotions and Embodiment. In De Fina, A. and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies (pp. 327–349). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, I., Kwon, W., and Wodak, R. (2012). A context-sensitive approach to analysing talk in strategy meetings. British Journal of Management, 23, 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J. (2011). Indexicalities of language contact in an era of globalization: Engaging with John Gumperz’s legacy. Text and Talk, 31(4), 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, J., and Gumperz, J. J. (2011). Commentary: Frames and contexts – Another look at the macro-micro link. Pragmatics, 21(2), 283–286.Google Scholar
Davis, J. L., and Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication and Society, 17(4), 476–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Fina, A. (2013). Positioning level 3: Connecting local identity displays to macro social processes. Narrative Inquiry, 23(1), 40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deschrijver, C. (2020a). Mediatized communication and linguistic reflexivity in contemporary public and political life. In De Fina, A. and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 687–707). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deschrijver, C. (2020b). Metalinguistic density as an indicator of sharedness: The case of economic and financial terms in online interaction. Language and Communication, 71, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deschrijver, C. (2021). On the metapragmatics of “conspiracy theory”: Scepticism and epistemological debates in online conspiracy comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 182, 310–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A., and Goodwin, C., eds. (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 1–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3(2), 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2006). Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2007). Small Stories, Interaction and Identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2013). Building iterativity into positioning analysis: A practice-based approach to small stories and self. Narrative Inquiry, 23(1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2017a). Friends and followers “in the know”: A narrative interactional approach to social media participation. In Mildorf, J. and Bronwen, T. (eds.), Dialogue across Media (pp. 155–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2017b). “Whose context collapse?”: Ethical clashes in the study of language and social media in context. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(2–3), 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66, 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. [1974] (1986). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.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 (pp. 1–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Hong Kong: Longman.Google Scholar
Hamann, J., Maesse, J., Scholz, R., and Angermuller, J. (2019). The academic dispositif: Towards a context-centred discourse analysis. In Scholz, R. (ed.), Quantifying Approaches to Discourse for Social Sciences (pp. 51–87). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1992). The indexical ground of deictic reference. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 43–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language form and communicative practices. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 232–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (2006). Context, communicative. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. (pp. 115–128). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A., ed. (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. H. (2004). The problem of context in computer mediated communication. In LeVine, P. and Scollon, R. (eds.), Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis (pp. 20–33). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, R. H. (2009). Dancing, skating and sex: Action and text in the digital age. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 283–302.Google Scholar
Kampf, H. A. (1987). The challenge of Marxist-Leninist propaganda. Political Communication, 4(2), 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G., Pan, J., and Roberts, M., E. (2017). How the Chinese government fabricates social media posts for distraction, not engaged argument. American Political Science Review, 111(3), 484–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A. (eds.), The Meaning of Meaning (pp. 296–336). New York: Harvest.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (2003). Cohesion and texture. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., and Hamilton, H. E. (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 35–53). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y., and Schiffrin, D. (2015). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., and Schiffrin, D. (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 189–221). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reisigl, M., and Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech, 41, 235–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, U. (2014). Semiotic economy, growth of mass media discourse, and change of written language through multimodal techniques: The case of newspapers (printed and online) and web services. In Androutsopoulos, J. (ed.), Mediatization and Sociolinguistic Change (pp. 279–304). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schneider, H. J. (1993). Ausprägungen pragmatischen Denkens in der zeitgenössischen Sprachphilosophie. In H. Stachowiak (ed.), Pragmatik: Handbuch pragmatischen Denkens (Vol. IV, pp. 1–37). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Scollon, R., and Scollon, S. W. (2004). Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1992). The indeterminacy of contextualization: When is enough enough? In P. Auer and Luzio, A. Di (eds.), The Contextualization of Language (pp. 55–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In Lucy, J. A. (ed.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics (pp. 33–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagg, C., and Seargeant, P. (2015). Facebook and the discursive construction of the social network. In Georgakopoulou, A. and Spilioti, T. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication (pp. 353–367). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tan, S., O’Halloran, K., and Wignell, P. (2020). Multimodality. In De Fina, A. and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies (pp. 263–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D., ed. (1993). Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies, 8, 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (2000). Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics, 10(4), 439–456.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation Analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9, 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis: A cross-disciplinary study. Pragmatics and Cognition, 15(1), 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. (2011). Complex texts: Analysing, understanding, explaining and interpreting meanings. Discourse Studies, 13(5), 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wortham, S., and Reyes, A. (2015). Discourse Analysis beyond the Speech Event. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, A., and Wallis, J. (2021). Trigger Warning: The CCP’s Coordinated Information Effort to Discredit the BBC. Canberra: Australian Strategic Policy Institute.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×